AFTERNOON

14 September 2011

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a panel discussion on the way forward in the realization of the right to development: between policy and practice.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel, said that the Declaration on the Right to Development put people and their rights at the centre of public policy and made a special reference to the role of women in the development process. The right to development responded to contemporary challenges and the realities of globalization demanded the engagement of all including the United Nation agencies and development actors at the international level. Full advantage should be taken of the opportunity of the anniversary year to renew and revive commitment to the Declaration on the Right to Development and to live up to its solemn promise and abundant potential to raise millions from poverty and desperation into dignity and hope.

Ariranga G. Pillay, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, speaking as a panellist, said that given the current development challenges, whether achieving the Millennium Development Goals or addressing climate change, financial and food crises and armed conflict, the importance and relevance of the right to development was only further underscored. Given its resonance with a number of provisions in human rights treaties, the relevance of the right to development to the work of treaty bodies was clear-cut and unassailable. It was vital to emphasize the indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. The right to development could be realized by adhering to international human rights standards, including to the principles of non-discrimination, participation, accountability and transparency.

Virginia Dandan, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, speaking as a panellist, said that while recognizing that it was a priority to mainstream the right to development, moving from policy to practice meant moving into governance, and governance involved the peoples and individuals being governed. It was important to find out how the enjoyment of the right to development was actually experienced by people in everyday life. To effectively move from policy to practice, it was crucial to listen to the voice of peoples so that policy could be informed by their genuine participation, which was the essence of the right to development. Human aspirations for development and well-being belonged to real people.

Joseph K. Ingram, President of the North-South Institute, Ottawa, Canada, speaking as a panellist, said that one of the objectives of the panel was to reflect on how the right to development could be progressively implemented. National, international and official development aid funds should be more frequently used to limit increasing dependence on large scale activities that carried high social and environmental risks. Corporate social responsibility and self regulation while necessary were far from sufficient to ensure responsible and sustainable development. The North-South Institute was collaborating in an effort to measure quantitatively the success of countries in progressively realizing their obligations on economic, social and cultural rights; and to explore why countries with similar income levels performed very differently when it came to the progressive provision of rights.

The Council also heard a statement by Tamara Kunanayakam, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Right to Development, who said that it was important to recognize the role that international agencies played in recognizing the right to development as a first step towards its attainment. Sustainable development should be included, along with concerns for respect for human rights and the environment, as an integral part of this right. The elimination of poverty, food security and due contributions towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals would constitute a valuable contribution to the attainment of the right. New ways of putting policy into practice, political will and concrete actions were also needed.

During the panel discussion speakers remarked that the agenda of the right development had established its relevance now more than ever as the world faced a confluence of waves of recurrent global crises that disproportionately affected the already vulnerable, marginalized and disadvantaged populations living in developing countries. Some speakers said that the right to development was a basic human right and required joint efforts by the international community for its wide realization with a special focus on the rights of vulnerable groups including women, children, minorities and persons with disabilities. A speaker raised concerns about the creation of a binding international agreement on the right to development and suggested that theoretical work should be done to define the right to development by explaining how it was a human or universal right. Others said that lasting progress towards the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development required effective development policies at the national level as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level. Speakers called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to reinvigorate the mandate, establish dialogue with relevant stakeholders and mobilize political will to translate the right to development into a reality for all. The right to development was an individual right that could only be realized if all other human rights, political, social, and economic were developed and mutually reinforced along with the promotion of good governance, transparency and access to information. The greatest challenge for the implementation of the right to development was how to reconcile a holistic vision of human rights, which implied indivisible and interdependent norms aimed at maximizing the well-being of all individuals and peoples, with development, which required sound economic policies that fostered growth with equity.

Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba, European Union, Brazil, Uruguay, China, Morocco, India, the United States of America, Honduras on behalf of Costa Rica and Honduras, Burkina Faso, Qatar, Germany, Italy, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, Belgium, the United Nations Development Programme, Thailand, Ethiopia, Ecuador, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, Egypt, South Africa, Norway and Venezuela.

