39/51 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to development
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2018 Jul
Session: 39th Regular Session (2018 Sep)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.18-12050(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-ninth session
10–28 September 2018
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 Special Rapporteur on the right to development
Note by the Secretariat
The Secretariat has the honour to transmit to the Human Rights Council the report of
the Special Rapporteur on the right to development, Saad Alfarargi, pursuant to Council
resolution 33/14. The report explores the connection between the right to development and
equality, the consequences of inequalities within countries on the enjoyment of the right to
development and provides recommendations on contributing to the promotion, protection
and fulfilment of the right to development in the context of the implementation of the
equality related goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
United Nations A/HRC/39/51
Contents Page
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
II Activities of the Special Rapporteur ................................................................................................ 3
A. Regional consultations on the practical implementation of the right to development ............. 3
B. Other activities ......................................................................................................................... 3
III. Inequality — scope and impact ........................................................................................................ 4
A. International human rights norms ............................................................................................ 4
B. Income inequality .................................................................................................................... 5
C. Other forms of inequality ......................................................................................................... 7
IV. The right to development, and inequality ......................................................................................... 9
V. Right to development and addressing inequalities in the Sustainable Development Goals ............. 11
VI. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................. 18
A. Identifying those left behind .................................................................................................... 18
B. Participatory processes ............................................................................................................ 19
C. Accountability mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 19
I. Introduction
1. The present report, submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council
resolution 33/14, outlines the activities of the Special Rapporteur on the right to
development. The thematic focus of the report is exploring the connection between the right
to development and equality, and the consequences of inequalities within countries in the
enjoyment of the right to development, and provides recommendations on contributing to
the promotion, protection and fulfilment of the right to development in the context of the
implementation of the equality-related goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. For the purposes of the present report, the Special Rapporteur will focus on
inequalities within countries.
II Activities of the Special Rapporteur
A. Regional consultations on the practical implementation of the right to
development
2. In September 2017, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 36/9, which
requested the Special Rapporteur on the right to development to hold consultations with
States and regional consultations on the implementation of the right to development. In the
light of this mandate, the Special Rapporteur has begun convening a series of regional
consultations, to be held throughout 2018–2019. The aim for these consultations is to
identify good practices in designing, implementing, monitoring and assessing policies and
programmes that contribute to the realization of the right to development in various regions.
The consultations will gather together representatives of Member States from the respective
region, as well as representatives of United Nations agencies, intergovernmental
organizations, academia, civil society and the private sector. The first consultation, for the
States from the African group, took place in Addis Ababa (27–29 March 2018). The second
consultation, for the States from the Group of Western European and other States and from
the Eastern European Group, took place on 11 and 12 June 2018 in Geneva. The Special
Rapporteur is planning to hold subsequent consultations for the Latin American and
Caribbean Group in October 2018 and for the Asian Group in December 2018. The
expected outcome of the consultations is the development of a set of practical guidelines
and recommendations drawn from empirical evidence, which will serve as a tool in
designing, monitoring and assessing the structures, processes and outcomes of human
rights-motivated development policies. They will also promote indicators and
measurements that have proven successful in specific contexts.
B. Other activities
3. Resolution 33/14 also requires the Special Rapporteur to contribute to the work of
the Working Group on the Right to Development, with a view to supporting the
accomplishment of its overall mandate, taking into account, inter alia, the deliberations,
recommendations and conclusions of the Working Group, while avoiding any duplication.
In September 2017, the Special Rapporteur participated in informal consultations with the
Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group, representatives of the participating States and
civil society organizations. In April 2018, the Special Rapporteur participated in the
nineteenth session of the Working Group, held an interactive dialogue with its members
and participated in a panel, making a statement devoted to the right to development and
inequalities.
4. In December 2017, the Special Rapporteur delivered a statement at the South-South
Human Rights Forum convened by China in Beijing. On 22 and 23 May 2018, he took part
in an international expert conference, entitled “Vienna + 25: Building trust, making human
rights a reality for all”, where he participated in a session on promotion of equality in
societies.
III. Inequality — scope and impact
5. The concepts of discrimination, equality and the equitable distribution of the
benefits of development, are enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development: its
preamble declares “equality of opportunity for development is a prerogative both of nations
and of individuals who make up nations”; article 2 (3) reaffirms that States have the duty to
formulate appropriate national development policies to promote the well-being of the entire
population and of all individuals, and to ensure the fair distribution of the benefits resulting
therefrom; article 5 refers to a duty of States to “take resolute steps to eliminate the massive
and flagrant violations of the human rights of peoples and human beings affected by
situations such as […] racism and racial discrimination”; article 8 states that the fair
distribution of income in the context of “economic and social reforms should be carried out
with a view to eradicating all social injustices” and that States “shall ensure, inter alia,
equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services,
food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income”. The reality of today’s
world is one of growing inequalities, where the rich become richer, while the poor grow in
number and are not only deprived of a fair share of the benefits of development, but are
increasingly denied participation in decision-making at all levels.
A. International human rights norms
6. The right to equality and the principle of non-discrimination are recognized in all
international human rights instruments and nearly all constitutions and basic laws at
national level. It is provided for in article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and in United Nations human rights instruments, such as articles 2 and 26 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 2 (2) of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 2 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, article 7 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights
of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and article 5 of the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Human Rights Committee has defined
“discrimination” under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as “any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and
freedoms”.1 General comment No. 20 (2009) on non-discrimination in economic, social and
cultural rights of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that
discrimination undermines the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights (para. 1). It
further lists the prohibited grounds for discrimination (race and colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability, age,
nationality, marital and family status, sexual orientation and gender identity, health status,
place of residence, and economic and social situation) (paras. 15-35). In addition, two of
the major United Nations human rights treaties were established explicitly to prohibit
discrimination: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (discrimination on the ground of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic
origin) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (discrimination on the ground of sex).
