36/35 Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development on its eighteenth session (Geneva, 3-7 April 2017)
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2017 May
Session: 36th Regular Session (2017 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.17-08713(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-sixth session
11-29 September 2017
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 eighteenth session (Geneva, 3- 7 April 2017)
Chair-Rapporteur: Zamir Akram
United Nations A/HRC/36/35
Contents
Page
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Organization of the session .......................................................................................................... 3
III. Summary of proceedings ............................................................................................................... 4
A. General statements ................................................................................................................ 4
B. Report of the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights on the right to development ..................................................................... 9
C. Contributions by States to the implementation of the right to development ......................... 10
D. Informal consultations by the Chair-Rapporteur .................................................................. 10
E. Interactive dialogue on the implementation and realization of the right to development ..... 11
F. Standards for the implementation of the right to development ............................................. 15
G. Consideration of the draft right to development criteria and corresponding
operational subcriteria........................................................................................................... 16
IV. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 16
A. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 17
B. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 18
Annex
List of participants ......................................................................................................................... 19
I. Introduction
1. The present report was prepared pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 9/3 in
which the Council decided to renew the mandate of the Working Group until it has
completed the tasks entrusted to it, and that the Working Group would convene annual
sessions of five working days and submit its reports to the Council.
2. The mandate of the Working Group on the Right to Development established by the
Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1998/72 is 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 its deliberations, 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. The mandate was extended by the Human Rights Council in its decision
1/102 and renewed in successive resolutions.
II. Organization of the session
3. The Working Group convened its eighteenth session in Geneva from 3 to 7 April
2017. The session was opened by the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for
Human Rights. In her opening statement, 1 the Deputy High Commissioner assured the
Working Group of the High Commissioner’s continued and full support in its efforts aimed
at the promotion of and respect for the right to development. She noted that the right to
development had its roots in decolonization and the quest for economic, not just political,
independence. The human rights of all were to be fully protected and economic
development was to be achieved through the creation of a more collaborative and
cooperative vision of global economic relations, including respect for the interests of
developing States in those relations. One dominant theme of the right to development was
therefore the creation of fairer economic conditions for all countries, whereby developing
countries could genuinely exercise their economic autonomy without being subjected to the
hegemonic interests of dominant States.
4. At its first meeting on 3 April 2017, the Working Group re-elected by acclamation
Zamir Akram as Chair-Rapporteur. In his opening statement,2 the Chair-Rapporteur noted
the endorsement by the Human Rights Council on 24 March 2017 of the appointment of
Saad Alfarargi as Special Rapporteur on the right to development. The newly created
mandate (see Council resolution 33/14) includes contributing to the work of the Working
Group, taking into account its deliberations and recommendations while avoiding any
duplication and engaging with relevant stakeholders for cooperation in implementing the
right to development. He highlighted that the implementation of the Sustainable
Development Goals was in its second year and that the theme of the meeting of the High-
level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, to be held in July 2017, would be
“Eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity in a changing world”. He considered it
important to maximize the impact of all those processes for development and to ensure
complementarity, cooperation and coordination among the various mechanisms and
1 The full text of the statement is available from www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/Pages/
18thSession.aspx.
2 The full text of the statement is available from www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/Pages/
18thSession.aspx.
processes. The Working Group subsequently adopted its agenda (A/HRC/WG.2/18/1) and
programme of work (A/HRC/WG.2/18/INF.1).
5. During the session, the Working Group considered the report of the Secretary-
General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to
development (A/HRC/33/31), contributions by States to the implementation of the right to
development, standards for the implementation of the right to development
(A/HRC/WG.2/17/2) and comments and views from relevant stakeholders on the draft right
to development criteria and corresponding operational subcriteria. The Working Group also
engaged in an interactive dialogue with experts on the implementation and realization of the
right to development.
III. Summary of proceedings
A. General statements
6. Speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, the representative of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela referred to the XVII Summit of the Movement, held in
that country in September 2016, at which the commitment to promote and protect all human
rights through constructive and cooperative international dialogue, capacity-building,
technical assistance and the recognition of good practices was reaffirmed. The Heads of
State and Government highlighted the historical significance of the adoption of the
Declaration on the Right to Development 30 years ago, which requires a profound change
in the international economic structure. The realization of the right to development was
more than ever a necessity and should be central to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. The implementation of the agenda was dependent on an
integrated, holistic and comprehensive approach by all States and the mainstreaming of the
right to development in the policies and operational activities of the United Nations and the
international financial and multilateral trading systems. They expressed deep concern about
the challenges and obstacles within the Working Group and stated that international
cooperation was integral to the implementation and realization of the right to development,
and could help the Working Group overcome the challenges that hindered progress. They
hoped that the Working Group would be able to develop a comprehensive and unique set of
standards that would contribute to the drafting of a legal instrument that would make
development a reality for all.
7. The European Union remained strongly committed to achieving sustainable
development and eradicating poverty; promoting respect for all human rights and
fundamental freedoms; working towards ensuring security, conflict prevention and
resolution; and encouraging good governance, gender equality, human development,
accountability and equitable globalization. The delegate reiterated the Union’s support for
the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights, including the right to
development, the multidimensional nature of development strategies and that individuals
were the central subjects of the development process. While national development efforts
should be supported, States — acting individually and collectively — had the primary
responsibility for ensuring that their citizens benefited from development. The European
Union was not in favour of the elaboration of an international legal standard that would be
binding in nature, for, in its view, that was not the appropriate mechanism to realize the
right to development.
8. Speaking on behalf of the African Group and expressing agreement with the Non-
Aligned Movement, the delegate from Tunisia stated that, at that challenging time when the
world was facing a series of crises, including economic, financial, social and climate-
related crises, African States firmly believed that the realization of the right to development
was a necessity. Human development and human rights were symbiotic and reinforced each
other conceptually. An effective global partnership for development through human rights-
based policy coherence and coordination at all levels was an important foundation for
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in an equitable and sustainable manner. The
delegate called on all actors in the international community to promote international
cooperation and to redouble their efforts for the effective promotion and protection of the
right to development.
