33/45 Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development on its seventeenth session (Geneva, 25 April – 3 May 2016)
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2016 Jul
Session: 33rd Regular Session (2016 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.16-12543(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-third session
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development on its seventeenth session (Geneva, 25 April – 3 May 2016)
Chair-Rapporteur: Zamir Akram (Pakistan)
Contents
Page
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Organization of the session .............................................................................................................. 3
III. Summary of proceedings .................................................................................................................. 4
A. General statements ................................................................................................................... 4
B. Informal consultations by the Chair-Rapporteur ..................................................................... 8
C. Report of the High Commissioner on the realization and
implementation of the right to development ............................................................................ 9
D. Interactive dialogue on the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda in the
context of the right to development ......................................................................................... 10
E. Second reading to refine the draft right to development criteria and corresponding
operational sub-criteria ............................................................................................................ 14
F. Consideration of the report of the Chair-Rapporteur ............................................................... 15
IV. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................. 18
A. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 19
B. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 19
Annex
List of attendance ............................................................................................................................. 21
I. Introduction
1. The Working Group on the Right to Development was established pursuant to
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/72, with a mandate to monitor and review
progress made in the promotion and implementation of the right to development, as
elaborated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, at the national and international
levels, providing recommendations thereon and further analysing obstacles to its full
enjoyment, focusing each year on specific commitments in the Declaration; to review
reports and any other information submitted by States, United Nations agencies, other
relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations on the relationship
between their activities and the right to development; and to present for the consideration of
the Commission a sessional report on the deliberations of the Working Group, including
advice to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) on the implementation of the right to development and suggesting possible
programmes of technical assistance at the request of interested countries, with the aim of
promoting the implementation of the right to development.
2. In its resolution 30/28, the Human Rights Council decided to convene a two-day
formal meeting of the Working Group, after the seventeenth session, to consider the report
of the Chair-Rapporteur containing standards for the implementation of the right to
development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2).
3. The Working Group convened its seventeenth session in Geneva from 25 April to 3
May 2016.
II. Organization of the session
4. In her opening statement,1 the Deputy United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights noted that, although the thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right
to Development was overshadowed by many crises facing the world, there were also signs
of hope. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda
and the Paris Agreement on climate change gave new impetus to the realization of the right
to development, for which the international community had to be made accountable.
Despite record economic growth, millions of people had been left behind or left out. The
progress made towards the realization of the right to development was uneven. Persistent
poverty and deepening inequalities were major threats to development, human rights and
peace and security. Violence – in the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, Burundi, Ukraine and
Yemen – was destroying the hard won gains of development, killing hundreds of thousands
of people and forcibly displacing millions from their homes. This was an issue that also fell
within the reach of the right to development, a right that offered much-needed prevention; it
could address root causes, and help to meet structural challenges at all levels, including at
the international level, where some of those challenges originated. The year 2016 was a
special one, as the international community celebrated both the thirtieth anniversary of the
adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development and the fiftieth anniversary of the
International Covenants on Human Rights. The Declaration was a milestone in reuniting the
rights contained in the two covenants, in underlining the universality, indivisibility,
interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. Central to the right to
development was also the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, a
1 The full text of the statement is available from
www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/Pages/17thSession.aspx.
right that figured prominently as the first article in both covenants. Like the Declaration
itself, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development determined “to leave no one behind”
starting with those “furthest behind”. The international community pledged to ensure that
the sustainable development goals and targets were met “for all nations and peoples and for
all segments of society”. The 2030 Agenda should not be stunted by indifferent action,
malnourished by failed commitments or denied safe passage to its fullest realization just
because of the inconvenience of what undoubtedly were its tough but necessary demands.
5. At its first meeting, on 25 April 2016, the Working Group re-elected by acclamation
Zamir Akram (Pakistan) as Chair-Rapporteur. In his opening statement, the Chair-
Rapporteur assured the Working Group of his dedication and commitment to make every
effort to ensure that the Working Group continued to make progress in the fulfilment of its
mandate. He was particularly honoured by the Working Group’s confidence in entrusting
him the task of drafting standards for the implementation of the right to development. He
was confident that the Working Group would again make good progress in the current year.
He was determined to move forward under the Working Group’s collective guidance, in a
constructive spirit and with a focus on common ground. The thirtieth anniversary of the
adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development and the commencement of the
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals provided hope, and reminded all of
their collective responsibility to deliver on the promise of a better life for the millions of
people around the world who lacked access to basic goods and whose most basic needs
were not being met. The Chair-Rapporteur referred to information that highlighted some of
the obstacles to the realization of the right to development, but that also gave reason for
hope. The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals had resolved the controversies
over the right to development, constituting a comprehensive framework for development
that was accepted universally. The 17 goals included all the crucial elements of the right to
development, such as ending poverty and hunger, ensuring healthy lives, inclusive and
equitable education, achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women, and
promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and
decent work for all. Of particular importance was Goal 17 concerning the means of
implementation and the global partnership for sustainable development, which should be
read together with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.
6. The Working Group subsequently adopted its agenda (A/HRC/WG.2/17/1) and
programme of work.
7. During the session (see annex for the list of attendance), the Working Group
considered the consolidated report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights on the realization and implementation of the right to development (A/HRC/30/22),
engaged in an interactive dialogue on the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda in the
context of the right to development, continued the second reading of the draft right to
development criteria and corresponding operational sub-criteria, and considered the report
of the Chair-Rapporteur containing standards for the implementation of the right to
development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2).
III. Summary of proceedings
A. General statements
8. Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Islamic Republic of Iran
expressed the view that the realization of the right to development was more necessary than
ever. Three decades had passed since the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to
Development; on the eve of its thirtieth anniversary, the international community had to
show its solidarity to achieve common goals, including those in the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. The right to development was central to the implementation of
the 2030 Agenda, to which the international community should pay particular attention. All
human rights were interrelated and interdependent. At the same time, the realization of the
right to development faced many challenges and obstacles, including the political impasse
within the Working Group. While States had the primary responsibility to ensure
development and favourable conditions, and the duty to take steps to achieve the full
realization of the right to development, appropriate means were required to foster
comprehensive development and international cooperation. The Movement noted that the
ongoing review of the draft right to development criteria and operational sub-criteria should
move towards a legally binding instrument to make the right to development a reality for
all.
