Similarities and complementarities between MDGs and
human rights
Human rights and MDG are not to be seen as mutually exclusive: they are two sets of
interdependent and mutually reinforcing commitments.
MDGs and human rights: a reciprocal relationship
MDGs can provide relevant benchmarks for the progressive realization of
human rights. For example the specific target set by MDG 4 - reducing by two-thirds,
between 1990 and 2015, the under-five child mortality rate - can provide a relevant
milestone for the realization of the child’s right to health under the CRC. Of course the
MDG targets – as with human rights targets or benchmarks – must be ‘localised’ or
tailored to the national situation and resource availability.i Economic, social and cultural
rights (including the right to food, health, housing and education) are for the most part
required to be realised to the maximum extent of available resources in any particular country.
Accordingly ‘localised’ MDG targets can generally be expected to furnish more relevant
national milestones for the progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights
than the global MDG targets. Human rights benchmark selection, as with the process of
customising MDG targets, should be carried out in as participatory fashion as possible.
A human rights-based strategy provides more effective and sustainable means
for achievement of MDGs.ii Focusing on individuals as key actors in their own
development, rather than passive recipients of commodities and services, a rights-based
strategy is more likely to foster efficient national ownership and people's empowerment,
both key to achieving the MDGs.iii Human rights standards and related principles
provide minimum standards and strengthen processes for the achievement of
development goals. Human rights sharpen strategies for realising MDGs by addressing
the discrimination, powerlessness, and weaknesses in systems of accountability that lie at
the root of poverty and other development problems (Part II).
A. Similarities between MDGs and human rights
MDGs and human rights share a common ultimate objective and commitment to
promoting human well-being, recognising the inherent dignity, freedom and equality of
all people.iv
MDGs and the human rights legal framework each provide tools to hold
governments accountable.v Each relies upon a process of periodic reporting and
accountability at both national and international level.
1
Overall resource constraints are relevant to the pace of realisation of both MDGs
and human rights. As already seen, economic, social and cultural rights are – for the
most part – required to be realized progressively, to the maximum extent of available
resources, and monitored over time.
There are similarities in the guiding principles for the realization of both MDGs
and human rights, notably in connection with: participation, empowerment, national
ownership and the importance of partnerships. Human rights standards are nationally
owned, establishing minimum standards for participation, empowering people as actors
for human development. Partnerships at all levels – local, national and international – are
necessary for effective implementation of human rights obligations. Similarly, the
customising of MDG targets at country level should take place through a broad-based
and inclusive dialogue and debate. MDG reporting and monitoring at the sub-national
level provides the opportunity to take the MDGs to community level, helping to
strengthen ownership and empower people to better articulate their local needs within
the framework of a nationally and internationally agreed development agenda.vi
B. Complementarities between MDGs and human rights
MDGs and human rights have different but complementary purposes. MDGs
are a set of numerical targets established for the purpose of raising awareness among
the public, and for social mobilization. The fact that the MDGs are small in number,
quantifiable and time-bound facilitates the simplicity and clarity of key messages. By
contrast, the international human rights framework embodies a more extensive
international consensus on the minimum prerequisites for a life of dignity, with more
comprehensive and specific performance standards. For example MDG 3 highlights
just a few of the essential aspects of ‘gender equality and empowerment,’ namely,
parity in enrollment rates in primary and secondary education. But this should not be
taken as excluding the many inter-related human rights facets of gender
empowerment strategies, including equality of opportunity in employment and
exploring structural barriers to women’s participation in public life.
Universality v. developing country focus. The MDGs are focused upon a number
of priority development issues which are particularly relevant for developing
countries. International human rights standards are of comprehensive content and
universal application, applicable equally to all people in all countries.
MDGs are mainly quantitative (defined numerical targets), whereas human
rights also reflect explicit qualitative dimensions. Whereas MDG 1 targets at halving the
proportion of people who suffer from hunger between 1990 and 2015, implementing the
right to food does not only encompass the right of every individual to be free from
hunger. It, in addition, requires food to be of adequate nutritional value, culturally
appropriate and safe – three qualitative dimensions of the right to food.vii
2
Human rights standards are matters of legal obligation. While MDGs and
human rights standards share a common aim of strengthening government
accountability for results, the performance standards established by the human rights
framework are legally binding. These standards help to identify ‘no go areas’ (for
example, the deliberate or arbitrary retrogression of some rights at the expense of others)
and unacceptable policy trade-offs in the development equation. However, human rights
are not ‘trumps’ in all situations, and can not be expected to reveal clear solutions to all
development problems.
Institutions and mechanisms of accountability. Accountability for MDG
realization lies principally at the political level, through the preparation of periodic
progress reports, national and international campaigns, and the mobilisation of public
opinion. Accountability for human rights realization is backed by a different and broader
range of institutions and mechanisms at national level (including courts, national human
rights institutions, informal or community-based mechanisms) and international level
(including the treaty bodies).
