By Salma Yusuf

Attitudes towards the human right to development are unusual. There is a general willingness to support such a right in theory, but less enthusiasm in adopting such a right in practice. This does not mean that states ignore the right to development completely in their policies, but rather tend to attach greater focus on the obligations that it places on other states: for developed states this may be due to apprehensions that subscribing to legally binding obligations will limit their sovereign powers; for developing states the issue may be a concern of costs associated with implementing the human right to development nationally. This has led to the current situation of a significant gulf between the rhetoric and practice accorded to the human right to development.

TUSSLE BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH

Northern governments recognize the right to development as a human right, but regard it a right of individuals and not of states. Non-Aligned Movement countries and China, on the other hand, argue that the right to development is a right of states, a collective right of peoples to development, and that it has an international dimension requiring international cooperation, but it is not just about charity.

These differences in opinion have created tensions between the two groups of states. Further, the differences in opinion have created a dilemma for practitioners who wish to move the human right to development beyond rhetoric and into reality: how to generate consensus between states and encourage them to engage fully with a human right to development.

The UN defines the human right to development as ‘an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.’

An assessment of the way the human right to development is presented against the way it is practically applied demonstrates how significant the discrepancies are between development-rhetoric and development-reality. This would be the first step to determine why this is in fact the case, and how development practitioners could move beyond these challenges.

MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The introduction of the UN Millennium Development Goals (UN-MDGs) promotes the human right to development, particularly as they recognize that moving people out of poverty requires much more than just money. Targets based on health, education, gender equality and environmental sustainability are included within the UN-MDGs, demonstrating a wide-ranging idea of ‘development’. However, by separating out specific goals from the concept of development more generally, the human right to development as a whole is weakened. In particular, whilst certain targets relating to components of human right to development are set, other components of human right to development are largely ignored.

The 2011 Millennium Development Goals Report is useful for assessing the reality behind the UN-MDGs. The Report describes how the international community is achieving its development goals, in the view of the UN. It is clear from the report that the UN assessment of development is very target-focused, and looks specifically at statistics relating to the UN-MDGs; however, the targets are not necessarily focused on the well-being of the developing world as a whole.

POVERTY AND HUNGER IN AFRICA AND ASIA

Meeting Goal 1 of the UN-MDGs, eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, by reaching the target of halving the number of people living on less than $1 a day, is reported as: ‘Sustained growth in developing countries, particularly in Asia, is keeping the world on track to meet the poverty-reduction target.’ This demonstrates that the international community may meet its targets for Goal 1 without necessarily improving poverty in all areas of the world. For example, improvements in Asia that go above and beyond what is necessary to meet this UN-MDG target may compensate for falling well short of meeting the targets in parts of Africa.

CHINA AND INDIA

The Report makes much of improvements in China, where poverty is likely to fall to less than five per cent, and India, where poverty is likely to fall to around 22 per cent, which is down from 51 per cent in 1990. In terms of how the target is being met in sub-Saharan Africa, a prediction that poverty rates will fall to less than 36 per cent is described as being ‘slightly more upbeat than previously estimated’.

It is argued that the World Bank still expects poverty rates to fall below 15 per cent by 2015, ‘indicating that the Millennium Development Goal target can still be met.’ Thus, the concern is not with a failure to meet the target in certain regions of the world; rather, it is with whether the target can be met more generally and sans a wave of selective progress in one region of the globe and at the expense of another.

CHILD MORTALITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA AND SOUTH ASIA

This does not mean that there is a deliberate lack of concern with meeting the UN-MDG target throughout the world. Indeed, in relation to many of the other UN-MDG targets, there is at least a greater recognition that sub-Saharan Africa is falling behind.

For example, in relation to Goal 4 of the UN-MDG, reducing child mortality, it is stated that:
‘The highest levels of under-five mortality continue to be found in sub-Saharan Africa, where one in eight children dies before the age of five … With rapid progress in other regions, the disparities between them and sub-Saharan Africa have widened.’

Therefore, there exists recognition at least, of a failing to meet obligations in this region. Additionally, the report engages discussion on what can be done to improve the situation – pointing to the prevention of diarrhea, malaria and pneumonia in sub-Saharan Africa, and post-natal care in Southern Asia. There is no doubt that if more is done to improve these sectors, child mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia will improve.

This can be contrasted to Goal 1 of the UN-MDGs, where the overall target is likely to be met without particular attention being paid to sub-Saharan Africa. However, it is worth noting that the report discusses the reasons why there are discrepancies with child mortality rates within countries, suggesting that there is some concern about this issue, even if it is not directly related to meeting the UN-MDG target.

