Human Rights

[Ed. Note: "The World Food Summits renewed focus on the right to adequate food and the UN Secretary General's reform proposals calling for the mainstreaming of human rights in all UN activities have, among other initiatives, created an overall environment providing new impetus for bringing ethics and rights to the fight against hunger and poverty" (SCN Working Group on Nutrition, Ethics & Human Rights, 1999). In each issue of the SCN News we will try to bring you up-to-date news on the right to adequate food and practical rights-based programming information.

The International Project on the Right to Food in Development

A new momentum and dynamic for change has been developing in the past four years since the World Food Summit broke with conventional rhetoric and called for a clarification of the content of the right to food and the means for its realization. There is an urgent need for further research, capacity-building, advocacy and action. It is against this background that the International Project on the Right to Food in Development <http://www.nutrition.uio.no/iprfd> was established at the University of Oslo in April 2000, as a collaborative arrangement between the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights and the University's Institute for Nutrition Research, with start-up funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among its early activities, the Project facilitated two international encounters: one with independent experts to review the state of conceptualization and operationalization of the right to food; the second with professionals from international agencies and human rights bodies to discuss the contribution of international development, humanitarian and human rights organizations and institutions for operationalizing the right to food and nutrition.

The 1^st International Encounter on the Right to Food & Nutrition: Review & Outlook (Oslo, 18-21 June 2000)

The First International Encounter was held in cooperation with the World Alliance for Nutrition and Human Rights (WANAHR), FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), and the Institut International Jacques Maritain (IIJM). It gathered more than 40 professionals from over 15 countries in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe, working in the fields of food, nutrition, health and other development-related areas, humanitarian action and international law in universities and research institutions, non-governmental and civil society organizations, and some in government services and multilateral agencies. The Encounter took stock of developments with ESCRs in general; assessed progress with the right to food since the World Food Summit; devoted a considerable part of its time to the question of operationalizing the right to food and nutrition from both a legal and developmental perspective and, in this context, discussed research and capacity-building priorities^, and discussed the next steps to be taken.

Perhaps the most remarkable outcome of the First Encounter was the spontaneous creation of 'clusters' of people deciding to continue to work together on specific issues that had arisen during the meeting. After the first steps in this direction had been taken at the meeting itself, a couple of weeks later five e-mail discussion groups were formally established (<http://www.adobe.ecircles.com/magic/d.cgi?k=klkp3pBovcC>) to advance and expand work in the areas of legislation, protection, indicators, capacity-building and country case studies. These theme-specific clusters were complemented by a general Encounter follow-up e-group. The Encounter thus turned into something like a 'standing workshop' or a set of 'standing workshops' to ensure that the momentum created in Oslo will be maintained and work in specific areas will advance and expand. The Encounter has therefore consolidated an international network for research, capacity building, advice and advocacy devoted to the promotion and implementation of the right to food.

As a result of the discussions, the International Project will also seek to serve as a clearinghouse for research and capacity-building in different parts of the world. This will be done in close contact with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with relevant UN agencies, and probably also with the forthcoming Special Rapporteur on the right to food that the UN Commission on Human Rights has decided to appoint, as well as with the Commission-appointed Independent Expert on the right to development.

While the meeting did not formally make recommendations for the future Project activities, certain areas emerged from the discussions as having particular urgency. They include work on right-to-food related indicators; framework legislation; the compilation of case studies similar to an effort now under way at Harvard for the right to health; a review of teaching/training materials; and the preparation of a manual on the practical application of the General Comment No. 12 in the operationalization of the right to food and nutrition.

The 2^nd International Encounter on the Right to Food & Nutrition: Operationalization (Geneva, 21-22 August 2000)

The Second Encounter was held in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Working Group on Nutrition, Ethics and Human Rights of the UN ACC/Sub-Committee on Nutrition. It provided an educational opportunity as personnel from international organizations shared their experience with rights-based approaches to food, nutrition, health and broader development problems. Participants examined and assessed practical ways to implement and operationalize the right to food in their agencies. The agenda included: (i) an introduction to the right to food and nutrition and a review regarding its operationalization; (ii) experiences, opportunities and obstacles concerning the operationalization of a rights-based approach; (iii) cooperation, coordination and functional division of labour among intergovernmental organizations and institutions on the right to food and ways of strengthening their role in advancing the implementation of the right to adequate food. Both Encounter conferences produced inputs for the Third Consultation on the right to food to be held by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in fulfilment of her mandate received from the World Food Summit.

