Oxfam GB. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Development in Practice.

Transcription

1 Oxfam GB Rights-Based Approaches: Issues for NGOs Author(s): Emma Harris-Curtis Source: Development in Practice, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Nov., 2003), pp Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Oxfam GB Stable URL: Accessed: 28/12/ :34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Oxfam GB are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Development in Practice.

2 Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November 2003 C Taylr&Frani PGrotips Research Round-up Rights-based approaches-issues Emma Harris-Curtis Shifts in the debate and relevance to NGOs for NGOs The recent increase in the number of publications, training courses, NGO policy statements on mainstreaming rights, as well as workshops and conference papers from International Financial Institutions (IFIs) on rights-based approaches is testimony to the importance that development professionals attach to the concept. However, as pointed out by the UNHCR (2001), 'there is no single, universally agreed rights-based approach, although there may be an emerging consensus on the basic constituent elements'. Furthermore, the implications of adopting such an approach do not appear to have been comprehensively questioned, though many organisations are making explicit policy changes to mainstream rightsbased approaches. For instance, DFiD and Oxfam GB have committed to it, Save the Children Fund has returned to its roots in children's rights issues, and the World Bank is exploring ways to mainstream a rights approach. Despite this commitment to some kind of rights-based approach, the questioning of its viability is conspicuous by its absence. This article seeks to explore some of the key issues associated with the adoption of a rights-based approach that are relevant to NGOs. Contentious issues of the rights debate What are the origins of the debate? The conceptual issues have been addressed by some (Hausermann 1998; Moser and Norton 2001; Sen 1999) in detail, but new issues are constantly arising and the debate has not been concluded. Probably the most fundamental is the origin of the concept itself. Some say that rights approaches derive from gender and human rights struggles (Boerefijn et al. 2001), others that they come from the struggle for freedom itself (Sen 1999). Others argue that they originate from the struggle for the recognition of rights of disabled people (Hurst 2001). Others still interpret rights-based approaches as a natural progression from the struggle for civil and political rights to economic, environmental, cultural, and social rights (UNHCR 2001). Yet another interpretation of the origins of rights-based approaches, discussed by Sano (2000), is that the different disciplines of development studies, economics, and human rights have been brought together by the debate on rights, united by the post-cold War context that emphasises the importance of rights. According to Sano, the previously separate disciplines have been linked in this way because rights affect every aspect of life in civil society. Together, these three disciplines have evolved a new, post-needsbased approach that is viable for all development actors. Deciding just how a specific NGO interprets the origins of rights-approaches is crucial to how it develops an explicit rights policy. 558 ISSN print/issn online C 2003 Oxfam GB DOIk / Carfax Publishing

3 Rights-based approaches What is different about rights in civil society? Whatever the origins of the debate, there is no doubt that since the end of the Cold War the nature of the debate on rights has changed. Putnam (1995) suggests that with the fall of the socialist bloc, Western value systems underlying the free-market system have become entrenched the world over. Part of this 'entrenchment' is in the rights of the individual within civil society. The means by which these rights can be asserted is through the combination of responsibilities, duties, transparency, trust, accountability, and legal national and international frameworks that have all been recognised as vital for new civil society (Van Rooy 1998). It is this assertion of duties and responsibilities that balances the individual's rights. Sen (1999) argues that there is 'interdependence between freedom and responsibility' and that the two are indivisible. This is embodied both in responsibility for oneself, but also in social responsibility. So there exists in civil society a combination of duties and rights embodied in the citizenship described by VeneKlasen and Miller (2002). It is important to note the evolution of the role of human rights organisations in what is different about rights in civil society. Without their advocacy of civil and political rights over the years, it could be argued that the rights discourse would not be as developed as it is today. However, organisations like Amnesty International (Al) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) no longer focus exclusively on human rights violations and the complexities of civil and political rights; they now look at the social, economic, and cultural rights. For example, HRW states: We pay special attention to economic, social and cultural rights violations when they result from violations of civil and political rights or must be remedied as part of a plan for ending violations of civil and political rights. (Human Rights Watch 2001) So the historical division between human rights organisations and development NGOs is blurring as their interpretations concerning rights and development evolve. For example, while Al and HRW have been increasingly involved in advocating social, economic, and cultural rights, Oxfam GB and Norwegian Church Aid have been promoting the human rights approach to development. This divergence serves to emphasise the popular interpretation that poverty is to do with lack of rights rather than lack of needs. It is also leading to a great deal of cross-pollination of specialists, with development specialists working in human rights organisations and human rights lawyers working in development NGOs. Furthermore, there is something specifically different about rights in civil society. The human rights organisations, development NGOs, and other advocates maintain belief in the importance of altering the balance of power through rights being asserted, recognised, and protected. Power is changed, not through revolution but through individuals' responsibility for themselves and for others. During the Cold War the political dichotomy of right versus left defined the power of the state, the individual, and other aspects of society, such as the economy. At that time political affiliation defined the kind of society one was aiming to support or construct. Van Rooy (1998) argues that, today, power is being asserted by the individual in a different way. Through their citizenship and their recognition of both their rights and their responsibilities individuals have a new role. What is the change from basic needs to rights approaches? Interestingly, in Latin America a 'social change' approach, advocating political transformation through education, rather than the asistencialista needs-based approach, existed as early as the 1970s. It has some similarity with the rights versus needs debate of today and could be seen as one of the Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November

