a world vision journal of human …fourth quarter,2003 can development workwithout human rights?...

Fourth Quarter, 2003

Can development workwithout humanrights?

Linking social programmes to rights in Chile- an inclusive, participatory approach

Soledad Alvear, Minister of Foreign Relations, Chile

The World Bank - doing the rights thing?Alan Whaites, World Vision International

Civil society and a human rights-basedapproach to development

Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Linking social programmes to rights in Chile- an inclusive, participatory approach

Soledad Alvear, Minister of Foreign Relations, Chile

The World Bank - doing the rights thing?Alan Whaites, World Vision International

Civil society and a human rights-basedapproach to development

Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

A W O R L D V I S I O N J O U R N A L O F H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T

http://www.globalfutureonline.org

Can development work without human rights?Common cause- human rights and development NGOs Rory Mungoven. 1

Rights-based development - how to get there from here Rob Williams. 3

Linking social programmes to rights in Chile - an inclusive,participatory approach Soledad Alvear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

When rights collide Ronald Sider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The World Bank - doing the rights thing? Alan Whaites. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A paradigm shift in business and human rights Peter Frankental. . . . . . . 10

Child rights in development - a Philippine experienceAimyleen Velicaria-Gabriel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Civil society and a human rights-based approach to developmentKumi Naidoo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Promoting human rights in development - a reflection Roberta Hestenes. 13

Adopting a rights-based approach to development Thomas Joseph. . . . 14

Human rights - are disabled people included? Jonathan Flower. . . . . . . 17

The Gaza Strip - devastation, not rights or development Raji Sourani . 18

Rights and development - finishing the work of creationArik Ascherman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A human rights-based approach to development - how far have we come? Bertrand Ramcharan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Development - too costly for Philippines indigenous people?Gerardo Gobrin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Donor agencies in an era of implementation Kathy Vandergrift. . . . . . . . 24

Good news for the poor Tony Campolo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Global FutureWorld Vision 800 W. Chestnut Ave.Monrovia, California 91016-3198USATelephone (1) 626-303-8811Fax (1) 626-301-7786e-mail: [email protected]

OR:

World Vision6 Chemin de la Tourelle1209 Geneva, Switzerland

www.globalempowerment.org

ISSN 0742-1524

Global Future is published quarterly by WorldVision to encourage debate and discussion ondevelopment issues.

Publisher Dean R. HirschEditor Heather Elliott

Contributing correspondents: Kelly Currah,Melanie Gow, Brett Parris, Matt Scott, Don Brandt,Joe Muwonge, Siobhan Calthrop, Ruth Kahurananga,Haidy Ear-Dupuy, Alan Whaites.

All opinions expressed in Global Future arethose of the authors and do not represent theopinions of the World Vision organisation.

Articles may be freely reproduced, withacknowledgement, except where other copyright isindicated. Annual subscription in USA: US$15, butsent free of charge to NGOs in the developingcountries.

COVER DESIGN BY : FRIEND CREATIVE (Melbourne, Australia)

Fourth Quarter, 2003

Why rights?This Global Future focuses on thedebate around a rights-basedapproach to development, and why itis considered a profound shift indevelopment thinking and practice.Talk of rights abounds indevelopment circles, but the verdictis still out on the detail.

Rory Mungoven’s opening articlehighlights a growing consensusbetween rights and developmentagencies on economic/social/culturaland civil/political rights. Many wouldendorse the words of BertrandRamcharan,Acting UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights,that the rights-based approach’sultimate objective is "to address thediscrimination, powerlessness andweaknesses in systems ofaccountability that lie at the root ofpoverty and other developmentproblems".Yet, as severalcontributors note, there remaindiverse views on why a rights-basedapproach is needed and what itmeans practically. Ramcharan andothers affirm the international lawbasis for the approach; Ronald Siderand others consider the dignity ofhumans created in God’s image asprimary. Our contributors tackleconceptual dilemmas and also, likeRob Williams and Kumi Naidoo,address oft-raised objections onpracticalities.

But what does a rights-basedapproach look like? The answercomes in glimpses: of statepolicymakers (Soledad Alvear, Chile’sForeign Minister); aid donors andtheir NGO partners (KathyVandergrift); civil society actors.AlanWhaites argues the World Bank’scritical role in helping statesimplement human rights; PeterFrankental corporations’ role as dutybearers. Other contributorsspotlight what rights, or a profoundlack thereof, look like "on theground" – for children, disabledpeople, those under militaryoccupation in Palestine, andindigenous peoples.

For development agencies movingtowards a rights approach,Williamsoffers practical steps, while ThomasJoseph shares an instructive accountof one agency’s serious quest tomainstream rights – the toughchoices involved, and the rewards.

- Heather Elliott

http://www.globalfutureonline.org

ONE ENCOURAGING TRENDin the NGO movement in recentyears has been the growingconvergence in the work oforganisations dedicated to protectinghuman rights on the one hand, andthose promoting economic and socialdevelopment on the other.

This reflects a paradigm shift in theway we think about the relationshipbetween human rights and development.It has opened up exciting newapproaches to our work andpossibilities for strategic collaborationbetween us.

Against the backdrop of armedconflicts worldwide, we have alreadyfound common cause in thecampaigns to ban landmines, to stopthe recruitment of children assoldiers, to curb the supply of smallarms and light weapons and toprevent the plunder of naturalresources. Our staff work togetherclosely in some of the world’s mostdifficult and dangerous places –sharing information, supporting localorganisations, watching out for eachother’s security and advocating oneach other’s behalf.

In many situations, development andhumanitarian organisations are rightlyconcerned with the security of theirstaff and partners on the ground, andwith maintaining access to people inneed of protection and assistance.

At times, this may constrain themfrom speaking out openly and publiclyabout atrocities they may witness inthe field; often their field staff aresimply too hard-pressed deliveringbasic services to be able to documentabuses and launch internationalcampaigns.

But they can work with human rightsorganisations to get that informationout, to shine a spotlight on abuse andto generate popular outrage andpressure for change. Human rightsand development organisations cancollaborate in getting issues ontodonor governments’ agendas andmobilising resources or the politicalwill for meaningful programmes onthe ground.

World Vision and Human RightsWatch (HRW) have long cooperated,for instance, around issues of childabduction and child soldiering inNorthern Uganda. World Visionoperates a rehabilitation centre forformer child soldiers in Gulu. Its staff,who must focus their attention on theday-to-day needs of the children, wereeager to cooperate with HRWinvestigations in both 1997 and 2003in order to ensure that the abusesendured by the children were broughtto international attention. HRW andWorld Vision subsequentlycollaborated in an internationaladvocacy campaign, working togetherto press key governments andinternational bodies to take action onthe issue.

The challenge is to extend this type ofcooperation to other areas of ourwork. The partnerships we aredeveloping in situations of armed

conflict should be equally effectivein the fight against poverty,discrimination and injustice. The timefor this is ripe – and the prospectsare good.

First, there is growing complementarityin our operational styles. Humanrights organisations are increasinglybasing their staff in the field andworking to provide technicalassistance to or partnering with localNGOs. Development organisationsthat once focused primarily ondelivering services and capacity-building have begun to useinternational advocacy andcampaigning in their work.

Second, there has been a sea change inour policy approach. Manydevelopment organisations areshifting from needs-based, welfare-oriented and humanitarianapproaches, to rights-based ones.Human rights organisations oncefocused largely on civil and politicalissues such as political imprisonmentand torture; increasingly we areaddressing the underlying social and

Common cause –the convergingagendas and complementaryroles of human rights anddevelopment NGOsRory Mungoven

Global Future — Fourth Quarter, 2003 1

Human rightsorganisations can helpmobilise resources and political will

Stopping the use of children as soldiers is a concern of both human rights anddevelopment NGOs.

PHO

TO

- JO

HN

SC

HEN

K /

WO

RLD

VIS

ION

economic causes of these violationsor championing economic and socialrights issues, such as education, healthand housing.

Two sides of the same coin

We have both come to a belatedrecognition that human rights anddevelopment are two sides of thesame coin. Human rights cannot befully guaranteed without sustainedeconomic and social development;development cannot proceed withoutthe rule of law and protection ofhuman rights.

Emerging collaborations betweenhuman rights and development NGOsare bearing fruit in the fight againstHIV/AIDS. In parts of South Asia andAfrica, women’s organisationsspecialising in development-relatedservices are joining the struggle forlegal reform to protect the rights ofwomen widowed by AIDS. In Zambia,for example, HRW worked withhuman rights and women’sdevelopment organisations toadvocate for better application ofrape and sexual abuse laws and fortraining of police and judicialpersonnel on sensitive and effectivehandling of rape complaints.

Similarly in Kenya, we are workingclosely with development NGOs to

combat discrimination against womenin terms of property rights. In much ofsub-Saharan Africa, women accessproperty only through theirrelationships with men; when thoserelationships end through death,divorce or other estrangement,women often lose their land, homes,and other property. Some widows areforced to undergo customary "wifeinheritance" and "cleansing" rituals(often involving unprotected sex) tokeep their property.Women who fightback are beaten, raped, or ostracised.Government officials disregard thisproblem, and traditional leaders oftenreinforce social biases against women.We have a common interest incombating these violations ofwomen’s rights which contribute topoverty, violence, and the AIDSepidemic.

Beyond ideological debates

Today we have a more holisticunderstanding of the importance ofgood governance, the rule of law andhuman rights as essential conditionsfor effective poverty reduction andsustainable economic growth. Wehave begun to move beyondideological debates on the right todevelopment or the hierarchy ofrights.We are thinking of human rightsnot as conditionalities imposed onrecipient governments, but as legal

obligations they have taken uponthemselves with respect to theirpeople.

This nexus between the human rightsand development agendas has beenpowerfully affirmed by theinternational community in theMil lennium Dec larat ion anddevelopment goals and at the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development.It is reflected in new developmentmodels such as the New Partnershipfor African Development.

Many international agencies, such asUNDP and UNICEF, are now framingtheir work in terms of rights or areexperimenting in rights - basedapproaches to development. Effortsare being made to integrate humanrights into the UN DevelopmentAssistance Framework (UNDAF) andto use rights indicators in CommonCountry Assessments. Even the WorldBank, traditionally shy of human rightsissues as a "political" agenda, hasbegun a lively internal discussion onthe application of human rights in itswork.

Development and human rightsorganisations still have a lot to learnfrom each other, and we need to putthose lessons into practice on theground. But at the end of the day weshare a common mission in ensuringthat the poor, the vulnerable andsocially outcast are able to claim anddefend their rights.They will never beable to do so when they are hungry,homeless and illiterate – nor whenthey are prevented from speaking out,organising politically or accessingjustice. ■

Rory Mungoven is Global Advocacy Director forHuman Rights Watch. He worked closely withWorld Vision as coordinator of the internationalcoalition to stop the use of child soldiers.See www.hrw.org

2 Fourth Quarter, 2003 — Global Future

Human rights are not conditionalities butlegal obligations thatstates have taken on

PHO

TO

-

NIG

EL M

AR

SH /

WO

RLD

VIS

ION

Widowed by AIDS, and knowing she too may die, Regina does her best to provide for herchildren’s future. (World Vision Uganda supports her children’s education and has givenRegina coffee plants to generate income.)

THE CHALLENGE OFbecoming a rights-based organisationmay seem daunting.Two aspects to thisapproach make it even more of a hill toclimb than other "big ideas" that haveemerged over the past four decades.