9. The European Union strongly supported sustainable development and eradicating
poverty. To achieve these goals, gender equality, accountability, equitable globalization and
good governance were required. Development strategies should treat individuals as central,
and realize civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. This
would entail a mix of policies, although any development policy should make the
individual the main participant. States should act individually and collectively to realize the
right to development so that individuals also realized their right to development. It hoped
that time would be used well during the session to move the Group’s discussions tangibly
forward, including the discussions on the report of the Chair-Rapporteur, in order to reach a
positive and consensual outcome. This would mean going beyond politics and focusing on
the things that united the international community rather than those that divided it.
10. Speaking on behalf of the African Group and aligning itself with the Non-Aligned
Movement, South Africa stated that, since the World Conference on Human Rights held in
Vienna in 1993, the recognition of the right to development could no longer be in doubt.
Article 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was testimony to the
transcendence of the right beyond the realm of soft international human rights law. The
principles of the right to development were a central requirement in the continental
economic and social renewal and development paradigm of the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development. One of the most persistent accountability deficits had, however,
been at the international level in relation to the commitments to the global partnership for
development. A strengthened and revitalized Global Partnership for Sustainable
Development, as envisaged under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, was thus
crucial. These points on accountability should be framed by the principles of the right to
development as enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development. Furthermore,
the phenomenon of globalization and its negative impact on the economies of developing
countries had brought about disparities in the equitable sharing of the benefits of
globalization. The Group of African States emphasized that issues such as trade and trade
liberalisation, transfer of technology, infrastructure development and market access had to
be managed effectively in order to mitigate the challenges of poverty and
underdevelopment, to realize the Millennium Development Goals still to be reached, and to
make the right to development and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development a reality
for everyone. As the international community commemorated the thirtieth anniversary of
the Declaration on the Right to Development, it was time to move forward with a sense of
urgency. Indeed, the timely adoption of the 2030 Agenda offered the international
community the opportunity to recommit itself. The convening of a high-level segment at
the seventy-first session of General Assembly on the right to development would mark a
milestone. The 2030 Agenda was explicit about what was required for the realization of the
right to development in the areas of education and health, and with regard to finance,
technology development and transfer and other support. There was an urgent need for the
United Nations human rights machinery to ensure the operationalization of the right to
development as a priority issue by the drafting of a convention on the right to development.
11. Egypt stated that development should address those in more need, and reaffirmed the
need to eliminate all forms of poverty. International cooperation should be aimed at
providing a sound and equitable environment. The three dimensions of sustainable
development – economic, social and environmental – should be addressed. The transfer of
technology, finance and other priorities also needed to be addressed. There was a need to
reform the international financial and trade order to achieve the right to development. Egypt
also stated that the right to development was at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
12. Sri Lanka, aligning itself with the statement by the Non-Aligned Movement,
reiterated the main principle of the right to development. The indivisible, interdependent
and interconnected nature of human rights meant that the realization of the right to
development was critical to achieving all human rights. There had to be a commitment to
refine the draft right to development criteria and operational sub-criteria to advance towards
an international legally binding instrument on the right to development that would
contribute to an enabling international environment for sustainable development. Extreme
poverty, climate change and financial crises should be addressed. No one should be left
behind. Most of the Sustainable Development Goals were aimed at satisfying the most
basic needs. Furthermore, international cooperation, the Global Partnership for Sustainable
Development and other issues had to be addressed. The efficiency of the Working Group
was a key factor. It should refocus on achieving the right to development as a human right
and central to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
13. India referred to the right to development as a neglected aspect of human rights. It
concurred that, with the thirtieth anniversary and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, there was fresh vigour for an idea that had fallen off the global radar. Lasting
progress would depend not only on national policies but also on an enabling international
environment for development, given the historical injustices endured and the state of
undemocratic global governance. These calls had gone unanswered. More needed to be
done to advance towards the final destination; hard-won gains should not be wasted, and
work should be focused on attaining Sustainable Development Goal 17 and the
mainstreaming of the right to development in the activities of United Nations agencies,
funds and programmes. Political will and genuine commitment were required to make the
right to development a reality; the standards proposed by the Chair-Rapporteur would be a
good starting point.
14. Brazil noted that the world had made considerable achievements in recent decades.
Progress had, however, been uneven, and too many were still being left behind. The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development gave new impetus to the efforts of the international
community to realize the right to development. The 2030 Agenda also placed people
squarely at the centre of development. Sustainable Development Goal 17 provided new
momentum to realize the right to development. The Working Group needed to conclude its
unfinished business and move forward in its work, especially in the context of the 2030
Agenda. Brazil appreciated the draft set of standards of the Chair-Rapporteur and the report
of the High Commissioner. The Working Group should focus on the objectives of its
mandate, as stated by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1998/72.
Regardless of the differences and disputes of the past, it encouraged all Member States to
move ahead.
15. China pointed out that the right to development was an inalienable human right, a
common aspiration of all humanity and its shared values. Although it had a powerful
impact on world peace and prosperity, there were impediments to its achievement. These
included an international political and economic order that was inequitable and unjust.
Military interventions could provoke instability and sometimes result in increased poverty
and extremism. These actions undermined the very foundations and livelihoods of
developing countries. In addition, some developed countries refused to regard the right to
development as a human right, therefore undermining the work of the Working Group. The
obligation resided with Governments to ensure the implementation of this right and to
observe the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular sovereignty,
equality and diversity among countries, and the rights of States to their own social systems
and paths to development. The international community had to create a new international
order that was equitable and just, where all countries participated equally and enjoyed equal
opportunities to benefit from development. On the thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration
and shortly after the adoption of the 2030 agenda, China had called upon all countries to
show good will and commitment to give the right to development its proper status as a
human right and to allow the Working Group to move forward in its mandate. OHCHR
should promote the right to development as a priority and demonstrate its leadership in the
United Nations for the implementation of the right.
