Lecture by Ms. Louise Arbour United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Delivered at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Rio de Janeiro, 5 December 2007


My discussion illustrates how poverty is frequently both a cause and a consequence of human rights violations. I will argue that the linkage between extreme deprivation and abuse needs to be better understood and tackled with appropriate corrective policies. To this end, I advocate the incorporation of a human rights approach into poverty reduction strategies in order to foster equity and sustainability. Such an approach would also help identify government responsibilities in addressing those international trade and development assistance imbalances that exacerbate both human rights violations and destitution. Further, I will point out that the private sector could also play an important role in rights-oriented poverty reduction measures and socially responsible development strategies.


Ladies and Gentlemen,

In one of his last speeches as United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan stated that he regarded focusing global attention on the fight against poverty as one of the biggest achievements of his tenure. He had emphasized the critical vulnerability and the assaults on human dignity that accompany poverty. Crucially, the former Secretary-General identified human rights, security and development as indispensable elements of a world where all people could live in larger freedom and prosperity.

Despite this recognition, the linkage between human rights and strategies aimed at poverty reduction often remain moot at the policy level. Indeed, a widely held view holds that human rights do not represent a priority for those who are engaged in the day-to-day struggle for economic survival, since such rights are a luxury that only the well off are able to afford. For a critique of this theory see OHCHR, Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: a Conceptual Framework (New York and Geneva: OHCHR 2004).
This position is fallacious on several accounts. First, all human rights—the right to speak, to vote, but also the right to food, work, housing or health—matter to the poor precisely because destitution and exclusion are intertwined with discrimination, unequal access to resources and opportunities, and social and cultural stigmatization. Furthermore, a denial of rights makes it harder or virtually impossible for the poor to participate in the labor market and have access to basic services and resources. In many societies, they are prevented from enjoying their rights to education, health and housing simply because they cannot afford to do so. This, in turn, hampers their participation in public life, their ability to influence policies affecting them and to seek redress against injustice.

However, poverty is often perceived as a regrettable, but accidental condition, or as an inevitable consequence of decisions and events occurring elsewhere, or even as the sole responsibility of those who suffer from it.

These misconceptions are compounded by three fundamental factors. First, there has been a failure to fully understand the exact meaning of “poverty”, and consequently to provide an effective diagnosis of its constituent elements. Second, governments have been –and in some cases, continue to be—reluctant to view claims of the poor as stemming not just from necessity but also from actual rights. Such reluctance has fostered either neglect or misguided policies, or both. And third, the human rights movement has traditionally focused on civil and political rights. As a result, economic, cultural and social rights—the enjoyment of which is indispensable to welfare—have been perceived as “second tier” rights, or as entitlements that could be claimed only after fundamental freedoms and the rule of law has been established and consolidated. The same fallacy applies to environmental issues , or “green rights” as third generation rights, the fulfilment of which presumably should only be addressed after mankind has been freed from fear and from want. At that point, one may wonder about whether the cost to the environment may have become so overwhelming and irreparable as to engender itself fear and want.

Moreover, a lack of protection for the rights of the poor, and insufficient enforcement of human rights obligations, as well as some governments’ inability or unwillingness to restrain exploitative practices, may lead to impunity for human rights violations in the private sector. Such neglect may, in turn, exacerbate or perpetuate the marginalization of the poor.

For all these reasons, a human rights approach and understanding will not only contribute to address misperceptions and myths surrounding the poor, it will also, and more importantly, help to find sustainable and equitable pathways out of poverty through comprehensive strategies. To this effect, a more profound knowledge of what poverty actually means is imperative.

So, what is poverty?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this much is clear: poverty means not just insufficient income and material goods, but also a lack of opportunities, security and power which undermines human dignity and exacerbates the vulnerability of the poor. As a result, the poor are more likely to die from preventable diseases; they suffer a higher rate of child mortality, as well scant access to education and adequate shelter. Crime and violence affect them more severely. Climate change is likely to exact a heavier toll on the poor. The policy making process often bypasses them. And justice frequently remains well out of their reach.