An Approach to Human Rights-Based Programming in UNICEF (Eastern and Southern Africa)

By Urban Jonsson, 2nd International Encounter on the Right to Food in Development, Geneva, 21-22 August 2000

[Ed. Note: The following is an extract from Dr Jonsson's presentation at the 2nd Encounter; the background document may be found at the website <http://www.nutrition.uio.no/iprfd>.]

Basic Needs vs Human Rights: ...Language reflects ingrained perceptions, conceptions, attitudes and the pattern of likely decisions and actions. The shift from a basic needs approach to a human rights approach requires a change of language to reflect the paradigm shift. The following table exemplifies some differences between the two approaches:

Basic Needs Approach

Human Rights Approach

Needs are met or satisfied.

Rights are realized (respected, protected, and fulfilled).

Needs do not imply duties or obligations although they may generate promises.

Rights always imply correlative duties or obligations.

Needs are not necessarily universal.

Human rights are always universal.

Basic needs can be met by goal or outcome strategies.

Human rights can be realized only by attention to both outcome and process.

Needs can be ranked in a hierarchy of priorities.

Human rights are indivisible because they are interdependent. There is nothing like 'basic rights'.

Needs can be met through charity and benevolence.

'Charity is obscene in a human rights perspective'. (I. Kant)

It is gratifying to state that "80% of all children have had their needs met to be vaccinated."

In a human rights approach, this means that 20% of all children have not had their right to be vaccinated realized.

It is an excuse to state that the "government does not yet have the political will to enforce legislation to iodize all salt."

This means that the government has chosen not to carry out its duty and has instead chosen not to enforce legislation to iodize all salt.

Development Means Both Outcome and Process: Development requires the satisfaction of two conditions: the achievement of a certain outcome and the establishment of an adequate process to achieve and sustain that outcome. Most of the World Summit for Children's (WSC) goals including the health and nutrition goals are specific desirable outcomes. Effective development demands a high quality process by which the outcome is achieved. Participation, local ownership, empowerment and sustainability are essential characteristics of this process. Level of outcome and quality of process define a two-dimensional space for social action. This is illustrated as:

Most development starts at A; the ideal final stage is D. Many development programmes have become trapped in one of the two areas represented by B or C. A good outcome at the expense of, for example, sustainability (an aspect of the good process) (B) is as useless as a good process without any significant outcome (C). Some immunization programmes have become trapped in B; while some area-based, community-oriented programmes that never moved to scale, have been trapped in C. Outcome-focused approaches have been preferred by many economists and development agencies. 'Utility' as an outcome is a central theme in neo-classic economics. Process-focused approaches have been favoured, in contrast, by many NGOs. Many small area-based programmes have established high quality processes, but at a relatively high cost per person. However, few of them have expanded to any larger scale with significant outcomes. The outcome is most often a final manifestation of interaction among causal factors at immediate, underlying and basic levels. The process is as important as the outcome (but not more important!). In this proposal focus is given to decision-making and learning of individuals and groups of individuals. The decision-making aspect is described as a cyclical process of assessing the problem, analyzing the causes of the problem and taking informed actions to address the problem (Triple A Cycle). The learning aspect is reflected in the iterative nature of the Triple A process, i.e., re-assessment, better analysis, improved action, etc.

Good Programming and Human Rights Programming: In the work to operationalize a human rights approach to programming (HRAP) it was discovered that most of the components or aspects of 'good programming' would be necessary components of HRAP. In other words: good programming does not mean HRAP, but a HRAP requires the elements of good programming.

Good Programming

Human Rights Programming

1. People cannot be developed; they must develop themselves. People, including people who are poor, should be recognized as key actors in their own development, rather than passive beneficiaries of transfers of commodities and services.

1. People, including people who are poor, are subjects of rights. It is therefore logical to recognize people who are poor as key actors in their development, by empowering them to claim their rights.

2. Participation is crucial, both as an end and as a means. Participation, however, should not only be seen as 'they' participate in 'our' programme or project, but rather that 'we' behave in such a way that 'we' are allowed and invited to participate in 'their' development efforts.

2. Participation, including children's and women's participation, is a human right enshrined in many conventions; a right often violated. In a human rights perspective, participation is both a necessary outcome and a necessary aspect of the process.