9. The delegate from Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, stated that there was no easy path to achieve the objective of the
operationalization of the right to development. In its view, the Working Group must
overcome conceptual, political and practical differences and the rhetoric of questioning the
basis of the right to development served no fruitful purpose and was baseless, given its
endorsement in many instruments. The Working Group must now focus its energies on
addressing ways and means of implementing the right to development for all. Sustainable
Development Goal 17 on revitalizing the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
provided guidelines to support the realization of the right to development by addressing
core issues such as resource mobilization, technological and technical support, capacity-
building, open, equitable and non-discriminatory trading and financial systems, debt
servicing, and data collection and monitoring in disaggregated form. Those targets have
also been covered in the draft right to development criteria and corresponding operational
subcriteria, which could contribute to developing a human rights-based approach towards
achieving the goals.
10. The delegate from South Africa, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned
Movement, reaffirmed the importance of the right to development, including at the regional
level, in accordance with article 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The right provided critical guidance to the process of development as States worked
towards the goal of an international order and social justice in which all human rights could
be fully realized. In the context of the disruptive effects of globalization, international
cooperation and adjustment of the rules of international trade and financial institutions were
necessary. The 2030 Agenda, which embodied and gave content to the right to development
presented both an opportunity to and an obligation on all States. The responsibility for
social development entailed sharing of responsibilities by all relevant actors, including the
corporate sector. Regarding the Declaration, there still remained a significant gap in the
protection of the global poor; the Government of South Africa looked forward to
participating in activities to ensure that the global poor were given due attention. Going
forward, 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 through the elaboration
of a convention on the right to development.
11. The delegate from Sri Lanka highlighted the need to maintain the momentum of the
thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development and recommended that
the Working Group focus on fully achieving its mandate while working towards finalizing
the draft criteria and subcriteria regarding the right to development as expeditiously as
possible. In striving for greater acceptance, operationalization and realization of the right to
development, the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, the platform for
follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, should
pay attention to the human rights aspects of development. Realizing the Goals remained a
high priority for Sri Lanka in its endeavour to achieve inclusive and equitable economic
progress and social advancement.
12. The delegate from Nicaragua, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned
Movement, stated that the right to development was inalienable and indivisible. The full
realization of the rights of all peoples to self-determination and the attainment of that right
and the right to development through the relevant human rights instruments, while
maintaining the right to benefit from their natural resources was emphasized. The right to
development was essential to eradicating poverty despite the significant headway already
made in that direction. Nicaragua was committed to working internationally to mitigate the
adverse effects of climate change and unilateral coercive measures that denied the right to
development.
13. The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressing agreement with the
Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, stated that the right
to development should not be associated with charity and generosity. The Sustainable
Development Goals were mutually reinforcing in relation to the right to development. The
right to development was not negligible and favourable conditions for its realization had to
be put in place. International cooperation was essential for that. In line with article 10 of the
Declaration on the Right to Development, there must be a comprehensive and legally
binding instrument on the right to development.
14. The representative of India stated that the right to development, despite the mixed
treatment by the United Nations human rights mechanisms, remained important for an
overwhelming majority of the global population. Nationally owned development needed to
be complemented by equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment
at the international level. There was a need to reinvigorate the mainstreaming of the right to
development and that would not be possible without a strong political will and the
sustainable commitment of the international community.
15. The delegate from Cuba, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned Movement,
noted that the right to development was universal and inalienable and belonged to
individuals and peoples. The main obstacles to the right to development were economic
crises and inequality in international trade. With the political will of developed countries,
much could be done for the realization of the right to development. Cuba was opposed to
any attempt to reinterpret the right and underscored the importance of its operationalization,
in particular through the elaboration of a convention on the right to development.
16. The delegate from China stated that the right to development was a right for all and
an integral part of human rights. In the context of sluggish economic growth and
unconventional threats, the right to development would be faced with daunting challenges.
States had a primary obligation to implement the right to development. It was hoped that all
parties would demonstrate political will and commitment and play a constructive role.
17. The representative of Nepal stated that, together with the 2030 Agenda, an
international cooperation mechanism could ensure the provision of appropriate means and
resources to foster sustainable and broad-based development in poorer countries. To bridge
the gap of rising inequality, commitment was needed to refine the draft right to
development criteria and operational subcriteria so as to advance towards an international
legally binding instrument.
18. The representative of the Philippines, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned
Movement, noted that the right to development affirmed the centrality of the human person.
The right to development provided an enabling environment for the 2030 Agenda.
Development processes had to be inclusive and just, and States must be able to go beyond
charity. Through constructive engagement by the Working Group, progress could be made
towards achieving those goals.
19. The delegate from Egypt, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned Movement,
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Group, stated that, despite the
significance of the right to development, it had yet to be fully and truly realized. The 2030
Agenda placed the right to development at its core. Egypt supported the proposal that the
Working Group should advance towards an international legally binding instrument on the
right to development.
20. The delegate from Indonesia, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned
Movement and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, noted that a non-politicized and
non-confrontational approach should be taken in the context of the right to development.
Indonesia would engage with the Special Rapporteur on the right to development and urged
other Member States to do so as well. Policy coherence and international cooperation were
equally essential.
21. The delegate from Tunisia, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned Movement
and the African Group, reasserted that there was a need to set up mechanisms to monitor
the work relating to the right to development. The right to development should be free from
controversy so as to make the world a more prosperous place for every person. Mechanisms
conducive to an international enabling environment for the implementation of the right to
development and the 2030 Agenda were needed.
