development projects and human rights violations assignment

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Journal of Human Rights Practice
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, the relationship between human rights and development, development frameworks and the incorporation of human rights, legal dimensions of human rights in development policy – challenges and opportunities, conclusions, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Human Rights and Development: a Comment on Challenges and Opportunities from a Legal Perspective *

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Siobhán McInerney-Lankford, Human Rights and Development: a Comment on Challenges and Opportunities from a Legal Perspective, Journal of Human Rights Practice , Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 51–82, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hun005

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Human rights and development continue to reflect a separate evolution. This article explores challenges which characterize the relationship between human rights and development from a legal perspective suggesting reasons why the tensions and disconnects endure. It makes an obvious, but nevertheless underappreciated point: human rights are the subject of binding international legal obligations and their relevance to development can be understood in light of this. The first part of this article addresses the challenges of integrating human rights in development and the divergences of discourse and policy frameworks. The consequences of these divergences are examined, including a lack of prominence for legal duties for human rights in development, the absence of a normative baseline against which to check development processes and outcomes, an overall lack of policy coherence and a potential undermining of human rights accountability. The article concludes by highlighting opportunities extant in the international human rights law framework. The legal challenges and opportunities are viewed as interconnected: obstacles confronted in integrating human rights in development may be to be rooted in a neglect of the normative and legal dimensions of human rights, which in turn point to opportunities for greater convergence and coherence around international legal frameworks.

Although recognition of some link between human rights and development is relatively well supported, 1 there are ways in which the two persist in parallel and continue to reflect a separate evolution ( UNDP, 2000 ). The relationship between human rights and development today is arguably defined more by its distinctions and disconnects than by its points of convergence, despite substantial evidence of the potential for mutual reinforcement (see, for example, Robinson and Alston 2005 : 11–18). This article addresses the interface of human rights and development, focusing especially on the integration of human rights into development (although the reverse is alluded to in parts). It looks at the uneven recognition of human rights in development, particularly those which are directly relevant to or affected by development processes and outcomes. It aims to explore the potential relevance of human rights obligations as an overlooked but potentially worthwhile area to explore: in this, the focus is on obligations under treaties to which states have voluntarily acceded. As such, therefore, it sets out the parameters of the legal and policy questions to invite further exploration of the opportunities extant in the legal dimensions of human rights discourse and the potential for their future application in development.

Whatever the view taken of how closely human rights and development can and should be integrated, there can be no doubt that the two overlap substantially and a number of international frameworks such as those discussed in this article have begun to recognize the connections Sano, 2006 . A premise of this article is that human rights could be integrated more systemically into development policy and practice, for three reasons. (1) They are intrinsically valuable in aiming to protect human dignity (e.g. jus cogens ) and may be (negatively) affected by development so that development policy should identify ways to at a minimum meet the ‘do no harm’ threshold. (2) They are also instrumentally useful to enhance development processes, address certain types of social risk, ensure accountability ( Darrow and Tomas 2005 ), and ultimately secure more equitable and sustainable development outcomes. (3) As a matter of public international law , human rights treaty obligations are legally binding States parties, and under custom bind all states other than persistent objectors: as such they should be respected in all contexts, including development.

While the majority of development policies and frameworks incorporate human rights concerns, many do so only implicitly: as a result, there may be value in examining the use of explicit human rights language and reliance on human rights obligations under international law. This article focuses on human rights as the subjects of binding international legal obligations, and a thorough a review of development policy, suggests that despite some incorporation of human rights in development policies, greater reliance on human rights law might provide one effective way to promote a more systematic, explicit and coherent approach to the integration of human rights in development. Human rights law offers one way of bridging the divergence between human rights and development, 2 thereby enhancing coherence and human rights accountability, highlighting potential risk and preventing human rights harm.

Convergence and divergence

The parameters of the overlap between human rights and development can be described as occurring at three different levels: (1) factual or substantive overlap, (2) convergent principles, and (3) obligations. 3 This facilitates a more systematic approach to the interface between the two, and a more purposeful and transparent approach to the integration of human rights in development.

At a factual or substantive level, one can identify a confluence of human rights and development in the expanding range of functions, activities, and policies of development agencies and international financial institutions (IFIs) which overlap with the material provisions of human rights treaties, particularly those of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) but also those of the European Social Charter (1961), the American Convention on Human Rights (1969), the Protocol of San Salvador (1988), the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights (1981), and the European Union (EU) Charter of Fundamental Rights (2001). Development projects and programmes now cover the gamut of social and human development, much of which bear a direct relationship to core economic and social rights, and connect to a number of civil and political rights. Development institutions conduct a broad range of operations in the fields of health, education, labour and social security, children and youth, and food. They increasingly promote governance programs, anti-corruption strategies, as well as justice reform and rule of law activities. However, while there is much substantive congruence, this ‘factual overlap’ does not automatically align with all the objectives of such operations and those of ‘corresponding’ human rights treaties. Such activities may not be assumed to reflect or promote the realization of human rights, since few reference or mainstream human rights in their designs and objectives. Moreover, such activities will typically not address any impact on human rights – assessing whether they in fact support human rights or result in human rights harm.

But the convergence occurs also in less fortuitous ways – there is a documented overlap between human rights and development evident in the principles that are now prominent in the mainstream of development policy. Principles like participation and consultation, 4 inclusion, cohesion, good governance, accountability and equality or equity, are well established in development discourse, but they also constitute the tenets of a rights-based approach to development with roots in human rights philosophy or conventions. This convergence and proximity underscores the question of what ‘value-added’ human rights discourse brings (Sano, 2006), and that the answer lies in the realm of obligations.

Equality provides a vivid example. Equality lies at the heart of the international human rights framework, underpinning entire instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Equality is defining feature of other treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Articles 2 and 3), ICESCR (Article 2.2) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 14). 5 Development discourse often embraces equality principles, sometimes finding its analogues in the principle of equity (see World Bank, 2006 ), sometimes in principles like inclusion, cohesion, or empowerment. Equality may also be transposed more implicitly through activities that foster inclusive development. This illustrates both the compatibility of development and human rights; but also the ways in which the development ‘equivalents’ fail to embrace human rights specifically. The convergence around principle remains a limited one, which, in this example, neglects structural or historical discrimination, and a more holistic and contextualized understanding of the factors that cause inequalities. It lacks the normative and intrinsic justification of equality founded in human rights law, and the concrete, enforceable standards it entails. Crucially, equity does not entail duties, while equality as a right generates obligations. A stronger integration of equality into development, including through the relevant legal standards or through the guidance of interpretations of competent treaty monitoring bodies, might strengthen development through fostering specificity, technical parameters and a solid normative foundation.

At the level of principle therefore, a concerted effort exists to integrate human rights into development policy and practice, which has enriched development discourse and improved development processes and outcomes through securing greater participation, consultation, and equity. However, the source of those principles, and their specific ramifications and interpretation are left to the discretion of institutions, so that their normative strength is left undetermined.

The third ‘level’ at which development and human rights intersect relates to duty or obligation. It is potentially the most important, but also the least established. It is common to encounter statements that assert a link between human rights and development, or claims that development either contributes to the realization of human rights or creates the conditions under which human rights can be realized. Such statements assume a positive correlation and do not address the critical dimension of duty which human rights necessarily entail, as well as the realm of legal obligations. An important distinguishing feature of human rights is the specification of obligations and duty. At a philosophical level ‘rights require correlative duties’ ( Eide, 2001 : 22), and without duty there is no right. 6 In public international law terms, the obligations or duties may have their source in the three classic sources of international law: treaties, custom (including principles of jus cogens 7 or obligations erga omnes 8 ) and general principles of law.

While the overlaps at the first and second levels have been criticized as ‘mission creep’ or ‘rhetorical repackaging’ respectively ( Uvin, 2004 : 47), the same cannot be said of the third (obligations), which concerns a source of human rights that is independently undertaken and legally binding. In conclusion therefore, the relationship at a factual level evidences substantial overlap; at the level of principles, a certain compatibility and convergence, but at the level of obligations or duty, something more like divergence.

Reasons for the enduring disconnects and tensions

A number of reasons can be put forward to explain the enduring disconnects between human rights and development despite the evidence of convergence.

Legal or mandate constraints

For many development agencies human rights are understood to lie outside the legally established mandates of development institutions. 9 The views are often based on particular interpretations of provisions on political prohibition in the constitutive instruments of development agencies. 10 They assert that human rights are inherently political, and therefore, outside the permitted realm of considerations for such institutions, as well as outside their established mandate and competence. These views will sometimes be coupled with arguments that human rights are properly the purview of more openly political entities whose mandates provide explicitly for human rights. The narrow definition of institutional mandates may also rest on a vision of the specificity of tasks in a global context and the correct distribution of responsibility between international institutions.

Political resistance and value-based objections

Beyond the formal legal constraints, or particular definitions of mandates, human rights is not a concept around which there can be said to be consensus, and at an international level it is one of inescapable political sensitivity, with states fiercely protective of their human rights records and resistant to rankings, assessments and censure. For these reasons, human rights is widely perceived as a controversial subject in development agencies and IFIs, and viewed cautiously because of its divisive potential, including at the level of governing bodies. There may be widely differing viewpoints between members from the North and the South, or between donors and partners; but there may equally be variances between donors, and between partners. Some resist a current broadened understanding of human rights (possibly favouring particular domestic definitions or regional understandings, or an emphasis on one or other category of right). Others resist being dictated to on human rights through the lending instruments or development assistance generally, and many oppose what they perceive as double standards and hypocrisy when the dictates come from countries with economic power rather than exemplary human rights records. It is also worth acknowledging the disproportionate impact human rights-related conditionalities might have on certain member countries – that is, beyond the disproportionate impacts on borrowing countries (with no concomitant pressure on lenders), certain countries may be able to resist such human rights oversight by refusing to borrow from institutions that consider or impose human rights standards, while others, usually the poorest and least powerful, may not have that freedom.

Disciplines and approaches

The practice and policy that has evolved around development and human rights is governed by divergent discourses at least in part due to the predominance in each of different disciplines and methodologies (see Seymour and Pincus, 2008 ). At some fundamental level therefore, there is a perceived incompatibility between the approaches and language of each, making cohesion between them very challenging. Development has traditionally been the purview of economists, social scientists and sectoral or technical experts, while the human rights framework is predicated towards legal norms and rules, which have been largely drafted and interpreted by lawyers. Development institutions tend to rely on evidence-based approaches, while human rights organs operate from normative precepts. These may be difficult to reconcile, just as the ‘empirical’ case for respecting and protecting human rights may be difficult to prove and whatever empirical evidence exists is arguably equivocal or supportive of far narrower links (see, for example, Banerji and Ghanem, 1997 ; Barro, 1997 ; Isham et al. , 1997 ). This has resulted in different discourses based on distinct disciplines, traditions and institutional cultures which enjoy no obvious affinity. Thus, development practitioners may approach issues in programmatic, forward-looking terms, predicated towards practical solutions, trade-offs and the rendering of technical assistance, whether at a country, sector or project level. Human rights practitioners likely start from a more explicitly normative baseline driven by principles like indivisibility and universality. They possibly adopt a retrospective outlook, from which responsibility for non-realization of human rights may be assigned and where poverty is viewed as a denial, or even violation of human rights.

Practical problems of bridging these disciplines arise in the absence of a solid evidence base demonstrating how rights-based approaches have succeeded, and where or how they have been successful in generating more sustainable development. This may link to practical difficulties of assessing, measuring and mainstreaming human rights, or to subtle forms of skepticism based on cultural relativism and the difficulties of identifying and promoting human rights norms in international contexts. There are also practical considerations related to how development institutions ‘do business’ and the ways in which human rights considerations, particularly where indexed to human rights legal standards, could be perceived as effecting an obstacle to disbursement and a burden on operations. Some development institutions may simply not have clear operational entry points in their policies and instruments to mainstream or integrate human rights considerations. This is compounded by the absence of operational entry points in their policies and instruments, and the existence of certain ingrained institutional imperatives and internal incentive structures.