First of these is the fact that no-one isquite sure what it is.The defining texton rights work is yet to be written,leaving agencies to first askthemselves "What are we talkingabout?" before deciding how toproceed with making changes.

The second difficulty with the rights-based approach is that it is promotedby some as a radical doctrine whichwill inevitably transform any erstwhilebenign development agency into apolitical agent intent on socialupheaval; anything less being a failureto understand the essential nature ofpower relationships at the root ofpoverty.

How can an organisation overcomethe double anxiety of such highexpectations coupled with a largedegree of theoretical uncertainty?

You may already be doing it

First of all, it is helpful to put asidethe notion of the rights- basedorganisation (for a moment) and tofocus instead on rights-based work.An internal audit that asks fieldmanagers to identify work they ortheir partners are doing which is likelyto alter power relationships will, in alllikelihood, reveal that your organisationis in fact already involved in rights-based work.The starting point of yourprogrammes may have been phrasedin terms of capacity building, or accessto skills and resources. Mostdevelopment activities that go beyondprovision of inputs on a purely welfarebasis will be having some positiveeffect on relationships at the locallevel.

Turn up the heat a little by askingmanagers to identify rights claimed bybeneficiary groups which were notenjoyed by them before theprogramme started. You may bepleasantly surprised to find thatwomen’s groups, irrigationcommittees, slum tenantcommunities, or health service usershave all established at least a patternof improved treatment from landlordsand local authorities as a result of thecapacity-building work that you havebeen sponsoring in their communities.You may even find that agreementsmade with local, regional and nationalauthorities add up to somethingamounting to a body of law which canbe relied upon by claimants shouldanybody try to backslide on progressalready made.

The internal analysis should have yourmanagers and staff feeling much moreconfident about the concept ofhelping local communities assert theirrights, since they will see that they arealready doing it. It is a short step fromthere to convincing them that this is infact the most important andsustainable part of their work, andthat they should be evaluating theirprogrammes primarily on the basis oftheir ability to make progress on rights.

By now you should be receivingrequests from all sides for training inanalysis of rights and relationships,supporting local advocacy, andmonitoring of rights indicators. Oncemanagers understand that the impactof their work can be greatly enhancedby securing changes in the

surrounding legal environment, theyshould be clamouring for support inthese new areas.

Stand back for a minute and take alook at what has become, in anymeaningful sense, a rights-basedorganisation.

Rights in anyone’s language

These steps have not involved anywaving of the UN Charter, or thevarious conventions on other rightswhich form the starting point formany learned discussions of rights andsocial change. Unsurprisingly, a focuson what people themselves regard asbeing progress in their rights andrelationships rarely turns over the finesoil of international legislation. Whatmatters on the ground are changes tocustom and law at the local level, andpeople’s ability to get services, and dothings, that were not possible before.

As for the duty of rights-basedorganisations to fan the flames ofrevolution, it is perhaps wiser to allowyour partners to decide forthemselves how radical they wish tobe in their attempts to improveconditions for themselves and theirfamilies. Therein lies the realtransformation. ■

Rob Williams worked with Concern Worldwide (see www.concern.ie ) as a manager and seniorpolicy adviser for a number of years until mid-2003, when he became chief executive of the UK charity Bliss.


PHO

TO

-

ALI

SON

PR

EST

ON

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

Rights-based development –how to get there from hereRob Williams

Seeking food security for child-headedhouseholds led World Vision Burundi tohelp orphaned siblings Dontien, Glorioseand Marie-Goreth successfully fight forlegal title to their late father’s land.

You may be surprisedto find that your workhas helped beneficiaries improve power relations


IMPLEMENTATION OF THEeconomic, social, cultural, civil andpolitical rights of every citizen has turnedout to be a primary public policy concernand, in many cases, lies at the heart ofdebate about the fiscal sustainabilityof entitlement programmes.

International organisations havecontributed significantly to this, bypromoting the adoption of universallyaccepted principles and by placingindividuals as the focal point ofdevelopment.The core instruments ofthis approach include economic, socialand cultural (ESC) rights, which areessential to social policies.Implementation of these is adevelopment goal for every country,and their safeguarding, protection andpromotion are commitments thathave profound consequences on thepublic policy decisions thatgovernments are expected to take.

A rights-based vision

These instruments have contributedin a major way to present Chileansocial policy in the phasedintroduction of a new rights-baseddevelopment vision, where ESC rightsare increasingly considered as anethical framework for definingeconomic and social policies. Ananalysis by the Economic Commissionfor Latin America and the Caribbean(ECLAC) states:

Considering development from ahuman rights perspective hasmobilised the Administration ofPresident Lagos in efforts to sustainsectoral social reforms as a moralimperative – with rights being theState’s commitment to reach andinvolve more Chileans, more fully, withtheir entitlements and responsibilitiesas citizens – in an increasinglyinclusive, participatory model.

Of course, ESC rights are still stronglyrelated to civil and political rights.Theformer are aimed at securingeconomic well-being, access to work,health, education and culture, whilethe latter include respect forindividual rights and freedoms. Thechallenge is to reconcile these effortswith a progressive strengthening of ademocratic institutionality, one that isrespectful of diversity and focused ona sustainable governance. In thiscontext, identifying the gaps in socialprovision – between sectoral andterritorial groups – is crucial whendefining development indicators andgoals. This requires taking concretesteps to define the minimum needs ofthe population as a whole and,particularly, of the impoverished.

Public policy changes implemented bythe Lagos Administration have beenbased on a sound combination ofeconomic growth and social equity.Making strong investments in theexpansion of universal entitlementprogrammes has allowed Chile tosubstantially regain the standard ofliving lost in the previous decade.

Balancing economic and social

Our country is internationallyrecognised for its institutionalreforms undertaken in social security,education and health areas since the1980s. Currently, Chile’s population

welfare is satisfactory, as evidenced byseveral indicators. In terms ofcoverage of essential entitlementprogrammes, Chile ranks among"intermediate development" countries,i.e. having a standard of living markedlyhigher than that of poor countries, butwith important gaps as comparedwith developed countries.

The Lagos Administration’scommitment to the equity agenda hastranslated concretely into anenhancement of social investment,reflected both in coverage expansionof programmes and services, and inwidening and diversification of whatthey offer.

During the 1990s, Chile showedsustained economic growth, withincreasing degrees of insertion intothe world economy, which led to asignificant rise in per capita income – aprocess that was changed by theinternational crisis and the economicinstability of our region. For the firsttime in three years, unemploymentthis winter has remained below 10%.Unemployment was partly mitigatedby direct public employmentprogrammes and private employmentsubsidies, the latter consisting inrehiring and training bonuses.

It is not only economically that Chile’sdevelopment indicators haveimproved. In the social area,improvements in poverty eradicationare unprecedented, both domesticallyand as compared with other nations.Throughout the decade, the

PHO

TO

-

PAT

RIC

IO C

UEV

AS

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

Soledad Alvear, Chile’s Minister of ForeignRelations

Linking social programmes torights in Chile – an inclusive,participatory approachSoledad Alvear

The value of economic, social andcultural rights lies in the fact thatthey establish a legal andinstitutional regime that helpsinculcate ethical perspectiveswhich then are mainstreamed intocollective objectives and, hence, intoeconomic and political decision-making processes that will makeit possible to meet the citizenry’sneeds and diminish inequalities.

impoverished portion of thepopulation decreased from 38.6% in1990 to 20.6% in 2000. Likewise,extreme poverty diminished from12.9% to 5.7%. In spite of the complexeconomic scenario we witnessedbetween 1998 and 2000, this povertyreduction trend did not suffer anymajor setback.

Sound social policies eased thenegative impact of unemployment onthe standard of living of the mostimpoverished. During the decade,Chile maintained and strengthened awide set of social programmes aimedat improving the population’s livingconditions. Our ability to keep ahealthy economy while saving moneyfor social policies has yielded anincreased allocation of fiscal resourcesfor social initiatives, which reached18.6% between 1998 and 2000.

A distinguishing feature of publicpolicies implemented in these years isthe evolution from an aid to adevelopmental approach. The latterfosters the development of humancapital, which explains the furtherance

of education and health reforms, aswell as the implementation ofinitiatives mainly focused on povertyeradication, such as the socialprotection programme called ChileSolidario.

Given the fact that social developmentand poverty eradication depend to agreat extent on economic growth, butthat they cannot be regarded as aninertial effect thereof, public policieshave played a strategic role infurthering and supporting ongoingsocial reforms.

In the longer term, social policies shallbe undertaken as a developmentinstrument that, attuned withdomestic macroeconomic priorities, ishighly sensitive to the particularrealities of diverse groups that have

neither access to the fruits ofeconomic growth nor enoughempowerment to satisfy their needsin regular markets.

This translates into a sustainable,promising strategy for strengtheningexisting institutions to administer andimplement both economic and socialpublic policies – giving shape to aninclusive, participatory model whoseleitmotiv must be the individual. ■

María Soledad Alvear is the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations.


PHO

TO

- P

AT

RIC

IO C

UEV

AS

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

Isolated for centuries, the Pehuenches people of Chile’s Alto Bio-Bio region have lived with extreme poverty, social exclusion and, somesay, threat of imminent extinction.

Social development and poverty eradication rely on, but are not an inertial effect of,economic growth

SINCE THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE,political thinkers have agreed thatjustice exists when persons receivewhat is due them.What is the ultimatefoundation of the obligation to givepersons and institutions their due?For most of Western history, thenearly universal answer was: God.God is just and commands persons tobe just.Therefore human laws are justand to be obeyed because theyreflect, however imperfectly, divinelaw and justice.

In the last two centuries, however,modern thinkers have rejected thenotion of an underlying divinestandard of justice, arguing insteadthat human laws are merely designedby the powerful for their own self-interest. The inevitable result of thislegal positivism, Emil Brunner hasargued persuasively, is moderntotalitarianism: "If there is no divinestandard of justice, there is no criterionfor the legal system set up by the state.If there is no justice transcending thestate, then the state can declareanything it likes to be law…"

From the biblical perspective, God isclearly the ultimate foundation forjustice and human rights. Numerousbiblical texts say that God loves anddoes justice (Isaiah 61:8: "I the Lordlove justice"; see also Psalms 37:28and 103:6). Persons, who are made inGod’s image, are called to reflectGod’s justice in our actions(Deuteronomy 10:18–19: "Godexecutes justice for the fatherless andthe widows, and loves the sojourner,giving him food and clothing. Love thesojourner therefore…"). If we respectthe image of God in other persons,we must give them what is their due.

Which rights come first?

In the twentieth century, there hasbeen a debate about human rights.Are they primarily civil/political orsocio-economic, or both? Westerndemocracies, rooted in liberal politicaltheory going back to John Locke, haveespecially emphasised civil/politicalrights: freedom of religion, speech andassembly; the right to possessproperty; a system of laws and courtsthat are transparent; and unbiased,free elections. All of these rights aregrounded in individual liberty – "themost precious of human values inliberal thought". According to Locke,the natural state of humanity was onewhere all persons possess "perfectfreedom to order their actions anddispose of their possessions andpersons, as they see fit".

Marxists emphasised socio-economicrights, such as an adequate standardof living (food, clothing, housing);the highest attainable standardof healthcare; education; and social

security for the elderly and othersunable to work. Believing that "purelyformal" rights, such as freedom ofspeech, are relatively useless unlesspeople enjoy basic socio-economicrights, Marxists argued that civilliberties could be suspended orignored in the effort to implement keysocio-economic rights.

The biblical material leads to a clearanswer to the long dispute aboutwhether human rights are primarilycivil/political, primarily socio-economic, or both.