22. The representative of Pakistan, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned
Movement and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, considered that the standards for
the implementation of the right to development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2), prepared by the
Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group, covered all the broad consensual categories and
elements enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development. Those standards could
serve as basic policy guidelines and pave the way for the establishment of a normative
framework. The myriad problems faced today required a multifaceted approach by States,
internally, externally and collectively, including a gender-based approach, quality
education, equitable and preferential market access, technological advances and support for
debt servicing, which could help to establish a fair and human rights-sensitive economic
and financial order.
23. The representative of Algeria, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned
Movement, the African Group and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, noted that
social and economic stability was important to ensure not just the needs of present
generations, but also of future generations. The Working Group should focus on
international cooperation and solidarity in relation to the right to development and the need
to work on new approaches to realize the right.
24. The representative of Brazil stated that the Working Group had to conclude
unfinished business and make progress with deliberations in order to be more relevant to
the discussions on development, especially the 2030 Agenda. The 2030 Agenda placed
people squarely at the centre of development, just like the right to development,
international cooperation and the removal of obstacles to development. The profile of the
right to development had to be raised, including by mainstreaming it in the work of the
Human Rights Council and the United Nations system as a whole.
25. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that, without the
realization of the right to development, enjoyment of all other human rights could not be
attained, and that it required the development of an adequate international legal framework
in the context of the 2030 Agenda. Unilateral coercive measures against countries in the
Global South impeded peoples from advancing towards full sovereignty and development,
thereby violating basic human rights. The world economic crisis created by the capitalist
system, the denial of resource and technology transfer and the foreign debt burden all
impacted on the implementation of the right to development.
26. The delegate from Ecuador, expressing agreement with the Non-Aligned Movement,
stated that a genuine global partnership was needed that would make it possible to
restructure relationships between developed and developing countries and to address the
unfair distribution of wealth, reform discriminatory and perverse power structures, establish
an independent and transparent international mechanism to manage sovereign debt,
promote fiscal justice, clamp down on tax evasion and havens and advance towards a
binding instrument on business and human rights.
27. The delegate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
expressing agreement with the European Union, stated that the United Kingdom fully
supported the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. The right to
development required the full realization of civil and political rights and the progressive
realization of economic, social and cultural rights, in addition to credible development
policies and good governance. The United Kingdom was not in favour of an international
legal standard of a binding nature on the right to development. It was fully committed to
delivering the Sustainable Development Goals, both at home and around the world, and
considered the agenda a framework through which the world could combat the most
pressing challenges of our time.
28. The delegate from the United States of America stated that the United States was
committed to international development as a critical element of its foreign policy. The
United States considered that there was a strong link between human rights and
development. However, for several reasons, it has long-standing concerns about the concept
of the “right to development”, in terms of definition and how it has been framed. For those
reasons, it had consistently expressed objection to references to “the right to development”
in General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions, and had serious reservations
with respect to the direction of the related work and had made several proposals. Although
it fully agreed that changes were necessary, because of those and other concerns that it had
expressed in several previous Working Group sessions, and which have yet to be
adequately addressed, it did not consider that further engagement in that session would be
productive.
29. The representative of the South Centre reaffirmed its conviction of the need for
systemic reforms in the international finance and economic systems. The full realization of
previous commitments made in relation to the internationally agreed goals were crucial to
providing developing countries with the necessary finance and technologies to support their
efforts in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The realization of the right to
development was the driving force in their implementation. Although the 2030 Agenda was
universal, the representative highlighted that key principles such as the common but
differentiated responsibilities were a central issue.
30. The representative of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, speaking on
behalf of the Geneva-based Forum of Catholic-inspired Non-governmental Organizations,3
stated that the benefits of development had so far not been fairly distributed and that
Governments must move from rhetoric to action and urgently honour their political and
financial commitments to development. The Working Group should play an important role
in the forthcoming High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development by contributing
to the monitoring of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in
accordance with the principles and content of the Declaration on the Right to Development.
It was hoped that the inhibiting polarization and politicization of the debate on the right to
development would cease.
31. The representative of the Indian Council of South America referred to the huge gap
between the principles enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development and the
actual realization of the right. The Council supported inclusion of the voices of all peoples
in the development of an international instrument on the right to development. There were
many bilateral and multilateral State and corporate agreements that did not recognize the
right to development and therefore violated the rights of peoples.
32. The representative of International-Lawyers.Org referred to its projects to promote
the right to development in academic circles in African countries. All States could
cooperate in solidarity with each other to achieve a legally binding instrument on the right
to development. Achieving that goal would provide significant impetus to furthering the
implementation of the right by making it a legal obligation in a treaty. There was a need to
agree on the core principles and to create a mechanism with the authority to ensure its
implementation.
33. The representative of the World Federation of Trade Unions remarked that the right
to development had a specific content to workers worldwide, in terms of decent work,
workplace conditions that were safe and hygienic, protection of labour rights and the right
to strike. It was noted that the right to development depended on the satisfaction of the
contemporary needs of workers and without that, enjoyment of the right would be not be
guaranteed for those facing poverty and vulnerability.
34. The representative of Hope International noted that, despite the achievements of the
Millennium Development Goals, a lot still needed to be accomplished through the
Sustainable Development Goals. Even with good practices and academic contributions,
results were still very unequal and international cooperation was not effective. It was not
advisable to approve a new treaty or resolution without action corresponding to reality.
Further discussion and work within the treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council was
called for.
3 The members of the Forum include Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Association
Points-Coeur, Caritas Internationalis, the Company of the Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de
Paul, Dominicans for Justice and Peace, the Salesian Sisters of St. John Bosco — Daughters of Mary
Help of Christians, the International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of
Education, the International Movement of Apostolate in the Independent Social Milieus (MIAMSI),
New Humanity, the Teresian Association and VIDES International — the International Volunteerism
Organization for Women, Education, Development. All statements made by the Associazione
Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII in the present report are made on behalf of the Geneva-based Forum.