It follows that poverty is also about power, who wields it, and who does not both in public life and in the family. Getting to the heart of complex webs of power relations in the political, economic and social spheres is key to understanding and grappling more effectively with entrenched patterns of discrimination, inequality and exclusion that condemn individuals, communities and peoples to generations of poverty.

The data show that rising levels of economic growth alone do not offer a barrier against destitution, inequality and abuse. Indeed, for economic growth to lead to the realization of human rights, any growth strategy must be part of a comprehensive set of policies and institutions consciously designed to convert resources into rights. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Human Rights and National Poverty Reduction Strategies: Conceptual framework for human rights analysis of poverty reduction strategies and reviews of Guatemala, Liberia and Nepal. TK Manuscript,?????,

Currently, available data shows that although absolute poverty, measured by income, has fallen in some parts of the world since the 1980s, global inequality is at extraordinarily high levels, within and between countries. Most developing regions are falling further behind rather than catching up with rich countries. It has been calculated that the combined GDP of the 58 low income countries where the poorest billion people live is about US$350 billion per year, or less than the GDP of metropolitan Chicago. Michael A. Clemens, “Smart Samaritans,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007. And even some of the world’s richest countries are still struggling with their own persisting problem of poverty, even extreme poverty. In the US, the wealthiest nation of all, despite five years of economic growth and increasing productivity, and a 40 year high in corporate profits, the percentage of fully employed people who fell below the poverty level has risen by four percent. William J. Clinton, “Address to the Global Philanthropy Forum 2007,” Mountain View, 13 April 2007. It follows that automatic links between economic growth and equitable benefits of growth, that is social justice, cannot be taken for granted. Moreover, gross imbalances in the distribution of the benefits drawn from economic expansion are likely to foster resentment and even conflict within communities and beyond.

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz pointed out that the debate between growth and poverty alleviation must lead to strategies that “look for policies that reduce poverty as they promote growth, that shun policies that increase poverty with little gain in growth and that, in assessing situations where there are trade-offs, put a heavy weight on the impact on the poor.” Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd, 2003), p. 83. And as development economist Sakiko Fukuda-Parr also observed, all too often in many countries growth has led to increases in incomes of the bottom quintile or decile income group but at a lower rate than for top income groups, triggering even greater inequality. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Human Rights and National Poverty Reduction Strategies, p. 18. Indeed, some of the strongest performers in economic growth are widely off-track on human development targets, such as maternal and child mortality.

One of the “added values” of the human rights approach to poverty reduction and development resides in providing a framework of institutions and norms to help reduce disparities by mediating those conflicting claims that inevitably arise through development processes. Indeed, one of the indicators of whether human rights have successfully been integrated – rather than incorporated – in development strategies is whether conflicting claims are thereby exposed and addressed. For example, recent analytical work commissioned by OHCHR in Liberia has shown how the recognition of small-scale landowners' claims as human rights can help to balance their interests against those of agribusiness, thereby also promoting the prospects for sustainable peace and development in that country. Another interesting example can be found in the 2000 report of the World Commission on Dams which stated that, given the significance of rights-related issues as well as the nature and magnitude of potential risks for all parties concerned, human rights should be the fundamental reference point in all initiatives concerning dams. The Commission held that, in the future, not only dams but the entire development debate would require a rights-based approach where recognition of rights and assessment of risks would provide the basis for negotiated decisions on dams and their alternatives. That rights-based approach, according to the World Commission on Dams, should include a process to assess reparations and environmental restoration as well as development of plans for sharing the benefits. See World Commission on Dams, 'Dams and development: A new framework for decision-making' (2000), cited in OHCHR, 'Frequently Asked Questions on a Human Rights Approach to Development Cooperation' (2006) at 19, available at: http://ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/FAQ_en.pdf

The human rights framework lends strength to those opposing a vision of economic development wherein sacrifices in human development are reflexively or uncritically accepted as necessary “short term” costs for higher rates of economic growth. Moreover, a human rights perspective can help bring invisible violations to the surface by exposing values implicit in policy choices. For a fuller discussion along these lines see Radhika Balakrishnan, ‘Why MES with Human Rights: Integrating Macro-Economic Strategies with Human Rights’, http://www.ushrnetwork.org/pubs/MES-HR_9%207.pdf

Crucially, the human rights framework places explicit obligations on States to protect their populations against poverty and exclusion. It underscores their responsibility towards creating an environment conducive to public welfare. What remains blurred and patchy is just how States have discharged such responsibilities.