3. 'Empowerment' is important, but is not a strategy. 'Empowerment' and 'disempowerment' are aspects of any strategy, such as advocacy, capacity building or service-delivery.

3. Human rights imply dignity and respect for the individual. This means self-esteem and equality. Circumstance and chance should not dominate one's life. A HRAP implies a people-centered approach to development, in which outside support should be catalytic and supportive to people's own efforts.

4. Role or stake-holder analysis is very useful for social mobilization, programme development and evaluation, because it identifies clear accountabilities in the community and society.

4. Most stake-holders, although not all, are duty-bearers. An important step in a HRAP is the identification of key relations between the child as a claim-holder and all duty-bearers. Such an analysis is similar to, but is more than, a stake-holder analysis.

5. Pure top-down approaches should be rejected because they deny the principle of 'people as actors'. Pure bottom-up approaches should be rejected because they are Utopian. It is not either/or; it is both. It is the synergism between appropriate top-down and bottom-up approaches that should be promoted.

5. A HRAP requires respect for local knowledge and the dignity of people. A HRAP implies a people-centered approach to development in which outside support is only catalytic and supportive to people's own efforts. On the other hand, in many communities, human rights values need to be promoted 'from above' because they are not yet internalized.

6. Programmes should be developed on the basis of a situation analysis that identifies priority problems and their immediate, underlying and basic causes. Immediate, underlying and basic causes should be addressed, either simultaneously or in sequence.

6. A HRAP requires an understanding of causes at all levels - immediate, underlying and basic. The internalization of human rights values makes it inescapable that the basic or structural causes are addressed. The indivisibility of human rights also emphasizes the simultaneous attention to causes, at all levels, including the basic level.

7. Goal setting is important. The necessity for scaling up needs to be considered at the planning stage. Efforts should promote positive changes that are sustainable.

7. The realization of human rights requires both the achievement of desirable outcomes and a good process, through which the outcome is achieved, reflecting human rights values. In that sense a HRAP implies goals (outcomes). But 'the end does not justify the means'. That is why there must be simultaneous attention to both outcome (goal) and process.

8. All possible partnerships should be explored with strategic allies including donors and NGOs, etc. Also through the linkages to other development efforts, it is often possible to leverage additional resources.

8. A country's human rights realization must come from within, and be supported from outside. The United Nations has an obligation to promote human rights. The UN Reform emphasizes this challenge and UN cooperation through the UN Development Assistance Framework is therefore of particular importance.

There are, however, other examples of principles that many associate with 'good programming' that are not useful or even rejected in a human rights approach to programming. For example, the principle of 'low cost - high impact' has often been regarded as a good principle. It often means that a large number of 'beneficiaries' are covered at a low cost per person. Such a utilitarian approach must sometimes be rejected in a HRAP. Addressing some gross violations of a few children might be given priority over addressing less severe violations of a larger number of children in a human rights perspective. Morality sometimes leads to a different set of priorities than those of an economic analysis.

Step-wise Programming Approach: Based on the principles discussed earlier, a step-wise programming approach is outlined. The linkages between the steps are important and sometimes the result of the work in one step will require review of the work in the previous step. The description of the steps will be reviewed and improved upon as experience is gained from practical applications.

1. Causality Analysis
Before anything can be done with a problem, the problem must be recognized as such at some level of society. Advocacy and social mobilization are useful strategies in increasing the awareness of a problem. We assume here that adequate awareness of a particular problem exists at the level of society, where actions to address the major causes of the problem(s) can and should be pursued. The first step, then, is to identify these causes. Without a reasonable consensus on the causes of a problem, there is not likely to be any consensus later on about how to solve the problem. Identification and analysis of the causes of a problem are very much facilitated by the use of an explicit conceptual framework.
When all the major causes at immediate, underlying and basic levels have been identified, the state of each variable is assessed (measured or estimated). Typical variables include mortality, nutritional status, health status, education, income, food etc. It is now possible to analyze the qualitative and quantitative relationships among the variables. This analysis should start from the ultimate outcome, i.e. the top of the conceptual framework and continue down the hierarchy of causes (focussed analysis). First the relationships between the ultimate outcome and the immediate causes are analyzed; second the relationships between immediate and underlying causes; and last the relationships between underlying and basic causes. A focussed analysis will help to limit the analysis to only those causes that actually influence the selected outcome in the situation at hand and will, therefore, not include all possible causes and processes in society. This is essential in order to make the exercise manageable. Reaching a consensus regarding the principle factors and processes affecting realization of children's human rights offers enormously improved opportunities to achieve a more systematic and logical integration of programming for children. This is particularly important if the problem - as is normally the case - requires coordinated actions by many partners at different administrative levels. The Causality Analysis will produce a list of rights that either are violated or at risk of being violated together with the major causes of these violations. This is an example where a human development analysis assists and adds value to a human rights analysis.