B. Report of the Secretary-General and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to development
35. The Chief of the Right to Development Section of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) introduced the report of the Secretary-
General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to
development (A/HRC/33/31). The report, submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council
resolution 30/28 and General Assembly resolutions 48/141 and 70/155, contains an
overview of the activities of OHCHR relating to the right to development over the period
from May 2015 to June 2016, and a discussion on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the implementation of the right to development. The annexes to the
report contain key messages from OHCHR on human rights and financing for development
and on human rights and climate change, which have been widely used in advocating the
integration of human rights and the right to development in those important processes.
36. OHCHR carried out several activities to promote the right to development, including
many to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development,
such as the publication of a fact sheet entitled “Frequently asked questions on the right to
development”4 and the production of a short video entitled “The right to development —
development is a human right”.5 In addition to advocating the integration of the right to
development into the financing for development, climate change and sustainable
development processes, OHCHR sought to mainstreaming human rights, including the right
to development, into United Nations system policies and operational activities and engage
cooperation. To conclude, the report highlighted that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development was informed by and grounded in the right to development and that follow-up
and review of the implementation of the Goals provided a solid basis for assessing the
progressive realization of the right to development.
37. OHCHR launched its Human Rights Appeal 2017 in February 2017. The Appeal
provides a succinct overview of the fundamental challenges that the world will face in the
foreseeable future and spotlights the efforts that OHCHR plans to undertake to address
those challenges. OHCHR committed to support Member States in meeting their
commitments and obligations in relation to the 2030 Agenda. As requested by the Human
Rights Council in its resolution 33/14, the High Commissioner’s next annual report will
include an analysis of the implementation of the right to development, taking into account
existing challenges and making recommendations on how to overcome them.
38. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, recalled the requests to the
Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to integrate the right to development into
the work of the United Nations system and appealed to OHCHR to bolster the work
necessary to mainstream the right to development and support developing countries in
developing relevant policies. That required allocation of necessary resources and
cooperation with States in order to remove any stumbling blocks to achieving the right to
development. Concern was expressed about the scheduled dates for the next session of the
Working Group, which coincided with other important intergovernmental human rights
meetings.
39. The representatives of South Africa and Pakistan expressed agreement with the Non-
Aligned Movement and stressed that more needed to be done to ensure the fulfilment of the
right to development. They mentioned that the right to development-based approach had
contributed significantly to promoting the inextricable nature of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. On the contrary, the United Nations human rights system had yet to adopt
through an intergovernmental process a human rights-based approach to development. They
noted that the report of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner was heavily
slanted on that approach. They also noted that the report did not address concrete and
4 Available from www.ohchr.org/EN/PublicationsResources/Pages/FactSheets.aspx.
5 See https://www.youtube.com/embed/pdKfypBTtdI.
specific activities on the promotion and realization of the right to development, but rather
linked the right to development to various meetings which did not focus solely or
specifically on the right to development. In that regard, clarity was sought on the
disjuncture between the mandate entrusted to OHCHR and the reality on the ground. It was
recommended that specific emphasis be given to capacity-building, technology transfer and
sharing of best practices.
40. The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that a report on the right to
development should not only focus on factual advancements, but should also have an
analytical section with a development focus and recommended that the next report provide
an approach for implementation and best practices.
41. The Chief of the Right to Development Section of OHCHR commented on the dates
for the sessions of the Working Group and explained that the meeting calendar, including
the allocation of conference rooms and services, was coordinated by the United Nations
Office in Geneva. With regard to the report and the need for more clarity and content, he
stated that it was not possible to include extensive details on the substance of all the events
and activities owing to word limit restrictions. However, the Secretariat continued to make
available detailed information on the OHCHR website. Regarding the remarks about
analysis and the overall content of the report, he stated that the Secretariat reported on the
comments and recommendations made by Member States and other stakeholders as
endorsed in the relevant Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions.
C. Contributions by States on the implementation of the right to
development
42. The representative of Indonesia stated that it had placed the right to development at
the centre of its development policies, including national and local development planning.
The 2030 Agenda had also been mainstreamed into national development planning and a
legal and institutional framework with national and subnational guidelines for
implementing the right to development had been developed. In terms of more specific
measures, Indonesia had an advanced smart health card intended to provide households in a
lower socioeconomic bracket with greater support. Sustainable Development Goal 17 calls
for revitalized partnership and cooperation and Indonesia was committed to working
together with other States for the implementation of the right to development.
D. Informal consultations by the Chair-Rapporteur
43. The Chair-Rapporteur informed the meeting about the informal consultations he had
held in the intersessional period with regional and political groups and other stakeholders.
44. In July 2016, the Chair-Rapporteur participated in the interactive segment on
combating discrimination and inequalities of the General Assembly high-level thematic
debate on human rights, in New York, in which he underlined the linkages between
discrimination, inequality and development. In September 2016, he presented the report of
the Working Group on its seventeenth session (A/HRC/33/45) to the Human Rights
Council and held informal consultations with the coordinators of regional and main
political groups active in the Working Group and with representatives of intergovernmental
organizations and civil society. In October 2016, he presented the report of the Working
Group to the Third Committee of the General Assembly and had an interactive discussion
with the members of the Committee along with informal consultations. He met with, inter
alios, the Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Deputy Head of the European
Union delegation, the coordinator of the Western European and other States Group, the
delegation of China, the Head of OHCHR in New York, the Assistant Secretary-General for
Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs in the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, the representative of the World Bank to the United Nations, as well as
representatives of civil society. He also participated as a panellist in the side event
organized by OHCHR in commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration on
the Right to Development. It was generally affirmed by all those with whom he met that the
2030 Agenda represented an important opportunity to revitalize and implement the right to
development. In particular, the importance of Member States’ accountability for the
international dimension of the right to development and the need for the development of
indicators to measure progress in that regard were highlighted. Some suggested that more
attention be paid to particular topics, such as taxation, public-private partnerships, financing
for development, global governance, access to medicines, intellectual property, technology
transfer and climate change. In December 2016, the Chair-Rapporteur participated as a
panellist in a panel discussion organized by the Geneva Centre for Human Rights
Advancement and Global Dialogue, in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of
Azerbaijan.
45. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of Ecuador asked the Chair-Rapporteur
to elaborate on some of the reactions of the various stakeholders with whom he had met.
The Chair-Rapporteur responded that, in principle, everyone supported the work of the
Working Group. He stressed the underlying need for coordination between the Secretariats
in Geneva and in New York regarding the 2030 Agenda and how it connected to the right to
development. The positions expressed by the Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned Movement
were broadly the same as the views expressed by the Working Group. With the World Bank
representative, he stressed the need for more proactive engagement on the part of the Bank
in the deliberations of the Working Group. At the panel discussion organized by the Geneva
Centre in December 2016, participants supported the right to development and the synergy
between the Working Group and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The more the
Working Group was able to integrate its work with the 2030 Agenda, the better the chances
of success would be.
E. Interactive dialogue on the implementation and realization of the right
to development
46. The interactive dialogue on the implementation and realization of the right to
development and the implications of the 2030 Agenda, including possible engagement of
the Working Group with the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development was
composed of two panels.6 The panellists and topics in the first panel were: Vicente Yu,
Deputy Executive Director and Coordinator, Global Governance for Development
Programme, South Centre, on the implications of the SDGs for the realization of the right to
development; Flavia Piovesan, Special Secretary for Human Rights, Ministry of Human
Rights, Brazil, on the right to development perspective for the attainment of the Sustainable
Development Goals; Olivier de Schutter, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, on the extraterritorial legal obligations of States and the responsibility
of business enterprises for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights; Maria-
Luisa Silva, Director, United Nations Development Programme, Geneva Office, on the role
of UNDP in the implementation of the SDGs and the right to development; Richard Kozul-
Wright, Director, Globalization and Development Strategies Division, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, on from hyperglobalization to a global new deal:
rethinking the right to development.
47. Mr. Yu highlighted the need to look at the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action and the Declaration on the Right to Development in relation to examining the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. He emphasized the duty of States to implement the
right to development and identified four key challenges: the global economy in crisis;
climate change; the increase in new global pandemics; and the advent of automation and
increasing use of digital technologies with disruptive effects. All of those challenges were
caused by human beings and the solution rested on the global community. He emphasized
the need for international cooperation as a key element to enable developing countries to
address the Sustainable Development Goals. The right to development and the Sustainable
Development Goals were part of a global discourse to ensure that humans had a decent
6 Transcripts of the experts’ presentations are available from www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/
Pages/18thSession.aspx.
standard of living and livelihoods. He hoped that the Working Group would look to
enhance coherent and effective international cooperation in the light of those challenges.
48. Ms. Piovesan spoke about the advancement of a human rights-based approach to
development and a right to development approach for the attainment of the Sustainable
Development Goals and highlighted three key components of the right to development and
their impact and influence on the 2030 Agenda: social justice and participation;
accountability and transparency; and international cooperation. Contemporary challenges of
the right to development included the development of indicators to measure the
implementation of the right to development; the adoption of an international treaty for the
protection of the right to development; ratification of the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the reform of
international financial institutions; promoting international cooperation; stimulating action
by private actors; and consolidating best practices. The implementation of the right to
development involved challenges of a legal, cultural, political and economic nature and in
such an increasingly complex arena, it was crucial to move ahead in the affirmation of the
right to development and global justice and to compose a new architecture to respond to
those challenges.
49. Mr. de Schutter talked about improving the regulation of transnational corporations
and the key role it could play in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly
in terms of poverty reduction and promoting prosperity, the theme of the High-Level
Political Forum in 2017. He noted that, while increased levels of foreign direct investment
flows to developing countries could make a contribution to the fulfilment of human rights,
in general, and to the right to development, in particular, whether or not foreign direct
investment would have such a positive impact overall depended on the nature of the
strategies deployed to attract investment. It was therefore key to ensure that the
environment in which businesses operated supported, rather than undermined, the right to
development, as increasing foreign direct investment could only be a means to an end, not
an end in itself. A reading of Sustainable Development Goal 17 informed by the right to
development required the creation of an international environment in which countries faced
fewer incentives to resort to beggar-thy-neighbour policies in order to attract foreign
investors. Improved international assistance and cooperation for the regulation of investors
had a major role to play. He referred to the state of play of business and human rights
within the United Nations and indicated that the Guiding Principles on business and human
rights appeared to set the bar below the current state of international law in the area of
extraterritorial obligations, in particular the duty of States to control the corporations they
were in a position to influence. The Working Group could most effectively contribute to the
High-level Political Forum by advocating for access to effective judicial remedies for
victims and ensuring the primacy of human rights over investors’ rights and suggesting that
investment frameworks and promotion regimes explicitly take into account the duties of
States to comply with international human rights.
50. Ms. Silva spoke about the three-pronged approach advocated by United Nations
Development Programme that was aimed at ensuring that no one was left behind when it
came to living with dignity and inclusion. MAPS, which stands for Mainstreaming,
Acceleration and Policy Support, was adopted to provide Member States with coherent and
integrated support for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. There was a need for policy,
programmatic and advocacy support on the Sustainable Development Goals and to
internalize them into national development plans, measurement and reporting. A four-
pronged policy strategy was needed at the national level, including the use of universal
policies, pursuing measures for groups with specific needs, resilient human development
and empowering those left out. The support of the Working Group could be useful in
identifying practical examples, good practices and means of support to ensure that the right
to development remained rooted in efforts to support the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goals.
51. Mr. Kozul-Wright stated that the right to development had added a very strong
normative dimension to the development agenda. While the right to development might be
considered as faith based, the Sustainable Development Goals added a transformative,
universal and inclusive dimension to the development agenda. Post-war economics was
poorly understood and the current hyperglobalization had created extreme inequalities.