Institutional arrangements

Cleavages in disciplines and approaches are sometimes reflected in institutional arrangements or the structures within governments. Human rights and development cooperation may be handled by separate teams within ministries of foreign affairs, or development cooperation may be managed by a separate aid agencies altogether. In the field this may be reflected in individual donors having human rights and policy dialogue conducted by their embassies and development programs by their development agencies. Similarly, participation in IFIs, multilaterals and development initiatives may be dealt with separately from engagement with international human rights bodies. Even within the United Nations, this is manifest in human rights matters related to treaties being separate from those related to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or the right to development 11 or in the UN General Assembly, with second and third standing committees handling sustainable development and human rights, respectively. Within development institutions, human rights may be recognized as an issue of cross-cutting relevance, but may lack a dedicated institutional home and staff responsible exclusively for it.

Consequences of the divergent discourse of development and human rights

The consequences of this varied relationship between human rights and development is an uneven recognition of human rights in development discourse, policy and operational frameworks and an underemphasizing of their binding nature. This may also result in lost opportunities for human rights treaties to positively inform development processes and programming and provide relevant input where specific rights are in issue in the planning or assessment of particular activities.

There may therefore be room for an approach that recognizes the mutual relevance of human rights to development activities, principles and policies, but that also recognizes the limits of the overlap. Certain human rights may be relevant to particular development processes and activities, but the relevance may not be generalized, nor involve all human rights. Moreover, human rights-related activities in development are not necessarily equivalent to realizing human rights and to argue for any axiomatic link between the two may be both inaccurate and unhelpful to both areas. Therefore, some clarity about the nature and extent of the relevance of human rights at the above-mentioned three levels (factual or substantive, converging principles, obligations), especially the third, might facilitate a more meaningful engagement, and ultimately encourage a more systematic and coherent approach to the integration of human rights in development. Recognition of the relevance of human rights obligations might ensure, to some extent, the place of human rights in development as rights for which states have assumed responsibility.

Development policy frameworks – convergence and divergence transposed

The uneven relationship between human rights and development described above, as well as the deeply entrenched reasons for its particular disconnects render the process of integrating human rights in development policy extremely difficult. 12 While there are signs of greater recognition of the legal dimensions of human rights in development ( Dañino, 2006 : 30), the trend across policies of development agencies continues to evidence a ‘separability’. The tendency even among ‘bridging policies’ is to integrate human rights in principles, perspectives or considerations rather than obligations, and to leave them without specific anchorage in laws and treaties. 13 Even policies that make reference to human rights instruments tend to do so in a preambular way, or as framing propositions to identify the general sources of human rights rather than as positive binding legal obligations under international law. In this way, human rights may become part of the general policy narrative, but rarely are the legal ramifications of specific instruments articulated in development policies that reference them, potentially limiting the degree to which human rights can in fact be integrated.

Frameworks that evidence the separation of development and human rights

The following discussion traces the connection between human rights and development at a policy level, identifying an evolution in the inclusion of legal dimensions in development policy frameworks and arguing that a stronger the legal dimension correlates with a more systematic integration of human rights in development can be.

Millennium Development Goals

At a macro level, development policies of multilaterals are governed by political goals and resultant policy frameworks that do not mention human rights or the relevant human rights treaty frameworks. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 14 are time-bound development targets that emanate from the 2000 UN Millennium Summit, along with the Millennium Declaration. 15 The MDGs exemplify a framework in which, despite their deep relevance to each Goal, specific human rights are not mentioned in the Goals or their targets; this is to be contrasted with the provisions of the Millennium Declaration which contain multiple references to human rights. 16 Global Monitoring 17 is a monitoring framework that ‘focuses on how the world is doing in implementing the policies and actions for achieving the MDGs and related development outcomes. It is a framework for accountability in global development policy’, 18 but despite its stated purpose as a framework for accountability it does not expressly refer to rights or obligations. The foregoing illustrates how in the view of some, ‘human rights have not yet played a significant role in supporting and influencing MDGs-based development planning’ (OHCHR 2008: vii).

At an institutional level, development agencies and IFIs have developed frameworks like Global Monitoring 19 to advance the attainment of the MDGs. Others have developed polices to guide their work on poverty to meet the Goals; examples include the World Bank's Operational Policy 1.00 on Poverty Reduction, 20 the United Nations Core Strategy on MDGs 21 or the Asian Development Bank's Strategy 2020. 22 Each reflects the disconnect between development policy and human rights frameworks, with few, if any, references to human rights, even those of direct relevance, and no express linkage to human rights treaties or obligations.

Despite the multilevel relevance of human rights to development, the shared focus on accountability and the substantive overlap of the MDGs with areas covered by human rights treaties like CEDAW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) or the ICESCR, the MDGs and related frameworks do not incorporate human rights or the relevant treaty obligations. What may be lost in this is the opportunity to use the interpretations and findings of treaty monitoring bodies where particular rights are at issue in development activities, and thereby offer development agencies the relevant expertise to help minimize risk and enhance development effectiveness and sustainability. Such a cooperative and facilitative approach should not imply new, monitoring functions for IFIs in respect of human rights, but rather promote more coherent and effective development practice. Conversely, such an approach might facilitate the exchange of relevant information and improve the quality of data available to treaty bodies.

Aid effectiveness

The separability of frameworks is evident in relation to aid effectiveness, too. Following the 2002 Monterey Financing for Development Summit, aid agencies have forged ‘an operational consensus behind principles of aid harmonisation’ ( Marshall, 2008 : 96). This led to the Rome Declaration (2003) and the Paris Declaration (2005), 23 which set out the commitments of multilateral and bilateral development institutions as well as partner institutions to harmonize ‘the policies procedures and practices of their institutions with those of partner country systems to improve the effectiveness of development assistance and thereby contribute to meeting the Millennium Development Goals.’ 24 The Paris Declaration confirmed five core principles: ownership, alignment, harmonization, managing for results and mutual accountability to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development. It promulgated a more detailed, operational framework based on actions in its 56 partnership commitments and 12 indicators. Despite the ways in which aid modalities can impact human rights and the ways in which human rights might inform the principles set out to govern the delivery of aid, the Rome and Paris Declarations remained silent on human rights and do not address the mutual relevance of human rights and aid effectiveness. In this they reflected a narrower, efficiency-based understanding of aid effectiveness concerned with the technical processes of aid delivery rather than its substantive ramifications or overarching goals. They also failed to recognize that ‘Aid is only effective if it achieves good development results, and good development results are not possible if gender inequalities persist, environmental damage is accepted, or human rights are abused’ ( Robinson in OECD DAC HRTT 2008 : 1).

This divergence persisted until the 2008 outcome document of the High-Level Forum in Accra, known as the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). While the AAA notes respect for human rights as a cornerstone of development, 25 and cites human rights in its provision for an expanded policy dialogue ( Accra Agenda for Action, 2008 : 13c), the question remains whether the neglect of human rights hitherto will impede the implementation of those commitments in the AAA.

Without including human rights explicitly in the principles, commitments and indicators of the Paris Declaration, or in its monitoring and evaluation frameworks (see Wood, et al. 2008 ), the impact of new aid delivery mechanisms on the realization of human rights cannot properly be assessed, nor can the positive potential of human rights for Paris Declaration principles be concretely explored. Moreover, the human rights context, including their legal context, may be useful to inform donors’ choices of aid instruments to help strengthen accountability and ensure that resources reach the poorest and least powerful.

Poverty reduction strategies

Poverty reduction strategies (PRSs) 26 are a prerequisite for concessional assistance from the International Development Association (IDA) and the IMF, and debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HPIC) initiative of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Despite the overlap of human rights and poverty reduction strategies at a factual or even principled level, human rights are not the subject of concrete engagement within PRSs and do not influence their design in any discernable way, 27 and is at best only implicitly incorporated in the strategies ( Nankani et al. , 2005 : 475) or in the tools and documents that relate to these (e.g. World Bank Sourcebook on PRSPs 28 or Bank-Fund Joint Staff Advisory Notes [JSAN] 29 ). Occasional references to human rights exist in individual PRSs, but few if any specific references are made to international human rights treaties. Such references, unaccompanied by links to specific international human rights instruments, may result in human rights being incorporated only implicitly with little specific operational relevance. Some commentators have remarked on the broader role potentially fulfilled by PRSs. As comprehensive policy documents in many developing countries, PRSs may play an important role as vehicles for furthering the realization of human rights obligations of those countries ( Tostensen 2008 : 210). Under this view, PRSs, and the tools, documents, frameworks and results tables associated with them, could usefully include explicit references to relevant human rights treaties in an effort to support developing countries realize their human rights obligations as they pursue development.

Policy efforts to bridge development and human rights

While many development policies implicitly address human rights concerns and principles (e.g. World Bank safeguard policies), most prominent policy frameworks governing development and aid do not integrate human rights systematically. However, significant efforts to link human rights and development and aid do exist, including examples of policies that make explicit reference to the international human rights law framework. Whatever the particular view taken of whether the integration of human rights into development policy should take place, the approach to determining that question should be systematic and coherent.

The rise in prominence of human rights in development discourse is evident in a range of UN initiatives that link human rights and development, locating the source of human rights in the core UN human rights treaties. A rights-based approach is mandated as integral to the form and content of the UN's development policy, 30 and is central to the approaches of both the UNDP ( UNDP, 2001 , 2005 ) and the OHCHR ( OHCHR 2006a , b , c ), including in relation to work on the MDGs ( OHCHR, 2008a , b ) and poverty ( OHCHR 2004 , 2006a , b , c ). Many UN policy frameworks and statements make reference to international legal instruments as the source for human rights in development, or as an overall guiding framework for international cooperation. This was reflected in ‘Action 2’ 31 and again in the UN Secretary General's 2005 Report ‘In Larger Freedom’, which underscored the interrelationship of security, development and human rights. 32 The 2003 UN Common Understanding on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation 33 is even more explicit linking development cooperation, policies and technical assistance to the realization of human rights ‘as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments’. It also states that ‘human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and phases of the programming process’.

The importance of human rights for development is widely recognized. Human rights and equitable, sustainable development are mutually reinforcing. Human rights have intrinsic value, and achieving them is seen as an objective in its own right. But human rights are also a critical factor for the long term sustainability of development.

In the context of aid effectiveness, efforts have been underway to highlight ‘the potential for the international human rights framework and the Paris Declaration to reinforce and benefit from one another’ (OECD DAC, 2007: paragraph 35). 34 Human rights are widely recognized as a so-called cross-cutting policy issues within the meaning of the Paris Declaration, 35 and it is therefore significant that the AAA (2008) notes respect for human rights as a cornerstone for achieving enduring impact on the lives and potential of poor women, men and children. It goes on to state that ‘[I]t is vital that all our policies address these issues in a more systematic and coherent way’ ( AAA (2008) paragraph 3). Human rights are also referred to under the commitment to broaden country-level policy dialogue. 36

Several bilateral aid agencies have policies with explicit human rights foundations with many highlighting the positive connection between human rights and development. While such policies articulate a range of objectives and principles to guide their development activities in order to promote or mainstream human rights, few do more than mention human rights obligations of either donors or partners ( Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2007 ). Prominent examples of this type of development policy framework include the 2006 Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Policy ( SDC, 2006 ), which highlights the human rights content of the 2000 Millennium Declaration and the principle of building capacity to realize human rights obligations. Mainstreaming is a prevalent feature in this type of policy (see GTZ, 2004, 2005), and although many are unequivocal in affirming their human rights foundation, few highlight human rights obligations.

A few notable examples can be found that link human rights and development through an explicit application of human rights obligations under international treaties. The Austrian Development Cooperation Human Rights Policy Document (2006) locates the strength of the human rights framework precisely in its foundation in a legally based framework. At their strongest, these emphasize both partner and donor obligations and offer concrete operational entry points for their application in development policy frameworks. New Zealand's International Aid and Development Agency document, Human Rights Policy Statement (2002) and its Human Rights Implementation Plan of Action 2004–2009 confirm the role of donor and partner human rights treaty obligations in linking human rights and development. Another example emerges in Canadian legislation: the 2008 Official Development Accountability Act offers a definition of official development assistance and accountability, and contains a human rights clause stating that operations must be consistent with international human rights standards. 37 In that case, the importance of human rights obligations to development policy is confirmed and reflected in domestic legislation.

