A call for equality, social security and accountability

Seventeen independent human rights experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council have recommended that the post-2015 development agenda should incorporate the goals of equality, social security and accountability as key priorities.

---

THE Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have played an important role in placing key issues on the development agenda that might have otherwise been neglected. Importantly, the MDGs have resulted in the generation and collection of more targeted data, which have been used to influence national and international development policies and measures. Nevertheless, the MDGs, while welcomed by the international development community, were met with skepticism by many who questioned the wisdom of framing as political commitments matters already codified as legal obligations under international human rights law.

One key shortcoming of the MDG framework was its failure to fully reflect the promise of the Millennium Declaration in which countries resolved to strive for the full protection and promotion of all human rights. Indeed, more than a decade after the adoption of the Millennium Declaration, experience has shown that issues left out of a universally agreed agenda are not effectively monitored and reported on, and easily become blind spots when priorities are set, policies defined or budgets allocated.

Human rights norms and standards provide concrete guidance as to how goals and targets for the post-2015 development agenda should be framed. Governments have already committed to uphold human rights in numerous international treaties. Grounding development priorities in human rights is not only a legal and moral imperative, but can also enhance effectiveness and accountability.

As independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council, we have been mandated by States to make recommendations for the promotion of human rights at national, regional and international levels. In this statement, we make the following recommendations concerning key priorities for the post-2015 development agenda that are common to our mandates.

Recommendation 1:The post-2015 agenda should incorporate equality as a standalone and cross-cutting goal, aiming to progressively eliminate disparities within and between the most marginalised groups and the general population as well as between countries in order to achieve more inclusive forms of development.

Recommendation 2: The post-2015 agenda should include a goal on the provision of social protection floors, explicitly referencing the right to social security and a human rights-based approach to social protection.

Recommendation 3: Accountability must be at the core of the post-2015 development framework. We propose the establishment of a double accountability mechanism, whereby accountability mechanisms are developed at both national and international levels.

* * * * * * * * * *

As independent human rights experts appointed by the Human Rights Council, we make the following recommendations concerning key priorities for the post-2015 development agenda that are common to our mandates.

A. (IN)EQUALITY

Equality is intrinsic to each individual. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that 'all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.' All people are entitled to the enjoyment of all rights, on an equal footing and without discrimination on any grounds, including race, ethnicity, sex, gender, disability, socio-economic status or age. Moreover, under international human rights treaties States have committed to take measures to ensure the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights to the maximum extent of their available resources.The human rights framework therefore offers a compelling rationale and means for putting inequalities at the centre of development policies and practices.

Recommendation 1:The post-2015 agenda should incorporate equality as a standalone and cross-cutting goal, aiming to progressively eliminate disparities within and between the most marginalised groups and the general population as well as between countries in order to achieve more inclusive forms of development.

There is now widespread agreement that the reduction of inequalities must be placed at the heart of the post-2015 agenda. Inequalities perpetuate exclusion at all levels of development. One of the weaknesses of the MDG framework has been its blindness to the issue of inequality and to the most marginalised members of societies. Its focus on aggregate figures and overall progress failed to account for growing social and economic disparities and incentivised States to prioritise aggregate progress and the 'low-hanging fruit' rather than giving special attention to the most vulnerable groups.

A global goal and targets dedicated to eliminating inequalities will draw attention to the most marginalised groups and individuals, create incentives to end discrimination, trigger the creation of more precise data and adjust development aims to better respond to the reality on the ground. It will require States to look beyond average attainments and adopt more effective ways of collecting disaggregated data on inequality and marginalised groups in order to measure progress in reducing inequalities.

Actions to increase the participation and voice of marginalised groups in policies and programmes to close the gap in the enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are essential, given that lack of participation in decision-making is a fundamental cause and consequence of inequality.

Targets and indicators

While each country would have to adapt global targets and indicators to their specific context, the human rights framework provides the following guidance:

    Collect data on inequalities: The current lack of data on certain issues is not accidental; neglect often coincides with a low political profile. A commitment to better and more accurate data collection is essential to identifying and monitoring inequalities.

    Go beyond disaggregation of data: Data should be disaggregated according to gender, age, disability, marginalised groups among others. However, by itself, disaggregation does not automatically result in the reduction of inequalities. It is the action of policymakers in response to the information revealed by disaggregation that can result in the required change, which must then be reflected in target setting.

    Monitor more than income inequality: In order to assess progress in reducing inequalities, monitoring must also capture other causes of lack of access to basic rights and services.