NGOs speaking in the panel were the Indian Council of South America and North South XXI, Hope International and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 15 September 2011, when it will hold a interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, followed by the presentation of thematic reports of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner.

Introduction of the Panel Discussion

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the panel discussion was a key opportunity to reflect on the hard won gains of past years and what lies ahead for making the right to development a reality for everyone. The programme to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development had four simple messages to emphasize. Development was a right for all. The Declaration on the Right to Development put people and their rights at the centre of public policy. Development must aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and provide for a fair distribution of benefits, as well as remedies for inequality. Ms. Pillay stressed that this right belonged to everyone without discrimination. The Declaration in particular made special reference to the role of women in the development process. The right to development responded to contemporary challenges. Poverty remained a wide spread and towering challenge. An estimated one-third of the population in 104 developing countries, or about 1.75 billion people, experienced multi-dimensional poverty. Hard won achievements had been reversed by the crises of the last few years, which included food shortages, climate change and desertification as well as the global financial crisis and the ensuing recession. Democratic deficits and weak governance combined with a lack of an international enabling environment for development continued to prevent full implementation of the right to development.

The High Commissioner emphasized the need to act together. The primary responsibility for fostering equitable development rested with States. The realities of globalization demanded the engagement of all including the United Nation agencies and development actors at the international level. With an ever-increasing pool of development actors, the need for policy coherence based on the holistic approach enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development had never been more evident. The High Commissioner was pleased to announce that at the initiative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, several United Nations agencies and other international organizations had endorsed a statement in support of coherence in the implementation of the right to development. The path ahead would not be easy and common threats would test collective mettle and resolve. The High Commissioner urged that full advantage should be taken of the opportunity of the anniversary year to renew and revive commitment to the Declaration on the Right to Development and to live up to its solemn promise and abundant potential to raise millions from poverty and desperation into dignity and hope.

Statements by Panellists

ARIRANGA G. PILLAY, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development provided a unique opportunity to contemplate how far the right to development agenda had advanced over the past decades. Mr. Pillay said that given the current development challenges, whether achieving the Millennium Development Goals or addressing climate change, financial and food crises and armed conflict, the importance and relevance of the right to development was only further underscored. The Declaration, being a resolution of the General Assembly, had not per se created any legal obligations, unlike human rights treaties, however it was a legitimate reference by which to hold Governments at least politically accountable as an international norm crystallized into law. As many of the elements of the Declaration found clear resonance with a number of provisions in human rights treaties, the relevance of the right to development to the work of treaty bodies was clear-cut and unassailable.

The Declaration on the Right to Development recognized that development was a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process which aimed at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting from development. Mr. Pillay said it was vital to emphasize the indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. The right to development could be realized by adhering to international human rights standards, including to the principles of non-discrimination, participation, accountability and transparency. These standards were contained in human rights treaties and could be used to monitor progress towards the realization of the right to development by means of appropriate criteria such as those being considered presently by the Working Group on the Right to Development. States parties to such treaties should live up to their treaty obligations and implement the recommendations made by the treaty bodies so that the human rights situation at the national level was improved. The realization of human rights for all was thus critical to the implementation of the right to development since development for some could not be to the detriment of the human rights of others who were often in a vulnerable situation, including the poor, women, children, minorities, indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities. Mr. Pillay stressed that development strategies were more likely to be effective, sustainable, inclusive, equitable and meaningful if they were based upon international human rights standards.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had stressed that the right to development established a specific framework within which the duty to provide international cooperation and assistance must be implemented. Developed States therefore should support human rights-related development projects and ensure that their international assistance to developing countries was no less than the United Nation’s target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product as official development assistance. According to the Committee, international cooperation for development also should remove the global structural obstacles to the eradication of poverty in developing countries such as unsustainable foreign debt, the widening gap between rich and poor and the absence of an equitable multilateral trade, investment and financial system. In May 2008, in its statement on the world food crisis, the Committee stressed again the importance of States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to address the structural causes of the world food crisis by revising the global trade regime under the World Trade Organization to ensure that global agricultural trade rules promoted rather than undermined the right to adequate food and freedom from hunger, especially in developing and net food importing countries.