7. The principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment is also contained in regional
instruments, such as article 2 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights and articles 2 and 3 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Despite the fact that the principle of non-
discrimination is contained in all human rights instruments, only a few instruments
expressly provide a definition of non-discrimination: article 1 (1) of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 1 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 2 of
1 General comment No. 18 (1989) on non-discrimination, para. 7.
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, article 1 (1) of the International
Labour Organization (ILO) Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention,
1958 (No. 111) and article 1 (1) of the Convention against Discrimination in Education.
8. Human rights instruments prohibit discrimination on several grounds. Article 2 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the following 10
grounds: race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status. The same prohibited grounds are included in article 2
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 2 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The grounds enumerated in these
provisions are not exhaustive — some grounds not explicitly mentioned have also been
considered prohibited grounds in jurisprudence.
9. The general principle of equality and non-discrimination is a fundamental element of
international human rights law and, in certain circumstances, it can require a State to take
affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions that cause or help to
perpetuate discrimination. The Human Rights Committee has clearly stated this obligation
in its general comment No. 18 (1989) on non-discrimination (para. 10). The Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights frequently refers to the duty to take affirmative
action in its concluding observations. In its general comment No. 23 (2016) on the right to
just and favourable conditions of work, for example, the Committee suggests that States
parties should introduce quotas or other temporary special measures to enable women and
other members of groups that have experienced discrimination to reach high-level posts and
provide incentives for the private sector to do so (para. 61); general comment No. 20
explicitly states that, “in order to eliminate substantive discrimination, States parties may be,
and in some cases are, under an obligation to adopt special measures to attenuate or
suppress conditions that perpetuate discrimination” (para. 9). These internationally
recognized principles serve as basis of and are reflected in the 2030 Agenda, as described
below.
B. Income inequality
10. When discussing inequality in the context of development, income inequality is
often at the forefront of the discussions. It is well documented that income inequality is on
the rise. According to some reports, 82 per cent of all wealth created in 2017 went to the
top 1 per cent, while the bottom 50 per cent saw no increase at all.2 The United States has
the highest rate of income inequality among the high-income countries.3 Despite its overall
wealth, the countries of the European Union still face high levels of income poverty.
According to a Eurostat report, in 2015, 119 million people (or 23.8 per cent of the
population of the European Union) were at risk of poverty or social exclusion.4 In other
countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
income inequality is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the
richest 10 per cent of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10 per cent
across OECD. In OECD countries, traditionally income inequality was greatly reduced
through redistribution (through taxes and unemployment and other benefits). However, the
financial crisis and the recent years of slow economic recovery weakened the cushioning
effect of taxes and benefits, accelerating the overall upwards trend in income inequality.5 In
emerging economies, levels of inequality are generally even higher than in OECD
2 Oxfam, “Reward work, not wealth”, p. 8. Available at https://d1tn3vj7xz9fdh.cloudfront.net/s3fs-
public/file_attachments/bp-reward-work-not-wealth-220118-en.pdf.
3 See World Income Inequality Database, www.wider.unu.edu/project/wiid-world-income-inequality-
database.
4 Eurostat, “Sustainable development in the European Union: Monitoring report on progress towards
the SDGs in an European Union context” (2017), p. 29. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/8461633/KS-04-17-780-EN-N.pdf.
5 OECD, “In it together: Why less inequality benefits all”, p. 24. Available at
www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1-Overview-Inequality.pdf.
countries.6 This is exemplified in Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Turkey, countries that have
managed to reduce inequality, even though the gap between the richest and the poor is still
about five times bigger than the gap in the OECD countries.7 According to the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), by 2014, more than 75 per cent of the
population of developing countries lived in societies with a more unequal income
distribution than they had in the 1990s; averages of within-country income inequality
showed that income inequality had risen by 9 per cent in developed countries and 11 per
cent in developing countries.8
11. Why does income inequality matter? The International Monetary Fund has argued
that “widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time”, with the gap
between rich and poor at its highest level for decades in the advanced developing
economies.9 According to OECD, the long-term increase in income inequality not only
raises social and political concerns, but tends to reduce GDP growth; people with a lower
income are prevented from realizing their human capital potential, which is bad for the
entire economy.10 Analysis by UNDP shows that high inequality undermines development
by hindering economic progress, weakening democratic life and threatening social
cohesion. 11 For example, income inequality appears to be a particularly significant
determinant of inequality in health outcomes; 87 per cent of variation in the ratio of under-5
mortality rates between the richest and lowest quintiles could be attributable to variations in
income/wealth inequality.12
12. Countless examples can be provided from research and practice, showing that
income inequality leads to exacerbating poverty and affects not only enjoyment of
economic and social rights, but also infringement of civil and political rights. The World
Bank has argued13 that when societies have high levels of inequality, such inequalities are
reflected in the unequal capacity of groups to influence the policymaking process, making
inequality more persistent, and that “inequality traps are a vicious cycle in which a high
concentration of wealth translates into a disproportionate ability of those at the top of the
distribution to influence the policy process in their favour and weakens the perception of
fairness of those at the bottom of the distribution”. It also argued that, in addition to
normative concerns, a more equitable distribution of income is associated with positive
outcomes, including stability and economic growth.14 The World Bank further concluded
that, in the long run, “inequality and growth are thus tightly linked, and the way in which
the benefits from growth translate into socioeconomic achievements across different
individuals and groups is determined by how actors interact and make policy decisions
about redistribution”.15 This conclusion fits with ensuring effective participation in
decision-making processes as outlined in article 8 (2) of the Declaration on the Right to
Development, which calls on States to encourage popular participation in all spheres as an
important factor in development and the full realization of all human rights.