Neither the right to development nor the Sustainable Development Goals provided a
counternarrative. Only by looking back at history could a global “new deal” be brokered
based on past experience. Giving as example, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1994 economic bill
of rights, he proposed three elements on which to build a rights-based development agenda,
namely reflation, regulation and redistribution, and they must be part of the conversation on
rights. The big question in the current international architecture was what components of
those elements were needed to address the challenges of inequality, instability and
stagnation in the current global “new deal”?
52. In the ensuing discussion, the representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement, the
European Union, Ecuador, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa,
Brazil, Pakistan, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Bangladesh took the floor,
followed by the representatives of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, South
Centre, International-Lawyers.Org, Indian Council of South America and World Trade
Organization. Comments and issues raised included the overall implementation, in terms of
the right to development, extraterritorial obligations and coordinating international efforts
to achieve development as a common goal. A development dimension must be added to any
human rights discussion and mainstreaming of the right to development had to be
increased. Some stressed that the 2030 Agenda was not a substitute for the right to
development, while others referred to policy fragmentation at the national level and the
need for binding instruments on the right to development and on business and human
rights. Other issues raised included the root causes of injustice, how to link Goal 16 on
peaceful and inclusive societies to disarmament, self-determination and support for the
process of how best to ensure that the right to development was mutually supportive of the
Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda.
53. The panellists underlined the need for a constructive agenda to build a more
deliberative economy, including more South-South cooperation, and defending policy space
for developing countries. A development approach to human rights was required. Some
called for a governance report to combat systemic issues, considering implementation
problems as market failures in a deep sense. Recommendations on developing a binding
instrument on business and human rights included strengthening States’ duty to protect
human rights by controlling transnational corporations, creating a framework convention
with reporting obligations, developing an instrument imposing direct obligations on
corporations and an instrument on mutual legal assistance.
54. The panellists and topics in the second panel were: Yoke Ling Chee, Director of
Programmes, Third World Network, on financing for development as a means for
eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity from the right to development perspective;
Xigen Wang, Professor, Vice-Dean of Wuhan University Law School, on eradicating
poverty and the role of the right to development; Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, Coordinator,
Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples, Chad, on climate change, the right to
development and the rights of indigenous peoples; and Idriss Jazairy, Special Rapporteur on
the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, on
unilateral coercive measures as an obstacle to the realization of the right to development.
55. Ms. Chee spoke about the common but differentiated responsibilities that were more
relevant today in the struggle to balance the universality of long-term intentions and
goalposts in the international community within the reality of today’s deeply imbalanced
and asymmetric world. The principle captured the trinity of universality, differentiation and
responsibility that was the foundation of the 2030 Agenda. In financing for development,
although there was regression in structural analyses and substantive commitments, earlier
outcomes had been reaffirmed. However, major developed countries were unwilling to
move on the substance, considering it too early to assess implementation progress. The
Working Group should ensure that systemic issues were not diluted by the Economic and
Social Council and the General Assembly. Although noting the encouraging signs of the re-
emergence of human rights action by civil society and the private sector, she emphasized
that the global partnership and financing for development were State responsibilities and
could not be substituted with private sector action. A genuine and balanced global
partnership would enable people and institutions to monitor the common but differentiated
responsibilities of all actors and prohibit, rather than perpetuate, global obstacles. Existing
human rights norms provided a common set of standards and could be a useful yardstick for
assessing policy coherence for sustainable development.
56. Mr. Wang considered eradicating poverty as the greatest global challenge, which
was indispensable for sustainable development. In order to effectively achieve that goal,
innovations in ideas, systems and action plans from the perspective of integrating poverty
reduction, human rights and development were necessary. The value of eradicating poverty
must be optimized based on the spirit of the right to development and constructing a
pluralistic and adaptable poverty reduction action model, which could be chosen by any
country, was crucial. He suggested eight action models. Regarding the reform of the
poverty governance system, he suggested five steps that the United Nations and the
international community should take, emphasizing that the legal principles and the legal
rights and obligations relating to poverty reduction should be taken into account.
57. Ms. Oumarou Ibrahim drew attention to the serious challenges that Africa faced in
terms of climate change and gave the example of impacts in the Lake Chad basin, at the
heart of the Sahel. Impacts on the environment and on people were terrible. The adoption of
the Paris Agreement in 2015 was not enough; people needed real and concrete action; real
rain and real climate protection. While development was a fundamental right, it should not
be at any price. Indigenous peoples needed their land, natural resources and rivers for their
daily living and livelihoods. Sustainable development should respect the environment and
the peoples who depended on it. Investment in technological development was being made
to the detriment of development in health and education. Respect for indigenous rights
could also be a positive factor for tourism. Indigenous peoples were demanding that all
partners, in both the public and private sectors, make clear commitments to include
indigenous peoples in all development programmes. The inclusion of indigenous peoples in
the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals would be an essential strategy
for States to adopt as it would ensure that no one is left behind. Putting forward economic
and pragmatic arguments to highlight the benefits that could be obtained by implementing
the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was necessary to show that indigenous
peoples were part of the solution. Providing them with the space to get their voices heard
would enable them to play an effective role in sustainable development.
58. Mr. Jazairy highlighted that unilateral coercive measures went against the spirit of
the Declaration on the Right to Development, article 7 of which provides that the resources
released by effective disarmament measures be used for comprehensive development,
particularly in developing countries, and article 3 asserts that States have a duty to
cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to
development. General Assembly resolutions 2625 (XXV) and 3281 (XXIX) and Human
Rights Council resolution 33/14 recognized the international responsibilities of States to
cooperate with each other to create conditions favourable and eliminate obstacles to the
realization of the right to development. Unilateral coercive measures constituted exogenous
obstacles to the right to development and undermined the attainment of equal opportunities.