16. Pakistan, aligning itself with the statement of the Non-Aligned Movement, stated
that the right to development was a human right and a link between national and
international priorities. Countries could not be selective with regard to partnership. While
realizing the goals of the 2030 Agenda, in particular Goal 17, they should focus on issues
such as the resolution of international disputes, which was central to the Declaration on the
Right to Development. There should also be a focus on access to markets, affordable
medicines and education, among others. OHCHR should ensure that the right to
development had a specific space in its structure and did not disappear in the context of
mainstreaming.
17. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, aligning itself with the statement made by
the Non-Aligned Movement, noted that, 30 years since the adoption of the Declaration on
the Right to Development, it was more pressing than ever to allow for social progress and
dignity for all people. Without the realization of the right to development, it was impossible
to achieve other human rights. Some countries had blocked progress in this area, such as
through unilateral coercive measures and foreign intervention. Countries should build
regional integration on the basis of solidarity and the empowerment of women. It supported
the need for a legally binding instrument on the right to development, and regretted the lack
of political will and positions that had blocked the work of the Working Group in the past.
18. Cuba observed that there was still work to be done to achieve the right to
development as a universal human right of individuals and peoples. Unfair trade and the
economic crises were some of the obstacles to the right to development. They eroded the
lives of millions of people who continued to live in poverty. Cuba rejected the efforts made
to limit the scope and definition of the right to development, and assured its commitment to
the Working Group and its willingness to work with all delegations to achieve results.
19. Indonesia, aligning itself with the statement of the Non-Aligned Movement, stated
that the realization of the right to development was more pertinent than ever. The right to
development had to be mainstreamed in the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. It looked forward to progress on the criteria and sub-criteria. It also hoped
for a non-politicized discussion, and that the right to development was recognized as a
right.
20. Ecuador, aligning itself with the statement made by the Non-Aligned Movement,
stated that the international community needed a legal framework agreed at the
international level to move forward in the implementation of the right to development. The
concept of “living well” had been incorporated into the Constitution Ecuador, which
implied the inclusion of all persons and groups, social justice and other considerations.
Ecuador hoped that the Working Group could move towards the approval of the criteria.
21. The United States of America was determined to have a constructive discussion. It
maintained its position that there was a need for greater consensus on the definition of the
right to development that was consistent with human rights, namely, universal rights that
were held and enjoyed by individuals and that each individual may demand from his or her
own Government. It emphasized the importance of indicators in any conversation on the
right to development, and expressed the hope that Member States would respect its
concerns about efforts to push too quickly in the Working Group, but rather seek to build
consensus in a step-by-step fashion.
22. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) regarded human rights as
intrinsic to development, and development as a means to realize human rights. This
approach was at the centre of its Strategic Plan. UNDP reaffirmed the principles of national
ownership and capacity-building. It identified six fundamental areas of action: (a)
expanding knowledge and communication; (b) strong national ownership and leadership;
(c) generating and sharing new ideas, knowledge and technologies; (d) broad and active
coalitions; (e) enabling resources; and (f) robust follow-up and review, including timely
disaggregated data. UNDP promoted a “MAPS” approach: mainstreaming, acceleration and
policy support.
23. Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, speaking on behalf of the working
group on the right to development of the Geneva Forum of Catholic-Inspired Non-
Governmental Organizations,2 expressed its satisfaction that the Human Rights Council had
decided at its thirty-first session to hold a panel discussion on the thirtieth anniversary of
the Declaration on the Right to Development at its thirty-second session, although it
regretted the abstentions. It was pleased with the decision of the Working Group to
continue the second reading of the criteria and sub-criteria, and hoped that it would not be
affected by the political polarization of previous sessions. It emphasized that the
Declaration was an empowering instrument, and that it was imperative to achieve the right
to development for the sake of the disadvantaged.
24. International-Lawyers.Org stated that the right to development had been central to
the United Nations since the adoption of the Declaration. However, inequitable relations
remained at the international and national levels. While efforts to achieve the right were far
from a success, it forward to the one-day high-level segment to be held by the General
Assembly, and hoped for strong civil society participation.
B. Informal consultations by the Chair-Rapporteur
25. The Chair-Rapporteur informed the Working Group on the informal consultations he
had held between the annual sessions with regional and political groups and other
stakeholders.
26. In October 2015, the Chair-Rapporteur presented his report to the Third Committee of the General Assembly and had an interactive discussion with the Committee members.
He held a number of meetings with regional and political groups, heads of delegations and
representatives of various United Nations departments and agencies, and civil society
2 Statement made on behalf of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Association Points-
Coeur, Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities), the Company of the
Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul, Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of
Preachers), the International Institute of Mary Our Help of the Salesian Sisters of Don Bosco (IIMA),
the International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, MIAMSI, New
Humanity, the Teresian Association and VIDES International (International Volunteerism
Organization for Women, Education, Development).
organizations. In the meetings, the Chair-Rapporteur referred to his report requested by the
Working Group (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2) and clarified that he was looking for common ground
and did not intend to draft a document that would fuel controversy. Importantly, the
Sustainable Development Goals, which were adopted by the General Assembly by
consensus during the United Nations summit, set down key principles relating to the right
to development, and should therefore guide the content of the proposed draft standards.
27. In February 2016, the Chair-Rapporteur spoke at an event marking the thirtieth
anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development, co-organized by OHCHR,
entitled “In search of dignity and sustainable development for all”. At the thirty-first
session of the Human Rights Council, he took the floor during the panel discussion on
human rights mainstreaming, which focused on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and human rights, with an emphasis on the right to development. He also
spoke at a high-level side event organized by the African Group on the right to
development. In his statements, the Chair-Rapporteur emphasized that the adoption of the
Sustainable Development Goals had been a major step towards the realization of the right
to development. Lastly, he also conducted informal consultations with the coordinators of
the regional and political groups and other interested delegations on the draft programme of
work of the seventeenth session of the Working Group.