    Measure inequality: Goals, targets and indicators must be framed in a way that aims to reduce inequalities through targeting the most marginalised; they must not continue to focus solely on aggregate progresses and outcomes. Progress in reducing inequalities should be measured among the following population groups, among others:

-      marginalised groups and the general population

-      poor and rich

-      women and men

-      rural and urban

-      informal settlements and formal urban settlements

B. SOCIAL SECURITY/SOCIAL PROTECTION

All States have a duty to guarantee the right to social security as established in international human rights law (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 9). In its General Comment No. 19, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights defined the right to social security as encompassing the right to access and maintain benefits, whether in cash or in kind, without discrimination in order to secure protection, inter alia, from (a) lack of work-related income caused by sickness, disability, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, old age, or death of a family member; (b) unaffordable access to health care; (c) insufficient family support, particularly for children and adult dependents. Furthermore, the right to social security includes the right not to be subject to arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions of existing social security coverage, whether obtained publicly or privately, as well as the right to equal enjoyment of adequate protection from social risks and contingencies.

Recommendation 2: The post-2015 agenda should include a goal on the provision of social protection floors, explicitly referencing the right to social security and a human rights-based approach to social protection.

Social protection floors are nationally defined sets of basic social security guarantees aimed at preventing or alleviating poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion. Social protection systems play a critical role in protecting the enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, in the face of economic shocks and other recurrent crises. There is mounting evidence that social protection systems can contribute significantly to reducing the prevalence and severity of poverty, to improving social cohesion, to curtailing inequalities, to protecting people from the impacts of increasingly volatile food prices, and to creating sustainable and equitable societies. Yet, 75-80% of families today have no access to social protection.

Given the ongoing ramifications of the global financial and economic crises that are disproportionately affecting the poorest and most marginalised, now is an especially important time to strengthen social protection systems. Action taken now will ensure greater resilience against future crises, while supporting the most marginalised will help to protect future generations.

A goal on social protection would be aligned with commitments expressed in a number of international fora: General Assembly resolution 65/1 (outcome document of the MDG Review Summit); Recommendation 202 of the International Labour Organisation; and the G20 Los Cabos Declaration, among others. On 14 June 2012, the International Labour Conference voted overwhelmingly in favour (452 yes; 0 no; 1 abstention) of the universalisation of national social protection floors.

It is time to deliver on these commitments. The post-2015 development framework should aim for all countries to strengthen their social protection floors, which are human rights-based, context-specific and culturally sensitive in order to meet the challenges particular to each country. The creation of a mechanism to support countries seeking to make progress in this direction could ensure that international support will be provided to developing countries establishing rights-based social protection schemes. This is the motivation behind the proposal for a Global Fund for Social Protection made by the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and on extreme poverty and human rights.

Targets and indicators

As the post-2015 development agenda is being formulated, now is the time for States to deliver on their promises to end hunger, tackle poverty and eliminate inequality through the provision of social protection floors anchored in human rights.

    National social protection floor target: By 2030, all people in all countries should have access to a social protection scheme, at least at the level of national floors for social protection as agreed in ILO Recommendation 202. Such a target could be split into different components: (i) income security for various segments of the population (e.g., children, older persons, unemployed persons, etc); (ii) access to essential healthcare; and (iii) access to basic services, such as water and sanitation, education, housing and others (as defined by national priorities).

    Possible indicators: percentage of children and total population with access to essential healthcare, education goods and services; children receiving cash and in-kind support guaranteeing income security during childhood; men and women of an active age who are not working due to unemployment, sickness, maternity or disability and who receive support; older persons who receive pensions; percentage of those working in the informal economy who are covered by social protection.

    Measuring progress on inequality: Progress should be measured with reference to inequalities and by disaggregating disadvantaged population groups, especially given that the most marginalised are largely concentrated in informal labour markets with no access to contributory social protection and limited access to non-contributory schemes due to discrimination, lack of legal identity and other factors.

    Global Fund for Social Protection target: Establish a Global Fund for Social Protection, as proposed by the Special Rapporteurs on the right to food and on extreme poverty. Such a fund would have two key functions: 1) to close the funding shortfall for putting in place a social protection floor in least developed countries; and 2) to help underwrite these schemes against the risks of excess demand triggered by major shocks.

On this note, the new development framework should also require and support States to develop employment programmes and job creation schemes that create decent work, especially for the most marginalised. For example, under a global goal on reaching full and decent employment, the framework could require national programmes to reduce precarious work, ensure a living wage, labour rights and gender equality at the workplace, and improve the employment opportunities of vulnerable and marginalised groups.