The Security Council monitored the human rights impact of its sanctions and adjusted them
as necessary, but no similar systematic review and adjustment was done for unilateral
coercive measures. Furthermore, many instruments, including the 2030 Agenda, were
ambiguous or vague in the prohibition of unilateral coercive measures, while people were
dying from the impacts of the denial of some of their entitlements under the right to
development. There was consensus that joint international action was needed to address the
adverse human rights impact of unilateral coercive measures. In the context of the right to
development, priority consideration should be given to stopping the adoption, maintenance
or implementation of all unilateral coercive measures that could undermine the basic
entitlements — eliminating poverty and hunger, ensuring healthy lives, inclusive and
equitable quality education and gender equality — which were the key components of the
right to development.
59. In the ensuing discussion, the representatives of Chile, the Non-Aligned Movement,
China, Pakistan, South Africa, Ecuador, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela took the floor, followed by the representatives of Associazione
Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII and International-Lawyers.Org. Many interventions
focused on opposition to unilateral coercive measures and their implications on the right to
development and advocated for deep changes to ensure conditions were favourable to
developing countries. Speakers emphasized the need for a people-centred approach to the
2030 Agenda and reiterated the need for common but differentiated responsibilities and
policy coherence. Some emphasized that poverty eradication was a key element to the right
to development and a multifaceted issue that required an institutional response. Sustainable
Development Goal 17 should be considered as a cross-cutting priority and synergies must
be created where cooperation was lacking. Global stocktaking was suggested as a way of
taking the 2017 session of the High-level Political Forum forward. Financing for
development must be considered as an issue to be addressed by the United Nations, and the
Working Group had to assume an important role in the Forum.
60. The panellists stressed that leaving no one behind was a basic minimum
commitment in the right to development. Unilateral coercive measures must not harm
people and the right to development should provide guidelines on how to avoid unilateral
coercive measures. In terms of development, a real partnership between developing and
developed countries was needed and innovation in all areas was emphasized for poverty
reduction. There was a need to bring justice back, consistent with the human rights
framework, through a network of goals and human rights mechanisms had a lot of
experience with global stocktaking that could be built upon by the High-level Political
Forum for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Furthermore, human rights inputs must
populate the discussion on the right to development at all levels.
61. To conclude the interactive dialogue, the Chair-Rapporteur noted the high level of
convergence and complementarity among the presentations and in the relationship between
the Sustainable Development Goals and the right to development. The adoption by
consensus of the Sustainable Development Goals provided the best way forward in the
implementation of the right to development. Many issues, such as the development of a
binding legal instrument or how unilateral coercive measures were tackled, were reflective
of the difficult work carried out by the Working Group. However, the essence of what was
required for the effective implementation of the right to development was political
agreement and if that was possible with frameworks such as the Sustainable Development
Goals, Financing for Development and the Paris Agreement, it was also possible in relation
to the right to development.
F. Standards for the implementation of the right to development
62. The Working Group followed up its consideration of the report on standards for the
implementation of the right to development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2) that was prepared and
presented by the Chair-Rapporteur at its seventeenth session further to requests by the
Working Group at its sixteenth session and the Human Rights Council in its resolution
30/28.
63. The representative of the Non-Aligned Movement presented a draft set of standards
regarding the implementation and realization of the Right to Development
(A/HRC/WG.2/18/G/1). The representative explained that the proposed standards drew on
the work of the high-level task force on the right to development criteria and operational
subcriteria and the provisions of the Declaration on the Right to Development and were in
line with the Sustainable Development Goals.
64. In the ensuing discussion, the delegate from Japan said that Japan supported the
importance of development as one of the basic rights of individuals, regardless of whether
they lived in developing or developed countries. However, Japan was unable to support the
right to development as being the exclusive right of developing countries. It was underlined
that the right to development should not be the subject of a legally binding instrument.
Japan reserved its position on the proposed set of standards submitted by the Non-Aligned
Movement and emphasized its willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue with the
Non-Aligned Movement. Japan was particularly concerned about standards 3 and 9.
65. The delegate from the European Union stated that it reserved its position on the
Chair-Rapporteur’s report on standards for the implementation of the right to development
as it was not open to negotiation as such. The European Union was not in favour of the set
of standards proposed by the Non-Aligned Movement, but would be open to engage in
discussion on that. The delegate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland expressed serious concerns with the set of standards proposed by the Non-Aligned
Movement and did not see it as a credible basis for discussion as it did not take into account
the divergent views of the different member States. The United Kingdom was also
disappointed with the procedure followed.
66. The representative of the Non-Aligned Movement said that the proposed set of
standards had been submitted in February 2016 and the idea was to open up a debate to
seek common positions within the Working Group and it was hoped that specific comments
would be made on the proposals in the document. Many States supported the set of
standards proposed by the Non-Aligned Movement and it would welcome more
constructive progress and engagement on them.
67. The representative of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII presented and
circulated a non-paper on the set of standards with the view to making progress in the
deliberations. The non-paper contained four sections on the principles identified in the
Declaration on the Right to Development, obstacles to an enabling international and
national environment, the proposed standards according to agreed language and sources. It
was hoped that the document could be a useful reference for facilitating the discussion.
G. Consideration of the draft right to development criteria and
corresponding operational subcriteria
68. The Working Group continued its consideration of the draft right to development
criteria and corresponding operational subcriteria prepared by the high-level task force
(A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2/Add.2, annex). In its previous session, the Working Group
completed a second reading of the draft criteria and corresponding operational subcriteria
and recommended that consideration of the criteria and subcriteria be completed by its
nineteenth session in 2018.
69. The representative of the Non-Aligned Movement distributed a non-paper aimed at
finalizing the consideration of the criteria and subcriteria. The non-paper was based on the
criteria and subcriteria submitted by the high-level task force and integrated the relevant
provisions of the 2030 Agenda that were agreed by consensus by the Member States. The
non-paper was not a substitute for the work carried out to develop the criteria and
subcriteria, but rather a tool aimed at moving the discussion forward. It was intended to
help to progress the negotiations and support the Working Group in completing the work.