6 Ibid., p. 23.
7 See www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm.
8 UNDP, Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries (2013), pp. 3 and 7.
Available at www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/Inclusive%20
development/Humanity%20Divided/HumanityDivided_Full-Report.pdf.
9 Era Dabla-Norris and others, “Causes and consequences of income inequality: a global perspective”,
International Monetary Fund staff discussion note SDN/15/13 (2015), p. 4.
10 OECD, “In it together”, overview.
11 UNDP, Humanity Divided, p. 3.
12 Ibid, table 4.11 and p. 145.
13 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law, pp. 10 and 32.
Available from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/774441485783404216/Main-report.
14 Ibid., p. 45.
15 Ibid., p. 167.
C. Other forms of inequality
1. Sex -based discrimination
13. The Secretary-General, in his report on progress towards the Sustainable
Development Goals (E/2017/66), found that sustainable development cannot be achieved
without the full inclusion and effective and equal participation of women. The report notes
that: that women’s participation in single or lower houses of national parliaments reached
23.4 per cent in 2017, just 10 percentage points higher than in 2000; women are still
underrepresented in managerial positions — in the majority of the 67 countries with data
from 2009 to 2015, fewer than a third of senior- and middle-management positions were
held by women; the average amount of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work is
more than threefold higher for women than men, according to survey data from 83
countries and areas; and just 52 per cent of women between 15 and 49 years of age who are
married or in union make their own decisions about consensual sexual relations and use of
contraceptives and health services (ibid., para. 9). The World Economic Forum reported
that, in 2017, the gaps between women and men in economic participation and political
empowerment remained wide: only 58 per cent of the economic participation gap had been
closed and about 23 per cent of the political gap was unchanged since 2016; an average gap
of 32 per cent remained to be closed in order to achieve universal gender parity.16 The
gender pay gap varies from 1.8 per cent of the male median wage (Costa Rica) to 36.7 per
cent of the male median wage (Republic of Korea).17 Yet only one country to date (Iceland)
has passed legislation explicitly outlawing unequal pay between men and women. 18
Women’s rights to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and
political development are infringed upon by the inequalities they face in every area of their
lives.
14. With regard to accountability mechanisms, women are underrepresented in virtually
every international body responsible for adjudicating, monitoring and developing
international law. As of June 2018, only 3 of the 15 judges on the International Court of
Justice were women, 6 of 18 judges of the International Criminal Court were women and
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea had 21 judges, only 3 of whom were
women. Additionally, women comprise no more than 30 per cent of the aggregate of the
members of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and the Committee against Torture. As of June 2018, 33 of the 79 special
procedures mandate holders were women. The situation is not better in national court
systems. For example, in 2014, in the Supreme Court of Spain, out of 70 judges, only 12
were women; there were no women presidents in the chambers of the Audiencia Nacional
(National Court); and only 6 out of 52 presidents in the High Courts of Justice were women
(A/HRC/29/40/Add.3, para. 86). In Senegal in 2010, women accounted for only 17.29 per
cent of judicial personnel and there were no women among the five members of the
Constitutional Council (A/HRC/32/44/Add.1, para. 62). In Kuwait, in 2016, there was not a
single woman among the judiciary (A/HRC/35/29/Add.2, para. 66).
2. Discrimination against other population groups
15. Inequality disproportionally affects many other groups (e.g. discrimination on the
basis of race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability etc.). Persons with disabilities, for example,
experience higher rates of poverty, lower educational achievements, poorer health
outcomes, less legal protection and less political and cultural participation. In the European
Union for example, in 2015, 30.2 per cent of the population aged 16 or more who had a
16 World Economic Forum, The Global Gender Gap Report 2017 (2017), pp. 7–8. Available at
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf.
17 OECD data (figures for 2016), https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm.
18 On 1 June 2017, the Icelandic Parliament adopted a law making it mandatory for all firms and
institutions with 25 or more employees to obtain “Pay Equality Certification” (Jafnlaunavottun). The
new provision entered into force on 1 January 2018. Professional certifiers will conduct reviews and
deliver reports to the public Centre for Gender Equality (Jafnréttisstofa). See “Iceland: Equal pay
certification legalised”, ESPN Flash Report 2017/55.
disability were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, compared with 20.8 per cent of those
with no disability.19 Children with disabilities are less likely to attend school, which reduces
their chances for future employment opportunities. Persons with disabilities are more likely
to be unemployed and earn less even when they are employed; microfinance institutions are
often unwilling to lend to persons with disabilities.20
16. A survey conducted in one European country in 2013 21 on health inequalities
between the general population and the Roma minority showed that, with regard to
mortality, the average age at death in surveyed households was some 52 years old for the
Roma sample, and over 68 years for the general population. In relation to the survival time
following diagnoses of an illness, 29 per cent of respondents in the Roma sample survived
less than one year, versus 17 per cent in the general population. The survey also showed
that Roma faced greater obstacles and difficulties in accessing health care and paying for
medication: 11 per cent of Roma respondents reported that within the last year they had
needed health care but not got it, in comparison with 5 per cent of the general population. A
total of 72 per cent of Roma stated that they could not afford the cost of a medical
examination (compared with 56 per cent of respondents in the general population), while 48
per cent also stated that they could not afford the cost of transport (compared with 31 per
cent of the general population). In addition, 41 per cent did not have medical insurance
(compared with 33 per cent of the general population). Roma were also more likely to delay
buying medication or take less of the medication prescribed in order to save money. In
relation to specific medical conditions, while 100 per cent of the general population who
had been diagnosed with either tuberculosis or pneumonia reported receiving treatment,
those figures fell to 89 per cent of Roma diagnosed with pneumonia and 95 per cent of
those diagnosed with tuberculosis.