2. Role or Pattern Analysis
Human rights represent relationships between claim- or right-holders (subjects) and duty-bearers (objects). Often a particular duty-bearer cannot meet his/her obligations because some other rights of the duty-bearer are being violated. Parents without resources cannot be criticized for not affording expensive school-fees. These relationships form a 'pattern' in society linking individuals and communities to each other and with higher levels of society. The work to identify duty-bearers for a particular right benefits from the earlier causality analysis. For example, low school enrolment may be caused by lack of schools or school fees which are too costly, which in turn are results of unequal allocation of funds to a particular area and a policy of school-fees, which in turn may be the result of some more basic causes. Such an analysis will help in identifying duty-bearers at different levels of society. Focusing on specific priority problems will also help to reduce the Role/Pattern analysis to a limited set of claim-duty relationships that are likely to be most critical in the given situation. If not limited, there is a risk to end up with a very large number of claim-duty relationships and actors, who will not be possible to involve and support in programme planning and implementation. In a human rights perspective, two questions should be asked for each particular right; (i) who are the objects; i.e. against whom is the right/claim hold; who are the correlative duty-bearers?, and (ii) can the right be realized through stronger respect/protect or facilitation/fulfillment? The purpose of the Role/Pattern Analysis is thus to arrive at a list of the most crucial claim-duty relationships for each particular set of selected rights violations.

3. Capacity Analysis
If a child's rights are violated and the main duty-bearers are identified, the next step is to analyze why they, i.e., the duty-bearers, do not seem to be able to perform their duties as expected. We call this capacity analysis. Capacity-building is a central concept in most programming discussions and considerable efforts have been made to define and clarify what this should mean in various contextual applications. In assessing capacity and in planning for capacity development, the following are normally considered as the key elements.
a. Responsibility/Motivation/Leadership: the acceptance or position of a person/organization that they should do something about a specific problem. Strong motivation is an important component of leadership. Some people are motivated to do things others may not expect from them.
b. Authority: the legitimacy of an action. A person/organization has the authority to take action if they feel or know that they may take action. Laws, tradition and culture determine to a large extent what is permissible or not permissible.
c. Resources: The resources available to individuals, households, organizations and society as a whole may generally be classified into three types:
· Human Resources - skills, motivation, willpower, knowledge, experience, time, commitment...
· Economic Resources - land, natural resources, means of production (tools, equipment), technology, income, credit...
· Organizational Resources - formal and non-formal organizations like family, extended family, clan, NGOs, administrative structures, institutions, etc.
d. Communication: Communication skills and access to information and communication systems are crucial in order to 'connect' key actors into functional networks able to address development issues. Communication 'transforms' capabilities into capacity, i.e., puts available resources to work. A systematic communication analysis is often lacking in capacity development efforts and needs to be more strongly pursued - particularly in a human rights approach to programming. This analysis will result in the identification of capacity gaps of each duty-bearer or group of duty-bearers for each identified right.

4. Candidate Strategies and Actions
For each violated right and specific duty-bearer, actions are selected to contribute to closing the capacity gaps. Often the same action will contribute to empowering a duty-bearer to meet several duties in relation to the realization of more than one right. This step will result in a list of candidate actions.

5. Partnership Analysis
The work and plans of all relevant partners, including the Government, NGOs, other UN partners, bilaterals and others are carefully reviewed. Discussions with key partners will result in an agreement on 'who will do what'.

6. The UNICEF Country Programme of Cooperation
The final step is to aggregate all the activities into programmes and projects. This is an important as well as a difficult task. This aggregation/clustering can be done in several ways. No clear generic advice is possible at this stage. Country offices are encouraged to experiment and learn from practice. The activities may be clustered by sector (health, education, etc.), generic strategy (advocacy, information, education, training and service-delivery), theme (e.g., survival, development, protection and participation or phases of the life-cycle), or by theme based on human rights categories (e.g., respect, protect, and fulfil). For each of these, further clustering can be made by geographic area, level of society, or level of causality.