Human rights is at the forefront of EU Development Cooperation with similar commitments to its humanitarian aid and Common Foreign and Security Policy. The policies flow from the legal obligations of its Member States, as well as from EU treaty provisions which recognize human rights as common values underpinning EU partnership and dialogue with third countries. 39

The policies of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) illustrate the relevance of legal frameworks to link human rights and development activities through obligations under international law treaties in the former, and through connecting development and human rights institutions and processes in the latter. Consistent with the reference to human rights in the EBRD Articles of Agreement, its Environmental and Social Policy (2008 : paragraph 9) makes direct reference to international conventions, including those related to human rights: ‘The EBRD will not knowingly finance projects that would contravene obligations under international treaties and agreements related to environmental protection, human rights and sustainable development as identified through project appraisal’. The EBRD policy also specifies that its country and sector strategies should summarize the principal environmental, human rights, gender equality and other social issues in the relevant country or sector, and set out the EBRD's proposals for taking these issues into account in its operations, where appropriate (paragraph 47). In Africa, the NEPAD Framework Document (2005) contains several references to human rights, as a foundation, objective and responsibility of the mechanism. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), 41 which operates as part of the NEPAD, links the final stage of its review to existing human rights mechanisms such as the African Commission on Human Rights ( APRM, 2003 ). 42 In this, the African-led policy supports macro-level coherence, and linkages between policy frameworks through human rights obligations ( Heyns, 2005 ).

Conclusions regarding development frameworks and the incorporation of human rights

In general terms, the review of development policy reveals an uneven engagement with human rights and a lack of express reference to human rights obligations and the legal dimensions of human rights.

First, the discussion of divergence above reveals that in most development institutions or agencies human rights are not characterized in legal or obligatory terms. The lack of emphasis on the legal dimension of human rights in development may be contrasted with the prominence of international treaty obligations pertaining to well integrated issues like trade and environment which are explicitly provided for in the policies and guidance of several development institutions. 43

Second, policies that recognize the interconnection of development policy and international law tend to take a more holistic view of the participation of states in various fora, and the interlinked nature of their duties in different international contexts. Policies that evidence a separation between human rights and development tend to neglect the legal dimension of the former and states may content to keep their treaty obligations under human rights instruments separate from the processes and policies that determine their contributions to, or allocations from, development expenditures. 710 Coherence and alignment between international law and policy potentially puts the actions of international actors under scrutiny by outside actors and processes, and may raise complex issues about the responsibility of states and international organizations. 44 Notwithstanding this, there are signs that international law regimes and international development processes may usefully inform one another in areas where the overlap is strong and where rights under the former are directly at issue in the latter.

Third, even policies that bridge human rights and development are typically stronger at the level of discourse than they are in respect of assessment, monitoring and evaluation. This may offer a partial explanation for the lack of emphasis on the legal dimension of human rights: like other international treaties, human rights law brings with it a full range of rules, assessments and indicators, forcing questions of concrete application, monitoring and even enforcement. Taking account of human rights obligations could potentially lead to international development agencies having to consider their members’ obligations, and even their own human rights obligations under international law, in direct and concrete ways. From a different perspective, however, the signs of bridging in certain policies point to ways in which the work of international human rights bodies could be put to use in development activities, and where the accumulated wisdom of states’ experience as parties to international conventions could be brought to bear in particular circumstances where human rights have a direct and obvious bearing.

Fourth, while there is no causality argued that neglect of the law results in development policies’ failure to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, there may be some weight to the reverse argument that recognizing the importance of human rights law obligations would require positive human rights outcomes in development and efforts to safeguard against human rights harm where possible.

The value of the law in safeguarding the place of human rights in development

This section builds on the argument that respect for human rights ought, in the words of the AAA (2008 : paragraph 3), to ‘be clearly and systematically integrated into development’ by describing the potential relevance of the law and the role of legal accountability in that process.

Human rights law is founded on a set of stable, positive law commitments into which states have voluntarily entered, binding them to put in place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their treaty obligations. Human rights treaty obligations have the benefit of being bounded and voluntarily acceded to, with the specific parameters of states' obligations carefully negotiated, and circumscribed through reservation and derogation. In this context, the fact that human rights treaties, like all international treaties, are based on the consent of states is highly relevant since it challenges the assumption that in development their ‘application’ amounts to ‘imposition’. This approach avails of the natural limits of the treaty undertakings, thereby securing a clarity and legitimacy that approaches based on principles and values or even general principles of international law may not avail of as easily. Treaty-based obligations underpin the rights enshrined in the nine core human rights treaties concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, 45 and the conventions concluded under the auspices of the ILO 46 , and regional organizations like the Council of Europe 47 and the Organisation of American States (OAS). 48 Human rights treaties are binding international agreements - like trade agreements or environment treaties, which enjoy greater recognition in development frameworks and have a direct bearing on development. Like these other types of multilateral treaties, human rights treaties enjoy high levels of ratification ( Alston and Simma, 1992 ), but distinguish themselves in predating many and having long established processes and monitoring bodies, as well as a growing body of practical tools and indicators. 49 The processes include those of UN Charter-based bodies (e.g. Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review), UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies, 50 as well as individual communications mechanisms, complaint procedures ( Tomuschat, 2008 : 193–229) and special procedures, 51 all of which continue to develop a substantial body of expert knowledge. 52

Despite the divisive politicization that plagues many human rights processes, the specific contribution of approaches that integrate human rights in development is that they make good practice and principles a matter of obligation . Without offering a legal base to that obligation, it is not clear whether human rights can deliver on the promise of this distinct contribution since the source of human rights or the duties remains unclear. Without a legal foundation, human rights commitments, values and principles are potentially subject to variance, and to some extent remain subjective.

The fact that human rights have not been more systematically integrated into development demands an examination of the approaches that have been used, in particular non-legal, social science and principled-based approaches. Several reasons may be offered for this, including the challenges of demonstrating the ‘value added’ of human rights to development, the dearth of empirical evidence connecting the two and a perception that human rights are somehow voluntary. A legal approach offers a clear rationale for the relevance of human rights to development, which is simply that it binds as a matter of law and is therefore obligatory. A legal approach also offers a sound basis for the principle of ‘do no harm’, and a risk-based outlook. It offers a concrete baseline for ensuring the respect of human rights and preventing any lowering of the standard of human rights enjoyment by development activities, which can also be conceived of as a form of due diligence, to protect against political and other forms of risk associated with human rights harms.

Normative baselines and the principle of ‘do no harm’

An outcome, related to the absence of a link between legal obligations and accountability is the absence of an explicit normative standard against which to assess development: ‘As such [human rights] represent agreed legal and moral standards against which development strategies, processes and results should be measured’ ( OECD DAC HRTT, 2008 : 1). A legal approach draws human rights beyond the ‘narrative’ of development policy, into the realm of practical application in development instruments and to concrete standards, rules, tools and indicators. However, without anchorage in specific, binding legal obligations such an application would appear difficult to undertake and a normative assessment improbably upheld.

Development policies and activities tend to be evaluated by individual institutions or agencies relative to internal accountability mechanisms or systems of evaluation which lack a normative element grounded in separate legal commitments. There are few external forms of assessments or evaluation, 53 and even fewer openly normative assessments of development. A human rights legal standard potentially offers both, and does so based on a shared value system inculcated in international treaties to which most of the world's countries are party, and to which they are bound under international law. As the OECD DAC (2007: principle 1, paragraph 40 [1]) has noted, ‘A shared understanding of human rights issues between donor and partner countries is essential for the durability of aid partnerships and for the predictability and effectiveness of aid’.

[…] Human Rights and aid effectiveness framework should inform each other, rather than progressing on separate, disconnected tracks. Its principles of ‘do no harm’ and ensuring that the scaling up of aid is conducive to human rights, highlight two complementary dimensions of a key contribution that human rights can offer the aid effectiveness agenda (OECD DAC HRTT Human Rights and Aid Effectiveness , 2007).

Policy coherence

As the connections between actions in the fields of human rights, development and aid effectiveness are increasingly understood as interconnected, their effective and coherent linkage is also being recognized as serving broader instrumental purposes, and as indispensable to ‘international policy coherence’ ( Salomon, 2007 : 106): ‘Effectively linking human rights and development policies is an important element in achieving policy coherence between development and wider foreign policy objectives’ ( NZAID, 2002 : 6).

Policy coherence fosters the sustainability of policies by preventing duplication and avoiding contradiction through promoting coherence across related subject matters and assessing the impacts of diverse areas of international policy on one another. 58 It highlights complementarities between frameworks designed and participated in by the same states, including the most widely ratified international human rights instruments. Policy coherence is also indispensable to the realization of human rights.

In practice, policy coherence supports a focus on existing obligations, and applies to the institutional structures within which states, as traditional duty-bearers, operate so that the actions of states in various institutional structures and processes do not undermine human rights enjoyment. This may call for coherence across policies governing different issues, as well as coordination of a state's positions and participation in a number of international organizations and processes. 59 It may also require that states assess the impact of policies in one area on other policy areas, including how actions in various fora impact human rights, requiring that states act with consistency and at a minimum, ‘do no harm’.

The fact that both donors and partner countries have ratified the international human rights treaties provides a uniquely valuable reference point for harmonisation efforts. A mutually agreed, universal normative framework already exists, supported not only by political commitment, but also by the force of legal obligation. As well, at the operational level, there is growing convergence on the integration of human rights in development. (OECD DAC HRTT 2007: 3)

In practical terms the pursuit of such coherence through reliance on human rights treaties would require legal assessments to be undertaken to gain a comprehensive view of the legal obligations potentially in play in a given context. It might also require the development of a strategic view of the roles and responsibilities of international actors in respect of these obligations, including any potential applications to themselves, and might call for some process of resolution in the event of conflict or inconsistencies, including possibly establishing a hierarchy of legal obligations. Were such policy coherence to be pursued with respect to human rights, some basic cooperation between the key international actors would be necessary, and the mutual informing of guiding strategies indispensable.

A more unified accountability framework

Another significant consequence of the separation of these frameworks is the absence of specific human rights accountability in development policy and activities ( Bradlow, 1996 ; Clark, 2002 ; Darrow, 2003 ; Skogly, 2001 ). It is argued that accountability for human rights cannot properly be upheld because human rights obligations are not factored into development policies, such that states—as donors or clients—can pursue development activities without any systematic assessments of their consequences in human rights terms and without there being any effective legal recourse where those consequences are negative. The absence of legal duties in development policy frameworks undermines the possibility of the key contribution of human rights – accountability – being upheld in the context of development with respect to both process and outcome ( Twomey, 2007 ).

This is so despite the increased prominence of accountability in the content and emphasis of development or aid policies discussed above. 61 While maintaining separate accountability frameworks for different areas of international cooperation may be appropriate, there are ways in which extensive substantive overlaps and the existence of several disconnected frameworks of accountability is in itself potentially problematic, creating obvious risks of duplication and inconsistency. 62 Moreover, the proliferation of overlapping frameworks, with separate accountability mechanisms, in an era of heightened emphasis on harmonization, alignment and coherence is somewhat perplexing.

Second, while accountability frameworks such as those governing the Paris Declaration 63 fulfill essential functions, and are not a priori inconsistent with human rights accountability, their parallel existence, without any corresponding recognition of human rights obligations or impacts presents a risk to the latter. The Paris Declaration constitutes a mechanism through which donors and partners are held mutually accountable: these same countries are accountable for human rights that are directly relevant to, and potentially impacted by, harmonization efforts.

Third, the accountability propounded through development frameworks is not equivalent to the legal accountability upheld through human rights law. Rather, it is an accountability centered on principles, political commitments and policy frameworks rather than specific, binding legal obligations under public international law. One may argue that the human rights accountability lacuna is compounded rather than mitigated by the existence of various forms of non-legal accountability mechanisms in development contexts. These are not a substitute for human rights accountability, and without recognizing and complementing it, they risk undermining it.

That complementarity could be promoted if the processes connected with human rights treaties could be connected in some way to development processes, and if human rights treaty obligations could become a part of existing accountability mechanisms, whether through policy frameworks or complaints mechanisms. Human rights law norms could deepen and ground existing accountability mechanisms and help fill some of the perceived accountability gaps in both horizontal (state to state) and vertical (state to citizen) relationships.

This article has sought to underscore some obvious but nevertheless overlooked strengths of the human rights law framework in the context of development. While it does not argue for human rights conditionalities it aims to highlight in a preliminary way, some of the opportunities presented by the international human rights framework as a shared, stable and clear structure of international treaties with substantial and, in some cases near universal ratification. These offer a legal and normative baseline founded on the voluntarily undertaken commitments of states, which bind them under public international law and which may support them in the pursuit of sustainable development.