PRODUCT OR PROCESS?

The UN-MDGs fall subject to criticisms that they are conceived mainly in terms of development outputs while the right to development paradigm aims to put the same relevance on development-outputs and development-processes. Consequently, the UN-MDG framework fails to recognize the importance of participation in the development process and hence miss out a number of important components of the overall right to development. This is not to say that the UN-MDGs are not improving development in many areas of the world; however it is probably fair to say that they are not engaging people in the same way as a full human right to development would.

UN-ECOSOC’s DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION FORUM

The Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) was set up following the 2005 World Summit. The DCF through the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN-ECOSOC) is useful to contrast to the UN-MDGs in terms of how its development rhetoric is engaged against reality.

The two mechanisms work in different ways although there is clearly some degree of overlap: whilst the UN-MDGs have clearly defined targets, there are no such targets to be enforced for the DCF; and the DCF cannot compel the international community to act in a certain manner. However, unlike the UN-MDGs, the DCF’s mandate is wider – it has the ability to consider more fully all aspects of the human right to development.

MDGs versus DCF

A first glance at the 2010 Development Cooperation Forum Report reflects that a much wider concept of ‘development’ is being assessed than that of the UN-MDGs alone. For example, the Official Summary of the UN-ECOSOC President addresses issues that include promoting coherence between the various states and organizations that deal with development, increasing aid and ensuring that aid is made use of effectively, the responsibilities of both providers and recipients of aid, and identifying best practices for going ‘beyond aid’ in terms of meeting the UN-MDGs.

In looking at how to best make use of aid, and how to provide accountability for all parties contributing to the development process, it is evident that the DCF is doing more than simply assessing how far the international community has come in terms of meeting specific targets – it is looking beyond actors only, by consideration of the processes involved, giving it the potential to do more for the reality of development than the UN-MDGs.
However, the UN-MDGs carry the merit of being legally binding, hence unless the DCF is doing more than simply issuing recommendations that are largely ignored, it too may be considered only to amount to rhetoric.

THE POLICY IMPERATIVE

One of the advantages that the DCF has over the UN-MDG system is that its reports are able to highlight particular policy issues and provide solutions to the difficulties being experienced. For example, the 2010 Report selects ‘allocating resources among competing needs’ as one such issue. It is noted that the global financial crisis means that ‘declines in aid flows in the years ahead can be expected – at exactly the time when the financing needs to achieve the UN-MDGs will become more urgent.’

The 2010 Report suggests that the developed world still needs to meet its commitments – and aid to the least developed countries, and most vulnerable groups, needs to be increased most urgently. However, it is noted that ‘capacity development’ will enable the recipients of international aid to contribute more to their own development, and, additionally, ‘financing gender equality and women’s empowerment’ is considered an integral part of the right to development as a whole. It therefore becomes evident that the DCF views the right to development as a wide all-encompassing human right.

THE STING IN THE TAIL

Clearly, the DCF does much more than the UN-MDGs in terms of looking at development processes. It is also useful in bringing together the international community to discuss development issues, and to learn from each other.
However, it is not clear whether the rhetoric of the DCF is passing over into reality. Just as many of the UN-MDGs are not likely to be met, development as a whole is not progressing as quickly as it could or should. Until there begins to emerge evidence of the DCF making a sustained contribution to development in practice, it is best considered to be not more than rhetoric. However, the value of the DCF as a system should not be dismissed outright since it is a useful platform that can be strengthened and expanded upon to contribute towards the full realization of the human right to development.

What is needed then is for practitioners to learn from the mistakes of the current development mechanisms, and to build and improve upon them. Possibilities for translating the human right to development from rhetoric into reality at national, regional and international levels are considered below.

THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

The priority at the international level should be to ensure that a clear and accepted definition of what the human right to development entails is drawn up. States often disagree about what the human right to development should require or does in fact require, and it will be near impossible to transcend this right into reality until this difficulty is overcome.

Already drafted definitions by human rights scholars and development practitioners could be used as a starting point for such an endeavour, however it will be necessary to add greater detail to this general definition so as to secure firmer commitments.

The aim of practitioners should be to create as full a definition as practicable, without compromising on the feasibility of achieving widespread acceptance by making it too controversial. Ideally, an agreement as to the rights and responsibilities of all members of the international community should be included: there should be an obligation on recipient states to ensure that human rights and development processes are promoted at the national level, and also an obligation on donor states to uphold their aid commitments, and to ensure that their national and international policies do not hinder the human right to development overall.