4 Emma Harris-Curtis precedents for the current rights discourse. However, it is still true to say that the overall needs focus of development NGOs remained intact until recently. Furthermore, within the new way of viewing rights described above there is a fundamental difference in the way poverty eradication is addressed by civil society organisations. There is indeed a shift from the basic needs to the rights approach in development, and many actors in the development field are reorienting their policies to an explicit rights value base. This can be explained by looking at the history of organisations dedicated to poverty eradication, such as NGOs. Most NGOs started as charities with philanthropic intentions. Western nations have a history of philanthropy that evolved from slavery abolitionists through the protestant ethics of the Salvation Army to modern day, often secular, NGOs. The evolution from the 'sentimental, paternalistic and privileged discourse of philanthropy and charity, to a more political, egalitarian and empowering ideology of rights and duties' (Slim 2001) challenges the very basis of charities and NGOs. Thus, the historical bases on which charities were founded have evolved. The rights discourse is challenging because it asserts the individual person living in poverty as active agent, rather than a passive recipient. Whereas previously the 'charity worker' or 'benefactor' gave resources for the poor from the 'goodness of their own heart', now their role has changed. In the rights context the poor person has rights that can be asserted; philanthropy has been replaced by facilitating someone actually in the fight to gain power through asserting their rights. Or, to put it another way, the assertion of the individual's rights is political, whereas charity is (supposedly) apolitical. So the balance of power is being challenged. Ironically, for charities relying on public funds, pressing the apolitical, victim-oriented philanthropic button is easier than 'enlightening' people on rights issues. This is because education on rights changes historically based conceptions concerning poverty. No longer are the poor there to be 'helped'. On the contrary, they are poor only because they are being denied their rights. In other words, rights do not readily 'sell' in the countries where the donations are collected because the donor population does not always comprehend them (Slim 2001). Of course, not only are charities reliant on the donating public, they also rely on specific funding sources. Would NGOs be quite as ready to attach themselves to a rights-based approach if the precedent had not been set by their biggest donors? Without subscribing to the value bases of powerful donors such as DfID, NGOs run the risk of resource starvation. This is a vital question for NGOs when exploring the viability of rights-based approaches. The role of the state in the evolving rights dialogue So, the ascendance of civil society has not just led to the extension of the individual's civil and political rights, but also to the recognition of their social, economic, cul- tural, and environmental rights. The state has an important role as 'primary duty bearer' (Moser and Norton 2001) in this. Protecting human rights is insufficient today; rights have been accepted as vital to all aspects of the state's role in civil society. At present, social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights are less universal than civil and political rights. Is this because not all states can protect them? (Hausermann 1998) Is it because states do not want to recognise them, because if they do they are recognising their role as duty bearers? The answer will be different from one nation to another, but some commonalities exist. Also, although good democratic governance is not a prerequisite for rights perspectives to function, where the state facilitates less the process is more challenging and the time needed longer. Hausermann argues that, in general, nations in which civil society and economy are stronger find it easier to secure social, economic, cultural, 560 Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November 2003