C. Report of the High Commissioner on the realization and
implementation of the right to development
28. The Chief of the Right to Development Section of the Office of the High
Commissioner introduced the report of the High Commissioner on the realization and
implementation of the right to development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/3). The report was prepared
pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 30/28, in which the Council endorsed the
recommendation of the Working Group adopted at its sixteenth session and requested the
High Commissioner to seek the views of Member States in preparing a paper on the
realization and implementation of the right to development, as elaborated in the Declaration
on the Right to Development, in particular its article 4.
29. In the ensuing discussion, the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of the Non-
Aligned Movement, expressed its disappointment with the report prepared by OHCHR,
given that it merely summarized the views of Member States, and did not meet its
expectation of a substantive analysis of the right to development. It would have preferred
that the report answer the following questions:
(a) What steps are required for the realization and implementation of the right to
development?
(b) How can international law in general, and human rights instruments,
including in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
contribute to the realization of the right to development, in particular through friendly
relations and cooperation among States?
(c) International cooperation is an integral element for the realization of the right
to development; what are the concrete measures taken by OHCHR to promote international
cooperation in the field of the right to development?
(d) How can the international community, in particular developed countries, help
developing countries to foster their comprehensive development policies?
(e) What has the United Nations system and OHCHR done to ensure the full
exercise and progressive enhancement of the right to development at the international
level?
30. Namibia aligned itself with the views of the Non-Aligned Movement and thanked
OHCHR for the report, which reflected the feedback provided by the inputs. The outcome
was not anticipated, as there was a difference between what the report presented and what
the resolution requested. An analytical paper was expected, given that the submissions of
States was supposed to be only a component to inform the report. Mexico welcomed the
report, and thanked the secretariat for its support. The report had provided valuable
elements, like the successes and challenges that States had faced to ensure the right to
development and the impact of the right to development on national human rights policies.
In recent years, Mexico had redesigned its social policy development to incorporate the
respect and promotion of human rights as one of its top priorities. This practice had
increased accessibility, capacity and the reach of development programmes. However,
important challenges remained in terms of institutional, budgetary and technical
coordination, and there was a need for specialized monitoring mechanisms.
31. The Chief of the Right to Development Section thanked the delegates for their
comments. He explained that the recommendation made by the Working Group had been
interpreted as a request for a report compiling the views of States. Furthermore, the breadth
of the subject matter would have made it very difficult to address the subject matter
comprehensively within the word limit for the report. He added that the Working Group
might wish to clarify its expectations in the recommendations of the current session. The
Office remained fully committed to implementing its recommendations.
D. Interactive dialogue on the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda in
the context of the right to development
32. On the second day of the session, the Working Group held an interactive dialogue on
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in the context of the right to development
with the former co-facilitators for the intergovernmental negotiations on the post-20l5
development agenda: the Permanent Representative of Ireland to United Nations
Headquarters, Ambassador David Donoghue, and the Permanent Representative of Kenya
to the United Nations Headquarters, Ambassador Macharia Kamau.
33. Ambassador Donoghue stressed that the right to development had found its rightful
place in the 2030 Agenda, and that it provided a new context to look at the right to
development. The right to development was given a reasonably prominent position in two
specific references, which reflected the significant respect for the right to development; a
number of references in the document moreover recalled the Declaration: in some pledges
the preamble, that no one would be left behind; this made clear that inequality within and
among countries had to be addressed. The 2030 Agenda could be viewed as a landmark
document for achieving the right to development. The agenda dealt with the factors
impeding the realization of human rights, showing the clear connection between human
rights and development. There was also emphasis on Goal 17, which outlined a set of
commitments and the means of implementation. The Agenda called for action at the global,
regional and national levels with a governmental rather than sectoral approach. Global
indicators had been agreed upon at a technical level, but the issue of data collection and
capacity were particularly important, given that many Governments did not have sufficient
statistical capacity. This issue would be discussed at the high-level political forum on
sustainable development in July 2016. Although the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development was not legally binding, it was politically and morally binding.
Implementation would be improved by mutual learning and the exchange of best practices
on a voluntary basis. This would require political will, commitment and goodwill. The risk
of political embarrassment was the main source of leverage: States would not want to be
seen as underperforming, particularly at the regional level.
34. Ambassador Kamau spoke of how the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development had changed the debate on development and how
geographical divides had been put to rest. The Agenda had structurally changed the
underpinnings of the way the international community looked at development. It was,
however, difficult to change people’s ideological positions. The universal goals conveyed
the message that development affected all nations, and poverty affected all countries, which
now faced the challenge of bringing development to all their peoples. Twentieth-century
perceptions of development were old and tired. The Sustainable Development Goals
emphasized that all lives mattered, and this was the most powerful message they sent. The
Working Group should not let itself become stuck in a North-South divide in the
conceptualization of the right to development. The 2030 Agenda was morally binding; he
therefore asked whether a legal or a moral obligation was more important. All countries
were in “the same boat” and faced similar challenges. The 2030 Agenda had resulted in a
conceptual framework shift; the Working Group therefore had to ask if it was shifting with
it. One challenge to the implementation of the right to development was what the meaning
of development assistance as “legally binding” was. This would require defining the
understanding of development cooperation. The moral obligation was the higher bar. Goal
17 and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda had codified expectations in a way that could be
followed up. In these ways, the work of the Working Group had been structured, and many
aspects of the right to development were already legally binding. There was a universal,
integrated agenda and a political infrastructure in place that provided a much more
favourable position for discussions on the right to development.
35. In the interactive dialogue that followed, the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of
the Non-Aligned Movement, referred to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a
document that reflected the aspirations of global development, and expressed the hope that
the full implementation of the Agenda would move the world forward towards the
realization of the Charter of the United Nations. The goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda
were all about the right to development, and called for international cooperation and
collaborative partnership. International cooperation was integral to the implementation and
realization of the right to development, and could help all to overcome the challenges that
hinder progress. The Islamic Republic of Iran called upon the specialized agencies, funds
and programmes of the United Nations to mainstream the right to development in their
policies and operational activities, and also in policies and strategies of the international
financial and multilateral trading system. The high-level political forum was the most
appropriate venue for considering the mainstreaming of the right to development into the
implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
36. The European Union spoke of the 2030 Agenda as a “guiding beacon” for the
international community. It stressed the need to maintain momentum, and that the
realization of human rights and sustainable development were closely related. The
international community needed to promote a model of development that promoted and
guaranteed not only the right to development but all human rights, with particular attention
to justice, equality and equity, so that no one would be left behind. The European Union
supported an inclusive and transparent follow-up mechanism of the 2030 Agenda that
promoted ownership. The European Union asked the speakers how the international
community could implement the 2030 Agenda effectively and without delay, and how they
saw the role of indicators in implementation.
37. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, stated that there
were clearly a few key areas where the 2030 Agenda and the right to development
interacted. The 2030 Agenda explicitly mentioned the right to development as an
instrument that informed the Agenda itself; it called upon Member States to realize the right
to development. Article 10 of the Vienna Declaration and the Programme of Action called
upon the international community to implement effective international cooperation for the
right to development. In its paragraph 63, 2030 Agenda referred to “policy space” and
“national development efforts”, and the enabling environment, which would be a challenge.
Examples were given of the Doha Development Round, of policy coordination and
coherence, and of conflicts and occupations that were all obstacles hampering the
implementation of the Agenda. Pakistan also referred to the “cherry picking” of obligations
and targets, and questioned how far a moral obligation would take the international
community.
38. Tunisia, aligning itself with the views of the Non-Aligned Movement and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, expressed doubts on the practicalities of the
conceptual framework change, which it did not view as profound. Member States had
differing approaches to the economy; and while partnership for development was required
for an enabling environment, development assistance and the current economic and
financial frameworks would hinder the achievement of goals in developing countries. Cuba,
supporting the views of the Non-Aligned Movement and endorsing the statement made by
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, reiterated the view that obstacles persisted. It
referred to how the Working Group had “put the cart before the horse” by debating the
issue of indicators before agreeing on a larger agenda, and stressed that lessons could be
learned from how this had been done in the 2030 Agenda. Cuba asked the speakers how
they saw implementation going forward, and how the Working Group could contribute.
39. Namibia, aligning itself with the views of the Non-Aligned Movement, pointed out
that international cooperation was indispensable for addressing obstacles that were beyond
the capacity of national Governments. The focus should be on development, not
benevolence, and there should be no “cherry picking”. What was needed was not a moral
obligation but a legally binding instrument to ensure that the right to development was
implemented properly. South Africa, aligning itself with the statement made by the Non-
Aligned Movement, spoke of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Agenda
2063: The Africa We Want, which also sought to address the triple challenge of poverty,
unemployment and inequality. The most persistent accountability deficit had been
witnessed in relation to the financial commitments to the global partnership for
development envisaged previously under Goal 8. A strengthened and revitalized Global
Partnership for Sustainable Development was thus crucial, and based on the principles of
the Declaration on the Right to Development. There was a need for the inclusion of the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which was highlighted by many
delegations. It also referred to the role of the private sector and business, and the need for
their accountability in relation to human rights and humanitarian violations.
40. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shared the views that the
Sustainable Development Goals were universal, that human rights were the cornerstone for
achieving them, and that national development plans incorporating a “whole of
Government” approach were required, together with partnerships to engage in best
practices to coordinate and monitor implementation. The United Kingdom was fulfilling its
commitments through development assistance, boosting partnerships and cross-government
funds. It referred to the need for global transparency standards, the “golden thread” of
which were democracy, the rule of law, property rights, a free media and open, accountable
institutions. The United States of America discussed its long-standing commitment to
human rights and development, and how human rights were integrated into its development
cooperation. It pointed out the importance of indicators and data-driven analysis.
41. China reiterated the view that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was a
landmark in sustainable development, and mentioned the importance of poverty
eradication. It also referred to the need to tackle environmental challenges, to promote
social justice and to ensure better and sustainable development. At the international level,
partnerships and coordination were essential. China spoke of its own national commitments
and promotion of financial support and capacity-building. Japan strongly supported the
2030 Agenda and its human-centred approach, but had questions relating to indicators and
the role of private sector investment. Brazil discussed how the 2030 Agenda had
reinvigorated multilateralism, and reaffirmed the three dimensions of development as
enshrined in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992. The Agenda
required the strengthening of international cooperation and the doubling of efforts on the
right to development, to move away from polarization and to achieve consensus. Brazil
enquired about the role of the Working Group in the Agenda. Kenya observed that the right
to development did not always receive the support and attention it deserved by the Human
Rights Council. Bearing in mind the time it would take to negotiate a legally binding
instrument, given current challenges, Kenya asked what could be done to move the right to
development agenda forward. Ecuador raised a question on how the fair distribution of
wealth within countries could be measured.
42. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development pointed out its long-
standing commitment to and participation in the sessions of the Working Group. Given the
impetus provided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, it was important that
the Working Group find a concrete outcome and role within this framework, to also utilize
valuable time and resources.
43. South Centre emphasized the need for common but differentiated responsibility. It
referred to examples of intellectual property rights, transfer of technology and actions on
climate change where it was not always clear who was responsible for what. Given
differentiated capabilities, there was also a need for differentiated responsibilities. On
measurability, there was also the question regarding both the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and human rights of whether all components could be measurable as such.
According to Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, the new Agenda had
incorporated the transformative vision of the Declaration on the Right to Development. If
adequately implemented, it would provide new impetus for the realization of the right to
development. A right to development approach to the Sustainable Development Goals
would create positive effects, including the understanding that States have duties to ensure
development as a human right and not as a matter of charity. It referred to the need for
participatory and inclusive monitoring. The global high-level political forum should build
on the work of human rights mechanisms, while the Working Group should also take
charge of the important role it could play. International-Lawyers.Org pointed out that the
process of drafting the Sustainable Development Goals had begun by agreeing on issues of
principle, not the specifics of indicators. It observed that human rights today were often
legal rights. With regard to the 2030 Agenda, the greatest flaws were the tendency to make
unequal things equal, and that not all States or all peoples had the same responsibilities.