The importance of civil/politicalhuman rights is clearly supported bythe biblical material. Legal proceduresmust be transparent and fair. The rightto own private property (subject, ofcourse, to the will of God, theabsolute owner) is assumed andexplicitly affirmed throughoutScripture. No biblical texts talkdirectly about freedom of speech, a

When rights collideRonald J. Sider


If we respect theimage of God in other persons, we must give them their due

PHO

TO

-

KEV

IN C

OO

K /

WO

RLD

VIS

ION

A young girl waits for a meal of maize in Salala camp, Liberia, where some 30,000displaced families have taken refuge from violent conflict but lack adequate food. "Godloves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing."

secret ballot or democratic process.But history has shown that religiousand political freedom and democraticprocesses seem essential if we wantto respect the inestimable dignity andworth of every individual. It is notsurprising or inappropriate thatcivil/political human rights havebecome one of the most esteemedtreasures of Western societies thathave been shaped for many centuriesby biblical values.

Totalitarianism has taught us that we dare not trade freedom for bread

It is clear that biblical norms demandan equal commitment to socio-economic human rights. One must, ofcourse, ask the question of who(family, civil society, government?) hasthe responsibility to guarantee theright to things like work, food, healthcare and housing. But the biblicalmaterials that emphasise God’sconcern for the poor and show thatjustice includes economic justice(especially the right to access theproductive resources to earn one’sown way and be a dignified member ofsociety) demonstrate that in a biblicalframework human rights includesocio-economic rights.

What do we do when various humanrights collide? When theimplementation of socio-economicrights seems to require less concernfor, or even abandonment of, civil/political rights? If the last century’sNazi and Marxist totalitarianism hastaught us anything, it has shown thatwe dare not trade freedom for bread.Human beings are created for both.

Grappling with complexity

Biblical political voices must be faithfuladvocates of those who seek tocreate societies that treasure bothand refuse to play one against theother. Among other things, thatmeans recognising that a great deal ofgovernmental activity to promote ahigh level of economic equality willundermine freedom, and also thatsome restriction on the economicfreedom of the powerful will be

necessary to move toward equality ofopportunity. In every society, at everyjuncture, prudential wisdom informedby biblical norms and historicalexperience will face the difficult,imprecise task of discerning which setof human rights is most endangered ata given moment and designing wiseways to correct the imbalance.Thereis no way to avoid the complexity andambiguity of that task. But biblicalvoices will not seek to avoid thisdifficult problem by arguing that oneset of rights is more important orbasic than the other.

In his discussion of how the claims ofdifferent human rights collide, RomanCatholic scholar David Hollenbachsuggests three "strategic moralpriorities" that I believe flow from thebiblical emphasis on corrective actionto restore justice for the weak andneedy:

1. The needs of the poor takepriority over the wants of the rich.

2. The freedom of the dominatedtakes priority over the liberty of thepowerful.

3. The participation of marginalisedgroups takes priority over thepreservation of an order whichexcludes them.

Implementing these priorities by nomeans suggests returning to a Marxistneglect of civil/political rights. Theyremain basic and must apply toeveryone, rich and poor. But does notthe loud, persistent biblical claim thateconomic empowerment of the pooris a central component of justicemean that some restriction of theabsolute freedom of the rich andpowerful (as, for example, inprogressive taxation) is legitimate inorder to guarantee access to basicnecessities for the poor andneglected? Surely that follows fromthe biblical truth that one of thecentral ways God measures societiesis by how they treat the people on thebottom. ■

Dr Ronald J. Sider is President and Founder of Evangelicals for Social Action.See www.esa-online.org


Landless farmers and supporting groups march for agrarian reform in Brazil.

PHO

TO

- D

OU

GLA

S M

AN

SUR

/ M

OV

IMEN

TO

DO

S SE

M T

ERR

A

MOST PEOPLE, IF PUT ON THEspot, are likely to say they agree withthe idea of human rights, but as withall worthy causes the number ofactivists working to bring them aboutis relatively small. Sadly, on the issue ofrights much the same can be said notjust of the world’s governments, butalso of its multilateral institutions.TheWorld Bank, for example, hasprofessed great sympathy for the ideaof human rights – most notably in a1998 report on the subject. Even so,the Bank cannot quite find thecourage to give this sympathy a morepractical edge – by bringing humanrights into its planning when engagedin programmes for good governance,administrative and social reform.

New World Vision report

World Vision recently completed astudy of the World Bank’s reticence tohelp governments fulfil the humanrights obligations to which theysubscribe.1 World Vision found thatthe Bank’s own logic of accountability,empowerment and local ownership ofreform should signal to the institutionthe need to address the question ofrights. In many ways the issue is anatural extension of some of theBank’s best work of recent years (thevoices of the poor; the empowermentsourcebook; and prioritisation ofinstitution building).

The Bank’s professedsympathy for human rights lacks a practical edge

Yet it seems to the outside observerthat the World Bank prefers toassume the worst of its memberstates by operating on the principlethat they have no intention to makegood on their national rightscommitments. Country case studieswithin World Vision’s report –

compiled both from available Bankdocumentation and, where possible,interviews – suggest an institutionunwilling to broach the subject ofrights, even in the case of children, theelderly or people with disabilities.

This might be understandable (thoughno more justifiable) were it only civiland political rights that the Banksought to leave aside. But WorldVision’s research found that help isnot even offered to governments toachieve specific national obligationsunder their economic, social andcultural commitments, no matter howclosely related these were to thoseWorld Bank sectoral programmesreviewed.

Perhaps the most dispiritingconclusion of World Vision’s study isthat the Bank is seeking to inhabit aneutral space that simply does notexist. By declining to proactively offerto help governments achieve theirnational rights obligations, the Bankmay actually hinder the achievementof these. The Bank too oftenoverlooks the reality that it is acentral actor in the reform of thoseparts of government that would beexpected to deliver on the rightsinstruments. If the Bank is taking thelead in reforming an education sector(where globally it is the biggestinvestor), including teacher training,curriculum and administration, and yetspurns the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child, the chances of thateducation system reflecting theprovisions of the CRC are reduced.

Does the Bank’s approach to rightsreally matter? World Vision’s researchsuggests that it does – including,ironically, to the Bank’s achievement ofits own stated objectives. Failure totake rights seriously, such asundertaking education reformwithout regard to systems for dealingwith child abuse, actually serves to

compromise due diligence inconsidering the best interests of thepeople impacted by the Bank’sprogramming.

This weakness points to a conceptualgap: the importance of a people-centred approach. For World Vision, asa Christian agency, development is allabout people. It is a process ofenabling children and families to reachtheir God-given potential. By ignoringthe concept of rights, the Bank is indanger of losing this people-centreddimension – never quite gettingbeyond the person as a unit of humancapital.

The failure also weakens the Bank’sown ability to build a constituency anda supportive context for reform.Indeed, as an interesting paper from

the Bank’s research department haspointed out, there are significant linksbetween a rights approach and atraditional economic approach todevelopment:

Convoluted logic

The Bank’s stated reason fordownplaying the rights of the peoplewith whom it works is rooted in avery narrow interpretation of its

The World Bank – doing therights thing?Alan Whaites

The Bank is seeking toinhabit a neutral spacethat simply does notexist


A rights orientation strengthensthe position of individuals toobtain information, availthemselves of service deliveryoptions, organise local institutionsand civil organisations, andpursue judicial redress indomestic courts where necessary.Interestingly, the policyconsequences of rights overlapconsiderably with a moderneconomic approach to theprovision of health care andeducation, which emphasises theimportance of mechanisms ofaccountability and empowerment,such as participation in decisionmaking and access toinformation, for the achievementof welfare outcomes.2

original mandate. The Bank believesthat its mandate forbids any politicalactivity and apparently believes, througha convoluted logic (some rights arepolitical, all rights are indivisible, andtherefore all rights are political), thatthis is the end of the discussion.

World Vision’s review of the Bank’soriginal Articles of Agreement foundthat while they clearly proscribepartisan political activity, they no morebar the Bank from engaging on rightsthan on any other economically andsocially compelling part of policydiscourse. In particular, the Articles donot restrict attention to rights anymore than to rule of law, judicial andlegislative reform, or to the use ofpolicy conditionality to restrict thepolitical decisions of states in relationto fiscal deficits, trade or economicreform (all areas of extensive Bankactivity).

World Vision’s new report makes aseries of recommendations to theBank in relation to its role on rights.While opposing any movementstowards human rights conditionality,

World Vision recommends that theBank should:

The World Bank has much tocontribute if it does decide to helpgovernments more proactively withtheir national commitments on rights.The Bank’s skills in technicalassistance, administrative reform andgood governance make it a uniquelyqualified partner to governments onthese issues. World Vision believesthat the Bank can make a considerabledifference to progress on issues ofrights, and can strengthen the qualityof its programme lending into thebargain. ■

Alan Whaites is Director for International Policyand Advocacy for World Vision International (email: [email protected]).

1Findings of the study appear in the new WorldVision Briefing Paper Doing the Rights Thing? TheWorld Bank and the Human Rights of PeopleLiving in Poverty, 2003, which can be downloadedfrom: www.globalempowerment.org 2VarunGauri, ‘Social Rights and Economics: Claims tohealth care and education in developingcountries’, World Bank Policy Research WorkingPaper 3006, March 2003, page 16 3WorldVision, Doing the Rights Thing?, page 31


A rights approach can ensure access to education for disadvantaged groups, such as the Roma in Europe.These Roma children and theirfamilies live in a war-ruined building in Sarajevo, Bosnia.

PHO

TO

-

JOH

N S

CH

ENK

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

PROTECTINGCHILDREN:

Christianity and the rights

of children

~ new World Vision report ~Available from:

Policy & Advocacy,World Vision800 West Chestnut Avenue,

Monrovia, CA 91016-3198, USA and online at


Operate on the assumption thatgovernments wish to fulfil theirstated national rights obligations andobjectives. Existing commitment torights conventions, representingboth the national and internationalconsensus on rights, shouldautomatically be part of theprogramme lending dialogue.3

A F R A M E W O R K F O Runderstanding the totality of thehuman rights responsibilities ofcompanies has been provided by theUN Sub-Commission on thePromotion and Protection of HumanRights.The Sub-Commission passed aresolution in August 2003 in supportof a document bringing together therange of codes and guidelines towhich business should adhere: theDraft Norms on the Responsibilities ofTransnational Corporations and OtherBusiness Enterprises. Until now therehas been a lack of consensus as to whatthese responsibilities should be.

The Sub-Commission also called uponthe UN to monitor businesscompliance with internationalprotocols governing human rights,labour and environmental standards,consumer protection and anti-corruption laws. This is a paradigmshift in the sphere of business andhuman rights insofar as it reflects aglobal and authoritative view of acompany’s responsibilities. It is also afirst step towards an internationalcompliance framework based onminimum standards. As such, it is liableto generate short-sighted oppositionfrom parts of the business lobby.

National vs international regulation

One focus of opposition is likely to bethe view put forward at the 2002Earth Summit in Johannesburg bysome business groups that there is noneed for international regulation ofbusiness activities in the social andenvironmental spheres, given that allcompanies are subject to domesticregulation wherever they operate.

This approach ignores the nature ofcorporations in today’s globaleconomy that makes it difficult forindividual governments to regulatethem and hold them to account. Italso ignores the increasing

international regulation of business inother spheres, such as corruption andthe trafficking of hazardous wastes.Amnesty International’s view is thatinternational principles shouldtranscend local law. The bestcompanies have already committedthemselves to complying withinternational principles.