17. Many people are affected by multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, i.e.,
are discriminated against on more than one ground.22 Among others, people from particular
ethnicities, castes and minorities, indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, stateless and
displaced persons, children, youth, women, older persons, slum dwellers and persons living
with HIV/AIDS are often excluded, disempowered and discriminated against, in law, policy
and practice, resulting in inequalities in both opportunities and outcomes.23 Discrimination
based on poverty is another, less widely recognized type of inequality. According to the
International Monetary Fund, in many countries, low-income households and small-scale
firms often face challenges in accessing health services and education, but also basic
financial services due to lack of financial knowledge, complicated processes, onerous
paperwork, and other market failures. Moreover, available financial products tend to be
more limited and relatively costly.24 The most recent ILO Global Wage Report25
highlighted that discrimination and wage penalties suffered by women, migrant workers
and workers in the informal economy (who are often from disadvantaged groups)
contribute to income inequality.
18. According to Eurostat, in the European Union in 2015, 34.3 per cent of people with
at most lower secondary educational attainment were at risk of poverty or social exclusion,
while only 11.7 per cent of those with tertiary education were in the same situation.
Similarly, in 2015, 68.2 per cent of the young children (aged 0–6) of parents who had at
most pre-primary and lower secondary education were at risk of poverty or social exclusion.
This was over six times higher than for children of parents with first- or second-stage
19 Eurostat, “Sustainable development in the European Union”, pp. 34–35.
20 UNDP, Humanity Divided, box 4.1. entitled “Inequality and people with disabilities”, p. 144.
21 European Roma Rights Centre, “Hidden health crisis: Health inequalities and disaggregated data”, pp.
15-19. Available at www.errc.org/uploads/upload_en/file/hidden-health-crisis-31-october-2013.pdf.
22 See, for example, Human Rights Council resolution 32/17.
23 United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, Leaving no one behind: Equality
and Non-Discrimination at the Heart of Sustainable Development: A Shared United Nations System
Framework for Action (United Nations, New York, 2017), p. 18.
24 Dabla-Norris and others, “Causes and consequences of income inequality”, pp. 16-18.
25 See ILO, Global wage report 2016/2017. Available at www.ilo.org/global/research/global-
reports/global-wage-report/2016/lang--en/index.htm.
tertiary education.26 Poverty, leading to a lack of access to education, leading to poverty,
forms a vicious circle, ultimately resulting in exclusion from development.
19. United Nation agencies 27 have pointed out that widespread inequalities are also
evident with regard to the impact of natural disasters and environmental hazards on
different populations, resulting in further disadvantaging of people who are already
disproportionately dependent on the environment for their livelihoods. Climate instability
and extreme weather events tend to have the greatest impact on those with the least
resources, including women and girls. Imbalances in access to natural resources are often
worsened by insecurity of land tenure, including the lack of recognition of collective tenure
for rural communities — affecting indigenous peoples — and of equal inheritance rights
and their practical implementation, especially among women.
IV. The right to development, and inequality
20. Why do inequalities matter for the right to development in particular? As
demonstrated above, inequality threatens long-term social and economic development and
impedes poverty reduction. More notably, inequality has an impact on the ability of
individuals and communities to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social,
cultural and political development. Inequality is therefore a major obstacle to the realization
of the right to development within and across countries.
21. In his fourth report (E/CN.4/2002/WG.18/2), the former Independent Expert on the
right to development, discussed the fundamental human rights principles of equality and
non-discrimination and their link to the right to development. He concluded that, when the
fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights requires the availability of and access to
goods and services, then equality in rights implies equality in accessing these goods and
services, i.e. equality of opportunity (ibid., para. 27). He also noted that “equality is
essential to any programme aimed at implementing human rights, such as the right to
development” and that development policies and measures have to be implemented in a
way that either reduces income inequality or, at a minimum, does not allow any increase in
inequality (ibid., para. 28). He further emphasized that “there cannot be any discrimination
between the agents, the stakeholders and the beneficiaries (the right holders) on any
ground” (ibid., para. 29).
22. In the same report, the Independent Expert discussed the relationship between
equality and the principle of participation, according to which all beneficiaries and agents
involved in the implementation of the right to development are entitled to participate in,
contribute to and enjoy the results of the process of development. He concluded that: the
principle of participation was concerned with access to decision-making and the exercise of
power in the execution of projects that led up to the programme for development; citizens
needed to be empowered and have ownership over the programme; and, while there was no
unique model of participation, “for each project special provisions have to be drawn up and
implemented in order to ensure such participation” (ibid., para. 30).
23. These conclusions resonate very closely with the recommendations put forward
during the regional consultations on the practical implementation of the right to
development organized by the Special Rapporteur, where participants focused on one
overarching theme — namely the importance of establishing meaningful participation of all
relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process, including communities, non-
governmental and grass-roots organizations, women, youth, minorities, indigenous peoples,
persons with disabilities, and other marginalized groups. Participation should be central in
all development-related processes, at the local, national and international levels. The call to
ensure genuine participation is consistent with the vision contained in the Declaration on
the Right to Development, which acknowledges the right of every person and community to
26 Eurostat, “Sustainable development in the European Union”, p. 35.
27 Technical Support Team, “TST issues brief: Promoting equality, including social equity”, pp. 1–2.
Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2406TST%20
Issues%20Brief%20on%20Promoting%20Equality_FINAL.pdf.
participate in, contribute to and enjoy development in its economic, social, cultural and
political dimensions. This must be the guiding force in the implementation of the post-2015
policy development framework.