44. In replying to the questions asked, Ambassador Kamau noted that the general
trajectory was a positive one, despite war, conflict and other disasters. The right to
development agenda had to move forward. The world had been moving on, irrespective of
developments in the Working Group. The 2030 Agenda had to be addressed in an
integrated fashion, and not by “cherry picking”. Expectations had to be managed; the
Sustainable Development Goals did not prescribe a particular political or economic model,
but were aimed at reaching agreement on concrete goals and targets. The discussion could
not have started with indicators, and that work had been delegated to a technical group.
There was no need to “reinvent the wheel”; the Working Group should ask itself whether it
really wanted to embark on an exercise of identifying indicators or leave it to a technical
group. All forms of resource mobilization were important, including at the domestic level.
Accountability deficits had to be closed. The common but differentiated responsibilities
were part and parcel of the 2030 Agenda, so this had been settled. Many of the comments
were acknowledged. Ambassador Kamau reiterated the need to search for the common
good. In this regard, the 2030 Agenda had set a high bar, and there was enough ambition
and common ground to succeed. Implementation would be achieved at the national level
and through commitments made in the framework of international instruments that would
require monitoring. Ambassador Donoghue reiterated that it would not have been possible
to finish the work on indicators in September 2015, and that it was to be concluded
separately and the work done by a technical body. There would be no clustering of topics,
given that implementation was only at its early stages. He endorsed the idea that the 2030
Agenda should be seen as an opportunity to reinvigorate the role of the Working Group,
and that the positive energy of the Sustainable Development Goals should be used to find
new ways forward.
E. Second reading to refine draft right to development criteria and
corresponding operational sub-criteria
45. The Working Group completed the second reading of the draft right to development
criteria and the corresponding operational sub-criteria listed in the report of the high-level
task force (A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2/Add.2, annex) with the aim of refining them, starting
from sub-criterion 1 (h) (ii) bis.
46. The Working Group decided to adopt the same methodology as followed previously,
looking at the criteria and the sub-criteria simultaneously. Some speakers suggested that
explanations and reasons be provided for the various proposals made, particularly if the
concern was about the concept or the language used.
47. One criterion and 14 sub-criteria were agreed ad referendum.
48. Criteria 1 (h), (i) and (j) and corresponding sub-criteria were discussed at the session
covering topics such as the sharing of benefits of natural resources and issues relating to
conflict and peace and security. Discussions also covered the adoption and periodic review
of development strategies at the national and international levels, including collection and
access to data, plans of action, political and financial support, and consultation and
participation. Criterion 2 (a) and corresponding sub-criteria relating to law, policy and legal
frameworks and sustainable development and right to development were discussed.
Criterion 2 (b) and corresponding sub-criteria, covering topics such as human rights
instruments, obligations, right to development and national development strategies, were
also discussed. The views expressed during consideration of criterion 2 (c) and
corresponding sub-criteria concerned access to information, effective remedies, access to
justice, facilitating participation, and non-discrimination. The Working Group, in
examining criterion 2 (d) and its sub-criteria, expressed views on good governance, the rule
of law, global governance and the effective participation of all countries in international
decision-making. Discussions on criterion 2 (e) and its sub-criteria covered good
governance and the rule of law at the national level, corruption, transparency, and access to
public services. On criterion 3 (a) and its sub-criteria, discussions covered the benefits of
sustainable development, including access to services, infrastructure gaps, the equitable
sharing of the benefits of globalization and the removal of international obstacles.
Discussions on criterion 3 (b) and its sub-criteria covered the fair sharing of the burdens of
development, assessing environmental, social and economic risks, common but
differentiated responsibilities, and international cooperation. The discussions held on
criterion 3 (c) and its sub-criteria featured the promotion of social justice, the eradication of
extreme poverty and hunger, policies for ensuring decent work, strengthening international
cooperation, land and housing related rights, access to education, and eliminating violence
and trafficking. A range of new proposals for sub-criteria were also discussed by the
Working Group.
49. A broad range of perspectives emerged during the consideration of individual
criteria and sub-criteria. A debate was held on the use of such terms as the “human rights of
migrants”, and on how to combine references to human rights and refugees law. In this
regard, discussions were held on references to international mechanisms for conflict
prevention, and on whether this was the appropriate forum to discuss them. On sub-
criterion 1 (j), a discussion was held on international development strategies, which were
clarified as a focus on international cooperation as opposed to national development
strategies.
50. Other issues discussed concerned participation, participatory processes, affected
groups and vulnerable populations, preventive solidarity, the promotion of human rights
education, the contribution of human rights mechanisms for evaluating the right to
development, and the Sustainable Development Goals.
51. References to binding legal frameworks on the right to development were debated,
including concerns raised on the term “right to development-based approach”, the
ratification of human rights instruments, the term “good governance” as opposed to “global
governance”, “accountability for” versus “promotion of” respect by business, the context
and meaning of transparency, how to deal with corruption, and utilizing such terms as
“equity” and “equitable”.
52. The issue of data collection capacity was also raised. It was found that some
developing countries required assistance in this area.
F. Consideration of the report of the Chair-Rapporteur
53. The Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group introduced his report containing
standards for the implementation of the right to development, prepared pursuant to a
request of the Working Group as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution
30/28 (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2). The aim of the standards was to break the deadlock that had
persisted in the Working Group and to identify common ground and agreed language. Since
the right to development had to be people-centred, it could not be achieved or met without
responding to human needs. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
would facilitate the task of the Working Group. National capacities and capabilities for
realizing the right to development differed, and international cooperation was necessary.
With regard to methodology, the Chair-Rapporteur identified the key challenges and
obstacles to the implementation of the right to development, and focused on the
implementation of universally accepted core development goals, such as those outlined in
article 8 of the Declaration on the Right to Development. Of particular importance was
Sustainable Development Goal 17, given that it related to the means of implementation and
the revitalization of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.
54. The standards were intended as a road map or framework for action for achieving
the Goals. They employed agreed language so as to ensure that they were non-controversial
and enjoyed the broadest possible endorsement. The four standards proposed were as
follows:
Standard 1: All States shall demonstrate the necessary political will and
commitment to realize the right to development on the basis of the obligations,
rights and duties that they have accepted as a result of the decisions and resolutions
adopted by consensus by the international community.