The Norms rationalise the confusing array of standards and codes for companies

In understanding the value of the UNNorms, it is also important toappreciate their limitations.There aregrey areas in interpreting them,particularly with regard to thespheres of influence of companies inrelation to states. The Norms don’tprovide decisive answers to thedebates that have raged on theseareas in recent times, nor do theymake the case for how and whyminimum standards should beenforced. It is clearly impossible for aset of human rights norms and theiraccompanying commentary to achieveall this. What they can achieve is tohelp stimulate corporate involvementin these issues, and to rationalise thearray of existing standards and codesthat makes it confusing for companiesto put human rights principles intopractice.

Integrating human rights

An initial effect of the Norms will beto help businesses integrate humanrights principles into their decision-making processes. Another effect willbe to remove the excuse thatcompanies use for adopting self-serving definitions of human rights ormarginalising rights within peripheral"Community Affairs" or "CorporateSocial Responsibility" functions.

To implement the Norms, companieswill need to integrate human rightsinto their business strategies, theirpre-investment risk assessments andtheir project and product lifecycles.They will also need to developrelevant performance indicators andto have in place monitoring andauditing systems to measure andreport on these. Benchmarking ofhuman rights performance is evolvinggradually through processes such asthe Global Reporting Initiative.

Level playing field

Business may be concerned that thesenorms are a precursor to bindingregulation; NGOs will welcome themfor this very reason. However, a globalcompliance framework for humanrights should not necessarily beviewed as a threat to companies. Onthe contrary: it would be to theadvantage of good companies to havesuch a framework, as it would providea level playing field and be entirelyconsistent in principle with corporatedemands for rule of law to protecttheir assets and internationalinvestments.

If companies accept theirresponsibilities with regard to humanrights, which a growing number aredoing, then they should not object ifthese responsibilities are given legalforce. Businesses that are committedto safeguarding human rights withintheir areas of activity have nothing tofear from the UN Norms, but shouldwelcome the development of acommon and universal yardstickagainst which corporate conduct canbe measured and, at some point in thefuture, enforced. ■

Peter Frankental is Business Group Manager forAmnesty International UK. See www.amnesty.org.uk/business/group/index.shtml


A paradigm shift in businessand human rightsPeter Frankental

IN 1997, THE PHILIPPINEGovernment enacted Executive Order421, creating a separate childrensector in the Social Reform Counciland encouraging the representation ofchildren in all relevant political, socialand cultural structures.

For child-focused NGOs the law was awelcome move,giving flesh to our hopesof advancement for disadvantagedchildren. Participation is a keyprinciple of the Convention on theRights of the Child, yet at the time EO421 was passed, Filipino children’sparticipation rights in developmentwere minimal, if not absent.

A baseline study1 in 1998 revealed thatrather than being empowered, childrenwere often treated as mere beneficiariesof government programmes. Only2.2% of local governments had a childrepresentative in their Local Councilfor the Protection of Children; themajority of programmes were centredon sports development for youth; andfew children were trained for futureleadership in their communities. Only21.7% of child-focused organisationswere advocating for the protection ofchildren, and none for children’sparticipation. There were fewcommunity ordinances on the welfareof children.

The child participation challenge

In a country where children are morethan 40% of the population, and aculture in which children minglingwith adult conversation is a "no-no",making way for children to participatein decision-making is not easy. NGOslike World Vision, Christian Children’sFund, Educational Research andDevelopment Assistance Foundationand Plan International had to criticallynurture an environment of childparticipation. We organised children’sassociations at the grassroots tofacilitate a regular forum for children’s

participation, and initiated capacity-building activities for children toprepare them for the responsibilities.With children, we engaged indialogues and advocacy withstakeholders to raise pressing issues.

Today, Filipino children are highlyvisible in the governance arena.Currently, 25 children aged 10–17comprise the Children SectoralCouncil of the National Anti-PovertyCommission (NAPC). NAPC overseesand coordinates all national povertyreduction programmes andinstitutionalises Basic Sectorparticipation in governance at alllevels. One of the 14 Basic Sectors2

represented in NAPC, the Children’sSectoral Council articulates children’sissues and makes recommendationsfor the National Anti-Poverty Agenda.It consults and partners with childrenat the grassroots, and liaises with the500-strong National Coalition ofChildren’s Associations in thePhilippines.

Building on children’s capacities isinvesting in better leaders for thefuture, so NGOs support childrepresentatives with logistics andmentoring. Yet some traditional-thinking individuals criticise theirwork as either perpetrating childlabour, or simply a futile attempt toinvolve children who should really bein the playground.

Valuing children, benefitingcommunities

Child participation means a great dealto children. Some 60 children wereinvolved in the preparation andvalidation of Child 21, the PhilippineNational Strategic Framework Planfor Development for Children. Apaper prepared by child delegatesduring the 2001 National Childrenand Young People’s Forum reads:

Promoting child participation enablescommunity development programmesto be more responsive, say RemelAlum, 16, and Sheryll Frago, 15, twoleaders of regional children’sfederations. "Things done in thevillages do not always benefitchildren," says Remel; "Sometimes ithelps to hear what children reallyneed." Sheryll asserts: "When given anopportunity, we can help [adultleaders] address what children ask for."

Children have also observed thatexercising their right to participate isfacilitating better understandingbetween differing faith, ethnic andlanguage groups. After a regionalyouth assembly, one Muslim childleader said about Christians: "Iunderstood that we both have wrongideas about each other." Suchconsciousness, when pursued, may leadto reconciliation, and eventually, peace– a critical pillar for development. ■

Aimyleen Velicaria-Gabriel is Child Protection andDevelopment Coordinator for World VisionDevelopment Foundation, Philippines.

1Commissioned by World Vision DevelopmentFoundation, Christian Children’s Fund,Educational Research and DevelopmentAssistance Foundation and Plan International forExpanding Children’s Participation in Social Reform(ECPSR) Project. 2Farmers and landless ruralworkers, artisans, fisherfolk, children, urban poor,indigenous cultural communities/peoples, formalsector and migrant workers, workers in theinformal sector, women, youth and students,persons with disabilities, victims of disasters andcalamities, NGOs and cooperatives.


Child rights in development– a Philippine experienceAimyleen Velicaria-Gabriel

We believe that although we areyoung, we can do something toimprove our status and condition.We deserve the right to participate.We can help in shaping a betterfuture for the nation.We are your partners.

Sponsored children learn of their rightsand responsibilities in youth assemblies

PHO

TO

- C

ECIL

LA

GU

AR

DIA

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

CIVIL SOCIETY’S ROLE INpromoting a global culture of humanrights is facing new and excitingpossibilities. The last ten years haveseen the bridging of a "divide" withincivil society between those that focusprimarily on civil and political rightsand those promoting social andeconomic rights. Prominent humanrights groups such as AmnestyInternational, which in the past havefocused primarily on so-called "first-generation" civil and political rights,are now embracing the importance ofsocial, cultural and economic rights.And many development-orientedNGOs that have traditionally focusedon social, cultural and economicdevelopment are now advocating arights-based approach, with particularattention to the importance of civiland political rights.

The synthetic separation between thetwo sets of rights was a legacy of theCold War era, which saw liberal– capitalist democracies championcivil and political freedoms, andsocialist states focus attention oneconomic and social development.Rather than the 30 articles of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rightsbeing turned into legally binding treatyobligations, two separate declarationswere formulated – the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights andthe International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights. Only now inthe post–Cold War era does supportfor a common human rights-basedapproach to development appear tobe growing. This is both eminentlynecessary and long overdue.

This approach has the achievement ofhuman rights as an inherent goal ofdevelopment. A broad concept ofrights allows us to understand thedynamic between the individual and

society. In theory, this means providingrecourse to law for people who werewithout justice, understandingpoverty in a much broader sense, andtaking robust multi-faceted action tohelp eradicate gender, racial andcultural inequalities. Yet in a practicalsense, human rights are not universal:they are context-specific, reflectingvarious socio-cultural environments,perspectives and world views. Many ofthe definitions, perspectives anddevelopment solutions employed havebeen Northern-biased, barelyreflecting the predicaments of peoplewhose rights are actually beingviolated.

Despite the changing dynamicswrought by globalisation, nation– states remain the sole guarantors ofhuman rights. For rights to berespected and fulfilled in practice, legaland governance systems must beethically sound: public affairs must be

conducted according to the principlesof transparency, responsibility,accountability, participation andresponsiveness to people’s needs. Byconnecting these five tenets withsustainable development, governmentscan guarantee a dignified and poverty-free environment in which people candevelop. Both the Millennium Reportand the Millennium Declaration declare thatdevelopmentally-sound governancerequires good governance at nationaland global levels, greater citizenparticipation, and accountability.All ofthese issues are increasingly beingtaken up by civil society organisationsaround the world.

Criticisms of the rights approach

Critics of a rights-based developmentframework raise many valid concerns:

● The tension between nationalsovereignty and internationalstandards for civil and political rightscontinues to be felt in dozens ofspots around the world;

● there is no such thing as a "freeright" – economic, social and culturalrights come at a heavy cost that notall societies can bear;

● for rights to be legally justifiable,there needs to be a definitivecodifying framework for phenomenasuch as poverty and social exclusion;and

● both states and non-state "duty-bearers" must be identified and heldaccountable for the promotion,protection and fulfillment ofeconomic, social, political, civil andcultural rights; yet some key non-state actors (such as NGOs) are notparties to international treaties, whilecertain state actors (such as highlyindebted countries) do notnecessarily have the means orcapacity to implement them.

Civil society can address thesechallenges, in part, by making universalhuman rights locally relevant. Civilsociety has a key role to play inworking with local authorities anddecision-makers to negotiateperformance standards, and insecuring the participation of localpopulations in addressing localproblems. Civil society can alsocontribute to, inform and encourage arigorous debate and a deeperunderstanding of the centrality ofhuman rights within an acceleratingglobal order. This advocacy role isbeing taken up with increasing energyand focus by NGOs at all levels asthey deliver key services incommunities, shape policy-makingdebates, and promote governance andsystemic change. ■

Kumi Naidoo is Secretary General and CEO forCIVICUS:World Alliance for Citizen Participation.See www.civicus.org


Civil society and a humanrights-based approach todevelopmentKumi Naidoo

A common rights-basedapproach to developmentis eminently necessary and long overdue

IN 1984 I TOOK A NON-traditional sabbatical from myacademic duties as a faculty memberat Fuller Theological Seminary. Ratherthan spend the time in the hallowedlibraries of Oxford, Edinburgh orBasel, I chose to spend it immersed incommunity development projects inAfrica,Asia and Latin America.

There was drought and turmoil inmuch of Africa, famine in Ethiopia,elections and conflict in Zimbabweand the oppression of apartheid inSouth Africa. World Vision wasstruggling with the needs of childrenand development challenges worldwide.

Month by month, as I moved fromcountry to country, I made what wasfor me a profound discovery. In everyplace there were people whoconsidered themselves superior toother people and thus entitled torights, privileges and possibilities thatthey limited or denied to others.Education, skin colour, history,occupations, political systems,economic arrangements, languagesand customs changed from place toplace.Yet formal and informal systemsof hierarchy, with the consequentrationing of access to resources forthose at the "bottom", were clearlyvisible within and across cultures.