24. So how can genuine, wide and meaningful participation be achieved?
Overwhelmingly, the response of civil society to that question in consultations with the
Special Rapporteur has been: through wider access to information regarding development
policies, programmes and projects for all concerned stakeholders and constituencies.
Access to information and participation will lead to understanding of the process, and
widen support for much needed reforms. Participation will also help in designing,
implementing, monitoring and evaluating the results of development programmes and
projects in a meaningful way and increasing their effectiveness and efficiency. Last but not
least, it would lead to greater accountability and contribute to tackling endemic issues, such
as corruption and lack of good governance.
25. In 2015, OECD suggested that reducing the growing divide between rich and poor
and restoring opportunities for all required focusing policy attention on four main areas:
employment promotion and good-quality jobs; skills and education; tax-and-transfer
systems for efficient redistribution; and, notably, women’s participation in economic life.28
26. ILO29 suggested as one of the measures to reduce inequalities that: “Sustainable
enterprises engage in social dialogue and good industrial relations, such as collective
bargaining and worker information, consultation and participation. These are effective
instruments to create win-win situations, as they promote shared values, trust and
cooperation, and socially responsible behaviour.” Measures such as adopting or
strengthening minimum wages, as one way of reducing wage inequality, can only be
effective if implemented in full consultation with social partners and, where appropriate,
“with their direct participation on an equal footing”.30 Principle 18 (b) of the Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights also requests that, in order to gauge human rights
risks, business enterprises should conduct meaningful consultation with potentially affected
groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise
and the nature and context of the operation.
27. The World Bank has argued31 that participation may also have value by increasing
cooperation, through contribution to the funding of projects or through compliance with
decisions made, and that increasing the direct representation of disadvantaged individuals
in legislative assemblies can promote policymakers’ commitment to reforms that improve
equity. The Bank has also warned, however, that: participants in civic activities tended to
be wealthier, more educated, of higher social status, male, and more politically connected
than non-participants; the cost of participation was higher for the poor because they have
less leisure time and need to work longer hours to generate income; and it is more difficult
for the poor “to influence outcomes because they are less educated or may find it difficult
to debate with and contradict individuals who traditionally hold influence and authority”.32
In the context of human rights-compliant development policies and programmes, the way
the participation processes are designed is extremely important. Furthermore, the cost of
participation should be duly budgeted, so that those who are being consulted do not bear the
costs or end up excluded because are unable to afford the participation costs.
28. Access to information and to participatory mechanisms are closely related. The
majority of the high-income countries make information about existing regulations publicly
available and provide advance notice of regulatory changes. Information regarding State,
regional or municipal budgets is available and there are mechanisms for feedback and
options to challenge the choices of the executive. Such mechanisms to collect feedback
from the public and to report on the results and impact assessments of regulatory policies
28 OECD, “In it together”, p. 22.
29 ILO, Global Wage Report 2016/17, p. xxi.
30 Ibid., p. 25.
31 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2017, pp. 173 and 178.
32 Ibid., p. 181.
are relatively uncommon in low- and middle-income countries.33 While existing systems
even in high-income countries need to be further evaluated in terms of accessibility,
including for linguistic minorities and for persons with disabilities, providing information
about budgets, regulatory changes and programmes in an accessible format and seeking the
feedback of beneficiaries are of utmost importance for effective participation and ensuring
that no one is left behind.
29. In its World Development Report 2017, the World Bank provides multiple examples
of cases where increasing the direct representation of women and disadvantaged or
minority individuals in legislative assemblies and other political bodies can help to bring
about policies that are aligned with the needs of these groups, and how the political
representation of disadvantaged groups seems to be effective in reducing poverty.34 Other
examples of effective participation provided are various forms of direct democracy and
public deliberations that allow group-based discussion and weighing of alternative
preferences, and this can assist in improving the legitimacy of decisions by clarifying the
needs and demands of local constituencies.35 It is argued that public deliberation is most
successful at the local level and can complement decentralization reforms.36
30. Another crucial precondition to achieving progress towards equality and promoting
the right to development is the existence of accessible and effective accountability
mechanisms. Providing effective remedies for human rights violations, including
discrimination, is a basic obligation of States under international human rights law, which
not only recognizes the individual human rights of every human being, but places an
obligation on States to ensure, secure or guarantee the effective enjoyment of human rights
with its jurisdiction.37 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated
in its general comment No. 9 (1998) on the domestic application of the Covenant that, for
the Covenant norms to be recognized in appropriate ways within the domestic legal order,
appropriate means of redress, or remedies, must be available to any aggrieved individual or
group, and appropriate means of ensuring governmental accountability must be put in place.
States have recognized the importance of providing remedies for gender inequalities by
electing the indicator of whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce
and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex as an indicator for
achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5. More recently, principle 29 of the Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights suggested that business enterprises also need to
make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remedied directly, by establishing
or participating in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and
communities who may be adversely impacted.