Dear Colleagues,

At the 2005 World Summit, Heads of State agreed, for the first time, that human rights should be mainstreamed throughout their national policies. This includes poverty reduction strategies.

There are strong legal foundations for this call to action. All States have ratified at least one of the core nine international human rights treaties, and 80 per cent have ratified four or more. Accordingly, these States have accepted their duties to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights flowing from such legally-binding undertakings.

Moreover, the world community has subscribed to the 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which set concrete targets for joint international efforts to tackle poverty and marginalization by 2015. The goals are: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; Achieve universal primary education; Promote gender equality and empower women; Reduce child mortality; Improve maternal health; Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; Ensure environmental sustainability; Develop a global partnership for development. For a more detailed discussion, see http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ The goals also provide a common basis for measuring progress towards that objective Human rights and the Millennium Development Goals are interdependent and mutually reinforcing By addressing the discrimination, exclusion, powerlessness and accountability failures that lie at the root of poverty and other development problems, human rights are instrumental to the achievement of the goals For their part, the goals represent important milestones for the realization of often neglected economic and social rights, such as the right to food and shelter, to health and education This explains why the MDGs must be placed within the wider human rights context expressed in the Millennium Declaration, which explicitly puts both human rights commitments and development goals at the centre of the international agenda and affirms the twin principles of global equity and shared responsibility The Millennium Declaration thus provides an appropriate framework to counterbalance those effects of market globalization that exacerbate inequalities in peoples’ access to growth and prosperity The Millennium Declaration specifically states: “24 We will spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development 25 We resolve therefore:• To respect fully and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.• To strive for the full protection and promotion in all our countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all.• To strengthen the capacity of all our countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights, including minority rights.• To combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.• To take measures to ensure respect for and protection of the human rights of migrants, migrant workers and their families, to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies.• To work collectively for more inclusive political processes, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all our countries.• To ensure the freedom of the media to perform their essential role and the right of the public to have access to information Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 55/2, United Nations Millennium Declaration, 8th plenary meeting, 8 September 2000 Reiterating the Millennium commitments, the 2005 World Summit recognized both the centrality of human rights and the need to fulfill the pledges expressed in the MDGs

Despite such general and high level recognition, the global snapshot at the July 2007 half-way point in the implementation of the MDGs is far from reassuring. United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007 (New York: United Nations 2007). Regrettably, the 36-page report fails to make explicit the connection between human rights abuses and poverty. Progress in some areas and in some parts of the world does not necessarily mean that governments are honoring the commitments they have made across the board. As a result, fundamental human rights remain unaddressed.

The latest data reveal that over half a million women still die each year from treatable and preventable complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Child mortality rates remain deeply troubling in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The number of people dying of HIV/AIDS worldwide increased to 2.9 million in 2006, with prevention measures failing to keep pace with the growth of the epidemic. Alarmingly, sub-Saharan Africa is presently not on track to achieve any of the goals. Ibid., p. 5.

The situation may be even more worrisome: albeit a crucial measure, the MDGs do not, solely on their face, help us get to the heart of the real problems. As noted previously, poverty is frequently a cause, as well as a consequence, of human rights violations. A focus on global average progress glosses over entrenched patterns of discrimination and inequality that have sentenced communities to generations of poverty. Indeed, progress towards the MDG targets can easily be achieved at the expense of, rather than in the name of, the poorest and hardest to reach.

Against such background, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon observed that “[t]he world wants no new promises.” He further noted the need for all stakeholders to meet “in their entirety, the commitments already made in the Millennium Declaration, the 2002 Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development, and the 2005 World Summit….Yet, these promises remain to be fulfilled.” How then can we best respond to the Secretary-General’s concerns and exhortations?

Firstly and as I have already noted, there should be a recognition by all States of all international human rights standards, legally encoded in treaties. These standards embody the minimal requirements for a life in dignity. They place obligations on States, requiring them to devise and implement effective policies and measures, as well as to ensure their positive outcomes. Such mobilising potential of human rights is best harnessed when locally defined goals and targets that reflect the needs and aspirations of the poorest are fully taken into account.