Everywhere I wentwere people who felt entitled to rights they denied to others

This should not have been surprisingbut it was sobering to experience.Many people seek to secure a sense ofidentity and worth by stratifying socialrelationships so as to lift up one’s ownposition or group while diminishingothers.This often means denying basichuman rights to some while assumingtheir inherent appropriateness for others.Such practices and assumptions canbe deeply resistant to change.

Biblical foundation for humanrights

In the very first chapter of theHebrew and Christian scriptures, aprofound truth is expressed throughthe creation account. Genesis 1:27says "So God created humankind inhis image, in the image of God hecreated them; male and female hecreated them." Other religioustraditions have creation accounts, butthis one has deeply influenced thehistorical development of theunderstanding of universal humanrights. Equality among humans wasnot invented in the FrenchEnlightenment, though it wasreaffirmed and broadened then.

In the biblical doctrines of creationand salvation, human beings are notbiological accidents whose worth canbe measured in utilitarian terms; theyare created beings who bear theimage or likeness of God in their verypersons. God loves and values thosewhom he brought into being, andholds them accountable for how theytreat each other. Texts such as John3:16–17, Acts 10:34, Galatians 3:28and James 2:1–5 reassert God’suniversal concern for the worth andequality of all people regardless oftheir human status. Males are notvalued over females nor females overmales – both are called to live asresponsible image-bearers.All humanshave inherent worth and dignity, soshould have access to the rights thatallow them to experience this.

This belief provides a strongfoundation for promoting universalhuman rights and challenging unjustpractices in particular contexts.Development workers seeking topromote human rights can benefitfrom working closely with grassrootschurches and communities of faithwhere these are present. Belief in theuniversality of God’s love and valuingof all persons is a core part of the

church’s tradition. This understandingcan give development workers entryinto communities and a basis fordiscussion and action on difficultdevelopment challenges.

Relationships, not just individuals

While one area, such as rights forwomen, may need special or sustainedattention in a particular community,human rights are inescapably boundtogether. This is why a holisticunderstanding of human beings aspeople in relationships, rather than asisolated individuals, is helpful. If humanrights are seen as a zero–sum gamewhere some must lose so that othersmay win, progress will be difficult andcreate strife. But if they areunderstood as necessary for a fullerand better life for everybody, thewhole community can move in theright direction.

Given the pervasiveness of injusticeand denial of rights, a willingness toconfront remains necessary. Buthaving faith that our efforts are part ofGod’s intentions for all people, andcourage to engage directly inchallenge and advocacy, helps us makegenuine progress, over time, step bystep. ■

Dr Roberta Hestenes presently serves as aspeaker and consultant for World Vision.She was formerly president and professor ofChristian spirituality at Eastern University inPennsylvania in the United States.


Promoting human rights indevelopment – a reflectionRoberta Hestenes

Males and females alike should haveaccess to the rights that allow them toexperience their inherent worth anddignity. Mayerly (right) co-leads achildren's peace movement in violence-torn Colombia.

PHO

TO

- JO

N W

AR

REN

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

BETWEEN 1998 AND 2002,ActionAid–Kenya, working inpartnership with poor people and incoalition with other institutions, wasable to secure gains for the rights ofthe poor at the local, national andinternational levels. Examples include:

● supporting a small communityorganisation in its quest to bringfrequent floods to public andparliamentary attention and so getnational parliament to approvesubstantial funds (US$3 million) forthe repair of dykes in the area;

● successfully introducing a newSugar Act in parliament that ensuredfarmer participation in sugar policyformulation;

● helping to change intellectualproperty law in Kenya so thatcheaper, generic HIV/AIDS drugscould be imported and distributed;

● campaigning for responsible miningby a transnational company, whichwas finally asked by government toincrease compensation to displacedpeople, from about US$120 per acreto about US$1200 per acre of landappropriated; and

● the Basic Needs are Basic Rightscampaign (see page 16).

Transforming organisationalculture

In 1997, ActionAid was among thefirst mainstream development NGOsin Kenya to explicitly adopt a rights-based approach. Until 1997,ActionAid–Kenya was almostexclusively a service delivery NGO. Ittook several, simultaneous andconsistent changes to transforminternal culture such that it couldsuccessfully adopt a rights-basedapproach. The table below showssome organisational impacts of this.

Analysis of poverty The first step, in1997–98, was a transformed analysisof the causes of poverty. Themainstream view that poor people arepoor because they do not have accessto land, water, education, health orgood natural resources had to bechallenged. A new analysis of powerrelations informed us. Poor people arepoor because of imbalances in power.Injustice and inequity are theunderlying structural causes ofpoverty. Lack of access to education,health care, water and so on is merely

a manifestation of the lack of poweramong the poor and marginalised,especially women. Having enough toeat, going to school and enjoying thesatisfaction of other basic needs arenot privileges that the poor may ormay not enjoy. These are basic rightswhich duty bearers, especially (but notonly) the State, must guarantee anddeliver. Lack of access to food or basichealth care or other basic needs is atravesty of justice, nothing less.

The centrality of poor people in claiming their rights moved ActionAid from service provision to capacity building

This analysis helped to transformunderstanding of the role of the State,as well as promote recognition of thelegitimacy of citizens to advocate forand claim their rights from both theState and the Market. Mostimportantly, it recognised thecentrality of poor people themselvesin claiming their rights. In response tothis, ActionAid–Kenya’s role had tochange – from service providers tocapability and capacity builders of thepoor. We had to move from beingobservers of national policy processesto active participants – promoting thedirect involvement of poor peoplethemselves. Most importantly, we hadto see ourselves as agents of policychange and as defenders of rights inorder to redress injustice andinequity.

Communication At first, this newanalysis of poverty (and its manyimplications for the way we work)was understood by only a few seniormanagers. It was critical to broaden itand enable all staff (and otherpartners) to understand the analysisand its organisational implications. In1999, we produced a video titledFighting Poverty Together which tookviewers through the analytical processand explained ActionAid’s newstrategy of empowering the poor andtransforming the policy andinstitutional environment. This videoturned out to be an instant success


Adopting a rights-basedapproach to developmentThomas Joseph

ACTIONAID – KENYA 1998 2002

Annual budget in US$ $5 million $9 million

Number of districts with projects (in direct contact with poor people) 10 22

Number of staff 1 300 125

Number of staff with specific policy/advocacy role 2 20

Number of Coalitions for advocacy with ActionAid membership – 9

Number of specific national-level policy campaigns for rights

– 6


(not just in Kenya but alsointernationally and with otherNGOs). Discussions between smalland large groups of staff followed, tointernalise what it meant to movefrom service delivery to a rights-based approach.

Staff The most immediate – andpainful – implications concerned staffthemselves. ActionAid–Kenya wasclearly overstaffed in the field andunderstaffed in policy research,analysis and advocacy.The majority offield staff had neither the training northe motivation for power analyses andadvocacy. Many were fearful thatgovernment (or strong politicalforces) would not tolerate the rights-based approach. Many staff opted toseek employment with other servicedelivery NGOs; ActionAid – Kenyaalso offered voluntary retirementschemes and redundancy packages.Over a period of three years, almostall mid-level staff in the field leftActionAid–Kenya.

From 20–30 staff per field site,ActionAid–Kenya now employs only threestaff in each area.These work to buildcapabilities of poor people and

capacities of community-basedorganisations. After all, the poorthemselves are the principaldevelopment agents, linking withgovernment and others and gaining inconfidence and ability to claim rights.It is the poor themselves who plan,manage and implement microprojects. So while much of the workbeing done before continues, the styleand principal agency in the field haschanged dramatically.

At the same time, new staff memberswith some knowledge of advocacyand/or a personal passion for justicewere recruited to support thegrowing advocacy campaigns.Significant investments were made instaff training on rights. By 2001,ActionAid–Kenya was universallyperceived as having significant capacityto undertake complex policyadvocacy work.

Structure The structure ofActionAid–Kenya underwentdramatic change. What was acentralised and fairly bureaucraticorganisation has become lean andresponsive. It now has a flat structure,with just two levels between field

worker and Country Director ratherthan the previous four. It is alsodecentralised to its field areas and

regional support centres ensuringsignificant authority over spendingdecisions at each level.This degree ofstaff empowerment, with authority tomake financial decisions and to speak tothe media and so on,has proved criticalin the management of fast-evolvingevents around advocacy campaigns.

NGO, government and mediarelations A rights-based approachthat employs public campaigns is bestsupported by working in partnershipwith others. ActionAid–Kenya hasaltered its style from workingindependently to working in coalitionwith other NGOs.This has helped tobroaden ownership of the campaigns,while increasing legitimacy and publicattention.

Agnes Namuloba Onalo, a sugar farmer in Kenya’s Western Province, holds a cane she salvaged from her farm which was inundated bymassive floods.

PHO

TO

- C

HA

RLE

S M

AIN

GI /

WO

RLD

VIS

ION

Staff empowerment hasproved critical in themanagement of fast-evolving campaignevents

In the past, staff members were fearfulof negative consequences fromgovernment; they felt that the Statewould clamp down on campaignactivities.This has proved to be largelyunfounded so far. ActionAid–Kenyaconsiders each issue on its own merit– working with the governmentpositively when governmentresponses are pro-poor; andchallenging government policies whenthey are anti-poor.This objective, non-partisan positioning has sustainedActionAid–Kenya’s growing credibilityas a serious NGO. It is helped by thegovernment’s own growingacceptance of rights and the role ofNGOs.

The media has been harnessed in anew way to support the campaigns,and has proved absolutely critical ingetting issues to public attention andhelping these to be debated inparliament.

Basic Rights campaign

In coalition with ten other NGOs,ActionAid has supported a campaigntitled Basic Needs are Basic Rights.Thecampaign is dedicated to introducing aCharter for Social Integration withinthe new Constitution of Kenya thatwill provide explicit constitutionalrecognition of basic rights –particularly the rights to food, shelter,basic education, primary health care,safe water, land, employment andinformation.

Over the past four years, thecampaign has influenced seniormembers of government andproduced debate within the judiciaryand between parliamentarians. It hasbeen taken to the districts and villagesof Kenya using volunteers andactivists. It has harnessed the media tocapture public imagination and hashelped to make the language ofeconomic, social and cultural rightsacceptable in Kenya.

It was successfully submitted to theConstitution of Kenya ReviewCommission. It has been incorporated– as submitted – within the first draftof the new Constitution of Kenya.TheNGO coalition is optimistic that it willbe approved without any changes.This

will help create a legal framework inwhich the legitimacy of basic rights isprotected by the highest institution inthe land.

Lessons learnt

Transformation from a servicedelivery to a rights approach requiresfirst an adequate analysis. This shouldinfluence and permeate mission andstrategy and introduce new ways ofworking. Collaboration with others iscritical to sustain confidence andcampaign energy. The central role ofpoor people emerges when outsideagents, especially NGOs, deliberatelyhand over control to communityorganisations.

These combined measures may meana painful but necessary loss of staff. Itmay also require recruitment of newstaff with more policy-orientedprofiles. Transition takes time; aminimum of three years of intensivechange efforts provides only a start tocontinuing change management. ■

Thomas Joseph is Country Director forActionAid–Kenya.

1The counter-intuitive trend in staff numbers isworth noting, given the expansion of budgets,field areas, and campaigns. A lean staff and flatstructure has proved critical toActionAid–Kenya’s successful adoption of arights-based approach.


● Download articles, newsand reports on children’s rights, economic justice,peacebuilding and emergencies, and HIV/AIDS

● Fresh policy updates, filed from World Vision staff on the ground.

● Links to key websites.

● Information about upcoming meetings

YOUR SOURCE FOR WORLD VISIONRESOURCES ON JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT.