Standard 2: All States shall cooperate to create the political, economic and social
environment necessary to allow the implementation of the right to development.
Standard 3: The right to development shall be centred on the individual and
promoted at the national level, which requires a comprehensive and inclusive
approach based on good, responsible governance. Since there are different levels of
development, however, national efforts must be strengthened and reinforced by
regional cooperation, international assistance and contributions by development
agencies at the national, regional and international levels, and also by inputs from
civil society bodies and the media.
Standard 4: Priority should be given to addressing the most basic human needs,
namely, poverty, food, water and sanitation, health, education, housing and gender
equality.
55. With regard to monitoring the implementation of the above standards, the Chair-
Rapporteur proposed a voluntary mechanism. States, regional and international
organizations would submit reports on efforts made at the bilateral, regional and
international levels to the Human Rights Council, for example, within the context of the
universal periodic review. In the long term, quantitative criteria should be used to measure
national and international efforts. The indicators for measuring the implementation of the
Sustainable Development Goals could facilitate measurement of the implementation of the
right to development. He stressed that a selective or segmented approach should not be
taken to human rights, which are interrelated and interdependent. The right to development
addressed human needs, which were critical to the attainment of human rights. The
standards were not an end in themselves, but rather the beginning of a journey towards the
full implementation of the right to development, the “stepping stones” or a road map to the
final destination.
56. During the discussion, the European Union stated that the document was timely,
especially with a view to the recently adopted 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Although it supported the use of agreed language, it felt that it might be excessive to affirm
that the 2030 Agenda constituted an impetus to the realization of the right to development
and solved controversies about the right to development, given that divergences persisted.
While the standards focused on international cooperation, national responsibilities had to be
stressed. While the new international development goals were crucial for the realization of
the right to development, the goals should not be implemented without reflecting on the
links with already existing human rights standards on housing, education and gender
equality, which are binding upon States parties. Legally binding human rights standards
should not be reformulated with a view of finding consensus. On the core elements, the
European Union argued that participation, equality, non-discrimination and self-
determination should be singled out clearly as core standards or cross-cutting elements.
Gender equality should be a cross-cutting issue also. Some questions were raised with
regard to the reference to women and their nurturing role in the family, as this seemed to
suggest that this was the sole activity of women, and to avoiding duplication with the
Sustainable Development Goal monitoring process.
57. The Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, stated that
the standards prepared by the Chair-Rapporteur underscored a right to development-based
approach. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was
dependent on an integrated, holistic and comprehensive approach to the implementation
and realization of the right to development, which required a firm commitment by all
actors. While giving significant impetus to the implementation of the right to development,
the 20130 Agenda was not a substitute for discussion on the conceptual framework of the
right to development, such as the elaboration of norms. The Non-Aligned Movement
remained concerned about existing challenges and conceptual debates on the right to
development. The report of the Chair-Rapporteur was based on a consensual and non-
controversial understanding of the right to development. The Non-Aligned Movement
maintained that the consensus requirement was not an absolute one, and should not come at
the expense of ensuring that the right to development was a reality for all. Regarding the
standards, the Non-Aligned Movement was of the view that this initial discussion, together
with the proposals made by Member States, would form the basis for the constitution of
international standards and a convention on the right to development. International
cooperation was an integral part to the implementation of the right to development. The
right to development was distinct and should not be defined through secondary aspects of
development. With regard to the methodology outlined by the Chair-Rapporteur, the Non-
Aligned Movement would take the liberty to consider the text, make it its own and use it for
whatever purpose it deemed fit.
58. Cuba stated that the report and conclusions had been prepared by the Chair-
Rapporteur, and that it was not logical to negotiate his conclusions. It disagreed with the
view that the standards were too focused on international cooperation, and in fact felt that
they were too focused on the national level. Namibia, Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela supported the statement delivered by the Islamic
Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Namibia commented that the
conclusions of the Chair-Rapporteur were not an end in themselves, but rather the
beginning of a new process, even though the procedural aspects of discussions on them still
required clarification. Egypt referred to the critical timing of the report, stating that it was a
foundation on which to develop the right conditions for the right to development to be
realized. To ensure the political will required in standard 1, the document should refer to
international cooperation, the transfer of technology and the means to achieve the right to
development as an integrated approach covering social, economic and environmental
development.
59. Brazil stated that the report of the Chair-Rapporteur, which contained loud and clear
messages on the right to development, would aid the work of the Working Group. It agreed
with the Chair-Rapporteur that the human right to development was no longer questioned,
and that the document outlined a practical and realistic approach. With a collaborative and
cooperative spirit, the Sustainable Development Goals would guide the Working Group in
its work, giving the most significant impetus to the realization of the right to development.
South Africa referred to the developments of recent years, when the issue of the criteria and
sub-criteria had left the Working Group in disarray and had not been cost-effective. It
supported the vision of the Chair-Rapporteur to put the Working Group on a more positive
trajectory. The standards provided food for thought for work on a convention on the right to
development. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that the report of the Chair-
Rapporteur would render the mandate of the Working Group more effective by promoting
reflection. It provided a road map to be debated, and mechanisms and tools to move
forward.
60. Argentina thanked the Chair-Rapporteur for his report, and expressed its
appreciation for the set of standards presented to the Working Group for its consideration.
Engagement with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was a priority for the
Government of Argentina. Development should be understood as “sustainable
development”. The 2030 Agenda renewed the commitment with an integral human
development strategy, which included people and the environment, and was aimed at
strengthening institutions, civil society and international cooperation.
61. Japan reiterated the view that there should be more balance between national
responsibility and international cooperation; the report of the Chair-Rapporteur tended
towards the latter. It requested more clarity with regard to the use of such terms as rights
and obligations in the document. It concluded with a call to discuss the document in more
detail and to reach consensus. Tunisia stressed the pressing need for a favourable
environment for realizing the right to development. While this was connected to
Sustainable Development Goal 17, there were many elements in the 2030 Agenda that
should be factored in. It referred to the trade system, the need for policy space, and the
participation of countries in global governance, and gave examples relating to food and
health, where a favourable international environment was lacking.