5 Rights-based approaches and environmental rights. Yet is it as easy as that? Surely states choose whether to put a concept into practice and their choices will come from many reasons. Of course, the original commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made over 50 years ago, by many nations. Yet there is a gap between written policy, rhetoric, and carrying through such commitments. In explaining the decision by some nations to become duty bearers Hausermann cites the example of South Africa. The South African constitution of 1996 explains that rights can be progressively realised and derive from the struggle for democracy. The articles within the constitution are part of a process committed to by the state as its responsibility for delivering rights to the population. South Africa knows that there is more to this than just written statutes, but it does provide the legal framework to support rights. Other ways of accepting responsibility for rights is in the training of the military, the police, and the judiciary, and support for the media and the electoral process (Boerefijn et al. 2001). However, it is accepted that the achievement of rights is a process and, although the international infrastructure is in place, individual nations have the responsibility for interpreting these rights and seeing that they are honoured. There is still space, therefore, for nations to avoid their role as duty bearers for delivering rights, such as currently occurs in Burma, Zimbabwe, or North Korea. Pro-poor policies are central to the role of the state in delivering and protecting rights. The way that powerlessness is central to poverty has been discussed since the 1980s, and pro-poor policies have evolved from this debate alongside the rights discourse. Potentially, at least, pro-poor policies are the means by which the powerlessness of the poor can be redressed. At the heart of the pro-poor concept lies the notion of rights; unless they can assert their rights the poor will not gain a voice. Of course, there are tensions within pro-poor policies and the rights agenda relating to them. There is evidence that the pro-poor policies that accompany rights discourse are meeting with resistance from governments and organisations (Johnson and Start 2001). This is partly due to an entrenched balance of power that is not likely to be rescinded easily. It is also due in part to individual self-interest by those in positions of power. So pro-poor policies that are explicit within bilateral and multilateral donor policies are part of the fundamental shift towards a new rights agenda. Interestingly, pro-poor policies and the rhetoric of rights have been viewed as just as threatening as the left/right political dichotomy of the past (Boerefijn et al. 2001). Cultural specificity Probably the most important reason that rights are contentious is cultural specificity. Rights-based approaches have been pioneered by Scandinavian NGOs: MS Denmark and Norwegian Church Aid 'feel they are well known for their rights-based approach', as enshrined in their policy documents in the early 1990s (Harris-Curtis 2002). Can it not be argued, therefore, that rights-based approaches, as embodied in bilateral and NGO policy, are a Western construct? Sen (1999) names this the 'cultural critique'. It is indeed true to say that rights-based approaches are written mostly by educated, institutionalised members of the Western development community. Most of the approaches themselves, when put into practice, are not necessarily recognised as relevant by civil society organisations in the South. Although there is in Latin America a tradition of fighting war and political violence with the assertion of rights, and populations often comprehend the rights discourse (Slim 2001), this is mostly in terms only of civil and political rights. And although many theorists assert that rights are indivisible, evidence from developing nations suggests that rights are not recognised as indivisible by poor people. In Africa, rights are less accepted as being 'African' (Slim 2001). During a Tanzanian Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November