In summary, for development practitioners aiming to promote the integration of human rights more systematically into development, this article proposes that the international law framework offers one way to do this by providing a binding and legitimate starting point to establish the connections, and a body of rules, principles, indicators and processes to assist the integration of human rights in development. Recognition of the treaty base of international human rights in the context of development refocuses attention on the fact that (1) human rights are not voluntary or just rhetorical, they are the subject of legally binding commitments; (2) human rights may add value and fundamentally change how development is pursued, what it pursues and what it can achieve; (3) realizing human rights may be different from undertaking good development practice – the former is done out of legal obligation, the latter might not be; (4) human rights are intrinsically valuable and therefore worth protecting in development; (5) human rights can play an instrumental role in fostering sustainable development through adverting risk and focusing on ways in which development can support the realization of human rights. It is submitted that the failure to recognize the legal dimensions of human rights may indeed be connected with the wider failure to recognize the distinct value of human rights for development.

This article represents the author's personal views and should not be attributed to the institution for which she works. I am indebted to Nathan Lankford, Charles Di Leva, Saskia Fronabarger, Maurizio Ragazzi and Jordí Agusti-Panareda for comments on earlier versions of this article. Responsibility for errors or omissions remains my own. This work is dedicated to Kristina Celich.

This article reflects the personal views of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank.

An early linkage can be found in the recognition of the right to development, see for example, Proclamation of Tehran (1968) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/b_tehern.htm . See also the Declaration on the Right to Development, Resolution 41/117 / 128 (4 December 1986).

For an analogous discussion linking trade and labor standards, see Barry and Reddy (2006 : 548).

This is the typology used in McInerney-Lankford (2007 : 459).

Participation and consultation are central to the policies and practice of many development agencies; see e.g. the World Bank Operational Policies on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.20), Forests (OP 4.36) and Cultural Property (OP 4.11).

For a comprehensive discussion of international law provisions on equality and protection against discrimination, see McKean (1983) and Fredman (2001) .

On the ‘correlativity of rights and duties’, see Mayo (1967 : 68, 72).

Jus cogens rules are those peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted. They protect the overriding interests and values of the international community of states, and due to their affinity with natural law, are understood to include human rights.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized obligations erga omnes in the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd. Case, [1970] I.C.J. Rep. 3. There are certain international obligations which, by virtue of the importance of the rights involved, all states can be held to have a legal interest in protecting. These include rules concerning the basic rights of the human person.

See Articles III, Section 5, and Article IV, Section 10 of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Articles of Agreement; and Shihata (1991 : 761).

See Shihata (2000 : 219). Under such a view, human rights considerations fall outside provisions barring political considerations and amount to interference in the domestic affairs of members. One may argue that such provisions should be interpreted in light of contemporary international law, which balances a protection of sovereignty with respect for principles that underpin the international legal order and the Charter of the United Nations, including human rights.

For example, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is organized in four different branches, under which development and treaties are separate.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Human Rights Task Team (2006 : 69–89). Also see the earlier, Hemlich and Borghese (1998) .

See, for example, UN Development Programme (UNDP) (2001 : 2) describing an rights-based approach (RBA) as one that is based on the ‘values, standards and principles’ of the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and subsequently legally binding human rights conventions'.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

http://www.un.org/millennium/

OHCHR (2008a , b : 3) traces the links between human rights and the MDGs but also underscores the broad disconnect between the two frameworks. Also see Alston (2005) .

Global Monitoring emanated from a request of the Development Committee at the 2002 Bank-Fund Annual Meetings which called for determined implementation of the agreed strategies and partnerships for reaching the MDGs and requested a framework by which to monitor progress on the underlying policies and actions while recognizing the role of the UN in MDG monitoring.

Another relevant framework that predates the MDGs, is the Comprehensive Development Framework, available at http://go.worldbank.org/O3CN35INY0 .

http://go.worldbank.org/UVQMEYED00

World Bank Operational Policy O.P. 1.00 on Poverty Reduction – it is ‘consistent with the World Development Report 2000/2001 on Attacking Poverty, and with the multidimensional vision of poverty reduction contained in the MDGs and the Bank's commitment to accelerating progress towards these goals’. See: http://go.worldbank.org/0K895K0TV0

This contains only two references to human rights, see: http://www.undp.org/mdg/core_strategy.pdf

The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank 2008-2020, see http://www.adb.org/documents/Policies/Strategy2020/Strategy2020-print.pdf or Fighting Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: The Poverty Reduction Strategy, see http://www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/Poverty_Reduction/Poverty_Policy.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf

Rome Declaration on Aid Harmonisation (2002), http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/50/31451637.pdf

Paragraph 3 states: ‘Gender equality, respect for human rights, and environmental sustainability are cornerstones for achieving enduring impact on the lives and potential of poor women, men, and children. It is vital that all our policies address these issues in a more systematic and coherent way’.

http://go.worldbank.org/FXXJK3VEW0 . The current nomenclature favors PRS rather than PRSP, since most individual country strategies go beyond just fulfilling the requirement for a PRSP and include a country's broader plan to reduce poverty.

For a critical review of PRSPs from a human rights perspective, see Stewart and Wong (2005 : 447). They also ask whether the mention of human rights in PRSP would materially alter their conclusions, since the risk would be that human rights would simply remain confined to the language without any consequence in reality.

http://go.worldbank.org/3I8LYLXO – ‘The Sourcebook is a guide to assist countries in the development and strengthening of poverty reduction strategies. The Sourcebook reflects the thinking and practices associated with the Comprehensive Development Framework, as well as lessons emerging from the World Development Report on Poverty, and good international practices related to poverty reduction’.

http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/library/subtopic/3478/ .

‘All UNCTs [UN Country Teams] must use a human rights-based approach (HRBA) […] [A HRBA] puts the international human rights entitlements and claims of the people and the corresponding obligations of the State in the centre of the national development debate, and it clarifies the purpose of capacity development’. http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=221

Report of the UN Secretary-General, Strengthening of the United Nations: An Agenda for Further Change (A/57/387 of 9 September 2002) from which the strengthening and mainstreaming of human rights in the UN has come to be known as ‘Action 2’. ‘Action 2’ related to Strengthening UN Support for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Worldwide. http://www.un.org/events/action2/ . See further: Action 2 Interagency Plan of Action - Strengthening Human Rights-related UN Action at Country Level (2003) adopted by UN Development Group, Executive Committee on Humanitarian Assistance and OHCHR pursuant to the Secretary-General's report.

Report of the UN Secretary-General (Kofi Annan), In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All (2005) at http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/

http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7733&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

In 2007, an influential DAC workshop was held in Dublin, Workshop on Aid Effectiveness in Practice: Applying the Paris Declaration to Advancing Gender Equality, Environmental Sustainability and Human Rights, Dublin (26–27 March 2007). A follow-up workshop was held in London on Strengthening the Development Results and Impacts of the Paris Declaration through Work on Gender Equality, Social Exclusion and Human Rights (12–13 March 2008).

Paragraph 42 of the Paris Declaration provides ‘Similar harmonisation efforts are also needed on other cross-cutting issues, such as gender equality and other thematic issues including those financed by dedicated funds’.

13 (c) of the AAA states: ‘Developing countries and donors will ensure that their respective development policies and programmes are designed and implemented in ways consistent with their agreed international commitments on gender equality, human rights, disability and environmental sustainability’ ( Accra, 2008 ).

Canada 2008 Official Development Assistance Accountability Act which came into force on 28 June 2008; C.17 O-2.8. It states in section 4. (1) that ‘Official development assistance may be provided only if the competent minister is of the opinion that it (a) contributes to poverty reduction; (b) takes into account the perspectives of the poor; and (c) is consistent with international human rights standards’.

http://www.ihrnetwork.org/eu-development-policies_215.htm . Internal commitments are based on the Treaty on European Union, and were confirmed in the Treaty of Amsterdam and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Instrument for Democratization and Human Rights (2006).

http://www.ihrnetwork.org/eu-development-policies_215.htm

‘The essential element’ of an agreement, or ‘human rights essential element clause’. See EU Council Decision 7255/95 Human Rights Clauses in Community Agreements with Non-Member Countries, Brussels, 24 May 1995. Also the Commission Communication on the Inclusion of Respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights in Agreements between the Community and Third Countries COM (95) 216 of 23 May 1995.

An important accountability related mechanism to the NEPAD, the APRM is a mutually agreed instrument voluntarily acceded to by member states of the African Union (AU) as an African self-monitoring mechanism. The APRM is central to the NEPAD process for the socio-economic development of Africa.

APRM base document Article 25 states: ‘Six months after the report has been considered by the Heads of State and Government of the participating member countries, it should be formally and publicly tabled in key regional and sub-regional structures such as the Pan-African Parliament, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the envisaged Peace and Security Council and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) of the African Union'. Available at: http://www.chr.up.ac.za/hr_docs/aprm/docs/book3.pdf

On trade, see Croome (1996 : preface). On international environmental treaties, see the World Bank O.P. 4.01 on Environmental Assessment (1999) which states: ‘EA considers […] obligations of the country, pertaining to project activities, under relevant international environmental treaties and agreements. The Bank does not finance project activities that would contravene such obligations , as identified during the EA’.

See H.G. Schermers and N.M. Blokker, International Institutional Law: Unity within Diversity 4 th ed. Martinus Nijhoff §1856–1859.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ . This table does not include the relevant Optional Protocols to both the ICCPR and the ICESCR.

For the full ILOLEX database of ILO conventions, see http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/newratframeE.htm , and see especially the eight conventions that underpin the core labor standards: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87); Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29); Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105); Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111); Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100); Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138); Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182).

European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).

American Convention on Human Rights (1969).

OHCHR work on human rights indicators from 2006 to 2008, see e.g. Report on Indicators for Monitoring Compliance with International Human Rights Instruments – Summary HRI/MC/ 2006/7 and Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights HRI/MC/2008/3.

Human Rights Committee (CCPR)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Committee Against Torture (CAT) and Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) – Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm . Also see Kedzia (2003 : 3).

See, for instance, the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including its general comments, and concluding observations and comments, at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/esc/esc-page.htm

Yet see OECD DAC Peer Review which reviews individual members' policies and efforts in the area of development co-operation. Each member is critically examined approximately once every four years; this way five or six programmes are examined annually. ( www.oecd.org/dac/peerreviews ). e.g. UNDP (2005) http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/DAC-PeerReview.pdf

For example: United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAF), World Bank Country Assistance Strategies (CAS), PRS or Joint Assistance Strategies (JAS).

For example, UN Common Country Assessments (CCA), or World Bank Country Policy Institutional Assessments (CPIA).

For example, social or environmental assessments or human rights tools.

For example, the World Bank's Country Policy and Institutional Assessment. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPSIA/0,,contentMDK:20454976~menuPK: 1107972~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:490130,00.html

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,2340,en_2649_33721_35320054_1_1_1_1,00.html . This idea has relevance also to efforts in the UN human rights machinery to enhance coherence and harmonization between treaty bodies. See the UN Report of the Working Group on Harmonisation of Working Methods of Treaty Bodies, 9 January 2007.

The definition provided by DFID captures these distinct dimensions: ‘Policy coherence for development is achieved when policies across a range of issues (for example trade, migration, security) support, or at least do not undermine, the attainment of development objectives. There are two types of policy coherence of particular importance to DFID: coherence across UK government policies; and coherence within multilateral institutions such as the European Commission (EU)’. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/mdg/aid-effectiveness/policy-coherence.asp

Rome Declaration (2003: paragraph 3); Paris Declaration (2005) principles of ownership (paragraphs 14–15); and Alignment (paragraphs 16–31).

In addition, accountability mechanisms or compliance functions that operate within development institutions may have an important bearing on the discussion of accountability, including human rights accountability. For an overview, see Bradlow (2005) .

One may argue by analogy from the aid effectiveness context that the multiplicity of monitoring frameworks undermines accountability and effectiveness. Rome Declaration (2003: paragraph 2).