YOUR SOURCE FOR WORLD VISIONRESOURCES ON JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT.


A trusted online resource for educators,development professionals, NGOs and practitioners.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS AREborn free and equal in dignity andrights" proclaims the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (1948).Does this include disabled people? Ofcourse: it says all human beings. Yetdisturbingly, it cannot be taken forgranted that disabled people areaccepted as fully human.

Take Article Six of the Declaration:"Everyone has the right to recognitioneverywhere as a person before thelaw". Practices such as excludingdisabled children from statistics onschool enrolment, preventing disabledpeople from giving evidence in court(using alternative modes ofcommunication), and eugenics, revealfailure to recognise them as personsbefore the law – treating them as lessthan human.

Human rights haveprogressed more slowly for disabled people than for other groups

Gradually some governments,multilateral institutions and NGOsare starting to consider disability ahuman rights issue, having embracedthe principle that every person has anequal right to participate fully insociety. As Prof. Colin Barnes(University of Leeds) comments: "Thevarious economic, political, culturaland social barriers that disabledindividuals face cannot be resolved byindividual ‘medical’ solutions."Attention to their special needs, whilecrucial, can reinforce a view ofdisabled people as “different”, and failto recognise the totality of their rights– not only to appropriate care andprotection, but to participation.

Progress in accessing human rights hasmoved more slowly for disabledpeople than for other marginalisedgroups. Disabled people and their

allies still have to fight for basic rightsthat others take for granted.Entitlements like decent health careand education, or the rights toexpress an opinion, make decisions onissues affecting their lives, to marry,have children, or work to support afamily, can be enormously difficult toattain. They are still waiting for aninternational convention focusing ontheir rights and needs.

Changing perceptions

Historically, disabled people have beentreated as objects of pity or charity.Framing disability in terms of humanrights brings the hope of justice andequality to the lives of the estimated600 million 1 people in the world wholive with disabilities.

Turning common perceptions on theirheads can help society begin to see itsdisabled people as a resource ratherthan a burden.

● In Mauritania, when a disabledpeople’s organisation decided to helpmeet the educational needs of itsneighbourhood, local people wereinitially shocked. But they soon cameto appreciate, and use, the library,homework room and literacy classesthat were provided.

● People in Baidoa, Somalia, have intimes of drought depended on 20disabled men and women whoreceived seeds and training fromWorld Vision to run an irrigated farmjust out of town. "It was an unusualturn-around to have the town peopledepend on us for survival," saidMohamed, the farm manager."Because we had a well and a pumpwe were able to keep harvesting intimes of drought."

● In Mandalay, Myanmar/Burma, aWorld Vision-funded disability projectevolved into a wider community

programme, which means that eachlocal development committee nowhas disabled members, central to thedevelopment process.2

Sadly, such examples are not thenorm.Too often disabled children andadults are denied the opportunitiesthat would begin to level the playingfield – such as mobility, socialinteraction and education.

Universal primary education?

The Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)3 call for an increased focuson poverty reduction.The World Bankestimates that as many as 20% of theworld’s poorest people are disabledand it is widely agreed that there aredisproportionate rates of disabilityamong people living in chronicpoverty.

The first of the MDGs on educationaims for universal primary educationby 2015. A rights-based approach todevelopment that demands inclusiveeducation could, for disabled children,mean the difference between aneducation and a future, or exclusion.Recognition of their right to be seenas children – as human – will meaninclusion in official statistics and moreproactive State efforts to includethem in universal primary education.

Are disabled people included in humanrights? They are – but we must alsoensure that they are, from localneighbourhood to international level.Acting on the growing call for aconvention4 on the rights of disabledpersons,would be a step towards this. ■

Jonathan Flower works with World Vision UK and convenes the World Vision Partnership’sDisability Awareness Network.

1UN estimate. 2See www.worldvision.org.uk/world_issues/disability/all things_being_equal.html3For details on all MDGs, see www.un.org/milleniumgoals/index.shtml 4For more information onthe call for a UN convention, see www.internationalservice.org.uk/camp_education/pages/camp_ed_advo.htm

Human rights – are disabledpeople included?Jonathan Flower



THE INTERDEPENDENT ANDinextricable link between humanrights and development is no moreevident than in the OccupiedPalestinian Territories (OPT),1 wherethe inalienable rights of the Palestinianpeople are routinely andsystematically violated. In theprotracted and bitter conflict thatcontinues to embroil this region, it isdifficult to dissociate one from theother as the population lives under ade facto apartheid system, created andenforced by Israel through theoccupation of Palestinian land.2

Economic and social suffocation

Since the beginning of the occupationin 1967, Israel has used administrative,legal and military3 orders to destroythe Palestinian infrastructure,rendering Palestinian society totallydependent upon Israel. Under theOslo Accords, Palestinian economicdependence was formalised by theParis Protocols (1993), which gaveIsrael total control over Palestinianimports and exports. Since Oslo,Israel has continued to use variousmeans to prevent economicindependence, including imposedclosures and the destruction of Gaza’sinternational airport and 13% of itsagricultural land.

Since the beginning of Al Aqsa Intifadain September 2000, the humanitariansituation in the Gaza Strip hasdeteriorated rapidly. Closure, curfews,bombardment and house demolitionshave all become part of life for manyof the 1.3 million Palestinians withinthe confines of the Gaza Strip. For themajority of the population, there is nofree passage into Israel, no access tothe West Bank and severely restrictedaccess to the outside world.This notonly affects civil, political, cultural andsocial interactions, but greatlyinfringes on economic rights. Due tothe severe restrictions on movement,trade and economic contact between

the two areas that make up the OPTis limited, impeding and evenpreventing development in the region.

Moves towards the development ofPalestinian society have been largelybacked by local and international non-governmental organisations, foreigngovernment development projectsand of course, the United Nations.Yetthe total monetary support that theOPT receives from internationaldonors does not even come close tothe losses incurred by the policy ofclosure. Meanwhile, debate rages overwhether or not development projectsin the OPT should be funded, if themillions of dollars being poured intothe struggling society are effectivelysupplanting Israel’s responsibility andmasking its culpability for theeconomic and social suffocation. Thecontinuation of Israel’s policy ofdispossessing the Palestinian people oftheir political and cultural heritagethrough the control and destructionof their economic resources isresulting in long-term human sufferingin the Gaza Strip.

Land, water, civil rights

The Israeli settlements in the OPThave had a dire impact ondevelopment. Settlement policyentails numerous violations ofinternational humanitarian law, such astransferring the occupying power’scitizens into occupied territory andannexing land to settlements in orderto facilitate expansion. Not only island stolen from Palestinians butother necessities such as water areexpropriated in an attempt to forcethe Palestinian populations to leavethe area, which in turn leads tofurther expansion of the settlementboundaries. Israeli settlementsupporters say that they need toallow for the natural growth of theirpopulations, apparently ignoring thefact that the needs of 7000 illegalIsraeli settlers in the Gaza Strip are

dwarfed by the needs of the 1.3million Palestinians.

Development in the Gaza Strip is alsogreatly affected by violations of humanrights in the form of killings, arbitraryarrests and detention, destruction toprivate property and agricultural land.The most insufferable aspect of thehuman rights situation in the GazaStrip is the effect it has had andcontinues to have on humandevelopment, in particular that ofwomen and children. The collectivepunishment of the Palestinian people,the de facto apartheid system and theeconomic suffocation have all createda situation where development, in thetrue sense of the word, is impracticable.

The Vienna Declaration and Programmeof Action stated: "Democracy,development and respect for humanrights and fundamental freedoms areinterdependent and mutuallyreinforcing." 4 The right todevelopment is incontrovertible.Numerous international instrumentsto which Israel is a state party,including the Fourth Geneva Conventionand the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, enshrine the notionof an individual and population’s rightto development. As long as theoccupation persists and Palestiniansare faced with daily violations of theirhuman rights, the deterioration oftheir economic, social, cultural andpolitical development will continue. ■

Raji Sourani is a human rights lawyer and Directorof the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza,an affiliate of the Geneva-based InternationalCommission of Jurists. See www.pchrgaza.org

1The Gaza Strip,West Bank and East Jerusalem2 Israel has never recognised the de jureapplication of the Fourth Geneva Convention inthe OPT. 3 Israel has issued more than 1200military orders in the Gaza Strip and over 1350in the West Bank. 4 World Conference onHuman Rights (Vienna, 14–25 June 1993), UNdoc. A/Conf.157/23, 12 July 1993

The Gaza Strip – devastation,not rights or development Raji Sourani

Raji Sourani

PHO

TO

- P

CH

R G

AZ

A

HU M A N I TA R I A N A I D ,development work and human rightsadvocacy are all forms of tikkun olam,acting as God’s partners to repair andsanctify the still-unfinished work ofcreation. Each is an attempt to givemeaning to the teaching at the veryoutset of the book of Genesis that allhuman beings are created in God’s image.

Development work seeks to helppeople help themselves – the highestlevel of tzedaka (justice) according tomedieval Jewish philosopher and legalauthority Maimonides.1 Yet human rightsadvocacy may be required forsuccessful development to occur. Inunderdeveloped regions where humanrights are being violated, developmentand rights depend on one another.

South Hebron cave dwellers

A case in point is that of the cavedwellers of the South Hebron Hills inthe occupied West Bank. In 1999,Rabbis For Human Rights (RHR),World Vision and other organisationsrallied to their aid after Israeli securityforces expelled 700 men, women andchildren from the simple caves thatthey called home. In a major victoryfor Israeli democracy, the High Courtreturned the cave dwellers home inMarch 2000. To this day, however, thegovernment has been trying to undothe decision. A second group of cavedwellers had their caves demolishedafter an Israeli was murdered nearby;the High Court again sent them homepending a resolution of their case.Yetin both cases, the court ordered thatthe "status quo" be maintained,preventing vital development work.

RHR saw the expulsion as a clearhuman rights violation. However, thevery existence of underdevelopedcave settlements, partially as a resultof unequal resource allocation,demonstrates the link betweendevelopment and human rights.

In such situations even the delivery ofaid can be an act of protest andresistance. In 2001, RHR made thenews when the army attempted toprevent us from delivering basicsupplies to the cave dwellers, arguingthat such aid would encourage themto return to their homes.World Visionhelped with some immediate needsand funds for constructing new watercisterns. Without sufficient water,some cave dwellers would leave theirhomes for part of the year, allowingthe government to claim that theywere not actually residing in the caves.Development aid was both necessary asa result of human rights violations, andpart of the struggle to prevent furtherviolations.The eventual destruction ofthe cisterns demonstrated that humanrights must be ensured in order tocreate the conditions for successfuldevelopment work.

Rights amid conflict

This case highlights the difficulties ofengaging in development or humanrights advocacy in conflict situations.The murder of an Israeli, itself ahuman rights violation, created asecurity pretext for further humanrights violations; moreover, thisparticular Israeli had a long record ofalleged harassment of localPalestinians.

RHR has become more forthright inspeaking about the Occupation as ahuman rights issue, even if it is beyondour mandate to support particularmaps, borders or peace plans. Thisneed hit home particularly clearlyafter working through one night toget a baby, born at home, throughcheckpoints and to a hospital in orderto save her life. The checkpointsendangering lives were there at leastpartially because of a real threat toIsraeli lives. It would be naïve to thinkthat the violence will end the day thatthe Occupation ends. However, no

matter how much we would wantIsrael to respect human rights inpursuing her real security needs andhope that Palestinians would resistthe Occupation non-violently, thereality is that within the context ofthe Occupation Israeli checkpointswill always be endangering Palestinianbabies in order to keep Palestiniansuicide bombers out of Israeli cities.

