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

2
value, culturally appropriate and safe – three qualitative dimensions of the right to
food.vii

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.

3
 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 (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.

4
i
UNDG, Country Reporting on the Millennium Development Goals: Second Guidance Note, September 2003, p.9.
ii
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."
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.
xi
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.