Dealing with disparities. At the global level, the MDGs are based upon ‘average’
attainments. While they give a good sense of overall progress, average numbers can be
misleading.viii Improvements on the average number of years of school attendance in a
country can, for example, be the result of dramatic improvement in access to education
for girls from privileged groups, with a slight reduction in years of schooling only for the
poorest. Similarly, apparent improvements in per capita income do not necessarily reflect
an improvement in poverty reduction; they can even hide an increase in income
inequality and absolute poverty.ix By contrast the human rights framework compels us
more immediately and explicitly towards the eradication of discrimination and the
prioritisation of action in favour of the poor, vulnerable and marginalized. Pursuing
equity and narrowing disparities within countries – along gender, ethnic, racial and
geographic lines – consequently requires looking behind country averages. MDG
Reports and national campaigns need to find a workable balance between this concern
and the practical need to keep messages clear and simple. MDG 3 (gender equality)
should be seen as an integral and cross-cutting element of strategies for achievement of
all MDGs, with data disaggregated accordingly.x
Process and outcomes. Consistent with their limited purpose, the dominant focus
of the MDGs is upon poverty reduction outcomes. Within the human rights framework,
process is equally important as outcomes. While there are some commonalities, noting
for example the need for popular participation for localising MDGs and for effective
campaigning, human rights standards establish baselines (even if not blueprints) for
meaningful and informed participation in policy making, along with criteria for inclusive
and sustained progress, and accessible means of redress in the event that human rights
standards are violated.
Rights-based strategies for MDG realisation. Rights-based strategies for MDG
realisation recognize people as key actors for their own development, rather than passive
recipients of commodities and services, treating poverty reduction as a matter of entitlement
3
(and correspondingly, obligation) rather than discretion or charity. Human rights empower
people to make claims against those with a duty to respond, strengthening accountability for
development outcomes. Rights-based strategies for MDG realization seek to identify the
immediate, underlying and basic causes of development problems. As such, they reveal
structural constraints impeding human development, a factor too often overlooked in the
past. Finally, rights-based MDG realization uses in synergy both top-down and bottom-up
approaches in which strategic partnerships are developed and sustained.xi
‘The [MDGs] reflect a human rights agenda – rights to food, education, health care and
decent living standards. The need to ensure all these rights confers obligations on the
governments of countries both rich and poor.’
UNDP, Human Development Report 2003, p.29.
i
UNDG, Country Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals: Second Guidance Note, September 2003, p.9.
Cf. UNDP, Poverty Reduction and Human Rights, A Practice Note, June 2003 confirming this in contexts where
injustices and discrimination are the main reasons for poverty.
iii Human Development Report 2003, pp. 1 and 30 et.seq.
iv Human Development Report 2003, p. 27. Box 1.1. shows how MDGs, human development and human rights share a
common motivation, p. 28.
v See for example Human Development Report 2003, p. 133: "Implementing the policies and interventions required to
meet the Millennium Development Goals requires the commitment of political leaders. But it also requires sustained
political pressure, broad popular support and mechanisms for delivering services effectively. An open democratic state
that guarantees civil and political freedoms is essential for such popular mobilization and participatory civic
engagement, so that poor people can pressure their leaders to deliver on their commitments to the Goals."
ii
vi
UNDG, Country Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals: Second Guidance Note, September 2003, p.9.
vii
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12 (Article 11 ICESCR, the
right to adequate food), UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5.
viii
Vandemoortele, Jan. Are the MDGs feasible? in Targeting development: Critical perspectives on the Millennium
Development Goals and International Development Targets, Richard Black & Howard White (eds.), Routledge,
(forthcoming).
ix The 2003 Human Development Report, referring to Brazil, India, China and Mexico, affirms that "the spirit of the
Goals is not met if countries that cross the finishing line leave behind many poor people". Human Development Report
2003, p. 34. In fact, it concludes that "many countries with good average performance on the Goals contain population
groups – and sometimes entire areas – being left behind", p. 46. Cf. also the concept of "ruthless growth" used in past
Human Development Reports, p. 67 and Vandemoortele (forthcoming).
x
UNDG, Country Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals: Second Guidance Note, September 2003, p.7.
For an authoritative statement on the basic elements of what has become known as a ‘rights-based approach’ to
development cooperation, see the report of the ‘Second Inter-agency Workshop on Implementing a Rights-based
Approach in the Context of U.N. Reform,’ held in Stamford, USA, in May 2003, available at http://www.undg.org.
Attachment 1 of the report is a Statement of Common Understanding on a Rights-based Approach to Development
Cooperation, the main elements of which are reflected in the foregoing discussion concerning the complementarities
between MDGs and human rights and how the latter can strengthen strategies for the achievement of the former.
xi
4