Civil and political rights, including freedom of expression and assembly, and the right to participate in public affairs, are indispensable for strategies to achieve socio-economic rights. It is important to emphasize here that the principle of participation has long been enshrined in, and indeed has been a cornerstone of, human rights instruments and jurisprudence. It is expressed through recognition of political rights and the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), while the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) embraces it in the context of combating discrimination against women. Furthermore, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits racial discrimination in connection with participation in political and public life. UDHR, article 21; ICCPR, article 25; CEDAW, articles 7 and 14; ICERD, article 5.
Human Rights Committee, “The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (article 25)”, General Comment No. 25 (1996) (hereafter GC 25), para. 5; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, “Article 7 (political and public life) and article 8 (international level)”, General Recommendation No. 23 (1997) (hereafter GR 23), para. 35. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has also elaborated on participation at international level. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, “Article 7 (political and public life) and article 8 (international level)”, General Recommendation No. 23 (1997) (hereafter GR 23), para. 35. Finally, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs quite broadly, noting that the conduct of public affairs covers “all aspects of public administration, and the formulation and implementation of policy at the international, national, regional and local levels.”

At the national level, data must be disaggregated in order to both capture disparities and patterns of discrimination, as well as to identify problems faced by groups in society which are particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged in their enjoyment of rights. There must be effective redress – through political, judicial, administrative or other means – for those whose rights are ignored or violated. Ways that involve the poor in policy decisions that affect them must be found.

Additional measures should also be taken at the international level. Notwithstanding past pledges, Overseas Development Assistance declined between 2005 and 2006 and is expected to continue to fall slightly in 2007 as debt relief also falls.José Antonio Ocampo, “Overview,” The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007 (New York: United Nations 2007), p. 5

Quality and predictability of aid remain problematic, as do distortions in international trade. Strengthened development partnerships are essential to address these shortcomings. Citizens in developed countries must understand that global injustices are a cause for common concern, that development, security and human rights are indeed inextricably linked, and they must pressure their political leaders to respond.

The disturbing mid-point snapshot must serve as a call to action, and a reminder that strategies to achieve the MDGs must be grounded in the internationally recognised human rights to which all countries have subscribed.

Of course, the concrete translations of universal international standards and pledges into specific measures at the national level are not politics-blind. Rather, they are the result of different national agendas, interests, legal traditions, and cleavages. These varying outcomes, however, do not make universal norms any less relevant and viable at the domestic level. On the contrary, far from eroding national prerogatives and choices, international human rights provide a framework that enables States to exercise their sovereignty equitably in pursuit of the public good.

Moreover, as an OHCHR study carried out in countries as diverse as Nepal, Guatemala, and Liberia has demonstrated, despite the enormous gulf of geography, culture and history that separates these three countries, there is a striking commonality in the root causes of the abuse that perpetuates poverty. Such abuse includes identity based discrimination, discrimination and sexual violence against women, trafficking, bonded labor, war-related abuse, and current failure of state legal and security systems to protect people against severe violations of their human rights.

In all three countries, it is almost invariably poor people – individuals who have low incomes, little education, and little power in society, starting at the household level - who are most vulnerable and most affected by abuse including violations of their rights to life, liberty and security. In these countries it is also clear that the vulnerable are from the politically subordinated groups, those whose civil rights are not protected by the State, and whose economic and social rights have been historically ignored.

Since poverty reflects such asymmetric power relations and societal cleavages, the focus of action to combat it must be on the empowerment of people themselves, especially those suffering the greatest discrimination. History is littered with well-meaning but failed “top-down” solutions that overlook the root causes of poverty as well as the demands, perspectives and capacities of the people themselves to be architects of their own destiny. Sustainable solutions will often depend on multi-faceted responses—legal, economic and practical—aiming at a just redistribution of power relations and effective participation, rather than one-off handouts.

