DRAFT - not for wider circulation
Human rights assessment of the OWG Outcome Document
OHCHR has carried out a human rights assessment of the OWG proposal on SDGs in line with the
following ten key human rights messages outlined in the High Commissioner’s July 2013 Open Letter
to all Member States:
1. The Post-2015 Agenda must be built on a human rights-based approach, in both process and
substance.
2. The new agenda must address both sides of the development challenge—that is freedom
from both fear and want.
3. The imperative of non-discrimination and equality must underpin the entire framework.
4. Marginalized, disempowered and excluded groups, previously locked out of development,
must have a place in the new agenda, including women, minorities, indigenous peoples,
migrants, older persons, the disabled, and the poor.
5. Commitment to ending poverty which cannot be reduced to a simple equation and represents
itself a complex of human rights violations.
6. The new framework must advance a healthy environment as an underlying determinant of
internationally guaranteed human rights.
7. Creating an international order in which human rights can be fully realized, including by
international reform to ensure human rights-based policy coherence at the international
level as the Right to Development mandates.
8. The Post-2015 Agenda should be universally applicable, based on universal norms and
universal objectives.
9. The Post-2015 agenda must include a strong accountability framework, based on existing
international obligations, which identifies rights-holders and corresponding duty-bearers, as
well as mechanisms at all levels to ensure that relevant institutions have clear responsibilities,
are answerable for them, and are subject to enforceability where delivery is failing.
10. Responsibility for human-rights based development, must extend to actors in the private
sector, and should call for the full application of the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights.
Overall assessment of the integration of human rights:
Each of the High Commissioner’s 10 advocacy points is reflected in the final document adopted by
the OWG, representing a significant step forward from the narrower and largely human rightsinsensitive approach of the MDGs. The chapeau narrative notes that “people are at the centre of
sustainable development” and, commits to a world that is just, equitable and inclusive, to benefit all
without discrimination. It reaffirms the commitment to fully implement all major United Nations
conferences and summits, the need to be guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the United Nations, with full respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law
and its principles. Goals and targets reaffirm the importance of both freedom from fear and freedom
from want, addressing peace and security, respect for all human rights, including the right to
development and the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food, right to
water, the rule of law, good governance, gender equality, women’s empowerment and the overall
commitment to just and democratic societies for development.
With all key human rights elements now “anchored” in the OWG’s Outcome Document, it will be
critical to retain and strengthen these gains during the forthcoming intergovernmental negotiations.
Advocacy should also focus on strengthening some of the weaknesses of the document, as some
aspects of the proposal remain inconsistent with human rights, and should be strengthened as far as
possible in the coming period.
DRAFT - not for wider circulation
Key strengths of OWG proposal:
 Narrative grounded in human rights: The narrative is rooted in international law with
explicit reference to human rights standards and agreements, including a call to put
“[p]eople […] at the centre of sustainable development”, for a world that is “just, equitable
and inclusive” and which aims to “benefit all […] without distinction of any kind such as age,
sex, disability, culture, race, ethnicity, origin, migratory status, religion, economic or other
status” (para 4); and an essential reference to the “Charter of the United Nations, with full
respect for international law and its principles”, the “importance of freedom, peace and
security, respect for all human rights, including the right to development and the right to an
adequate standard of living, including the right to food and water, the rule of law, good
governance, gender equality, women’s empowerment and the overall commitment to just
and democratic societies for development” and of the “Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, as well as other international instruments relating to human rights and international
law.” (para 7)
 Human rights standards and obligations embedded in goals and targets: Although the
goals and targets are not explicitly phrased in the language of human rights (in contrast to
earlier versions of the OWG document which explicitly framed the goals in human rights
terms), many targets are nonetheless framed in ways that recognise many elements of the
substantive content of human rights obligations (e.g. socio-economic goals respond to the
requirements of availability, accessibility, affordability, quality, etc.; “zero” and “universal”
targets respond to the human rights standards of universal access; references to
international standards ensure respect of existing binding commitments).
 Freedom from Want: Socio-economic goals reflect key aspects of economic, social and
cultural rights, including in relation to food, health, education, housing, water and sanitation.
Several targets reflect explicitly different dimensions of these rights (availability, accessibility,
affordability, acceptability and quality) taking the emphasis beyond the MDG focus on
accessibility, towards include a focus on quality..
 Freedom from Fear: Key aspects of civil and political rights are also included, with the
protection of personal security reflected in several targets, e.g. targets on violence,
trafficking, torture, abuse and exploitation. Targets on participation and the rule of law refer
to both the national and international level and are of immediate effect, and there are
targets on fundamental freedoms, access to information and access to justice.
 Equality and Non-Discrimination: There is a four-pronged approach to addressing
discrimination and persistent inequalities, including (i) two dedicated equality goals (one for
gender equality, and another for all forms of inequality within and between countries), (ii)
targets for laws, policies and actions to address discrimination and inequalities, (iii) explicit
attention to more than 35 specific groups, including women, children indigenous peoples,
persons with disabilities, older persons, migrants, and a host of others and (iv) calls for the
disaggregation of data across a broad set of categories, including a specific target on
disaggregated data that requires data to be disaggregated in accordance with an open list of
characteristics (“and other characteristics relevant in national contexts”)
 Sustainability: Four goals dedicated to environmental concerns (climate change, oceans,
terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable consumption and production) with specific attention to
people living in vulnerable situations which should help to ensure a healthy environment as
an underlying determinant of all human rights
 International Policy Coherence: Several targets address the need for reforms at the
international level, including more democratic governance in international institutions,
including in Goal 16. Goal 17 focuses on the means of implementation that are considered
DRAFT - not for wider circulation
critical for creating an ‘international enabling environment’ in the sense of the right to
development, including targets on trade, finance and other areas, emphasising the need for
greater policy coherence and for policy space for developing countries.