Paris Declaration (2005: paragraphs 47–50) principle of mutual accountability: ‘donors and partners are accountable for development results’. At: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1757-9627
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Sostenibilidad

Just another web-blogs Sites site

How to manage human rights risks in development projects

August 10, 2022 por Steve Gibbons - Marcella Klinker Leave a Comment

The concept of human rights is something which is well understood throughout the world and enshrined in the laws of almost every country. Additionally, within Latin America and the Caribbean, many states have ratified strong regional human rights standards. Human rights are also central to the IDB’s mission of improving lives and bringing sustainable development to the region, which is why they are at the heart of the Bank’s new Environmental and Social Policy Framework (ESPF). But how can we understand and address human rights risks in development projects?

From one perspective, the enjoyment of human rights could be seen as merely a legal matter, but the IDB recognizes that there is more to be done to support them. Crucial to this is to ensure that there is an appropriate context and risk assessment in relation to projects to seek to identify the potential human rights risks and challenges, but also to identify potential partners and actions to work to prevent and remediate breaches. Understanding both how potential human rights issues can arise, but also how to take effective action is key.

Focusing on salient human rights

When it comes to understanding how a project will impact human rights, it is key to focus on specific rights which are likely to be impacted, instead of on a country’s broad context. For example, in relation to a construction project, the human rights to consider will likely include community rights, land rights and labor rights. While all human rights are equally important, and an assessment will consider contextual risk, the focus should be on identifying and addressing those risks that are exacerbated by a project. Additionally, it is important to focus on those which are most salient, in the sense that they are highly likely or have a significant impact in terms of scope or scale of impact.

That being said, it is also important to understand that beyond what may be seen as developmental objectives for a project, there will likely be human rights involved in every step of the rollout of a project. For example, when building a school, outcomes which promote the right to education will be a key goal, but construction workers’ rights will likely be a key salient right in the process and an influx of workers may trigger other risks such as sexual and gender-based violence .

Responding to human rights risks

Based on identified potential issues, it is important to develop effective and practical responses to prevent and mitigate these impacts. When doing this, it is important to ensure that the voices of communities, workers and others are heard, but also that collaboration with appropriate government or civil society organizations is pursued.

The response can sometimes be relatively straightforward, at least in principle. For example, poor working conditions amongst workers employed through contractors can be addressed through: standards applied to contractors to implement minimum labor conditions as set out in national law in relation to all workers engaged on the project, including migrants; safety briefings on site expanded to include basic labor conditions; and partnerships with local public agencies working with workers to spread awareness of labor rights and the availability of grievance mechanisms to all workers.

Some responses are more complex. For example, if human rights defenders (HRDs) are subject to harassment or threats when advocating against a similar project to the prospective IDB-financed project in the country, a good response may include formal inclusion of HRDs in project stakeholder engagement planning and dialogue, and issuing wide communication of clear statements on the commitment to zero tolerance for harassment of HRDs.

Working together to support human rights

On the basis of the risk assessment of human rights issues on a project, it will often be the case that complex and multifaceted causes behind identified human rights challenges will require a collaborative approach. For example, ensuring that human rights defenders are free to express their opinions in relation to a project where there are polarized views and a history of conflict requires careful thought and targeted actions. If this will be addressed by hiring and training contractors and security personnel, the experience of local civil society organizations, indigenous groups or trade unions may be beneficial. Similarly, cooperation may take the form of working with civil society organizations or local government to map and engage with specific local community leaders, or working with specialized child rights agencies and international bodies to devise programs to tackle child labor, including transitions to employment.

While there will inevitably be some challenges, improving human rights performance is a central and important part of IDB’s new approach and one which ultimately benefits projects and project beneficiaries.

Would you like more information? Download our technical note on managing human rights risks in IDB projects.

You may also want to read:

A human rights approach to development

5 steps to managing risks of retaliation for project-related complaints

3 things to know about managing labor risks in development projects

Steve Gibbons

Steve Gibbons is a founding Director of Ergon Associates. He works with development finance, the private sector and international organisations to support the implementation of human rights standards in a diverse range of sectors and geographies. He has served on the independent accountability mechanisms of a number of financial institutions. His clients range from the Interamerican Development Bank and World Bank through major international brands to FIFA. Steve is a UK qualified lawyer.

Marcella Klinker

Marcella Klinker is a Consultant with Ergon Associates. She mainly works on issues related to human rights and labor in global supply chains and has provided research and advisory services to a range of Development Finance Institutions, private sector clients, certification organizations and international organizations. Marcella holds degrees in history and law and has a LL.M. in Public International Law.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Message

Blog posts written by Bank employees:

Copyright © Inter-American Development Bank ("IDB"). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives. (CC-IGO 3.0 BY-NC-ND) license and may be reproduced with attribution to the IDB and for any non-commercial purpose. No derivative work is allowed. Any dispute related to the use of the works of the IDB that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the IDB's name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of IDB's logo shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IDB and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC- IGO license. Note that link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license.

For blogs written by external parties:

For questions concerning copyright for authors that are not IADB employees please complete the contact form for this blog.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDB, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.

Attribution: in addition to giving attribution to the respective author and copyright owner, as appropriate, we would appreciate if you could include a link that remits back the IDB Blogs website.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Overview

Advertisement

Development Projects, Violation of Human Rights, and the Silence of Archaeology in Brazil

• Published: 05 September 2015
• Volume 19 , pages 810–821, ( 2015 )

Cite this article

• Loredana Ribeiro 1  

346 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

In the last 40 years archaeology in Brazil has grown in the wake of development projects, covered by the objectivity of techniques and neutrality, and isolated from conflicts and environmental injustices associated with such projects. The arguments on this paper revolve around narratives of rock art from a Brazilian region where people were relocated after their displacement by a large scale development project in the 1970s; they seek to discuss the environmental management model adopted in Brazil and how professional archaeologists act within it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainability of a local government-instituted ecotourism development: Tayak adventure, nature and wildlife Park in Rizal, Laguna, Philippines

Bing Baltazar C. Brillo & Aileen C. Simondac-Peria

Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy

Ashish Kothari, Federico Demaria & Alberto Acosta

Intersectionality and Indigenous Peoples in Australia: Experiences with Engagement in Native Title and Mining

Arruti, J. M. P. A. (2004). A árvore Pankararu: fluxos e metáforas da emergência étnica no sertão do São Francisco. In Oliveira, J. P. (ed.), A Viagem da Volta: Etnicidade, Política e Reelaboração Cultural no Nordeste Indígena , Contra Capa Livraria/LACED, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 231–280.

Google Scholar  

Avritzer, L., and de Santos, B. S. (2002). Para ampliar o cânone democrático. In Santos, B. S. (ed.), Democratizar a Democracia , Civilização Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 39–82.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Outline of a Theory of Practice , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Calderón, V., de Jácome, Y. D. B. A., and Soares, I. D. C. (1977). Relatório das Atividades de Campo Realizadas pelo Projeto Sobradinho de Salvamento Arqueológico , AAPHBA/CHESF, Salvador.

da Rocha, B. C., Jácome, C., Stuchi, F. F., Mongeló, G. Z., and Valle, R. (2013). Arqueologia pelas gentes: um manifesto. Constatações e posicionamentos críticos cobre a arqueologia brasileira em tempos de PAC. Revista de Arqueologia 26(1): 130–140.

Dias, A. S. (2010). Caminhos Cruzados? Refletindo sobre os Parâmetros de Qualidade da Prática Arqueológica no Brasil. Jornal Arqueologia em Debate 2: 14–15 < http://sabnet.com.br/jornal/ >.

Esteva, G. (1992). Development, in W. Sachs (ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power , Zed, London, pp. 6–25.

Estrela, E. S. (2003). Pankaru. [s. l.]: Instituto Socioambiental | Povos Indígenas no Brasil Disponível em: < http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/povo/pankaru >.

Estrela, E. S. (2005). Como filhos de marrecas: a experiência dos “beraderos” sanfranciscanos após a construção da barragem de Sobradinho - Bahia. Imaginário 10: 341–361.

Estrela, E. S. (2009). Um rio de memória: o modus vivendi dos beraderos sanfranciscanos antes da Represa de Sobradinho (Bahia). Historia e Perspectivas 41: 115–140.

Gomes, C. P. (1975). Sob as águas. Revista Veja , August 13, pp. 23–24.

Jorge, M., Prous, A., and Ribeiro, L. (2007). Brasil Rupestre: Arte Pré-histórica Brasileira , Petrobrás-Ministério da Cultura-Editora Zencrane, Brasília-Curitiba.

Lacorte, A. C. and Barbosa, N. P. (1995). Contradições e limites dos métodos de avaliação de impactos em grandes projetos: uma contribuição para o debate. Cadernos IPPUR/UFRJ 9(1/4): 252–262.

Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox , Verso, London.

Neves, E. G. (2010). Parâmetros de qualidade para a prática da arqueologia no Brasil. Arqueologia em Debate 1: 16–17. < http://sabnet.com.br/jornal/ >.

Oliveira, J. P. (2004). Uma etnologia dos “índios misturados”? Situação colonial, territorialização e fluxos culturais. In Oliveira, J. P. (ed.), A Viagem da Volta: Etnicidade, Política e Reelaboração Cultural no Nordeste Indígena , Contra Capa Livraria/LACED, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 13–42.

Oliveira, J. E. (2006). Cultura material e identidade étnica na arqueologia brasileira: um estudo por ocasião da discussão sobre a tradicionalidade da ocupação kaiowá da Terra Indígena Sucuri’y. Revista de Arqueologia 19: 29–50.

Pereira, E. (2004). Arte Rupestre na Amazônia , Unesp-Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, SãoPaulo-Belém.

Ribeiro, L. (2007). Repensando a tradição: a variabilidade estilística na arte rupestre do período intermediário de representações no alto-médio rio São Francisco. Revista do Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia 17: 117–127.

Ribeiro, L. (2009). Sobre pinturas, gravuras e pessoas ou os sentidos que se dá à arte rupestre. Especiaria 11/12(20/21): 157–182.

Ribeiro, L. (2010). Auto-regulação da arqueologia brasileira: responsabilização, credibilidade e fortalecimento profissional. Arqueologia em Debate 1: 8–9. < http://sabnet.com.br/jornal/ >.

Rothman, F. D. (ed.) (2008). Vidas Alagadas: Conflitos Socioambientais, Licenciamento e Barragens , UFV, Viçosa.

Sampaio, J. A. L. (1993). Seu Apolônio, o velho patriarca Pankaru. Boletim Anai–BA 9(6–7): 5–7.

Schmitz, P. I., Barbosa, A., and Miranda, A. (1996). Arqueologia nos Cerrados do Brasil Central: Sudoeste da Bahia e Leste de Goiás, O Projeto Serra Geral , Instituto Anchietano de Pesquisas/ Unisinos, São Leopoldo.

Sigaud, L. M. (1992). O efeito das tecnologias sobre as comunidades rurais. In Maciel, T. (ed.), O Ambiente Inteiro: A Contribuição Crítica da Universidade à Questão Ambiental , UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 41–68.

Sigaud, L. M., Martins-Costa, A. L., and Daou, A. M. (1987). Expropriação do campesinato e concentração de terras em Sobradinho: uma contribuição à análise dos efeitos da política energética do Estado. Ciências Sociais Hoje 1: 214–290.

Vieira, U. G. (2008). Paradoxos do licenciamento ambiental de hidrelétricas em Minas Gerais. In Rothman, F. D. (ed.), Vidas Alagadas: Conflitos Socioambientais, Licenciamento e Barragens , UFV, Viçosa, pp. 254–295.

Zhouri, A. (2008). Justiça ambiental, diversidade cultural e accountability. Desafios para a governança ambiental. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 23(68): 97–107.

Article   Google Scholar  

Zhouri, A., and Oliveira, R. (2007). Desenvolvimento, conflitos sociais e violência no Brasil rural: o caso das usinas hidrelétricas. Ambiente and Sociedade 10(2): 119–135.

Zhouri, A., Laschefski, K., and Pereira, D. (eds.) (2005). A Insustentável Leveza da Política Ambiental: Desenvolvimento e Conflitos Socioambientais , Autêntica, Belo Horizonte.

Download references

Acknowledgments

To Cristóbal Gnecco and Adriana Dias for the invitation to participate in the WAC Inter-Congress “Disentangling contract archaeology.”