However, despite the importance of decent work and employment and its links to social protection, social protection should not be subsumed entirely under an employment goal. A human rights approach to social protection requires comprehensive, universal sustainable systems with both contributory and non-contributory elements; the right to social protection is absolute and not dependent on employment status.

C. ACCOUNTABILITY

We reiterate the call made in March 2012 by 22 mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council's Special Procedures to put accountability, the foundation of a human rights-based approach to development, at the core of our commitments. The open letter sent to States negotiating the Rio+20 process proposed the establishment of a double accountability mechanism.

Recommendation 3: Accountability must be at the core of the post-2015 development framework. We propose the establishment of a double accountability mechanism, with accountability mechanisms developed at both national and international levels.

At the national level: It is vital to establish or strengthen participatory accountability mechanisms through which people's voices can be heard and independent monitoring can be conducted. States should establish national-level accountability mechanisms to ensure that commitments made at the global level are fulfilled. These mechanisms should include independent monitoring that enables civil society participation not only in defining the indicators to measure progress, but also in providing information to evaluate implementation. Countries that have established independent bodies to assess the enjoyment of human rights (e.g., the South African Human Rights Commission) or national institutions with balanced representation that include both government officials and representatives of civil society to address other major issues (e.g., the Brazilian National Council on Food and Nutrition Security) have seen the concrete benefits of enabling people to hold public authorities accountable for failure to take action. In countries where such mechanisms already exist, States should provide authority and resources for these bodies to monitor the implementation of the post-2015 commitments. While some States may be wary of such mechanisms, viewing them as creating additional burdens, the reality of our experience is that empowering people contributes to lasting success.

Institutions in which civil society has a voice and include mechanisms that ensure an independent monitoring of progress towards agreed targets enable States to better understand the nature of the challenges faced, and to change policies that do not produce results. Conversely, policies not informed by the views of those they seek to serve or not monitored often are inefficient and shortlived. We strongly believe that we cannot work for the people without the people.

In line with current international standards, the new development framework should reflect the duty of States to establish accountability mechanisms for ensuring and monitoring that business enterprises respect human rights, throughout their operations, including effective access to remedies when negative impacts occur.

National accountability mechanisms would enable a structured dialogue at national level between governments and their constituencies, which would coordinate with the international human rights system and feed into the international review mechanism. Collective learning and the dissemination of best practices would be encouraged at domestic and international levels.

At the international level: Existing intergovernmental institutions could monitor, on the basis of agreed indicators, progress on global goals in a process similar to the Universal Periodic Review inaugurated in 2007 by the Human Rights Council to provide a  peer  review  of  the  human rights records of all 193 Member States of the United Nations every four years.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process involving a peer review of the human rights records of each United Nations Member State every four years. This State-driven process conducted within the Human Rights Council provides an opportunity for States to explain how they are working to improve the human rights situation in their countries. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international human rights treaties ratified by the country form the baseline of the review and the UPR culminates with recommendations to the State under consideration, which it may accept or reject.

The success of the UPR largely rests on the fact that, beyond 'national reports' prepared by the State concerned, the Human Rights Council also considers 'compilations of United Nations information' prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, drawing from information emanating from the United Nations human rights monitoring mechanisms and other United Nations entities. 'Summaries of stakeholders' information' based on information provided by non-governmental organisations, along with information submitted by national human rights institutions and other actors (e.g., regional organisations, research institutions), are also considered. In other terms, the UPR is a peer review process grounded in State reporting and in independent monitoring, which helps to ensure equality of treatment between States and quality of the process of review.

The UPR has provided a framework for exchange and dialogue at the national level across State structures as well as between the State and civil society. It also provides an opportunity for States to share best practices and has stimulated bilateral cooperation and exchanges. States should be encouraged to consider creating a similar mechanism for the commitments to be made in 2015. Given the many international dimensions of sustainable development, specific focus should be placed on the duty of international assistance and cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and on the extraterritorial human rights obligations of States.                                                   

The above is extracted from a statement issued on 21 May 2013 by the following Special Procedures mandate-holders of the UN Human Rights Council: Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Magdalena Sep£lveda, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; Catarina de Albuquerque, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; Verene Shepherd, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Alfred de Zayas, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Cephas Lumina, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Anand Grover, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Gabriela Knaul, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Fran‡ois Cr‚peau, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Rita Izs k, Independent Expert on minority issues; Pablo De Greiff, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; Pavel Sulyandziga, Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises; Rashida Manjoo, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; Kamala Chandrakirana, Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice; and Surya Prasad Subedi, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia. The complete statement with an annex and references is available on the website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (www.ohchr.org).

*Third World Resurgence No. 283/284, Mar/Apr 2014, pp 36-39