6 Emma Harris-Curtis workshop on relationships between NGOs, for instance, the Director of the Kuleana Centre for Child Rights said of Tanzanian CSOs: 'We are rights blind and "needs" focused'. He argued that this was because the rights discourse was not understood by most Tanzanians. This has nothing to do with inability to understand, and everything to do with lack of access to knowledge. Social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights are still generally perceived as separate from civil and political rights and development issues, mostly because information about the rights discourse is poorly known about in Tanzania. Consequently, few Tanzanians have had the opportunity to learn about the arguments concerning rights, or to voice their opinions about it. What seems to be at stake here is not whether freedom and rights are indivisible from need but whether they have been recognised as such. Sen (1999:240) argues: 'The valuing of freedom is not confined to one culture only, and the Western traditions are not the only ones that prepare us for a freedom-based approach to social understanding.' The problem is that not everyone has had the chance to analyse it in this way as yet. Meanwhile, Northern NGOs would do well not to hide behind the argument that rights are universal, indivisible, and nonhierarchical (Hausermann 1998). They should engage first in sharing information more comprehensively and then in an open debate with Southern partners; listening to their input. Only if Northern rights-based approaches are not regarded in a normative fashion will NGOs discover how rights are going to be interpreted by those of other cultures. Faith, legitimacy, and rights Faith and legitimacy in the rights-based approach are highly contentious and have not yet been fully researched. In exploring the 'cultural critique' Sen (1999) refers to many religions and concludes they all value freedom highly. However, when some Christian organisations were asked why they have discussed and rejected adopting a rightsbased approach, they suggested that Christian NGOs have the bible as their value base and rights are part of that (Harris- Curtis 2002). Instead of viewing rights as the central solution to needs, these NGOs argued that Christianity is. It is not that faith-based organisations reject rights as unimportant; it is more that they identify them as part of another value system, rather than representing a value system as such. Evidence that Christian NGOs engage in rights issues abounds; World Vision's work on child rights is a case in point (World Vision 2002). There are also many Christian NGOs who do subscribe to a rights approach, such as Norwegian Church Aid. In the 50th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Christian Aid affirmed the rights of all people as 'made in the image of God' (McGee et al. 1998), and its report argued there need be no contradiction between a target-based approach and a rights-based approach to development. 'Targets can be a way of operationalising people's rights, while a rights-based approach is a reminder that quality and sustainability of provision are as important as quantitative achievement' (McGee et al. 1998:1). One argument that has been put forward is that secular organisations lack the value base of Christian organisations and that in the post-cold War context, where there is less political affiliation, secular NGOs may need an identifiable value base-and a rights-based approach seems to fit. Interestingly, other faiths agree: 'It might be suggested... that concem for human rights is a post-religious phenomenon which has more to do with secular ideologies and power politics than religion...' (Keown 1995:4). Another point for faith-based NGOs that have been consulted on this issue was the importance of the group over and above the individual. The manner in which rights had become an individualistic issue was in opposition to a group-oriented 562 Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November 2003

7 Rights-based approaches approach deriving from a specific faith. But if adopting a rights-based approach is more to do with the legitimisation of NGOs to their constituency in the North, and does not appeal to those with specific faiths, the concept surely needs profound questioning. To answer some of these questions and to coordinate investigation of rights-based approaches the International NGO Research and Training Centre (INTRAC) is working alongside other members of the collaborative Research Programme-APSO, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Cordaid, MS Denmark, Norwegian Church Aid, Oxfam GB, Novib, Save the Children Alliance, Save the Children Norway, Save the Children Sweden, Save the Children UK, and South Research. This aims to uncover the implications for development NGOs of adopting a rights-based approach. The work will identify policy documents, training materials, and research done by the members of the Programme and explore the concept in the wider development context. Conclusion The most important issue facing NGOs today is to question rights-based approaches in a constructive fashion, because so many development actors are adopting such approaches for their own policies and programming. As yet, little has been done to establish precisely what the implications of adopting rightsbased approaches will be for development NGOs and for the people in the South with whom they work. It will be imperative to address issues of legitimacy of the concept itself and of the different aspects of rights. The 'uncomfortable' issues, such as clashes of rights, the role NGOs should be playing in a dialogue on rights, faith and legitimacy also need closer examination. Finally, without sharing their experiences and research with other development actors and with beneficiaries in the South, NGOs may develop approaches that are not viable in practice. References Boerefijn, I., M. Brouwer and R. Fakhreddine (2001) 'Linking and learning in the field of economic, social and cultural rights', in SIM Special No. 27, The Hague: The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. Harris-Curtis, E. (2002) 'The rights and wrongs of a rights-based approach to development', unpublished concept paper, Oxford: INTRAC. Hausermann, J. (1998) A Human Rights Approach to Development: Rights and Humanity, London: DfID. Human Rights Watch (2001) 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', available at (accessed 3 December 2002). Hurst, R. (2001) 'Rights Now!', in Activate, Derby: British Council of Disabled People of Great Britain. Johnson, C. and D. Start (2001) Rights, Claims and Capture: Understanding the Politics of Pro-poor Policy, London: ODI. Keown, D. (1995) 'Are there "human rights" in Buddhism?', Journal of Buddhist Ethics 2:3-27. McGee, R., C. Robinson and A. Van Diesen (1998) Distant Targets? Making the Twenty-first Century Development Strategy Work, London: Christian Aid. Moser, C. and A. Norton (2001) To Claim our Rights: Livelihood Security, Human Rights and Sustainable Development, London: ODI. Putnam, R. (1995) 'Bowling alone: America's declining social capital', Journal of Democracy 6(1): Sano, H.-O. (2000) 'Development and human rights: the necessary, but partial, integration of human rights and development', Human Rights Quarterly 22(3): Sen, Amartya K. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford: OUP. Slim, H. (2001) Not Philanthropy, but Rights: Rights Based Humanitarianism and the Proper Politicisation of Humanitarian Philosophy in War, Oxford: CENDEP. Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November