Human rights violationswere a major factorin the breakdown of the Oslo peace process

This is not to suggest thatdevelopment or human rights workshould be postponed until theOccupation ends. Rights violationswere a major factor in the breakdownof the Oslo peace process: whileIsraelis became increasinglydisillusioned with the PalestinianAuthority’s unwillingness or inabilityto stop terror, Palestinians saw theongoing land expropriations, homedemolitions, unfair water allocationand other abuses, and said "This is notpeace". Many of us working on theground predicted the current intifada.

Peace, human rights, development andhumanitarian work all matter –practically and spiritually. Only acomprehensive approach offers thepossibility of achieving our mutualgoal as people of faith: honouring theImage of God in every human being. ■

Rabbi Arik Ascherman is Director of Rabbis for Human Rights. See www.rhr.israel.net/


Rights and development –finishing the work of creationArik Ascherman

Delays at military checkpoints, designed toprevent terrorism, cause the deaths ofnewborn children and the sick.This 10-dayold Palestinian baby would have died wereit not for a World Vision-funded maternityhospital near her home.

PHO

TO

- M

AR

IAN

NE

ALB

INA

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

THE VISION OF THE CHARTERof the United Nations, and of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,is that everything we do in thegovernance of human affairs musthave in view the promotion andprotection of basic human rights.Development without human rightswould be meaningless.

In the contemporary world it isimportant to ask what the rationalesare for implementing a human rights-based approach (HRBA) todevelopment, and what practicaldifference it makes. The answers tothis question vary, indeed. Perhaps oneof the key reasons for this is the factthat the term HRBA itself has seemedso malleable in the past.

Much of the impetus for the UN’swork in this important area springsfrom the Secretary-General’s reformprogramme of 1997 ,1 calling for the"mainstreaming" of human rightswithin the substantive areas of ourwork. This was renewed throughAction 2 of the Secretary-General’s2002 programme for further reform, 2

urging increased assistance to nationalsystems for the promotion andprotection of human rights.

Towards agreement ondefinitions

The Office of the High Commissionerfor Human Rights (OHCHR) hasproposed to its partners someelements which may be helpful indefining such an approach. In a generalsense one can say that it is "aconceptual framework for theprocess of human development that isnormatively based on internationalhuman rights standards andoperationally directed to promotingand protecting human rights".

The objectives of an HRBA are toaddress the discrimination,powerlessness and weaknesses insystems of accountability that lie atthe root of poverty and otherdevelopment problems by applyingthe standards and related principlesand values of human rightsthroughout development policies,activities and programming cycles.

An HRBA requires that both theprocesses and goals of development beassessed in human rights terms. It isintended to improve, build upon andsupplement, rather than replace,existing human developmentapproaches, providing developmentactors with a common approach todealing with development challenges,policy frameworks and imperatives as and when they arise.

We can identify a twin set ofrationales for an HRBA: intrinsic (ornormative, reflecting the inherentdignity and worth of all human beings)and instrumental (generating superiorand sustainable human developmentresults). The intrinsic value of humanrights, and their increasinglywidespread expression ininternational and national legalsystems, means that they must begiven special and explicitconsideration in development work.Human rights cannot be barteredaway along with policy options lackingsuch normative status.

An HRBA draws by definition fromthe human rights laws in force for aparticular country. In a very realsense, therefore, it should benat ional ly owned , groundingdevelopment cooperation within thenational legal and institutionalfoundations rather than externally-driven agendas.3

Conceptual clarity on the HRBA wasadvanced considerably at animportant inter-agency workshop inMay 2003 in Stamford, Connecticut,USA, sponsored by the Human RightsStrengthening (HURIST) jointprogramme between OHCHR andthe United Nations DevelopmentProgramme.4 The UN agencyrepresentatives at the Stamfordworkshop reached agreement for thefirst time on a statement embodyingkey elements of an HRBA todevelopment for the UN system.Thestatement reflects the state-of-the-artin thinking and practice among UNagencies in this area, and seeks to addvalue by identifying distinctive ways inwhich an HRBA differs from (nonrights-based) "good practices indevelopment programming". It calls for:

1. all programmes of developmentcooperation, policies and technicalassistance to further the realisationof human rights as laid down in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rightsand other international human rightsinstruments;

2. human rights standards containedin, and principles derived from, theUDHR and other internationalhuman rights instruments to guide alldevelopment cooperation andprogramming in all sectors and in allphases of the programming process;and

3. development cooperation tocontribute to the development of thecapacities of "duty-bearers" to meettheir obligations and/or of "rights-holders" to claim their rights.5

An inclusive, dynamic process

However important these conceptualadvances might be, specific policy andprogrammatic implications need to beworked out in practice. Themeaningfulness and sustainability ofthis process of discovery demand thatit be both inclusive and dynamic.

Of equal importance, we need to beas clear on identifying the scope ofhuman rights in development, as weare on their positive programmaticpotential. The integrity and credibilityof the international human rights

A human rights-basedapproach to development –how far have we come?Bertrand G. Ramcharan


framework demands no less. In aworld that is "inescapably pluralistic interms of causal influences andinteractive impacts",6 humandevelopment perspectives providevaluable context for human rightsanalysis so far as the setting ofnational and local-level policypriorities is concerned.

Closing the gap between power and responsibility is ourpersistent challenge

Moreover, direct accountability underinternational law remains relativelylimited with regard to the humanrights responsibilities of non-stateactors – such as transnationalcorporations, international financialinstitutions, local businesses andassociations, and regulation ofactivities in the private and familyspheres (such as in connection withthe prevention of violence againstwomen). In today’s globalised world,private actors play an increasingly vitalrole in realising human rights at thenational level. Closing the gapbetween power and responsibilityremains our most persistentchallenge.

But to conclude on an optimisticnote, some important steps have beentaken to redress some of theseshortcomings. On the systemicproblem of violence against women,for example, the Committee on theElimination of Discrimination AgainstWomen,7 through its GeneralRecommendat ion No. 19 8 and itsexamination of states parties’ reportsunder the Convention on the Eliminationof All Forms of Discrimination AgainstWomen (CEDAW),9 has madeimportant contributions towardsfilling that Convention’s gap ondomestic violence.And on the humanrights responsibilities of transnationalcorporations, in August 2003 the Sub-Commission on the Promotion andProtection of Human Rightsconcluded and adopted a set of Normson the Responsibilities of TransnationalCorporations and Other BusinessEnterprises with Regard to HumanRights. 10

There is every reason to hope for astrengthened normative basis forhuman rights-based developmentcooperation. Within and beyond theUN system, we must be firm in ourcollective resolve to narrow theremaining gaps and to welcomemutually reinforcing cross-disciplinarycontributions from our developmentpartners.

As we strive for development, wemust continue to be inspired by theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,and in particular, by Article 21 whichstates that "The will of the peopleshall be the basis of the authority ofgovernment". ■

Dr Bertrand G. Ramcharan is United NationsActing High Commissioner for Human Rights.See www.unhchr.ch

1UN Doc. A/51/950 (1997) 2UN Doc. A/57/387(2002), paras 45–51 3 An HRBA also drawsstrength from human rights norms with a claimto universality, as embodied in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (1948) (UDHR).4The final report of the Stamford inter-agencyworkshop is available on the website of the UNResident Coordinator System Network (RCNet): www.dgo.org/index.htm. For details of theHURIST programme see www.undp.org/governance/hurist.htm. 5See attachment 1 of theStamford inter-agency workshop report, above,page 17, note 4 6UNDP, Human DevelopmentReport (2000), page 23 7This Committee is theexpert body charged with overseeing theimplementation of the Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Discrimination. 8UNDoc. A/47/38, General Recommendation No. 19,‘Violence Against Women’ (Eleventh session,1992) 9GA Res. 34/180, 18 December 197910UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.1. TheseNorms (to be transmitted to the Commissionon Human Rights for consideration in 2004)include the right to equal opportunity and non-discriminatory treatment, right to security ofperson, rights of workers, respect for nationalsovereignty and human rights, obligations withregard to consumer protection and obligationswith regard to environmental protection.


Metropolitan Police in Bangladesh receive training (with World Vision funding) on theChildren Act and child rights issues, such as judicial processes for "delinquent" children.

PHO

TO

-

AM

IO A

SCEN

SIO

N /

WO

RLD

VIS

ION

THE GOAL OF THEInternational Decade for IndigenousPeoples (1995–2004) is to fosterinternational cooperation to helpsolve problems faced by theindigenous peoples in such areas ashuman rights, culture, theenvironment, development, educationand health. From this goal, the UnitedNations adopted a five-prongedprogramme:

● organised activities by UN, otherinternational and national bodies;

● public education on indigenouscultures, languages, aspirations, etc.;

● promotion and protection ofindigenous people’s rights;

● implementation of high-levelinternational recommendations,including that of a permanent forumfor the indigenous peoples at theUN; and

● adoption of the draft UNDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples and development ofinternational standards and nationallegislation to protect and promoteindigenous people’s human rights.

The UN’s recognition of the rights ofthe indigenous peoples is welcome, ifoverdue. Beneath these fine words,however, lies the sorry state of affairsin indigenous communities – giventhat national governments claim forthemselves rights that should havebeen accorded to the originalinhabitants of their lands.

What is development?

"Development" is a much-abusedword. Governments liberally define itbased on macroeconomic statisticslike GNP, trade surplus or dollarreserve, but this play of figures doesnot necessarily reflect the situation of

most people on the ground. Othersdefine development in terms oftechnological or scientificadvancement, but fail to realise thatthese do not benefit a large segmentof humanity, nor that many people getenslaved, oppressed or impoverishedas productivity picks up.

The current philosophy ofglobalisation compels almost allnation–states to enter intomultilateral agreements to gain accessto world trade. Since theestablishment of the World TradeOrganisation (WTO), the trend is forcountries to reduce their tradebarriers to allow the influx of foreigngoods and services. After more than50 years, this liberalised trade hasbenefited highly technologicallydeveloped countries while stuntingthe productive capability of so-calleddeveloping nations that have neitherthe technology nor the capital tocompete with the giants. All they canoffer on the altar of global trade aretheir rich natural resources and theircheap labour. This "development"spells grave repercussions for themost impoverished section of theirsocieties – the indigenous peoples.

The Philippines Indigenous People’sRights Act calls for the recognition andsafeguarding of their rights. But this isnegated by the way its provisions areinterpreted and implemented – to thepoint that the indigenous peoples are"legally oppressed and exploited" viathe Act’s numerous loopholes.The Actalso implies uniformity among thenation’s indigenous peoples,who in factdiffer in almost all spheres of life –culture and customs, economic andpolitical practices, and current situation.

Control of indigenous lands

In the Philippines, the government hasentrenched its authority and controlover lands considered ancestral

territories of the indigenous peoples,declaring them part of the PublicDomain.Various schemes and projectshave been implemented over theseareas to entice potential foreigninvestors especially in theagroforestry, energy and mineralsectors. The 1991 National IntegratedProtected Areas System law criminalisesany human activity that infringes onplaces considered ecologically volatile,which seems noble enough. Butdistressingly, it renders illegal basiceconomic activities of indigenouspeoples such as swidden farming andforest product gathering, whilemineral and energy exploration andresearch can be allowed. This istantamount to denying the basic rightsof impoverished people while giving allthe necessary support to aprospective investor.