62. The United States of America commented on the characterization of the Sustainable
Development Goals, given that they were aspirational and non-binding goals, not parallel to
human rights. Wording that suggested legal obligations and binding commitments were
therefore to be avoided. It also suggested that national efforts be highlighted and that more
references be made to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland reiterated its view on the need for national
obligations to be stressed, and that reference be made also to Sustainable Development
Goal 16. It raised broader questions on how the Goals would be referenced in the report of
the Working Group on the current session, and whether the monitoring system would not
duplicate those being considered for the Goals.
63. Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, speaking on behalf of the working
group on the right to development of the Geneva Forum of Catholic-Inspired Non-
Governmental Organizations,3 agreed that on the need to set standards, which were crucial
for responding to human basic needs and to render justice to rights that had been too long
denied. It hoped that consensus could be reached on the proposed standards. International-
Lawyers.Org viewed the standards as basic consensus on agreed text, and shared the view
of the Chair-Rapporteur that there were uncontroversial. Centre Europe – Tiers Monde
recalled that all aspects of the right to development were interdependent, and the risk of
selectivity.
64. The Chair-Rapporteur responded that his report was the document that he had been
mandated to prepare, with his views. Even though it was not intended as a document for
negotiation or to generate consensus, the text itself was based on consensus documents. He
was not reformulating legally binding standards. Core elements, such as participation, non-
discrimination, equality and self-determination, could still be seen as contested.
Characterizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the right to development
was an unnecessary area of controversy and debate. There was no imbalance towards
international cooperation, given that both standards 1 and 3 were specifically worded to
cover national responsibilities. On gender roles, the language had been taken from the
Sustainable Development Goals. The logic of the proposal on monitoring was to outline a
voluntary commitment, which implied no obligation or need for consensus. This would be
pending agreement on the follow-up to the 2030 Agenda. While the Sustainable
Development Goals were non-binding and aspirational only, States were expected to abide
by their commitments. The Goals were therefore an important achievement.
IV. Conclusions and recommendations
65. At the final meeting of its seventeenth session, on 3 May 2016, the Working
Group adopted, by consensus, its conclusions and recommendations, in accordance
3 Statement made on behalf of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Association Points-
Coeur, Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities), the Company of the
Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul, Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of
Preachers), the International Institute of Mary Our Help of the Salesian Sisters of Don Bosco (IIMA),
the International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, MIAMSI, New
Humanity, the Teresian Association and VIDES International (International Volunteerism
Organization for Women, Education, Development).
with its mandate, as established by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution
1998/72.
A. Conclusions
66. The Working Group expressed its appreciation to all those who had
contributed to the proceedings of its seventeenth session.
67. The Working Group welcomed the presence and participation of the Deputy
High Commissioner at the session, and had noted her opening remarks.
68. The Working Group welcomed the re-elected Chair-Rapporteur, and
commended him for his able stewardship in guiding deliberations during the session.
69. The Working Group took note of the standards for the implementation of the
right to development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2), and expressed its gratitude and
appreciation for the efforts made by the Chair-Rapporteur in its preparation,
pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 30/28. It considered the report a useful
basis for further deliberations on the implementation and realization of the right to
development.
70. The Working Group welcomed the conclusion of the second reading of the
draft criteria and operational sub-criteria (A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2/Add.2).
71. The thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development in
2016 presented a unique opportunity for the international community, including the
Working Group, to demonstrate and reiterate its political commitment and to accord
the right to development the high profile it deserves, and to redouble its efforts to
implement the right to development. In this regard, the Working Group welcomed the
events that will be held on this occasion.
72. The Working Group took note of the paper submitted by the High
Commissioner on the realization and implementation of the right to development, as
elaborated in the Declaration on the Right to Development.
73. The Working Group took note with appreciation of the presence of the former
co-facilitators for the intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development
agenda, acknowledged that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was a
landmark document, and looked forward to the possible engagement of the Working
Group with the high-level political forum.
B. Recommendations
74. The Working Group recommended that:
(a) It continue to consider criteria and operational sub-criteria with a view
to finalize the text as expeditiously as possible, preferably no later than its nineteenth
session;
(b) OHCHR make available on its website and to the Working Group a
conference room paper containing the draft right to development criteria and
operational sub-criteria following its second reading, and the comments and views
submitted at the sessions by Governments, groups of Governments, regional groups,
and stakeholders, respectively;
(c) OHCHR take sufficient measures to ensure balanced and visible
allocation of resources, and pay due attention to the visibility and effective
implementation and mainstreaming of the right to development by systematically
identifying and undertaking tangible projects dedicated to the right, and that it
continue to update the Council and the Working Group on progress in that regard;
(d) The Working Group, in its future deliberations, study the contributions
made by States at the national, regional and international levels to the implementation
of the right to development, in keeping with mechanisms relating to the Sustainable
Development Goals;
(e) The High Commissioner include in his next annual report an analysis on
the realization and implementation of the right to development, taking into account
existing challenges and making recommendations on overcoming them;
(f) The OHCHR consider facilitating the participation of experts in the
eighteenth session of the Working Group, to provide advice with a view to contribute
to discussions on the implementation and realization of the right to development, and
on the implications of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
(g) The Working Group consider further the set of standards conducive to
the implementation and realization of the right to development.
Annex
List of attendance
States Members of the Human Rights Council
Algeria, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, Cuba, Ecuador,
Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco,
Namibia, Netherlands, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa,
Switzerland, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela
(Bolivarian Republic of).
States Members of the United Nations
Angola, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Brunei
Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Gabon,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Republic
of Korea, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand,
Tunisia, United States of America, Uruguay, Zimbabwe.
Non-Member States represented by an observer
Holy See.
United Nations agencies, funds and programmes
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO).
Intergovernmental organizations
European Union, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, International Development Law
Organization, South Centre.
Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social
Council
General
Centre Europe – Tiers Monde (CETIM), New Humanity.
Special
Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Association Points-Cœur, Dominicans for
Justice and Peace – Order of Preachers, Company of the Daughters of Charity of St.
Vincent de Paul, International-Lawyers.Org, Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits
de l’homme (RADDHO), Observatoire mauritanien des droits de l’homme et de la
démocratie.