VIRGINIA B. DANDAN, Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, recalled the final report of former Independent Expert on international solidarity, Rudi Muhammad Rizki, who illustrated the link between international solidarity and the right to development. Ms. Dandan argued that solidarity was a persuasion that combined differences and opposites, holding them together into one heterogeneous whole. It did not seek to homogenize but rather to be the bridge across these differences and opposites; and connecting to each other diverse peoples and countries in mutually respectful, beneficial and reciprocal relations that were imbued with the principles of human rights, equity and justice. There were three notions to be stressed: that international solidarity should be viewed in its broadest sense, that it was about respecting diversity, about connecting peoples, about oneness and accord, and that it was about human rights as the binding force securing the heterogeneous parts together. There should be no doubt that international solidarity was itself a human right. In this regard, Ms. Dandan reiterated her commitment to submit to the Council a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity before the end of her term. While recognizing that it was a priority to mainstream the right to development, moving from policy to practice meant moving into governance, and governance involved the peoples and individuals being governed. After twenty-five years of the Declaration on the Right to Development, it was important to find out how the enjoyment of the right to development was actually experienced by people in everyday life.

To effectively move from policy to practice, it was crucial to listen to the voice of peoples so that policy could be informed by their genuine participation, which was the essence of the right to development. Human aspirations for development and well-being belonged to real people. There was a need to go beyond taken-for-granted assumptions and to learn about what those aspirations were and how development and well-being were defined by the very people affected. Ms. Dandan suggested that the Working Group on the Right to Development explored the mechanisms that would put in place the enabling environment for people’s genuine participation. Although there was no single method for a human rights-based approach to development, there were agreed minimum and essential elements in the application and practice of such approaches. These practices should be documented to obtain a compilation of selected models that had already been tested, such as a recently-concluded human rights community development project, between the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, focusing on selected indigenous communities. The rich documentation in these two projects illustrated the meaning of peoples’ direct participation in their own development and with the full engagement and involvement of their local governments; it also gave meaning to effective government that was congruent with the principles of the right to development.

JOSEPH K. INGRAM, President of the North-South Institute Ottawa, Canada, said one of the objectives of the panel was to reflect on how the right to development could be progressively implemented in the context of contemporary political, social, economic, financial and environmental challenges. Research being done at the North-South Institute was exploring the nexus between economic growth, and social, cultural and economic outcomes. The North-South Institute was pursuing research that not only sought to support indigenous people’s rights through empowering them but also to show the high potential economic and political cost of failure to do so for both home and host governments and the companies concerned. “Free Prior and Informed Consent” was clearly established as a right of indigenous peoples in international human rights instruments. Based on the collective right of peoples to development and the inalienable right to full sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources, the North-South Institute had made the right to self-determined development in practice a major focus of their research over the past decade. The North-South Institute was working with indigenous peoples to better understand how “Free Prior and Informed Consent” could be used as a tool for exercising active, free and meaningful participation while contributing to responsible forms of economic social and cultural development. National, international and official development assistance funds should be more frequently used to support alternative forms of resource exploitation, thereby limiting increasing dependence on those large scale activities that carried high social and environmental risks. Corporate Social Responsibility and self regulation while necessary were far from sufficient to ensure responsible and sustainable development.

The North-South Institute was collaborating with Professors Sakiko Fukuda Parr and Susan Randolph in an effort to measure quantitatively the success of countries in progressively realizing their obligations on economic, cultural and social rights. As a reference point, the Social and Economic Rights Fulfilment Index essentially calibrated progress on economic, cultural and social rights with States’ GDP and their maximum available resources. Using the Social and Economic Rights Fulfillment Index allowed the North-South Institute to explore why countries with similar income levels performed very differently when it came to progressive provision of rights. The North-South Institute was confident that its work would be useful in identifying concrete lessons on how, given a country’s human rights obligations as well as its resources constraints, human rights could best be realized.