Widening opportunities, spaces and levels of participation, as well as combating exclusion, contribute to breaking the vicious cycle that, as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen put it, prevents the poor from fulfilling their capability potential to live a life in dignity and to attain the desired level of welfare through the enjoyment of substantial freedoms. Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999), see in particular pp. 87-90. For a discussion of how the capability concept dovetails with a human rights approach to poverty reduction strategies see also OHCHR, Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: a Conceptual Framework (New York and Geneva: OHCHR 2004).

While the full realization of some human rights may require long-term planning and investment, there are measures to fight poverty in all its complexity that States can take. Ibid., p. 22. Claiming a lack of resources does not absolve countries of responsibility, nor does it exonerate them from accountability if they fail to act or if they implement iniquitous and abusive measures that exacerbate deprivation. As OHCHR study Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: a Conceptual Framework notes, “Broadly speaking, there are four categories of accountability mechanisms: judicial (e.g. judicial review of executive acts and omissions), quasi-judicial (e.g. ombudsmen, international human rights treaty bodies), administrative (e.g. the preparation, publication and scrutiny of human rights impact assessments) and political (e.g. through parliamentary processes).” The scrutiny exercised by civil society must be added to this list. As Amartya Sen famously observed, a country with a free press is unlikely to experience famine. Ibid. p. 16. Political will is at least as important as financial means. Ending discrimination, for example, would in many cases remove barriers to labor market participation and give women and minorities access to employment. Child mortality can be reduced through effective, low-cost, low-technology intervention.

Brazil’s Bolsa Familia program represents an important example of how the correct exercise of political will may militate in the poor’s favor. This scheme, which has received international support, grants poor families a monthly cash allowance provided that the children in the benefiting household are enrolled in primary school; that they receive regular vaccination; and that beneficiary mothers-to-be receive full pre-natal care. Thus, the program offers incentives for parents to invest in their children's education and good health, two indispensable conditions to break free from the poverty trap. Laura B. Rawlings, “A New Approach to Social Assistance: Latin America’s Experience with Conditional Cash Transfer Programs,” Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, Social Protection Unit Human Development Network, The World Bank, August 2004, No. 0416. See also United Kingdom Department of International Development Case Studies, “Reducing poverty through cash transfer,” available at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/casestudies/files/south-america/brazil/brazil-bolsa2.asp Equally relevant in this context is Brazil’s Food Acquisition Program, which is designed to purchase the production of family farmers with a view to distributing it to the poor, including indigenous populations and landless laborers The dual objective of this program is to guarantee income to family farmers, as well as to assist poor families obtain basic food staples Like the Bolsa-Família, the Food Acquisition Program was established under the Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) Framework According to official data, the production of 150,000 farmers has already been bought during the past two years, corresponding to an investment of US$ 78 million To date, such program has been well-accepted by both relevant organizations and farmers’ associations, having even being acclaimed by the latter as a program that respects and supports small farmers' know-how and traditions More controversial is the Brazilian land reform program (called "Cédula da Terra") This scheme was designed to promote land reform by means of creating a national Fund (“Banco da Terra”) which would finance the acquisition of idle land of landowners by small landless farmers The former would get an immediate full payment for the sale while the latter would have the possibility to pay for the purchase in several installments, with subsidized interest Given the program’s financing mechanism, it is said that although it encourages land owners to sell part of their idle property; most of the times the land sold is either of low-qualit

For their part, States in a position to provide assistance should come forward and help. As the United Nations Development Program Human Development Report 2000 pointed out:
Human rights and human development cannot be realized universally without stronger international action, especially to support disadvantaged people and countries to offset growing global inequalities and marginalization…. Aid, debt relief, access to markets, access to private financial flows and stability in the global economy are all needed for the full realization of rights in the poorest and least developed countries. United Nations Development Program Human Development Report 2000: Human Rights and Human Development, p. 12, available at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/pdf/hdr_2000_ch0.pdf

In contrast, indifference and a narrow calculus of national interests may hamper both human rights and development just as damagingly as discrimination. For example, unbalanced and inequitable development assistance policies militate against the collective good. This was certainly the case when the annual dairy subsidy the European Union paid for each European cow in 2000 amounted to $913, while the EU gave $8 per person in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa. Timothy Garton Ash, Free World (New York: Random House 2004), p. 155.