Basic Needs Approach	Human Rights Approach
Needs are met or satisfied.	Rights are realized (respected, protected, and fulfilled).
Needs do not imply duties or obligations although they may generate promises.	Rights always imply correlative duties or obligations.
Needs are not necessarily universal.	Human rights are always universal.
Basic needs can be met by goal or outcome strategies.	Human rights can be realized only by attention to both outcome and process.
Needs can be ranked in a hierarchy of priorities.	Human rights are indivisible because they are interdependent. There is nothing like 'basic rights'.
Needs can be met through charity and benevolence.	'Charity is obscene in a human rights perspective'. (I. Kant)
It is gratifying to state that "80% of all children have had their needs met to be vaccinated."	In a human rights approach, this means that 20% of all children have not had their right to be vaccinated realized.
It is an excuse to state that the "government does not yet have the political will to enforce legislation to iodize all salt."	This means that the government has chosen not to carry out its duty and has instead chosen not to enforce legislation to iodize all salt.

Good Programming	Human Rights Programming
1. People cannot be developed; they must develop themselves. People, including people who are poor, should be recognized as key actors in their own development, rather than passive beneficiaries of transfers of commodities and services.	1. People, including people who are poor, are subjects of rights. It is therefore logical to recognize people who are poor as key actors in their development, by empowering them to claim their rights.
2. Participation is crucial, both as an end and as a means. Participation, however, should not only be seen as 'they' participate in 'our' programme or project, but rather that 'we' behave in such a way that 'we' are allowed and invited to participate in 'their' development efforts.	2. Participation, including children's and women's participation, is a human right enshrined in many conventions; a right often violated. In a human rights perspective, participation is both a necessary outcome and a necessary aspect of the process.
3. 'Empowerment' is important, but is not a strategy. 'Empowerment' and 'disempowerment' are aspects of any strategy, such as advocacy, capacity building or service-delivery.	3. Human rights imply dignity and respect for the individual. This means self-esteem and equality. Circumstance and chance should not dominate one's life. A HRAP implies a people-centered approach to development, in which outside support should be catalytic and supportive to people's own efforts.
4. Role or stake-holder analysis is very useful for social mobilization, programme development and evaluation, because it identifies clear accountabilities in the community and society.	4. Most stake-holders, although not all, are duty-bearers. An important step in a HRAP is the identification of key relations between the child as a claim-holder and all duty-bearers. Such an analysis is similar to, but is more than, a stake-holder analysis.
5. Pure top-down approaches should be rejected because they deny the principle of 'people as actors'. Pure bottom-up approaches should be rejected because they are Utopian. It is not either/or; it is both. It is the synergism between appropriate top-down and bottom-up approaches that should be promoted.	5. A HRAP requires respect for local knowledge and the dignity of people. A HRAP implies a people-centered approach to development in which outside support is only catalytic and supportive to people's own efforts. On the other hand, in many communities, human rights values need to be promoted 'from above' because they are not yet internalized.
6. Programmes should be developed on the basis of a situation analysis that identifies priority problems and their immediate, underlying and basic causes. Immediate, underlying and basic causes should be addressed, either simultaneously or in sequence.	6. A HRAP requires an understanding of causes at all levels - immediate, underlying and basic. The internalization of human rights values makes it inescapable that the basic or structural causes are addressed. The indivisibility of human rights also emphasizes the simultaneous attention to causes, at all levels, including the basic level.
7. Goal setting is important. The necessity for scaling up needs to be considered at the planning stage. Efforts should promote positive changes that are sustainable.	7. The realization of human rights requires both the achievement of desirable outcomes and a good process, through which the outcome is achieved, reflecting human rights values. In that sense a HRAP implies goals (outcomes). But 'the end does not justify the means'. That is why there must be simultaneous attention to both outcome (goal) and process.
8. All possible partnerships should be explored with strategic allies including donors and NGOs, etc. Also through the linkages to other development efforts, it is often possible to leverage additional resources.	8. A country's human rights realization must come from within, and be supported from outside. The United Nations has an obligation to promote human rights. The UN Reform emphasizes this challenge and UN cooperation through the UN Development Assistance Framework is therefore of particular importance.