V. Right to development and addressing inequalities in the Sustainable Development Goals
31. The 2030 Agenda recognizes “rising inequalities within and among countries”,
“enormous disparities of opportunity, wealth and power” and persistent “gender inequality”
as “immense challenges” confronting the world today. Under the Agenda, a commitment is
made to leave no one behind, to ensure targets are met for all nations and peoples and for
all segments of society, and to reach the furthest behind first. Consistent with international
human rights law, the 2030 Agenda contains a commitment to combating income and
wealth inequalities and acknowledges that relative inequalities in income and wealth
33 Ibid., p. 150, figure 5.6.
34 Ibid., p. 180.
35 Ibid., p. 239.
36 Ibid., pp. 239–240.
37 See, for example, art. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 2 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, art. 2 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 1 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, art. 1 of the Inter-
American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and art. 1 Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights).
hamper the achievement of development. The commitment to combat inequalities and
discrimination is reflected in two goals explicitly focused on this issue. Sustainable
Development Goal 5 (Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls) is the
stand-alone goal dedicated to bridging the gap between men and women and addressing
gender-based discrimination depriving women and girls of their rights and opportunities
and thus of their ability to realize their full potential. Women’s equal right to development
could in itself be an amplifier of development. However, the realization of their right to
development is beset by challenges rooted in the inequalities that pervade their lives. For
women, the right to development requires consideration for their lack of voice and
participation in decision-making within their families and societies.
32. Sustainable Development Goal 10 (Reducing inequality within and among countries)
is the goal designed to address inequalities across the spectrum of development goals. In
addition, all other Sustainable Development Goals call for more equitable development and
universal access to the constituent elements of development for all people. A commitment
to equality is reflected, for example, in target 16 (b), which highlights the need for “non-
discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development” as an essential element of
the framework for effective development, or target 4.1 requesting States to ensure that “all
girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education”. The
2030 Agenda also contains the commitment to disaggregate data across all goals in order to
measure the extent to which its central pledge to leave no one behind has been met.
33. Target 10.3 under Sustainable Development Goal 10 specifically calls on States to
ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating
discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies
and action in this regard. Equality of opportunity typically means that all people are treated
equally in the application of law or, for example, when applying for work or in relation to
access to education and health care. This concept is not inconsistent with reducing
inequalities of wealth or income but, as discussed above, income inequalities may lead to
unequal opportunities and discrimination. Inequalities of outcome, however, can be
measured on a number of issues: wealth, health, education or income. Policies aimed at
reducing inequalities of outcome should have a redistributive focus.
34. To measure the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, States
agreed on 169 targets and 232 indicators38 and to a process of voluntary national reviews in
the framework of the high-level political forum on sustainable development, convened
under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council. States have agreed that, in 2019,
the theme of the forum will be “Empowering people and ensuring inclusiveness and
equality”.
35. The voluntary common reporting guidelines for voluntary national reviews at the
high-level political forum39 suggest that voluntary national reviews should: be open,
inclusive, participatory and transparent for all people; support reporting by all relevant
stakeholders; be people-centred and gender-sensitive, and respect human rights; and have a
particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind. They should
ideally also include information regarding what mechanisms have been used to engage
stakeholders from civil society, academia and the business sector, and how the national
report to the high-level political forum has been discussed at the national level and who was
engaged in the discussions. The reporting guidelines also suggest that the voluntary national
reviews could assess how the principle of leaving no one behind has been mainstreamed in
38 The global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals, developed by the Inter-
Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators, was agreed upon at the forty-
eighth session of the Statistical Commission and adopted by the General Assembly in resolution
71/313 of 6 July 2017. The list of indicators is refined annually: it includes the global indicator
framework as contained in the resolution and refinements agreed by the Statistical Commission at its
forty-ninth session in March 2018 (see E/CN.3/2018/2, annex II). See
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%20refinement_E
ng.pdf.
39 See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/17346Updated_Voluntary_Guidelines.
pdf.
the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and how vulnerable groups have
been identified, as well as what policies and programmes are being implemented to address
their needs and support their empowerment.
36. What has been achieved to address inequalities in the framework of implementation
of the Sustainable Development Goals two and a half years after the conclusion of this
major international policy agreement? To date, Member States have completed two cycles
of voluntary national reviews in which 65 States have participated. In addition, following a
call for submissions by the Special Rapporteur, several countries submitted to the mandate
holder information on their efforts to reduce inequalities.
37. In 2016, the theme of the high-level political forum was ensuring that no one is left
behind, and some countries chose to explicitly address the topic in their voluntary national
reviews.40 Since many of the goals and targets are directly related to the achievement of
equality, other countries addressed similar issues in their analysis of the implementation of
different goals.
38. With regard to reducing income inequalities, States reported the introduction and use
of social protection policies and social security systems, in particular support mechanisms
to guarantee the minimum social standards for its most vulnerable citizens, such as social
payments to guarantee subsistence income, financial assistance to families with children or
mandatory minimum wages for workers.
39. The Government of the Russian Federation reported41 that equality was one of the
basic principles of its legal system and was reflected in legislation regulating human rights
in health, education, labour, judicial proceedings, social protection and culture. It further
referred to articles 37 and 39 of its Constitution. Groups on which State policy focused
were children, persons with disabilities and veterans. The Federal Law on State Social
Assistance (Law No. 178-FZ of 17 July 1999) provided for social assistance for different
categories of citizens in the form of social benefits, pension top-ups, subsidies and
provision of vitally important goods. The government programme “Social support of
citizens”, established by decree No. 296 of 15 April 2014, provided for social benefits and
an increase in social services for the population. Assistance was provided to citizens whose
income was below a certain subsistence level defined by the Executive.