By the same token, if trade liberalization has contributed to improve growth levels, it is also true that its benefits may not accrue to those countries that lack the basic infrastructure to deal with exposure to foreign markets and with the dynamics of increased competition, as well as the resources and clout to fight hidden barriers to fair trade. Herbert Oberhaensli, “No Fair Trade Without Free Trade,” Wall Street Journal Europe, 22 November 2004 Above all, trade expansion should not be seen as the one ultimate goal that can crowds out all other considerations, including human rights. The risk of such an unduly myopic approach is a race to the bottom in which anything goes and the end may be achieved through abusive means.

The Doha Development Round of the World Trade Organization—which placed development issues and the interests of developing countries at the heart of its work— and the WTO work program on Aid-for-Trade—which comprises aid that finances trade-related technical assistance, trade-related infrastructure and aid to develop productive capacity—represent some important steps in addressing the imbalances created by trade liberalization.

Furthermore, the current Director-General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, has shown his determination to include social and development issues on the trade agenda, especially through proposing—as opposed to the more market-oriented “Washington consensus”—a new “Geneva consensus”, that is, “a belief that trade opening does work for development, on the condition that market imbalances, both domestically and internationally, are properly addressed.” Message of Pascal Lamy to GARNET Network of Excellence (Global Governance, Regionalisation & Regulation: The Role of the EU), online at http://www.garnet-eu.org/index.php?id=197, accessed 5 July 2007 Lamy has also elaborated on the notion of sustainable development in the preamble of the WTO agreement by pointing out that “sustainable development calls for the consideration of fundamental values other than those of the market to include, for instance, the protection of the environment, human rights and other social values.” Pascal Lamy, “Towards Global Governance,” Master of Public Affairs Inaugural Lecture, Institut d'Études Politiques, Paris, October 21, 2005 Accordingly, future trade negotiations should continue to take into account the needs of the developing countries Likewise, States need both to assess the impact of trade liberalization on the fulfilment of their human rights obligations and to make sure that such policies do not exacerbate discrimination among their citizens

Finally, imbalances in national budgets may also perpetuate poverty. As former World Bank President James Wolfensohn observed it does not make sense to devote 20 times the amount of our development funding to military expenditure. The developing world, he continued, is itself allocating $200 billion a year to arsenals. In the meantime, according to the UN, between 1999 and 2001, one in every seven people in the world went hungry. TK Alston book While budget decisions are overwhelming political ones, the substantive content of human rights standards themselves can furnish guidance to policymakers and legislators in weighing competing demands on limited resources. At a minimum, human rights principles help to ensure that budget allocations are prioritized towards the most marginalized or discriminated groups; that provision is made for essential minimal levels for all rights; and that particular rights are not deliberately realized at the cost of others (for example, that health programs are not compromised by a disproportionate focus on security).

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To realize the goal of freeing all victims “from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty,” as the Millennium Declaration pledges, States, as well as civil society, must reverse the long-held assumption that economic, social and cultural rights are mere aspirations rather than legally binding and enforceable obligations. As a result, these rights are easily crowded out by what States often regard as the hard-nosed realities of other economic imperatives. The international human rights legal framework helps to correct deeply-held misapprehensions of these kinds, striking a workable balance between principle and pragmatism, as the practice of number of countries (including very poor countries) in progressively implementing these rights reveals.

Many aspects of economic, social and cultural rights are as immediately realizable as many civil and political rights. Tackling “forced” eviction (that is, eviction that is arbitrary or does not respect minimum guarantees) requires the same type of immediate action and redress as does the prohibition of torture. Other aspects of economic, social and cultural rights call for long term commitment and investment; but, contrary to widespread misconceptions, the same is true for many aspects of civil and political rights.

In developing countries, or in countries emerging form devastating conflict, the construction of a free, universal primary education system, or of a basic universal health care infrastructure makes demands on the State that are not fundamentally different from those generated by the establishment of an even rudimentary criminal justice system capable of providing legal aid, court interpretation, bail supervision, timely and fair trials and humane conditions of detention. All these require a State to act, rather than refrain from action, and this can be costly indeed. We only need to look at the resources needed for the establishment of international, hybrid and national tribunals to realize how true that is.