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Antropologia e Arqueologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil

Loredana Ribeiro

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loredana Ribeiro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ribeiro, L. Development Projects, Violation of Human Rights, and the Silence of Archaeology in Brazil. Int J Histor Archaeol 19 , 810–821 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-015-0313-6

Download citation

Published : 05 September 2015

Issue Date : December 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-015-0313-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Development
• Environmental conflict
• Contract archaeology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Main page content

• Environment
• Cooperation
• Latin America and Caribbean
• Civil Society

How climate projects can lead to human rights violations: the case of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam

• Climate Diplomacy

Climate finance is supposed to fund projects in developing countries that support the path towards limiting global warming to 1,5°C – a goal that was confirmed in the Paris Agreement in December 2015. For this it needs a paradigm shift to low-emission and climate-resilient development as the statute of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) states. At the same time, projects funded under climate finance should not hamper development or lead to the violation of human rights. Climate finance can therefore not only focus on the environmental aspects of the investments funded, but also needs to be incorporated into the wider context of development, as i.a. the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are reflecting.

This does not only apply to bilateral development cooperation of countries like Germany. It also applies to actors like the German development bank DEG, whose loans towards climate mitigation projects are also accounted for under Germany’s contribution to international climate finance. To date little is known which of the projects funded by DEG represent climate finance and should thus be in line with Germany’s international obligations. Yet in order to be able to track the social and human rights records of climate finance, it needs more transparency also on the contribution of development banks.

How climate projects can potentially harm the local population can be illustrated by the case of a project in Barro Blanco. The large hydroelectric dam project Barro Blanco sits on the Tabasara River, in the Province of Chiriqui, partially in indigenous lands, in Western Panama. With financed from the German and Dutch national development banks (DEG & FMO) as well as the Central American bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) the project was a registered project under the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism until November 2016 when Panama withdrew its approval as a CDM project.

Human rights violations

Local Ngäbe communities have opposed to Barro Blanco since inception in 2008 and continue to do so, as the project is likely to flood at least six hectares of their land, including homes, agricultural fields, a school and sacred petroglyphs. As indicated in two letters sent to the CDM Board in 2011 and as confirmed by the then-UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people James Anaya, the affected stakeholders were neither adequately informed nor adequately consulted prior to the project and have never given their consent to it.

These findings constitute a violation of international human rights standards, which stipulate that indigenous peoples have the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as well as to adequate housing, to possess, use, and freely enjoy their traditional lands and territories, and to not be forcibly removed from them. The dam’s construction has proceeded despite of widespread opposition, with the continued support of the financing banks and the Panamanian administration.

Acknowledgment of Barro Blanco’s flaws

In February 2015, the newly elected Panamanian government temporarily suspended the construction of the almost completed dam on the grounds that the project failed to comply with its environmental impact assessment (EIA).

International lenders opposed this decision in a letter sent to the government expressing “great concern and consternation” and warning that “actions such as the one taken against Genisa [the project developer] may weigh upon future investment decisions and harm the flow of long term investments into Panama.” While Barro Blanco clearly violates international laws, European banks “have insisted on continuing construction, as stopping the project […] would cause serious financial losses,” according to the Dutch NGO Both ENDS.

The positions of the banks is also in conflict with the Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM) of the Dutch and German banks involved. The ICM found that “significant issues related to social and environmental impact and, in particular, issues related to the rights of indigenous peoples were not completely assessed prior to the [loan] agreement.” Responding to the ICM’s finding, the banks only committed to “extract lessons learned from the ICM report”.

Moreover, as a result of relentless campaigning and advocacy work, the Panamanian government also withdrew the CDM host country letter of approval for Barro Blanco effectively deregistering the project in 2016. With this action, the government of Panama set a precedent as it was the first time  in UN climate history that a host country has taken such action. This means that the project will not generate credits to offset emissions produced elsewhere. The de-registration sends a strong message that human rights violations are not tolerated in activities labelled as “climate friendly”. Unfortunately, the decision did not stop the project from going ahead, nor have the banks withdrawn their support.

Flooding after project restart

In the meantime, the Panamanian Environment Ministry after fining the project developer $775,200 for failing to find an agreement with the Ngäbe and for the violation of their social and cultural rights, lifted the temporary suspension.

A test flooding of the dam reservoir began in June 2016, directly affecting three local Ngäbe communities who to date have not received adequate compensation for the damage caused by the flood waters. Several houses have been flooded and, as a result, families have been forced to move to higher ground. As shown in this video shot in the beginning of January 2017, the stagnant lake is seriously affecting their health as well as their food and water resources. Informed of the test flooding, banks continue to support the dam operation.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) thus:

• call on the development banks to show that they do not accept the human rights abuses by their counterparty and ask them to halt the project until a consultation process has been carried out correctly and the affected communities have received fair compensation.
• demand a disclosure of which projects funded by development banks like the DEG are accounted towards international climate finance.
• ask for the implementation of ambitious safeguards for international climate finance channeling tools such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) or a future Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) as well as all actors of bilateral climate finance.

[This article originally appeared on GermanClimateFinance.de ]

Photo credits: Protest camp against construction of the Barro Blanco dam, Panama, 2014 | Gines A. Sanchez/Flickr.com [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]

Related content

• Adaptation and Resilience

Villagers in Bhutan and India come together to share river

The experience of the Saralbhanga River, which flows from Bhutan to India, shows the power of involving local people in river management.

• Forests and Biodiversity

Transboundary EIAs could reduce conflict over river projects

Ignoring cross border impacts of large infrastructure projects will spark conflict along rivers, argues Peter King. National level environmental impact...

French environment minister quits, in blow to Macron’s green reputation

French environment minister Nicolas Hulot has resigned live on national radio in a surprise move that will come as a blow to president Emmanuel Macron’s green...

• Middle East and North Africa
• Conflict Mitigation and Peacebuilding

UN issues warning of climate instability across Arab region

Climate change threatens conflict and poverty in the Arab region, according to the UN Development Programme (UNDP). In a report published last week, the agency...

• Global Issues

Resource Watch - Monitoring the Planet's Pulse

Working with over 30 partners, the World Resources Institute (WRI) has recently launched the Resource Watch. The platform provides a wide array of data sets on...

• Sub-Saharan Africa

Cape Town in crisis

Cape Town is dealing with one of the biggest climate change-linked water crises to face a modern city. This should serve as our wake-up call: we must transition...

The ECC Exhibition accompanies the Week of Central American Integration in El Salvador

The exhibition “Environment, Conflict and Cooperation”, realized by adelphi and supported by the German Federal Foreign Office, was recently displayed in El...

INTERVIEW: Are diplomatic dialogues between EU and Mercosur climate-proof?

The EU is currently negotiating a trade agreement with the four founding members of Mercosur. Negotiations cover a broad range of issues—but 1) do they consider...

Water and Energy: Working Together For More Security

In the Middle East, the consequences of climate change are already a reality of life. The region is one of the most water-stressed areas in the world, the...

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

‘Large-scale human rights violations’ taint Congo national park project

Conservation groups proposing a protected area in the river basin accused of ignoring the interests of the Baka people

• Report clears WWF of complicity in violent abuses by conservation rangers

J osi Emerson, president of the Baka pygmy village of Seh in the Congolese rainforest, was working in his field in June 2018 when he heard vehicles and shouts. Forest rangers, known as ecoguards, dressed in paramilitary uniforms and carrying guns, had arrived in Jeeps.

Emerson rushed home but it was too late. The guards, employed by the Congolese government to stop poaching and supported by international conservation group the WWF , were going from hut to hut accusing the Baka villagers of killing an elephant.

“A guard slapped me three times in the face. ‘You know what is happening here,’ he said. “[Then] they started beating everyone. They beat my brother with a machete and cut his back, right to the bone – and they beat my mother with a piece of wood. They beat everyone. They made me lie down in the ashes of the fire. They destroyed our cooking pots with their boots, they looked for ivory in our houses but they found nothing,” he said.

Emerson’s allegation of physical violence by forest rangers was one of many reported to a UN Development Programme [UNDP] team sent to Baka villages to investigate reports of human rights abuses in one of the world’s most ambitious conservation projects.

Its report into what was happening in the proposed 1,345 sq km Messok Dja national park in the Republic of the Congo reveals not only how the Baka were treated, but condemns the way western countries, global bodies and wildlife protection groups failed to respect human rights in central Africa.

The team found Baka communities in a state of “deep distress” and were told of multiple beatings, houses being burned down and guards forcing women to strip.

The report documents “credible” testimony that the guards engaged in violence and threats against the semi-nomadic Baka people in the Messok Dja.

Some Baka reported that they were taken to prison, tortured and raped. One woman said her husband was treated so badly in prison that he died shortly after his release. He had been taken to the prison in a WWF-marked vehicle.

Other Baka, says the report, were told they could no longer go into areas of the forest where they had traditionally hunted because a “park” was going to be set up. The guards made no distinction between the Baka’s small-scale, traditional hunting for survival and illegal wildlife poaching.

The proposed Messok Dja protected area is the centrepiece of the much larger Tridom project which since 2007 has attracted tens of millions of dollars to protect a key part of the Congo basin – the world’s second largest rainforest after the Amazon.

Financed in different stages by the UNDP, the Global Environment Facility, the EU, the US, WWF and other global conservation groups, as well as logging and palm oil companies, it covers 10% of the Congo basin.

Safeguarding this part of the basin, a “hotspot for great apes and elephant poaching”, is intended to create a wildlife corridor between protected areas in Cameroon, Gabon and the Republic of the Congo and combat the illegal wildlife trade. An estimated 25,000 elephants, 40,000 gorillas and chimps as well as buffaloes and monkeys live in the wider area and are increasingly threatened by logging, palm oil plantations and mining.

In a sobering critique, the investigators found multiple faults with the way the UNDP and Tridom’s partner organisations set up and managed the project. Communities, says the report, were barely consulted about plans that would have a severe impact on them, policies were not implemented, there was widespread failure to identify risk, and an overoptimistic assumption that conservation would bring benefits to the indigenous people.

But the wider findings of the report challenge the multibillion-dollar western conservation industry and global bodies to rethink how they work with indigenous peoples. According to the investigators, they are locked into “old thinking” about how to protect nature.

That analysis reflects the recent landmark report of IPBES, the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity, where it’s argued that indigenous people are not threats but essential to conservation.

“The establishment of national parks in the Congo basin has a history of being focused on conservation while ignoring the human rights of the indigenous communities. This approach considers indigenous people a threat and fails to take into account the role that they have historically played in conserving biodiversity,” it says.

“The prevailing conservation model is still dominated by the ideological view that protected areas have to be empty of people. However, evidence from other regions shows that empowering indigenous peoples to manage the biodiversity in their own territories results in more sustainable and cost-effective ways to protect biodiversity,” says the report.

The lesson to be drawn, it says, is that conservationists must work with indigenous peoples who have managed landscapes for centuries rather than trying to exclude them. “Evidence from across the world shows that indigenous peoples, like the Baka, understand well how to care for their traditional lands and can do so for a fraction of the cost of western conservation programmes.”

Earlier this year the EU suspended its €1m funding to the WWF for the project and said it would conduct a human rights review of other schemes it supports in the Congo basin.

The result is a vindication for BuzzFeed news, which had reported in 2019 how the WWF had declared in its application for funding that the Baka were “favourable” to the new park but had omitted to say that many had vehemently opposed it, fearing “repression” from ecoguards and their removal from the forests.

In a statement, the EU said that it acknowledged that the UNDP investigation showed “shortcomings” in WWF’s methods for seeking the consent of the Baka and said financial support would be restored only when more protections for the Baka had been established.

Observers in central Africa say the Messok Dja and the wider Tridom project have been a human rights disaster, further impoverishing already marginalised indigenous peoples who have lived in or adjacent to Messok Dja’s boundaries for millennia.

According to the Forest Peoples Programme [FPP], an international NGO commissioned last year by WWF to assess the situation in Messok Dja, the proposed protected area should be completely rethought.

“Multiple communities oppose the overlap of the protected area with their lands … Communities experience ecoguards which they associate with WWF as violent and unjust. Engagement and consultation with communities started far too late in the process [of setting up the park],” says the FPP report.

Indigenous peoples defence group Survival International said the UNDP report should be a wake-up call for conservationists everywhere. “By targeting the weak semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers like the Baka, the global bodies and businesses involved in Messok Dja are alienating the very people who have conserved the forests since time immemorial,” says its director, Stephen Corry.