8 Emma Harris-Curtis UNHCR (2001) Human Rights in Development: Rights Based Approaches, Geneva: UNHCR, available at (accessed 6 September 2002). Van Rooy, A. (1998) Civil Society and the Aid Industry, London: Earthscan. VeneKlasen, L. with V. Miller (2002) A New Weave of Power, People and Politics, Oklahoma: World Neighbors. World Vision (2002) Protecting Children: A Biblical Perspective on Child Rights, Milton Keynes: World Vision. The author At the time of writing, Emma Harris-Curtis, Head of the INTRAC NGO Research Programme in Oxford. Contact details: INTRAC, PO Box 563, Oxford OX2 6RZ, UK. <emie@drago.co.uk> and < emie@ aprendalo.co.uk >. Trends in UK NGOs: a research note Tina Wallace Context An ongoing research project into the work of UK NGOs and their partners entitled 'The impact and implications of the use of rational management tools on NGO partnerships and practice' aims to explore and understand the effect that the adoption of particular management policies and procedures by many NGOs in the UK is having on the way development is currently being framed and understood in the South. Specifically, the research looks at how these processes are shaping the work of local NGOs in the case study countries: the UK, South Africa, and Uganda.' The research objectives include describing and analysing donor-ngo relations, tracking the spread of new management tools and methodologies, and trying to unravel their impact on development work on the ground.2 Key issues include understanding what drives changes in the ways UK NGOs work (including their relationships with their donors and boards), and how far their evolving approaches have, or are likely to have, a positive impact on their stated goals. These goals include reducing poverty; building strong local civil societies and promoting participation-agreed elements for sustainable change; and addressing inequalities in the South. The canvas is broad and the data are plentiful. There are emerging case studies of the wider European context, key UK donors (including DFID, the EU, Community Fund, Comic Relief, and small foundations such as Nuffield and Barings), and over 15 UK NGOs of different sizes and ideologies. There are contextual studies in Uganda and South Africa, as well as a growing set of case studies that both sit within their own donor and political context and relate back to UK donors and NGOs. The study is producing a wealth of detailed research and analysis that is proving challenging to conceptualise and pull together into a clear and coherent 'story of our times'. There are, however, some broad but critical issues emerging around one core issue, that of funding, that need to be debated by donors and the NGO sector sooner rather than later. The purpose here is to highlight some of the generic findings that are emerging from the UK research concerning funding relations, and the powerful implications they have for development management and practice. These are outlined below. Changing donor patterns Previous research has highlighted the critical role of donors in shaping what UK NGOs do and the ways in which they do it, though boards and chief executives are also significant in shaping the work of these 564 Development in Practice, Volume 13, Number 5, November 2003