Crucially, violations of civil and political rights are intrinsically linked to violations of economic, social and cultural rights, whether they are the cause or the consequence of the others. Systematic discriminations and inequalities in access to health care, work or housing have led to, or exacerbated, social tension that have degenerated into conflict. In crises like the one we now witness in Darfur, the systematic burning of houses and villages, the forced displacement of the population and the starvation and disease caused by the restrictions on the delivery of humanitarian assistance and destruction of food crops are deliberately used alongside other gross human rights violations - such as murder or rape - as instruments of war. Moreover, no transition to a just peace will be possible in Sudan and elsewhere without putting into place an equitable, nondiscriminatory framework of access to land, oil, and water as well as other national resources and assets.

When fragile transition processes are underway, it is often the enduring failure of delivering proper access to health facilities and water, a lack of security of tenure and adequate housing, as well as inequalities in property restitutions, which may precipitate a return to violent conflict.

It is indeed encouraging that courts in a wide range of countries and legal systems in all regions of the world have been giving meaning to obligations associated with economic, social and cultural rights, including those connected with workers’ rights and the rights to food, social security, adequate housing, health and education. For example, in 2002 the Constitutional Court of South Africa declared that the Government had breached its human rights obligations by failing to take reasonable measures (at affordable cost) to make wider provision of anti-retroviral medication to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. This decision and the grass-roots campaign surrounding it have saved many lives. Decisions of the Supreme Court of India, including that made in 2002 concerning the right to food in the context of a preventable famine in Rajasthan, have likewise had a significant beneficial impact in a number of states in that country. The successful outcomes in these cases are to a great extent attributable to the fact that litigation strategies were integrated within wider social mobilization processes.

Whether before a court of law or at the policymaking level or among communities at the periphery of power centers, applying human rights standards and principles to poverty reduction strategies and to the enforcement of human rights helps to ensure that action is directed to support those who need it the most. It also contributes to maintain a protected space wherein the powerful cannot monopolize and manipulate policies and programs exclusively for self-serving purposes or for the benefit of a selected few.

Distinguished Colleagues,

The role of the private sector in any discussion about poverty reduction can not be overlooked, whether it is in fostering equity or in exacerbating disparities.

In a pessimistic reflection on such role, journalist Robert Kaplan wrote in 1997:

Of the world's hundred largest economies, fifty-one are not countries but corporations.…Because they are in the forefront of real globalization while the overwhelming majority of the world's inhabitants are still rooted in local terrain, corporations will be free for a few decades to leave behind the social and environmental wreckage they create—abruptly closing a factory here in order to open an unsafe facility with a cheaper work force there. Robert Kaplan, “Was Democracy Just a Moment?” Atlantic Monthly, December 1997.

But even Kaplan conceded that, in the end, “as technological innovations continue to accelerate and the world's middle classes come closer together, corporations may well become more responsible to the cohering global community.” Moving in the right direction would first require a conscious assumption of responsibilities and obligations on the part of business, or as some would argue, a clearer imposition of enforceable norms to regulate corporate conduct.

Some international companies, by design or opportunity, are active in areas where governance is weak and where Governments may be unable or unwilling to ensure protection of human rights. In a survey conducted by the Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights and transnational corporations of 65 instances reported by NGOs of alleged corporate human rights abuses, nearly two thirds of the alleged abuses took place in countries either recently emerged from conflict or still in a situation of conflict. In this survey, even the countries not affected by conflict could largely be characterized by weak governance and were mainly low income or “on the low side of middle income countries. John Ruggie, Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97 (2006), para 27.
According to the Special Representative, such a governance vacuum in conditions of poverty may compel responsible companies to perform de facto governmental roles for which they are ill-equipped, while other firms may take advantage of the asymmetry of power they enjoy.

Allegations of corporate involvement in government-sponsored or government-tolerated abuse are frequently made by NGOs and others. The survey conducted by the Special Representative found that most allegations of the worst abuses were made against companies in the extractive sector – oil, gas and mining. Such accusations included complicity in crimes against humanity allegedly involving public and private security forces, which were dispatched to protect company assets and property. Large-scale corruption; violations of labor rights; and a broad array of abuses in relation to local communities, especially indigenous people, were also reported.