Statement by Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Right to Development

TAMARA KUNANAYAKAM, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Right to Development, said that the theme was particularly relevant and timely in the context of the anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development. It was vital that the discussion led to finding practical ways of bridging this divide between policy and practice. The globalization of financial and economic activities created interdependence and hence the need for international solidarity and collective responsibility. The ongoing multiple global crises and their effects on developing countries, in particular, had emphasized the important international responsibility to cooperate. Much work had to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It was important to ensure that time bound commitments, including those concerning transfers of resources, were fulfilled. Gandhi once described poverty as the worst form of violence. It was important to recognize the role that international agencies played in recognizing the right to development as a first step towards its attainment. International institutions should function in a transparent, accountable and coordinated manner in close consultation with Member States. Sustainable development should be included, along with concerns for respect for human rights and the environment, as an integral part of this right. It was the responsibility of the Council to ensure the implementation of economic, social and political rights along with civil and political rights, and that both were given equal treatment and attention. The elimination of poverty, food security and due contributions towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals would constitute a valuable contribution to the attainment of the right to development. These challenges were not insurmountable. New ways of putting policy into practice were needed to ensure the fulfillment of this right, along with political will and concrete actions to ensure the timely realization of the right to development for all citizens, individually and collectively.

Discussion

Speakers said that the agenda of the right development had established its relevance now more than ever as the world faced a confluence of waves of recurrent global crises that disproportionately affected the already vulnerable, marginalized and disadvantaged populations living in developing countries. Truly sustainable development could only be achieved with the full realization of civil and political rights together with economic, social and cultural rights and sustainable development required a mix of policies to create an enabling environment for individuals at all levels. The basic freedom from fear and freedom from want could be understood as democracy with social inclusion. Speakers noted the negative impact of trade distortions on the social and economic development of developing countries and stressed that developed countries should contribute their share to overseas development aid. The right to development was a basic human right and required joint efforts by the international community for its wide realization with a special focus on the rights of vulnerable groups including women, children, minorities and persons with disabilities. Speakers noted that lasting progress towards the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development required effective development policies at the national level as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level. A speaker raised concerns about the creation of a binding international agreement on the right to development and suggested that theoretical work should be done to define the right to development by explaining how it was a human or universal right. International cooperation strategies were the key to achieving the right to development and the reduction of poverty called for in the Millennium Development Goals. Development should not only be defined in terms of economic growth but should consider social, political and cultural rights by placing the human being at the centre of the process of development. Individuals should be at the centre of all human rights and States had the responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions for the achievement of the right to development. A speaker asked what national enabling environment was needed for the realization of the right to development and what next steps were required for the advancement of the agenda of the right to development. Speakers called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to reinvigorate the mandate, establish dialogue with relevant stakeholders and mobilize political will to translate the right to development into a reality for all.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) stressed that indigenous people had the right to harness every aspect of the right to development in Articles 1 and 5. The principles of equity and respect for the rule of international law were critical in achieving development. Developed countries should carry the main burden of ensuring adequate and widespread development throughout the world. Speakers noted that this was not occurring because almost no developed countries had met their repeated commitment to overseas development assistance which had been at 1 per cent and was later revised down to 0.7 per cent.

Speaking in the discussion were Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba, the European Union, Brazil, Uruguay, China, Morocco, India, the United States, Honduras on behalf of Costa Rica and Honduras, Burkina Faso, Qatar and Germany. NGOs speaking in the panel were the Indian Council of South America and North South XXI.

Remarks by Panellists

ARIRANGA G. PILLAY, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, replied to the question from Germany concerning what national environment was conducive to the realization of the right to development. There were complementarities and similarities between international human treaties. If a country realized and complied with international human rights standards, that country would have gone a long way in realizing the right to development. For example if a country complied with its core obligations in economic, social and cultural rights then it would have tackled issues like the right to housing, the right to health and in such a way the right to development would have been furthered.

VIRGINIA B. DANDAN, Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, said that the questions posed by Honduras and Germany were related. The answer was action. The right to development involved the integration of a human rights approach to development policy, implementation and evaluation. Therefore, action was the key to the right to development. What did the realization of the right to development take? In this imperfect world it took political will. Action was needed.