Similarly, the Industrial ForestManagement Agreement, ostensibly areforestation scheme, is actuallytransforming vast tracts of forestlands into monoculture timberplantation to ensure the sustainabilityof timber processing and export giventhe shrinking natural forest. Thegovernment acts as a third-partybroker, seeking a multilateral agencyto finance IFMA projects. Toencourage logging businesses toconvert to timber plantations, thegovernment stakes up to 20,000hectares per project, almost doublingthe area granted to loggingconcessions. Indigenous communitiesliving adjacent to logging areas havesuddenly found themselves, their farmlots and even hunting grounds underthe mercy and authority of IFMAholders. In southern Mindanao, thishas led to some violentconfrontations between concessionworkers and indigenous peoples.

Most deplorably, the Republic Act 7942("the Mining Act") of 1995 totallyliberalises a strategic industry, allowing100% foreign equity on capitalisation;


Development – too costly forPhilippines indigenous peoplesGerardo Gobrin

National laws deny impoverished people’srights yet fullysupport investors


gives a foreign corporation full rightto pull in and out its profit and capital;grants timber and water rights toprospective mining companies; andgives easement right to itsinfrastructures. A company can gainexploration rights on up to 81,000hectares of land with a 10-year taxexemption period. Immediately afterenactment, indigenous communitiesbecame unwilling hosts to hordes ofmining corporations who are stakingmining claims from 25 up to 50 years.

Ethnocide

Currently a total of 4.2 millionhectares of indigenous land is up forgrabs by various agroforestry-relatedconcessionaires. Some 5,232 hectareshave already been given to bigranchers as pasture lease agreements,while loggers took 255,438 hectares.The so-called biodiversity conservationprogrammes, meanwhile, have fencedoff 1.4 million hectares of land.Timberplantations (cooperative andconcession) have secured 434,388hectares. Pending mining applicationsaccount for 1.6 million hectares.Meanwhile, seven mega dams will

submerge indigenous communities invarious parts of the country.

This appalling situation can bedescribed in one term: ethnocide.Destruction of indigenous people’scommunities, disintegration ofindigenous socio-political and culturalsystems, loss of economic bases andthe resultant death of the people.

Reorientation needed

KAMP believes that the developmentframework adopted by the Philippinesgovernment should be reoriented,through such measures as:

● reconsidering its membership ofthe WTO and other multilateraltrade bodies until the prerequisite ofgenuine national development andindustrialisation has been thoroughlyaccomplished;

● in place of the current approachto industry liberalisation,implementing a policy that safeguardsthe economic rights of its citizensbefore the rights of investors; and

● replacing the "homogenous"Indigenous Peoples Rights Act withlegislation that institutionalisesindigenous people’s rights to land andself-determination based on theactual situation, customs, economicpractices and politics of eachcommunity.

Without such changes, the indigenouspeople of the Philippines will beforced to pay too costly a price forthe nation’s development. ■

Gerardo Gobrin is Coordinator of KAMP (Kalipunanng Mamamayan Katutubo ng Pilipinas – NationalFederation of Indigenous Minorities in thePhilippines). Email [email protected]

All opinions expressed in Global Future arethose of the authors and do not represent theopinion of the World Vision organisation.

Rich forest reserves and traditional indigenous lands in the Philippines, such as this area of Palawan province, have been under threatfrom logging and mining.

PHO

TO

- C

ECIL

LA

GU

AR

DIA

/ W

OR

LD V

ISIO

N

SIGNING HUMAN RIGHTStreaties is easy; implementing them isa major challenge. After World War IImany national governments promotedthe adoption of international humanrights treaties as expressions of theirideals, as political tools to preventatrocities and influence repressiveregimes, or, in some cases, assubstitutes for tackling toughinternational issues.The legacy is a setof admirable international norms, butthe gap between reality and thenorms remains wide.

Current calls for "an era ofimplementation" of existing normsdemand more attention by all sectorsof society, including donorgovernments and developmentagencies. Effective implementation ismore challenging than campaigning fornew norms; it requires integration ofhuman rights principles intodevelopment programmes, economicpolicies and bilateral diplomacy. It alsorequires making the accountabilitymechanisms within the human rightssystem as strong as the legal systemsthat govern trade and internationalfinance.

Human rights mustescape narrow confines and permeate other policy agendas

Clearly, human rights could provide acrucial balance in current globalrelations. New trade agreements areenforced with rigorous penalties; thepower of international financialinstitutions shapes developingcountries’ national policies; andmilitary might rests in the hands of afew dominant powers. A strongerfocus on human rights would give thehuman dimension more weight indecision-making. To be effectivelyimplemented, however, human rightsmust escape the narrow confines of

Human Rights Commissions andpermeate other policy agendas.

Rights support development

Donor agencies are just beginning torealise the potential of rights-baseddevelopment models. The CanadianInternational Development Agency(CIDA), for example, has taken stepsto mainstream gender equality into allareas of its work. Women receivespecific attention in a new agriculturepolicy, and in the agency’s strategy fortrade-related capacity building. Detailsstill need to be worked out, but this isa positive step.

What is happening for gender equalityneeds to apply to other human rightsas well. Children’s rights lag far behind.When CIDA adopted a childprotection strategy, it used a childrights framework so that childprotection programmes must berights-based, but unless child rights isintegrated into its main programmes,child protection cannot be effective.The Convention on the Rights of theChild, with its comprehensiveframework and provisions forprogressive realisation, is well-suitedfor rights-based developmentprogramming.

The Children and Armed ConflictWorking Group, an NGO coalition,has proposed that child rights beintegrated into country developmentstrategies as the best tool for conflictprevention – since youth are asignificant percentage of thepopulation in many conflict-pronedeveloping countries. For the samereason,World Vision Canada recentlyproposed that CIDA use a child rights"lens" in the formation of its newcountry development strategy for anAfrican country. Even if agriculture isthe sectoral focus, it is essential thatagricultural livelihoods for youngpeople be given attention – something

unlikely to happen unless the strategytook child rights seriously. Protectingthe rights of children is also relevantfor the justice sector, the second focusof CIDA’s strategy for that country.

Development agencies could also usetheir influence to advocate for theright to food during agricultural tradenegotiations, for example. Acommitment to the right to foodwould allow developing countries thepolicy space to protect their foodsecurity,and not be forced into trade-offsthat jeopardise their most vulnerablepopulations’ access to food.

Donor agencies often fear thatintegrating human rights will result inunreasonable demands that cannot bemet with constrained resources.However, the concept of progressiverealisation of rights allows for settingrealistic priorities and targets towardsfull realisation, while also providingchecks against slipping backwards orignoring the impacts of decisions onvulnerable people.

What do human rights add to theagenda of development agencies? Theyadd a stronger focus onempowerment, participation andaccountability – all key componentsfor effective poverty reduction. Theyput the so-called "soft" issues ofhuman development on an equalfooting with more easily quantifiable,"hard" issues of trade and finance.They provide a framework forresolving conflicting interests withoutviolence. As the Human DevelopmentReport 2000 recognises, respect forhuman rights is an essentialcomponent of effective povertyreduction, the main goal ofdevelopment agencies. ■

Kathy Vandergrift is senior policy analyst for WorldVision Canada.

Donor agencies in an era ofimplementationKathy Vandergrift


Progressive realisationshould allay donors’fears of unreasonable demands

JESUS MADE HIS MISSIONstatement when He delivered Hisinaugural sermon in His hometown ofNazareth. He claimed that He hadcome to bring good news to the poorand deliverance to the captives (Luke4:18). With that sermon Jesus calledfor a new social order. He taught hisdisciples to pray for the Kingdom ofGod to be created here on earth.

As followers of Christ we must neverevade that part of Jesus’ message thatcalls us to participate with Him as Heendeavours to create this new socialorder. Jesus wants to create a societyin which the hungry are fed, the nakedare clothed, the homeless are cared

for and the elderly are treated withdignity. His salvation is not only adeliverance from sin with promises ofa better life in some heavenlykingdom, as some have mistakenlythought; it is also a salvation thatincludes changing this world into whatit should be.

Those of us who share Christ’scommitment know that the weaponswe are to use for this task are notthose that this world’s false messiahshave used. Their violent revolutionshave not created the just socio-economic societies that theypromised, but have usually createdmore suffering for the people they

claimed to be helping. The "JesusRevolution", on the other hand, doesnot start with changes at the top ofthe political order, but rather comesin small initiatives on the micro level.Some have called it "the Mustard SeedConspiracy", because Jesus once toldus that, like the mustard seed, thisrevolution will grow into somethinggreat (Matthew 13:31).

Christian NGOs are contributing tothis "conspiracy" by helping the poorin urban slums and impoverishedvillages of the Third World to establishsmall businesses and cottageindustries. In a partnership withEastern University, one such NGO istraining a new breed of Christiandevelopment worker to go to thepoor and empower them for theseentrepreneurial enterprises which, todate, have created hundreds ofthousands of jobs. Helping the poor inthis way preserves their dignity.This iswhat God wills.

Jesus offers a (w)holistic salvation thatis both personal and social – He wantsto create whole, transformed peopleto live in a transformed world. Let uspray that His will is done on earth, asit is in heaven. ■

Dr Tony Campolo is professor emeritus of sociologyat the Campolo School for Social Change, EasternUniversity, Pennsylvania, in the USA, and founder ofthe Evangelical Association for the Promotion ofEducation (EAPE). An ordained minister, he is anauthor and media commentator on religious, socialand political matters. See www.tonycampolo.org

WORLD VISIONis a Christian relief and developmentpartnership that serves more than 85million people in nearly 100 countries.World Vision seeks to follow Christ’sexample by working with the poorand oppressed in the pursuit of justiceand human transformation.Children are often most vulnerable tothe effects of poverty. World Vision

works with each partner communityto ensure that children are able toenjoy improved nutrition, health andeducation. Where children live inespecially difficult circumstances,surviving on the streets, suffering inexploitative labour, or exposed to theabuse and trauma of conflict,WorldVision works to restore hope and tobring justice.World Vision recognises

that poverty is not inevitable. OurMission Statement calls us tochallenge those unjust structures thatconstrain the poor in a world of falsepriorities, gross inequalities anddistorted values. World Vision desiresthat all people be able to reach theirGod-given potential, and thus worksfor a world that no longer toleratespoverty. ■

Good news for the poor

Tony Campolo

BACK COVER : March for land rights, Brazil PHOTO BY : Leonardo Melgarejo / MST

PHO

TO

- K

AT

E SC

AN

NEL

L /

WO

RLD

VIS

ION

❖ Africa Regional OfficePO Box 50816NairobiKenya

❖ Asia Pacific Regional OfficeSSP Tower, 19th Floor555 Sukhumvit 63 (Soi Ekamai)Bangkok 10110Thailand

❖ Communications & Public Affairs1 Vision DriveBurwood East,Victoria 3151Australia

❖ EU Liaison Office22 Rue de ToulouseB-1040 BrusselsBelgium

❖ International Liaison Office6 Chemin de la Tourelle1209 GenevaSwitzerland

❖ Latin America & Caribbean Regional OfficeApartado 133, 2300 CurridabatSan JoséCosta Rica, Central America

❖ Middle East/Eastern Europe Regional OfficeEngelsberggasse 4A-1030 ViennaAustria

❖ Partnership Offices800 W. Chestnut Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016-3198USA

❖ World Vision UN Liaison Office222 East 48th StreetNew York, NY 10017USA

www.globalempowerment.orge-mail: [email protected]

a world vision journal of human …fourth quarter,2003 can development workwithout human rights?...

Documents