The current debate in the international community focuses on the appropriate response to such abusive practices. While many argue for the necessity of putting in place an enforceable set of binding norms to regulate private sector’s compliance with human rights, others favor consensual, voluntary initiatives.

More than three thousands companies all over the world, including 108 in the Financial Times global 500 firms have explicitly recognized the necessity of a socially responsible approach to conducting business by participating in the United Nations “Global Compact,” which is the world’s largest voluntary corporate social responsibility initiative. The Global Compact is based on ten principles in the areas of human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus which are derived from: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; The United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The principles on human rights are: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses; on labor standards: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor; the effective abolition of child labor; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; on the environment: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges; undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies; on anti-corruption: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery. The “Global 108” alone employ nearly 10 million workers. Launched in 2000, not only does the Global Compact set standards of global corporate citizenship, but it also aims at providing a platform for the private sector in the implementation of the MDGs, not least through public-private partnerships. At a minimum, the recognized role of human rights in the Global Compact should, in theory, help to dispel the notion that respect for human rights is antithetical to both speedy economic development and a sound bottom line.

However, the problem with the Global Compact scheme is not only that 70,000 trans-national corporations have yet to subscribe to it, but also--and crucially--that it lacks clear standards; that it does not provide for monitoring mechanisms to measure compliance and that, of course, it offers no remedial framework in the case of violations of even basic existing norms.
Those promoting a voluntary embrace of human rights norms by the corporate sector also point to corporate social investing, a practice through which corporations could support development initiatives that are sustainable, that are respectful of human rights and that can offer pathways out of destitution and dependence. As Jeffrey Sachs noted, such an approach is hardly unprecedented. Many companies have provided and continue to supply, for example, free high-yield seeds to agriculture, or equipment and know-how which give the poor real—and sustained—opportunities to make choices and plan for the future. Jeffrey D. Sachs, “Africa Poses a Historic Window of Opportunity,” New Century Philanthropy, Fall 2006, Vol. VI, Issue 3.
More in line with human rights prescriptions is perhaps the transformation of traditional philanthropy into social entrepreneurship. This new form of giving was pioneered through microcredit schemes and it is now attracting increasing attention on the part of the business and financial communities. George Soros puts it this way
I used to be negative toward (social entrepreneurship) because of my innate aversion to mixing business with philanthropy. Experience has taught me, however, that I was wrong. As a philanthropist I saw a number of successful social enterprises, and I became engaged in some of them. Eventually, I discovered an error in my logic. There is no duplicity, no mixing of motives in social enterprise, as there is in reconciling social responsibility with the profit motive. In social entrepreneurship, profit is not a motive, it is a means to an end. George Soros, “Open Society: Reforming Social Capitalism,” New Century Philanthropy, Winter 2002, Vol. II, Issue 4.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me conclude by stressing, once again, that properly understood in an international human rights context, poverty reduction should no longer derive merely from the fact that the poor have needs. It should also stem from the reality that the poor have rights – entitlements that give rise to legal obligation on the part of others. Poverty reduction is then the product of the implementation of legal obligations. The recognition of the existence of the legal entitlements of the poor and of the legal obligations of States to give effect to such rights represents a crucial step towards empowerment. Moreover, a human rights approach to poverty reduction asserts that empowerment of the poor is a shared responsibility, requiring all States and, through them, all social actors to work towards creating an equitable distribution of wealth, commensurate with the fundamental human rights of all. Such an approach fosters accountability of Governments, encourages people to actively claim their rights and help shape policies conducive to their fulfillment.

Thank you.
or completely inappropriate for agriculture and/or cattle raising Likewise, critics of such program also point out that the early full-payment granted to landowners give them favorable conditions to increase speculation on land located in protected areas, such as the regions of Cerrados and Amazonia As a result, prices of productive land are increasing while small farmers are getting more indebted, which consequently is deemed to have increased land concentration and social exclusion on the Brazilizian countryside OHCHR research, October 2007 For a different opinion over the effectiveness of the land reform program, see Mark L Schneider, “Beyond the Washington Consensus: Thoughts of Equity, Democracy, and Conflict in Latin America,” Remarks to the Latin American Studies Annual Conference, Montreal, September 7, 2007