JOSEPH K. INGRAM, President of the North-South Institute Ottawa, Canada, said the North-South Institute had tried to get the World Bank and other institutions to view economic, social and cultural rights as an instrument of development. Given that many governments were not willing to accept a rights-based approach to development, economic, social and cultural rights should be viewed as an unexploited tool for development. The North-South Institute had chaired a conference entitled: the Future of Multilateral Development: Cooperation in a Changing World Order. One of the conclusions was that more and more global challenges required multilateral solutions but instead of moving towards a world where governments engaged with multinational institutions, major governments in the wake of the financial crisis were instead focusing on national institutions and moving away from engagement.

Discussion

Speakers said that the right to development was not about charity but about the enablement and empowerment of human beings. The right to development was an individual right that could only be realized if all other human rights, political, social, and economic were developed and mutually reinforced along with the promotion of good governance, transparency and access to information. Speakers said that the greatest challenge for the implementation of the right to development was how to reconcile a holistic vision of human rights, which implied indivisible and interdependent norms aimed at maximizing the well-being of all individuals and peoples with development, which required sound economic policies that fostered growth with equity. Speakers called on all States to support the reinvigoration of the development agenda in international areas including trade, aid, debt, access to medicines, transfer of technology, environment, climate change and intellectual property rights in order to create a favorable environment for the realization of the right to development for developing and least developed countries. The right to development had to be placed within the overall context of all human rights while the Millennium Development Goals should be linked to human rights. A key challenge to achieving the right to development was the need to reform the current structure of global economic governance so that the voice, legitimate interests and concerns of developing countries, which constituted the majority of the world population, could be heard and heeded in the major international financial institutions and global forum. The detrimental impact of unilateral and multilateral sanctions on nations, especially developing countries, had caused great concern in food security, adequate housing, and other basic human rights. Sustainable development could not be achieved at the expense of human rights. Speakers asked about challenges countries faced and good practices in promoting the active participation of women in development. Speakers stressed the role of education and awareness-raising on human rights so that citizens could access justice and claim their rights. Support was expressed by some speakers for the elaboration and adoption of an international legally binding convention on the right to development which should be on a par with other human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said that aid policies had failed for decades and there was a need for a new approach. They asked what should be the give and take in providing for development and in particular how could the poorest in society be guaranteed a minimum amount of food per day. There was a need to evaluate the development process on the basis of the improvement it had brought to living standards.

Speaking in the discussion were Italy, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, Belgium, the United Nations Development Programme, Thailand, Ethiopia, Ecuador, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, Egypt, South Africa, Norway and Venezuela. NGOs that spoke were Hope International and Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme.

Concluding Remarks by Panellists

ARIRANGA G. PILLAY, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in response to the question about the problem that the Declaration on the Right to Development did not create any legal obligation unlike human rights treaties, said many elements of the right to development were reflected in human rights treaties so if a county had ratified those international covenants then those countries were bound to comply with their human rights treaty obligations. Principles of non-discrimination and transparency could be derived, not forgetting substantive economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. These rights could not be implemented if there was no good governance and rule of law.

VIRGINIA B. DANDAN, Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, said that concerning the questions raised regarding good practices and the challenges for the Council, one of the main actions could be to include the right to development in the Universal Periodic Review. This would be a good way to promote the right to development. Moreover, States should be able to turn the good words they expressed this afternoon into good practices at the national level and take action. Why not turn words into concrete actions. These good practices and models could be then studied and applied somewhere else. This was the first step of turning policy into practice.

JOSEPH K. INGRAM, President of the North-South Institute, said that the Millennium Development Goals were global targets which governments should try to achieve but because they were averages they did not deal with the poorest and those who were the most marginalized. Mr. Ingram said that other instruments were necessary for reducing poverty and fostering development because there were countries which could meet their Millennium Development Goals without reducing poverty. The Nordic Trust Fund was created at the World Bank to allow research into how human rights could be a part of development which indicated the trend toward recognizing the importance of this issue. Mr. Ingram said that one of the greatest challenges facing development was how to protect the interests of indigenous and local communities affected by mining activities as the majority of all natural resources were located in places where indigenous communities resided.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record