The representative of the European Union noted that more time would be required to make
concrete suggestions and proposals on the non-paper.
70. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that not much progress was being made in the work
under that agenda item and that they were unable to engage in a constructive dialogue. He
stated that if that persisted, the work of the Group would not only stagnate, but it would
also have to consider other alternatives to make progress. He appreciated the efforts made
to try and find common ground in that context, especially the consideration of the language
of the Sustainable Development Goals as a way of building consensus.
IV. Conclusions and recommendations
71. At the final meeting of its eighteenth session on 7 April 2017, the Working
Group adopted by consensus the present conclusions and recommendations, in
accordance with its mandate as established by Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1998/72.
72. In his concluding remarks, the Chair-Rapporteur expressed disappointment at
the lack of progress during this session of the Working Group. His concern was
echoed by the representatives of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, speaking on
behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni
XXIII, speaking on behalf of the Geneva-based Forum of Catholic-inspired Non-
Governmental Organizations. The latter expressed the hope that civil society
organizations would be allowed to participate during the informal consultations to be
organized pursuant to the recommendations adopted by the Working Group.
A. Conclusions
73. The Working Group expressed its appreciation to all those who contributed to
the proceedings of its eighteenth session.
74. The Working Group welcomed the presence of the United Nations Deputy High
Commissioner for Human Rights at the session and took note of her opening remarks,
in which she reiterated the full support of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights to the Working Group and for the full realization of
the right to development.
75. The Working Group welcomed the re-election of the Chair-Rapporteur and
commended him for his able stewardship in guiding the deliberations during the
session.
76. The Working Group welcomed the events held to mark the thirtieth
anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development in 2016, including the side
event and panel discussion on mainstreaming human rights with an emphasis on the
right to development at the thirty-first session of the Human Rights Council, the panel
discussion on the promotion and protection of the right to development at the thirty-
second session of the Council, and the high-level segment of the General Assembly on
the right to development, held at the seventy-first session of the General Assembly.
77. The Working Group expressed its appreciation for the interactive dialogue on
the implementation and realization of the right to development, including the
implications of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and a possible
engagement with the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.
78. Following the completion of the second reading of the draft right to
development criteria and corresponding operational subcriteria during its seventeenth
session, the Working Group recognized with appreciation the preparation by the
Secretariat of a conference room paper compiling the comments and views submitted
by Governments, groups of Governments, regional groups and stakeholders on the
draft right to development criteria and operational subcriteria
(A/HRC/WG.2/18/CRP.1).
79. The Working Group took note of the set of standards regarding the
implementation and realization of the right to development that was proposed by the
Non-Aligned Movement (A/HRC/WG.2/18/G/1) as well as the non-paper submitted by
the Non-Aligned Movement containing further contributions aimed at finalizing the
criteria and subcriteria (A/HRC/WG.2/18/CRP.1).
80. The Working Group took note of the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on
the right to development for a period of three years (see Human Rights Council
resolution 33/14), whose mandate includes, contributing to the work of the Working
Group with a view to supporting the accomplishment of its overall mandate, taking
into account, inter alia, the deliberations and recommendations of the Working
Group, while avoiding any duplication. It looks forward to his work.
81. The Working Group took note of the report of the Secretary-General and the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to development
(A/HRC/33/31), while recognizing that more relevant concrete activities relating to the
promotion and realization of the right to development needed to be undertaken by the
High Commissioner and his Office.
B. Recommendations
82. The Working Group recommended:
(a) That the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and his
Office take sufficient measures to ensure a 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 he continue to update
the Human Rights Council and the Working Group on progress in that regard;
(b) That 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 how to overcome
them and concrete proposals to support the Working Group in fulfilling its mandate;
(c) That the Working Group, in its future deliberations, consider the
contributions made by States at the national, regional and international levels to the
implementation of the right to development and on the implications of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, by organizing a panel discussion including,
inviting panellists to reflect on their relevant national, regional and international
experiences in that regard;
(d) That the Working Group invite the Special Rapporteur on the right to
development, in consultation with Member States, to provide his views on the work of
the Working Group and its relevant agenda items, at its nineteenth session;
(e) That the Chair-Rapporteur present the report of the eighteenth session
of the Working Group to the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
in order to promote engagement between the Working Group and the Forum with a
view to ensuring synergy and integration of the right to development in the follow-up
and review of the 2030 Agenda.
(f) That the Working Group, as requested by the Human Rights Council in
its resolution 33/14, continue to consider the criteria and operational subcriteria
(A/HRC/WG.2/18/CRP.1), with a view to finalizing the text as expeditiously as
possible, preferably no later than its nineteenth session.
(g) That the Working Group further consider the set of standards for the
implementation and realization of the right to development.
(h) That the Chair-Rapporteur convene informal consultations, as and when
required, with a view to advancing the elaboration of the documents referred to in (f)
and (g) above, prior to the nineteenth session of the Working Group.
Annex
List of participants
States Members of the Human Rights Council
Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, China,
Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia,
Iraq, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar,
South Africa, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic
of).
States Members of the United Nations
Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Djibouti,
Dominican Republic, Estonia, Fiji, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru,
Russian Federation, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine.
Non-member observer States
Holy See, State of Palestine.
Intergovernmental organizations
European Union, International Development Law Organization, Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, South Centre, World Trade Organization.
Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council
General
Centre Europe — Tiers Monde (CETIM), International Youth and Student Movement for
the United Nations, Hope International, World Federation of Trade Unions.
Special
Asian-Eurasian Human Rights Forum, Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII,
International Association of Democratic Lawyers, International-Lawyers.Org, International
Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, New Humanity,
Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme (RADDHO).
Roster
Association of World Citizens, Indian Council of South America (CISA).