Reaching an agreement on an internationally recognized definition will be no easy task; however, it is important that practitioners persevere in their aim to achieve this. Arguably, even if only a small number of states can be persuaded to sign up to a definition at first, it can always be made possible for other states to sign up at a later date. The existence of an agreement or a framework-for-an-agreement at the very least will place political pressure on other states to embrace consensus, and will in turn propel the issue of the human right to development higher up the political agenda.

MAKING DEVELOPMENT A REALITY

There is little doubt that the current international development mechanisms need to be improved upon: the UN-MDGs and UN-ECOSOC do not go far enough to move the right to development into reality on their own. The UN-MDGs are not comprehensive enough at present, and are too strictly target-focused; the UN-ECOSOC does not have the ability to impose the level of accountability on states that is needed to enforce a human right to development. Therefore, a stronger and more robust system is needed. As a result of its already wide mandate, one possible solution is to develop the UN-ECOSOC system further, giving it a level of accountability equivalent to that currently given to the MDGs.

It becomes paramount, however, that UN-ECOSOC continues to focus on development processes, rather than simply meeting targets: this will ensure that the shortcomings of the UN-MDG system are averted. Targets introduced should be process-based, rather than results-based, thereby neutralizing the danger that comes with being able to meet targets with laudable progress in one region, but little progress in another. State reports should focus on whether people living in rural areas have the same access to development as people living in urban areas, and whether the frameworks being put in place are effective.

As with signing states up to a definition of a human right to development, it will be equally challenging to persuade states to make the UN-ECOSOC system stronger and more authoritative. However, even if UN-ECOSOC can only succeed in obtaining greater political influence, this in itself should be regarded as a milestone in the achievement towards the ultimate realization of a human right to development.

If practitioners can highlight the issues brought up by UN-ECOSOC to national governments and international bodies and organizations, this will increase the influence that UN-ECOSOC’s recommendations could exert. In time, such will lead to states following UN-ECOSOC recommendations, even if they have not yet signed up to being legally bound by them.

THE REGIONAL LEVEL

Regional mechanisms have an important role to play in terms of linking international and national action towards achieving a human right to development. Such collaboration will be critical to the successful promotion of development aims. They can often be more effective than international mechanisms in terms of setting standards, and persuading states to sign up to these standards, only because they have a better understanding of the concerns of states within their region and will not be perceived as being coloured by a ‘Western bias’. The role of regional mechanisms should therefore be to encourage states within their region to promote development, by developing national development policies and programmes.

TOWARDS A REGIONAL CHARTER

To improve the current situation, regional mechanisms need to explore drawing up of a Charter as a start. That said, it must be remembered that such will not suffice for the evolution of development rhetoric into reality. Following on from a Charter, agreements will need to be carefully crafted, and critical reports into the implementation of a human right to development need to be conducted on a regular basis. Developing states may be required to introduce principles of equity and good governance nationally; whereas developed states may be required to remove trade restrictions against least-developed countries.

In all of the above, both developed and developing states need to be constantly reminded of the benefits of protecting a human right to development.

DEVELOPED STATES

Developed states should ensure that their national policies are working to encourage development worldwide, and are not restricting development in any way. Setting out, through their national governments, exactly what actions are going to be taken to meet their commitments is crucial to the enterprise. This could include agreeing on the proportion of indices such as the Gross Domestic Product to be committed to international aid, or legislating to open up trade with developing states. Through transparent declarations of intentions to commit to a human right to development, developed states could be held to account in the event that fail to meet their obligations.

DEVELOPING STATES

It is important that developing states are seen to take action to implement the human right to development nationally: developed nations will be much more willing to offer assistance if they can see that developing nations are also taking responsibility for the realization of such a human right. To achieve this, developing nations should draw up national development plans, setting out exactly what action they will take to encourage development nationally. Such plans whilst being ambitious, must not be unrealistic, and should include details on the infrastructure that will be introduced to improve development, rather than consisting of a mere statement of development targets only.

THE WAY FORWARD

Although there are some positive aspects to current development mechanisms, a great deal more is needed to translate the human right to development from rhetoric into reality. Possible improvements to current systems have been considered in the foregoing discussion; however they are only possible improvements – other possibilities need to be explored and developed. Such approaches need to inform the work of development practitioners, at the national and international levels, across both developed and developing states alike, so as to make the necessary improvements to existing structures. This will contribute significantly towards the ultimate realization of a full and enforceable human right to development which will in turn lead to the increased quality and standard of life and living for people in every region of the world.