40. The Government of Nigeria42 gave as an example of good practice the process of
establishing a social protection policy in Ondo State, conducted in cooperation with the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). From August to October 2016, upon a request
from the authorities, UNICEF conducted mapping of social net investment programmes
implemented over the years in Ondo State. In November 2016, a state social protection
technical working group was established, which reviewed the mapping. Based on the
existing programmes and global experience in drafting social investment legislation, the
Ministry developed a draft Ondo State Social Net Investment Bill. The draft was reviewed
by the technical working group. In December 2017, the Ondo State House of Assembly
held a public hearing on the Bill and adopted it. In February 2018, the State Governor
signed the Ondo State Social Protection Law 2018. The new law set up a State Social
Protection Council to promote equal opportunity, reduce inequalities of outcome and
eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices. Various stakeholders (farmers, small
business owners, artisans of various types, people living with disabilities and the leprosy
community) were involved in the development of the policy and, in particular, in the
development of a microcredit scheme aimed at reducing inequality.
40 Unless indicated otherwise, the information in this section is from Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Synthesis of Voluntary National Reviews 2016,
pp. 58–62 (available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/126002016_
VNR_Synthesis_Report.pdf) and Synthesis of Voluntary National Reviews 2017, pp. 12, 13, 19, 27-32
(available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
17109Synthesis_Report_VNRs_2017.pdf). For complete voluntary national reviews, see
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/vnrs/.
41 Submission of 6 March 2018.
42 Submission of 12 March 2018.
41. The Government of Croatia43 provided detailed information on its social welfare
legislation and services, such as the guaranteed minimum benefit introduced by law in 2014
and designed to prevent the occurrence of extreme poverty and prevent social exclusion.
Further benefits were available for children with developmental disabilities and adults with
disabilities. Croatia also provided information on its Strategy for Combating Poverty and
Social Exclusion (2014-2020), addressing homelessness and introducing measures to
implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
42. The Government of Italy44 submitted that, during recent years, it had faced a severe
economic crisis that had led to the unemployment rate increasing to 12.7 per cent in 2014,
which in particular affected young persons. In order to address the challenge of achieving
an employment-intensive recovery for its economy, Italy had introduced three main reforms:
the so-called Fornero labour market reform, adopted in 2012; the Youth Employment
Strategy, which also included the Youth Guarantee National Plan, launched in 2013; and
the Jobs Act. In 2017, Italy enshrined for the first time in law a comprehensive national
anti-poverty strategy, which included rationalizing social benefits and ensuring
coordination between social services. A crucial element of the anti-poverty strategy was the
minimum income for inclusion (REI), which provided beneficiaries with an economic
benefit paid onto a personal electronic payment card (REI CARD) (up to a maximum of
240 euros per month) and participation in a project to help them find employment.
43. Another group of measures reported by States were initiatives aimed at eradicating
discrimination against all groups, and efforts to address issues related to specific groups,
such as children and youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples,
women and girls, refugees and internally displaced persons. Many countries listed
constitutional and legislative provisions prohibiting discrimination on a number of grounds,
including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, age and religion. Some countries had
national strategies aiming to ensure equal rights and opportunities, such as policies for
persons with disabilities, on Roma inclusion and against racism and hate crimes. A number
of countries also provided information on accountability mechanisms and legal avenues to
complain against discrimination. However, analysis of the effectiveness of such
mechanisms is not available. Such analysis should assess the visibility, accessibility,
independence and efficiency of these mechanisms, to determine their usefulness in
addressing discrimination.
44. Furthermore, States provided information on participatory mechanisms, either for
designing policies to implement the Sustainable Development Goals or drafting voluntary
national reviews. Engagement with different stakeholders was noted as an important
success factor in the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals by countries such
as Egypt, Samoa and Switzerland; and a necessary condition of ensuring ownership of the
process by countries including China, Finland and the Philippines. Some countries, such as
Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Uganda, reported consultation and meetings occurring in
various outlying regions to ensure the widest possible participation. A number of countries
(Colombia, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco and
Turkey) reported setting up institutional frameworks for sustainable development. For
example, in Mexico, the voluntary national review was prepared under the leadership of the
Office of the President, which reached out to numerous actors to obtain information and
views; government entities were engaged through a specialized technical committee; civil
society was involved through working meetings and open dialogues; and the private
sector’s contributions were made through the Mexican Agency for Cooperation for
Development.
45. Estonia has reported that the Estonian Sustainable Development Commission
(formed in 1996) was an advisory body consisting of civil society umbrella organizations
that covered different fields of sustainable development, including education,
environmental protection, culture, children, health, local government, academia, private
companies, and agriculture. The Commission met four or five times a year to hold thematic
43 Submission of 22 February 2018.
44 Submission of 27 March 2018.
discussions on different sustainable development topics, discuss drafts of sustainable
development-related strategic action plans before adoption by the Government and publish
focus reports with policy recommendations.
46. Finland has reported that two major multi-stakeholder committees had an integral
role in the national system to coordinate, implement and follow up on the Sustainable
Development Goals. Membership of the committees was broad, thereby ensuring that the
voices of civil society organizations, private sector actors, interest groups and other
stakeholders were heard. To improve the policy coherence for sustainable development,
collaboration between the two committees has been intensified since the adoption of the
2030 Agenda, for example, through joint meetings, workshops and discussion papers.
Finland reported that the programme “The Finland we want by 2050 — Society’s
commitment to sustainable development” had been launched by the Finnish National
Commission on Sustainable Development in order to engage larger segments of the society
in the work on sustainable development. “Society’s commitment” was a multi-stakeholder
operational tool and a partnership model that aimed at boosting ownership, concrete action,
innovative solutions and impact in the society. By April 2016, over 240 actors from
companies to ministries, schools, municipalities and civil society organizations, as well as
individuals, had already joined subscribed to “Society’s commitment” by launching their
own operational commitments.
47. Madagascar created a committee for guidance and follow-up (composed of
representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Assembly, 13 ministries, the
United Nations system and the African Union) and a technical committee for
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, composed of representatives of the
United Nations System, technical departments, civil society, the private sector, universities
and research centres.