 Accountability: The proposal calls for a global partnership for sustainable development with
active engagement of governments as well as civil society, the private sector and the UN and
commits to a “robust mechanism of implementation review”.
Aspects of the proposal that must be strengthened:
 Alignment: There should be more explicit language on human rights, where current
references within the narrative, goals and targets are implicit. The chapeau narrative should
go beyond stressing the importance of human rights, to include an unequivocal statement
that goals and targets are to be interpreted in line with existing human rights commitments.
Language could be drawn from the 2013 SG report (“Goals and targets should take into
account […] human rights […]”) or from Rio+20 para 246 (goals that are “consistent with
international law, build upon commitments already made”) or use a generic reference as in
current target 15.1 (“in line with obligations under international agreements).
 Goals and targets need to make explicit reference to human rights standards – including
the right to water and sanitation, health, education, freedom of expression, association and
peaceful assembly – and be more systematically aligned with the content of those standards
– including with respect to secondary education and child labour. At a minimum, key
dimensions of economic and social rights need to be included consistently, and targets that
seem to be self-contradictory and neglecting of socio-economic rights, should be amended
(e.g. boosting food production does not automatically lead to sustainable access to food for
all; making food commodity markets ‘work’ does not necessarily help limit food price
volatility to ensure affordability). In order to make Goal 16 targets consistent with
international agreements, the target to end abuse, exploitation and torture should be
extended to all ages; targets on participation in decision-making and on protecting
fundamental freedoms need to refer to existing human rights standards such as freedom of
expression, association and peaceful assembly and must not be qualified by “national law”;
and the justice target should refer to key human rights standards, including due process
rights, right to a fair trial, etc.
 In Goal 17 on Means of Implementation, in line with Rio+20 (para 246), policy coherence
should be defined as ‘consistency with international law’. Text from previous targets could
be used (e.g. “and ensure that all countries continue to act within the provisions of existing
relevant international agreements”). The list of grounds for disaggregation noted in this goal
area is also not consistent with the one in the chapeau, so needs to be aligned.
 National qualifiers and adaptation: Targets must not be qualified by “national law”, but
rather must ensure “consistency with international law” (Rio+20; 246). There is also a need
for clarification on the statement that “each government” is to set “its own national targets”.
It will be important to ensure that all the goals and targets are applicable to all states, even if
the contributions expected of each state to meeting those targets will differ according to
national circumstances and available resourcesIt will be important to ensure that national
adaptation and tailoring of the targets is undertaken through a clear, transparent and
participatory process at the national level, in which common criteria or principles are
applied..
 There is currently an inconsistent approach to benchmarking, where targets have different
achievement dates, and global benchmarks are only defined for some targets. At a minimum,
DRAFT - not for wider circulation
if target dates are not uniform, the rationale and timelines must be clarified and aligned with
existing human rights obligations (e.g. ending discrimination is an immediate obligation).
 ‘Commodification’ and ‘corporatisation’: A number of proposed targets actively encourage
greater involvement of business and the private sector, but these targets and the proposal
as a whole neglects corporate accountability. The responsibility of the private sector needs
to be addressed more specifically, e.g. through reference to the UN Guiding principles on
Human Rights and Business and by including safeguards for negative side effects of an
expanded role for the private sector and business.
 While the inclusion of migration in the proposed goals and targets is positive, there is a
tendency to treat migrants as an economic commodity more than as rights holders. Wording
on migration should be adjusted in line with the understanding of migrants as rights holders.
 Critical rights contested: Indigenous rights and women’s rights, particularly women’s sexual
and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), are not fully reflected. Relevant goals need to
consistently reflect women’s SRHR, be aligned with related health target (3.7), and delete
reference to ICPD and Beijing which are limiting. Women’s rights need to be mentioned
explicitly in the goal on gender equality, and must not be limited by “national law” or “as
nationally appropriate”; and women’s participation (target 5.5) must be equal.
 Indigenous rights need to be reflected fully and in line with the GA Declaration of 2007
(“free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples”).
 Inconsistent references to groups: The language on groups is critical but unfortunately
inconsistent across the document. Reference to groups need to be more coherent, e.g. (1)
where possible, prohibited grounds of discrimination of the main human rights covenants
should be used as in Rio+20 ("race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status"), (ii) if groups are enumerated they
should include migrants, minorities, older persons, indigenous peoples, persons with
disabilities and should always be open (iii) if a generic term is used, it should cover a wide
range of potential groups and avoid victimising people (good examples: 'groups in vulnerable
situations', 'groups at risk of exclusion or marginalization').
 Accountability: The call for “implementation review” should highlight the purpose of
accountability and call for national adaptation along agreed criteria, ensuring the
involvement of civil society through a transparent and process linked to existing
accountability mechanisms. Previous language on ‘accountability’ should be re-inserted, and
to ensure synergies, the importance of drawing on existing review mechanisms at global,
regional and national levels should be stressed.