“Millions of dollars have been spent on the proposed park, much of it coming from mining, logging, palm oil and tourism companies, as well as conservation NGOs. They are working together to steal Baka land. All the relevant UN policies and laws regarding respect for indigenous peoples and human rights were ignored from the beginning as it was felt that a conservation project somehow rose above them,” said Corry.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, says that up to 250,000 people worldwide have been forcibly evicted from their homes to make way for conservation projects since 1990.

“Protected areas continue to cause chronic patterns of abuse and large-scale human rights violations. There is a growing body of evidence that forests thrive when indigenous peoples remain on their customary lands and have legally recognised rights to manage and protect them,” she said.

When the UNDP draft report was published in April this year, the WWF said in a statementthat it had already changed its approach to working with indigenous Baka groups.

“The [UNDP] report, based on a field mission in early 2019, does not reflect the current position on the ground. We have worked tirelessly in recent months with all concerned – from representatives of indigenous peoples and other NGOs working in the area, to logging companies and RoC (Republic of the Congo) government officials – to overhaul practices regarding community engagement and help ensure [the] indigenous group participate in finding solutions and do not feel their way of life is under threat due to conservation efforts,” it said.

“We are especially distressed by concerns around the relationship between RoC government-employed rangers and local communities, including allegations of abuse, and are treating these matters of the highest importance. Any breach of our social policies and commitments is unacceptable and we will take all action needed,” it added.

But the Baka, in a letter to the European commission, say the conservationists must learn from them.

“The forest is our home. We rely on it to live,” wrote Celestin Angama. “But you people have stolen our forest. What are we going to do? How will we survive? We do not understand why you don’t come to us for our advice and our guidance about how to protect our forest. Haven’t you thought of that? If the forest is so beautiful it is because we are here. We are the ones you should be working with.”

• Global development
• Indigenous peoples
• Human rights
• Congo-Brazzaville

Most viewed

Human Rights Violations in Development Project in Uganda

An irrigation project to help fight poverty in Uganda has led to conflicts between the authorities and the loca ls . The project, which is supported by the African Development Bank and the Nordic Development Fund, seeks to expel the local population from their lands in Pakwach district. Many people have been shot and injured by the country’s military for their protests against the project.

August 11, 2021 , Paten South, Pakwach District : Silvia Anican (29) and three other women are on their way to fetch water. They take the usual road across the rice field to get to the borehole on the other side. Some distance ahead they see a dozen uniformed men. Some have green military clothes, others are from the police.

– Stop there! Do not walk another meter! shouts one of the men. In the next moment, the women are ordered to sit down on the ground. Minutes later, they are told to get up again.

– Dance for us now! Sing a song ! says a man from the defence.

Silvia and the women start performing for the men. Some laugh out loud, while some are angry and throw ugly words at the women. When the dance is over, they are taken to a place where dirty rainwater fills a large hole in the road.

– Take off your clothes now, you are going to swim! say the men. The women are dragged down and rolled around in the dirty water while their bodies are beaten with wooden sticks. When the women try to ask what is going, the men answer that this is what happens to people who refuse to give up their land.

Violent land grabbing

Exactly 24 hours ago, several of the women’s friends were wounded by gunshots and tear gas from the military and police in the area. The background to the incident is an ongoing conflict between the authorities in the Pakwach district and the Paten clan, to which the women belong.

The construction company Coil Company Limited is behind an irrigation project that will contribute to increased food security and poverty reduction among farmers in Uganda. Disagreements with the Paten clan began when the authorities sought to expand the land for the project, which originally started in the Nebbi district of northern Uganda. According to members of the Paten clan, who have lived in the area for generations, the authorities demanded an area of ​​365 acres – something they were allowed to use for the project. Later, the authorities stated that it was a question of 365 hectares, which is more than twice as large an area. The locals have not accepted this.

– We cannot just give up land that our families have lived on for generations without a formal agreement on compensation. They think they can just come here and start digging up our fields. When we refuse, they take up arms, says Denis Ovonji, who belongs to the Paten clan and is a local activist in the area.

The project, which has a price tag of around 91 million dollars is financed by the African Development Bank (AfDB) with support from the Nordic Development Fund (NDF). AfDB has contributed around 76 million, and about 6 million comes from NDF. The remaining amount is from the Ugandan government. The five-year project (2016-2021), which was supposed to be completed in September, has been delayed due to the conflict.

Women carry firewood from one side of the river in Pakwach to the other. The river, which flows from the Democratic Republic of Congo, runs straight through the disputed area where the Paten clan lives. The conflicts, which flared up earlier this year, have made the inhabitants of the clan afraid to move freely in the area.

Violence against pregnant women

On August 10, representatives from the construction company, together with district leaders from the authorities, the police and officers from the defence, came together in a troop to begin the excavation work in the area. Members of the Paten clan came to the scene to find out what was going on and were attacked with tear gas and gunfire.

– They started digging up my rice field and I tried to ask why. Three men from the defense came towards me. One of them attacked me with tear gas and I fell straight to the ground on my stomach. I was six months pregnant, says Brenda Giramia (18).

She is sitting on the ground outside her home in the village of Paten north when we visit her. It has been almost three months since the incident and Brenda has severe pain in her stomach.

– I will soon give birth and have had pain in my stomach since the incident. When I came to the clinic I was denied help and I do not have the money to seek private care. I’m afraid something’s wrong with my child, she says.

Brenda Giramia (18) was six months pregnant when she was attacked with tear gas in the area where she lives when she had come to ask why they tried to take the land from her. The tear gas made her fall and she landed up on her stomach.

Gunshot wounds

Of the Paten clan’s around 1000 members, we find many single mothers who depend on the fields to survive. Janet Akumu (40) is one of them. She has seven children whom she supports by growing rice and the local grain called sorghum. She got severely hurt when the military attacked her and injured her leg with rubber bullets.

– They have destroyed parts of my field and I no longer dare to go there. Now it is my son who helps me, but it is very risky to visit the area, says Akumu.

The mother of seven, Janet Akumu (40) is sitting with sorghum (grain) from her field. She and her family have been producing rice, sorghum and more for several generations in the area. She was among many who got injuries when the military attacked the community earlier this year. She has wounds on her legs from rubber bullets.

Some distance from her house, another woman is suffering from pain after being shot and beaten. The mother of five, Nyivuru Grace (42), lifts up her skirt and shows her legs that are full of wounds from rubber bullets. She was in her rice field that day when the authorities and military came to clear land for the irrigation canal.

– I am a single mother and the land I have is my only livelihood. Now I am terrified to return to the field. What if they come back to hurt us again ?, says Grace.

The injuries to her legs she received when she tried to ask what was going on. She was brought to the government clinic in Pakwach, but was denied help by the health personnel.

– I was told by a nurse that the authorities had instructed them not to help anyone who lives in the disputed area. I had to return home again and still have severe pain in my leg. It feels like there are remnants of something inside there, says Grace.

The mother of five Nyivuru Grace (42) is showing her legs which are full of gunshot wounds.

Richard Ongom (31) lives in the village of Paten Lower. He is the father of five children and lived here for many years. The family has 4 acres of land where they grow rice, bananas, papaya etc which they sell at the local market. Richard was present when the military attacked the villagers in August. He shows marks on his legs and hands from hard punches with a weapon. – There were three soldiers who came towards me and started beating. I had no choice but to run. Now I live with fear of being abused again and of losing the land we have. If they take the land, I have nothing to live for, says Ongom.

Expelled from work

The majority of the people we talk to from the Paten clan say that they have been denied help by both health personnel and the police.

– It is the leaders of the Pakwach district who have ordered the health center and the police to refuse help to members of the Paten clan. Few people here can afford private health care and many are still struggling with injuries after the brutal incidents. No one has had the incidents documented by the police, Ovonji says.

He and his family own a large area where they grow rice, among other things. Since the incident, fears of more conflicts have made it impossible for them to use the area as before.

– They say that this project is made to make our lives better and increase production in the fields, which is basically positive. The problem is that they (the authorities ed.amn) have not involved us in the process. If this project is here to bring something good, why do they use force and weapons ?, he says.

Ovonji worked as a primary school teacher before the project began and has lost his job after being accused of trying to stop the project. In a letter from the authorities in Pakwach from 16 August 2021, which KIOS has been given access to, Ovonji is accused of having been behind the Paten clan’s protests against the project. In the same letter, he is told to quit his job.

Denis Ovonji, who belongs to the Paten clan and is a local activist in the Ovonji area, has been at the fore-front in the fight for the land. He has been arrested several times and lost his job as a teacher. – We have no problems cooperating with the authorities as long as they compensate us in the right way. We can not just give up the land that has been our livelihood for generations, says Ovanji.

Positive to development

The authorities have been in several talks with the clan chief since the beginning of 2019, but the meetings have not yielded any fruitful results.

– I am basically positive about the project and the state has the right to develop the area. What provokes me is the way it is done. I gave a clear message that I must discuss the matter with the inhabitants here, but they did not have time to wait and came back with weapons, says clan chief Santonio Onen Daudi (75).

He is wheeled out into the courtyard when KIOS visits his home in the village of Adiri. Daudi inherited the role of clan chief from his father and is today the head of the Paten clan’s ten villages. He is the one who has the last word in all decisions that are made within the clan’s areas.

The father of 22, who had to amputate his legs due to diabetes, is worried about the future.

– No money in the world is worth as much as our lands. In return for a possible takeover of our area, we want new, equally large land areas, with the same topography, says Daudi.

According to the clan chief, there has been a military presence in the villages in recent months.

– The military has established a base close to my home and they monitor everything I do. I am no longer allowed to hold meetings with members of the clan, he says.

Santonio Onen Daudi (75), head of the Paten clan, is concerned about the future. The authorities have visit-ed him a number of times to ask for the clan. So far they have not come up with a solution and according to the clan chief there have been no discussions regarding compensation for the areas. – I have given a clear message to the authorities that they can not just come here and take our land. The violent incidents in July and August has made us take the matter to court, says the clan chief.

  No freedom for human rights activists

Several human rights activists and organizations have been stopped from working in the area and according to a number of local activists, journalists are denied access to the area.

Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organization (BIRUDO) is an organization that is affected. The local organization works in several places in Uganda with villages affected by development projects. They conduct information work to strengthen local knowledge about human rights, laws and procedures so that the population can stand up for their rights. BIRUDO has worked with the Paten clan for a number of years and has, among other things, helped them with lawyers to take the case to court.

– We have had several meetings with local authorities about the ongoing conflicts and the many attacks they are behind. At the meeting in early June, they made it clear that we are no longer allowed to work in the area, says Paolyel Onencan, general manager of BIRUDO.

Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organization (BIRUDO) is a local organization funded by KIOS. The team has done extensive work in the area to provide the locals with knowledge about laws when it comes to land and human rights. In June they got a message that their activities have been temporarely suspended and they are not allowed to work in the community anymore.

Demanding action

The organization is one of a total of 28 member organizations of the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, which is behind a joint letter to the African Development Bank and the Nordic Development Fund. The undersigned demand immediate action for the attacks on the Paten clan. Just over a week after the letter was sent, the development bank responded: «We have previously been informed of the allegations in their letter and have sent a request to the authorities to carry out a detailed investigation. We expect to receive the findings from this study in a short time ».

According to several sources, the Nordic Development Fund has on several occasions relinquished responsibility, since they are not the main sponsor of the project. In an email interview with KIOS in November, they claimed that the matter is serious.

«NDF is strongly against reprisals and the use of force against people affected by projects, and asks that the complaint be treated in a constructive and respectful way…. Despite the fact that NDF’s funding focuses on other activities, we take the matter very seriously. Investigations are conducted, and complaint mechanisms are made available to potentially affected people and local communities by AfDB. NDF is following the situation closely and is waiting for the results of these processes», says Jesper Andersen, director of the Department of quality assurance and reporting, NDF.

Rice is the livelihood of most farmers in the area. The rice they grow is sold to private people and cooperatives in the local market. The ongoing land conflict between the authorities in Pakwach and the locals has made many fear going to their fields. The result has been that many are forced to take up daily wage jobs elsewhere.

Silvia Anican (29) in the field outside the house where she lives. She has 12 family members and the family has lived in the area for generations. They grow rice, sorghum, cassava, corn and more to survive. The single mother is one of many who have been attacked by the country’s military and police. On August 11, she and three other women were attacked by security personnel in the area. Her family has been threatened by the authorities for refusing to give up their lands.

