“Ensuring a people-centred approach to the new SDGs: a shared responsibility” - remarks by the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Ivan Šimonović, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Annual Parliamentary Hearing, New York, 19 November 2014

What are the implications of the rights-based approach for the new SDGs as a universal agenda?

A new development agenda guided by human rights means putting people first and ensuring that the protection and promotion of all human rights is at the heart of a more equitable and sustainable model of development.  It means that the Sustainable Development Goals must be closely aligned with existing human rights standards while pursuing the freedom from want and freedom from fear for all, without discrimination.

For example, equality and non-discrimination require disaggregated data, paying particular attention to the most marginalised groups, providing them with choice through equal opportunities, and voice through effective and meaningful participation in making decisions that affect their life. The human rights perspective demands also enabling environment at the international level allowing States at different level of development to fulfil the human rights entitlements of the populations under their jurisdiction. This calls for strong commitments on means of implementation and global partnership relevant for the right to development.  

With regard to universality, its implications mean that the SDGs, like all human rights, will be applicable to all countries and all governments will be accountable for meeting these commitments.  This is critically important as it transforms the notion of development – away from a traditional conception of donors and beneficiaries or developed versus developing relations. Universality does not mean “one size fits all” as there must be recognition that countries begin from different starting points and have different capacities and resources available. It should rather be understood that all governments have responsibilities to their people, and all have certain responsibilities to contribute to international cooperation at the global level.

Finally, universality implies also that there should be a universal review mechanism at the global level, as well as regional and national accountability mechanisms. This could draw from the working methods and principles of the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, which is a unique, universal, member State-driven process that reviews progress on human rights in all countries, based on the principles of universal coverage, state ownership, transparency and participation. Useful lessons could also be drawn from how the human rights review process can create important momentum between the global and national level accountability mechanisms, particularly when parliamentarians are involved.

How can all countries adopt the rights-based approach taking into account different stages of development, from the poorest to the most affluent societies?

There must be recognition that countries begin from different starting points, so there will be a need to differentiate the contribution of states to some goals, particularly the goals on global partnership, adapting contributions to national resource constraints, different responsibilities and different levels of development. 

There has been much debate around the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in this regard.  This concept comes from environmental law, but human rights law also takes account of the different levels of development, including for example through the human rights concepts of ‘progressive realisation’, ‘maximum available resources’ and the duties of ‘international assistance and cooperation’.

Lessons can therefore be drawn from some good examples where global goals and targets were adapted to national conditions with human rights implications. For example with Thailand’s MDG-plus model, specific targets were set for women such as doubling the proportion of women in the national parliament, administrative organizations and civil service executive positions by 2006, and for marginalized regions for reducing by half the under-five mortality rate in highland areas by 2015.

Another example in Mongolia where additional legislation was passed to create Goal 9 on democratic governance and human rights with specific time-bound targets and indicators has proved to be successful.

How can policy effectively differentiate to target the most vulnerable, and what tools would be required?

One of the shortcomings of the MDGs was the focus on average statistics and aggregate progress, which did not allow revealing how the most marginalised groups were increasingly left behind and how inequalities have been relentlessly rising. To deliver on the increasing call for “leaving no one behind”, I would emphasize two things:

•   First, disaggregation of data:  Data should be disaggregated, to the extent feasible, by all grounds of discrimination prohibited in international human rights law, including by sex, age, race, ethnicity, income, disability, migrant status and other grounds relevant in particular countries.
•   Second, monitoring the reduction of inequalities between social groups:  Targets must be set in a way that encourages greater attention to the most disadvantaged groups, so that these groups catch up, rather than being left behind.  Tools to monitor the reduction of inequalities between social groups will be critical.

A range of tools and good practices are available in this regard: a number of States have made efforts in recent years to align national MDG targets and indicators with human rights treaty requirements, and collect disaggregated data on marginalized groups.

Ecuador, for example, has added specific indicators for women and indigenous populations, developed MDG reports for Afro-descendants, and disaggregates data accordingly. Recently, the Government of Ecuador adopted a set of national "Guidelines to formulate sector specific public policies" which mandates a systematic use of the recommendations of international and regional human rights mechanisms in the diagnosis and formulation of public policies. In addition, the Government of Ecuador developed also an “Atlas on Inequalities” with an aim to collect, analyse and disseminate data that capture equality and non-discrimination among the population.

How can governments and parliaments work together to fulfil States’ human rights obligations?

Governments contract obligations, initiate and implement public policies while parliaments are entrusted with oversights functions on behalf of voters. This forms the basis for legitimate collaboration aiming at transformative impacts. Parliamentarians should be involved in policy-making and also be able to engage in the national monitoring and review process to make sure that governments honour their commitments to their maximum capacity and available resources:  For example, parliamentarians could:

•   Encourage Governments to carry out systematic human rights impact assessments of legislations or policy initiatives
•   Adopt or amend relevant legislation that will ensure Government’s development policies contribute to and are consistent with human rights obligations
•   Oversee development policies and ensure that national budgets and the allocation of resources by government satisfy the human rights standard of the “use of maximum available resources” in a transparent, non-discriminatory and accountable way
•   Ensure that governments provide comprehensive data and statistics in an open, transparent and inclusive manner, on public policies are made and implemented to meet commitments
•   Finally, stimulate public debates with broad participation of government agencies, private sector, civil society, media and the concerned populations themselves.

An example of key areas of collaboration between governments and parliaments could be the tax policy area which is a key vehicle for mobilizing resources that can be made available for investment in human rights, redressing social and economic inequalities, and bolstering the bonds of accountability between a State and its inhabitants. Tax inefficiency and evasion causes an endemic drain on revenues for the realization of rights, especially in countries where poverty and inequality are already high and the tax base is low. Governments worldwide lose $3.1 trillion annually to tax evasion, according to recent estimates, equivalent to about half of the world’s total expenditure on health care. In 2009, developing countries reportedly lost almost $1 trillion owing to illicit financial flows, about 60 per cent of which came from tax evasion. This was more than 10 times the Official Development Assistance (ODA) that year and substantially more than the World Bank’s estimated financing requirements for the MDGs.