November 6, 2021, Paten South: Mother of four, Silvia Anican (29), lives in the middle of the disputed area of ​​the Paten clan. The house is located on a large field where the main produce is rice that has provided for the family for many years. Silvia is traumatized after the incident in August when she and the three friends were attacked by the defense. She fears for the family’s future.

– The project is basically positive but the violent strategy they use is wrong. When the district leaders were here, we were told that we would have to use the land according to their wishes and methods. If we do not manage to produce enough, we will lose our land for good, says Silvia.

Text and photos: Sofi Lundin

The journalist has been in contact with a number of leaders from the local government in Pakwach district. None of them wanted to answer our questions. The construction company Coil Company Limited has also not responded to inquiries.

What have the Nordic Development Fund (NDF) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) done?

KIOS has in advance received a comment from NDF to this article:

“As partners to AfDB in the overall Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation Project 2 (FIEFOC 2) we understand our responsibility in providing the support we can to have this matter properly investigated and resolved. NDF is strongly against reprisals and the use of force towards project affected people and calls for grievances to be addressed in a constructive and respectful manner.”

NDF has not been willing to meet with KIOS or representatives of local organizations. It has been following up with AfDB to find out if formal complaints had been filed and what investigations have been, or are being carried out. NDF is pleased a formal complaint has now been filed with AfDB’s Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) and are waiting for the outcome of this process.

According to information KIOS has received, AfDB gave their response to the IRM’s request without visiting the field and without hearing community members. The IRM is continuing to investigate the case. Local organizations are trying to get IRM to at least visit the area.

KIOS has also been in touch with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, which says it takes any allegations of wrongdoings seriously and proactively follows up on them with the involved organizations where Finland is a member, shareholder or donor. The Ministry has been in contact with AfDB and urged the Bank to appropriately investigate the allegations.

Related organisations

• Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation BIRUDO

Related news (0)

• Organization
• Newsletters
• Press and media
• Advisory services
• Capacity development
• Dialogues and facilitation
• Knowledge and research
• Collaboration
• Cross-cutting issues

When properly managed, water can be a peacemaking platform for long lasting cooperation

Water is a growing concern in many parts of the world. Countries can improve their water resilience through transboundary water cooperation over shared waters.

Many of the most pressing challenges in the world are about water: too little, too much or too inferior. Such challenges can only be effectively addressed through adequate governance of available water resources.

In 2015, the global community launched the 2030 Agenda, with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that should be reached by 2030. Some progress has been made, but for most of the goals, the world is not on track to meet the deadline. Water can help us do better.

Groundwater is the regulator of the entire freshwater cycle, but its invisibility makes it difficult to manage and protect.

The climate crisis is essentially a water crisis. When we treat it as such, we get new tools to mitigate climate change and adapt to consequences that are unavoidable.

Insufficient supply and inadequate infrastructure leaves millions of people in the world without water.

How to increase the productivity of agriculture around the world through better water management.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has pushed millions of people back into poverty and exposed unacceptable gaps between the rich and the poor. One in three people are still not able to wash their hands with soap and water at home.

Indigenous peoples are the custodians of many of the world’s most fragile and important ecosystems. They also possess invaluable knowledge about sustainability and resilience, so they have a vital role in protecting our environment.

The source-to-sea approach focuses on the strong connection between what happens on land, along waterways, and in the sea.

A growing number of people, societies and companies are discovering the power of resilient landscapes. It is still possible to shift to more sustainable practices that recharge water, restore soil health, sequester carbon, and strengthen biodiversity – but we need to make the transformation now.

More than two billion people in the world lack safely managed drinking water and twice as many lack safely managed sanitation, making WASH one of the most urgent development challenges.

While we all depend heavily on rivers for our survival, many rivers are under constant threat from unsustainable human activities

More and more young people offer important contributions to solving the growing water challenges they are inheriting.

Having access to water and sanitation has been recognized as a human right since 2010. But water is also essential to ensuring the fulfilment of many other rights.

To improve water governance, we need to take a close look at gender roles.

• SIWI – Leading expert in water governance

Respecting human rights in large infrastructure projects

Are large infrastructure projects possible while maintaining respect for human rights? A new policy brief authored by Dr Jenny Grönwall, SIWI’s HRBA focal point and Advisor, Water Policy & Rights at the Water Resources Department, and contributing expert to the SIWI hosted International Centre for Water Cooperation (ICWC), draws from ongoing research in elevating key human rights aspects across the conception, development, and implementation of large-scale water infrastructure projects.

Water governance and cooperation in a transboundary setting are often closely linked to the water infrastructure developments within that region. However, in the absence of shared governance arrangements or communication, the planning and construction of large infrastructure development works can be the source of tension. Beyond state-to-state relations and broader basin management concerns, poor planning and governance may lead directly to human rights abuses.

The World Commission on Dams proposed two decades ago that a human rights-based approach (HRBA) be adopted to balance positive and negative impacts of large hydropower installations.

“The HRBA is a value-based, people-centred tool and process for planning, programming, and monitoring development projects” says Dr Grönwall. “It provides a step-by-step method to identify rightful claims, freedoms, and entitlements in a way that contributes to empower both governments with obligations to realize the human rights, and the concerned rights-holders. However, lack of capacity is common at State level, raising a need for cooperative and technical assistance from the world community.”

Dams and hydropower plants produce clean, renewable energy, which is indispensable to meet an increasing demand for electricity, while limiting the impact of climate change. There are, however, inevitable trade-offs between the benefits such developments can bring and the negative socio-ecological impacts likely to be caused to local communities and other concerned parties during their construction and use. The HRBA helps ensure that dam-based development causes the minimum gendered or intergenerational impacts.

Among the HRBA recommendations, State governments at all levels must recognize individuals and communities in affected areas as rights-holders, with legal entitlements, under international human rights law. Moreover, they must safeguard that private sector companies apply human rights due diligence as required under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Applying a Human Rights-Based Approach to transboundary infrastructure projects

Large dams and human rights obligations: The Pancheshwar multipurpose project

Caring for our ocean from source to sea

Join us for Source-to-Sea synergies at the Ocean Decade Conference

Innovating water and food security

Hydrologist Taikan Oki becomes 2024 Stockholm Water Prize Laureate

Water for Peace Quiz: How deep is your knowledge?

Water: A platform for peace in the tides of war

Beyond access: how do we achieve toilet equity?

Water cooperation for peace, to achieve the 2030 Agenda

Stockholm international water institute.

Visiting address:

Hammarbybacken 31 120 30 Stockholm Sweden

Postal address:

Kabyssgatan 4D 120 30 Stockholm Sweden

Organisation Number : 802425-8702 VAT Number : SE  802425870201

Contact us: siwi@siwi.org

©2024 SIWI

By Websearch and

We use cookies on our website to make your experience better. Your personal data is safe and we do not sell it to anyone.

The website is running without cookies, some features will not work.

Watch: Dr Alan White, Co-Executive Director requested by Liberian President Joseph Boakai to establish the War Crimes and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia.

Support this historic cause and donate to bringing justice to Liberia!

Liberia needs your assistance now!

Benin Human Rights Violations

Assisting The Ethiopian Amhara Community Seek Justice And Accountability For Human Rights Violations And Crimes Against Humanity

Fact-Based Research On Corruption And Human Rights Abuses In Africa Where U.S. Sanctions Have Been Levied

Dr. Alan W. White, Co-Executive Director, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee about the horrific ritual killings of children and trafficking in body parts, seeking legislation to stop the killing!

Watch the hearing.

Designating And Promoting Accountability For Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Against Women And Children

Assisting Several Victims Of Significant Human Rights Abuses Seek Asylum In The United States Or Elsewhere

Past Human rights Projects

The Advocacy Foundation for Human Rights wants to congratulate the Liberian people on holding a free and fair election. We are proud to have been involved in this process.

Click to read the White House Press Statement .

The President of the ECOWAS Commission congratulates President-Elect Joseph Boakai:

Election Results:

The Advocacy Foundation for Human Rights was pleased to collaborate with the Catholic University Columbus School of Law and the Citizens Court of the World in providing a Proposed Revision of the Rules of Procedure as part of the credentialing process of the court.

Click to read the Proposed Revision of the Rules of Procedure.

Contact us to learn more about our foundation, its projects, and how you can help.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Middle East crisis — explained

The conflict between Israel and Palestinians — and other groups in the Middle East — goes back decades. These stories provide context for current developments and the history that led up to them.

UN human rights body calls for halt to weapons shipments to Israel

The Associated Press

Meirav Eilon Shahr, ambassador of the Permanent Representative Mission of the Israel to the UN, observes the vote on a resolution regarding the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, during the 55th session of the Human Rights Council, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on Friday. Salvatore Di Nofi/AP hide caption

Meirav Eilon Shahr, ambassador of the Permanent Representative Mission of the Israel to the UN, observes the vote on a resolution regarding the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, during the 55th session of the Human Rights Council, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on Friday.

GENEVA — The U.N.'s top human rights body called on countries to stop selling or shipping weapons to Israel in a resolution passed Friday that aims to help prevent rights violations against Palestinians amid Israel's blistering military campaign in Gaza.

The 47-member-country Human Rights Council voted 28-6 in favor of the resolution, with 13 abstentions.

The sweeping measure takes aim at an array of Israeli actions such as impeding access to water and limiting shipments of humanitarian aid into Palestinian areas. It also calls on U.N.-backed independent investigators to report on shipments of weapons, munitions and "dual use" items — that have both civilian and military applications — that could be used by Israel against Palestinians.

While non-binding, the resolution is bound to raise international pressure on Israel as a sign of widespread concern about its military campaign in Gaza, begun in response to the attacks in Israel by armed militants on Oct. 7, that has led to the killings of nearly 33,000 Palestinians.

Western countries were divided. The U.S. and Germany opposed the resolution, France and Japan abstained, while Belgium, Finland and Luxembourg voted in favor.

Sustained applause interrupted the council president as he read the results. Israel's ambassador said she would not attend the rest of the day's session and called the resolution a "stain on the Human Rights Council and the United Nations as a whole."

Israel's military dismisses officers over World Central Kitchen airstrike

"This council has long abandoned the Israeli people and long defended Hamas," Meirav Eilon Shahar said of the militant group behind the attacks. "It has become a shield for terrorists. It has turned a blind eye to any acts of violence against Israelis and Jews."

She said she was especially disappointed at European countries that backed the measure — calling out Belgium, Luxembourg and Finland by name — for supporting a resolution that did not condemn Hamas.

"I don't know if any of you counted, but Israel appears in the resolution 59 times — 59 times," she told reporters afterward. "Hamas does not appear at all."

Before the vote, the Palestinian ambassador in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi, decried the "humanitarian disaster" in Gaza, and appealed to envoys "to wake and stop this genocide ... televised live across the world, killing thousands of innocent Palestinian people."

McDonald's says it is buying back all of its franchises in Israel

Speaking in Arabic, Khraishi alluded to the genocide of Jews in Europe last century, saying: "We were not responsible, but we have been paying the price of what was done during the Second World War."

Israel — at times joined by the United States — has regularly and roundly criticized the council for its alleged anti-Israel bias. The council has approved far more resolutions against Israel for its actions toward Palestinians over the years than against any other country.

The council is wrapping up its first session of the year, which began on Feb. 26, with action on more than 40 resolutions on subjects as diverse as the rights of the child; the environment and human rights; genocide prevention; and rights situations in countries like Sudan, Belarus and North Korea.

On Thursday, resolutions were passed on troubling rights situations in places like Myanmar, Iran, Ukraine and Syria.

U.S.-Israel politics set to roil Democratic primaries

The resolution comes amid a growing focus on weapons shipments to Israel — notably by its strongest backer, the United States — as Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza.

In a sign of Washington's growing impatience with Israel's handling of the military campaign, U.S. President Joe Biden issued a stark warning to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday that future U.S. support for Israel's Gaza war depends on the swift implementation of new steps to protect civilians and aid workers.

That was the first time that Biden has threatened to rethink his backing if Israel doesn't change its tactics and allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

U.S. ambassador Michele Taylor, alluding to the Israeli strike that killed seven humanitarian workers from World Central Kitchen in Gaza this week, told the council: "Israel has not done enough to mitigate civilian harm."

The resolution had "many problematic elements — too many to name in full," she said, while noting a lack of "specific condemnation of Hamas for perpetrating the horrific Oct. 7 attacks" in Israel.