48. In Norway, civil society stakeholders were actively involved and consulted during
the post-2015 process, and expressed strong interest in being involved in the
implementation of and follow-up to the 2030 Agenda. The Philippines reported on the
“SDG Youth National Convergence”, which consisted of youth leaders from different
sectors committing to working towards the Sustainable Development Goals. During the
Rio+20 process, Turkey had set up a “24 best practice examples” programme, for which
good practices for implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals were selected
based on applications from public institutions, the private sector, civil society and academia.
Georgia reported in 2016 that business, civil society and academia were already involved in
efforts to advance the Sustainable Development Goals, and that the scope and depth of their
engagement would grow as the adjusted priorities and indicators were presented for general
review and consultation. Those non-governmental bodies were expected to play a crucial
role in offering feedback, policy advice and participating at the central and local levels.
49. In relation to including specific groups in the sustainable development processes,
Costa Rica reported that, although progress had been made in recent years, consultations
with persons from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, intersex and
queer/questioning communities had identified major obstacles to the adequate and real
implementation of relevant policies and regulations by the institutional bodies. Specialized
units with a human rights approach had been established with a view to providing dignified
health care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, intersex and
queer/questioning communities. Nepal reported that lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender/transsexual, intersex and queer/questioning persons represented one of the 23
groups identified for the Sustainable Development Goal discussion forum for civil society.
50. In their reports, countries have considered indigenous peoples both as a group in
need of concerted support and as actors engaged in enhanced implementation of the
Sustainable Development Goals. In Nepal, the amended Civil Service Act reserved a
percentage of public service positions for women and marginalized groups, including dalits,
indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities. Malaysia noted that one of its future aims
was leveraging indigenous and local communities in the management of natural resources,
as well as empowering them to give or withhold consent to proposed projects that could
affect their access to land. Chile reported on the specific challenges that its indigenous
population had faced, including high multidimensional poverty rates, and that the results of
a consultation process for indigenous peoples had been considered in the preparation of
draft legislation for establishing a ministry of indigenous peoples and a council of
indigenous people. Norway reported that the indigenous peoples’ assembly, the Sámeddigi
(Sami Parliament), was involved in the follow-up and review of implementation of the
2030 Agenda, through dialogue with line ministries and formal consultation mechanisms.
51. Countries also reported on institutional mechanisms and policies that had been put in
place to enhance gender equality and women and girls’ rights. The Government of Bosnia
and Herzegovina reported on its national Law on Gender Equality, which created a gender
equality agency operating within the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, to monitor
and examine violations of that law perpetrated by an act or action or failure to act of a body
or legal entity, and take action to remedy them in accordance with that law. A software
platform was set up to regulate data collection and the processing and exchange of
information relating to the monitoring of the human rights situation, and especially the
cases of discrimination, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Human Rights and
Refugees. An integral part of that database was the data on discrimination cases, gathered
in accordance with the Rulebook on Gathering the Data on Cases of Discrimination in
Bosnia and Herzegovina.45 At the institutional level, numerous States (Afghanistan,
Guatemala, Kenya, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Thailand, Uruguay and Zimbabwe)
noted the work of their ministries of women’s affairs or gender equality commissions. Chile
mentioned the establishment of the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality as one of the
main advances with regard to the promotion of women’s rights. Ethiopia reported on the
establishment of an office with ministerial rank for guiding and implementing women’s
affairs. A large number of countries reported on other measures, including national gender
equality strategies or gender action plans. For example, Belarus adopted its fifth national
plan on promoting gender equality for 2017–2020 and planned activities that were informed
by national gender priorities, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women and Sustainable Development Goal 5.
52. Many countries emphasized the importance of gender mainstreaming and measures
taken to integrate a gender perspective into each policy area and each phase of the
policymaking process, including gender-responsive budgeting. Indonesia reported on the
enactment of special regulations on gender mainstreaming and gender-responsive planning
and budgeting, while Maldives had appointed gender focal points in line ministries and
agencies to promote gender mainstreaming. Guatemala drew attention to its special
spending mechanism, which aimed to contribute to the visibility of budgetary resources to
promote gender equity and, in particular, to identify allocations that benefited women and
girls.
53. More than half of the countries reporting under the voluntary national review
reported on measures taken to address the low participation of women in decision-making.
Countries reported on adopting quota systems or quota laws (Chile, Indonesia, Jordan,
Panama, Slovenia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe) and capacity-building programmes for women
running for elective office (Belize and Kenya), in order to increase participation of women
in decision-making or leadership positions. The Republic of Korea initiated the Framework
Act on Gender Equality (2015), which, among other measures, introduced quotas for
administrative positions in public organizations and promoted the participation of women in
decision-making processes and in public, political and economic activities. The Republic of
Korea focused on cross-cutting programmes linking gender equality with education and
good health, such as “The better life for girls” initiative that focused on girls’ education and
health in developing countries and built on the fact that education and health were
inherently connected in order to promote girls’ empowerment.
54. France reported that its High Council for Gender Equality reported directly to the
Prime Minister and had, since 2013, been holding discussions with stakeholders to draw up
and improve public policy guidelines on rolling back stereotypes, gender equality,
reproductive rights and gender-based violence.
45 Submission of 5 March 2018.
55. The Government of Guatemala reported46 that it had carried out a process of
socialization, consultation, validation and technical analysis in order to adapt the 2030
Agenda to the national context and the National Development Plan. That process resulted in
a strategy to integrate the Sustainable Development Goals with the Plan and the National
Development Policy “K’atun Nuestra Guatemala 2032”. The participation of the population
in the areas of development and public management was ensured through the system of
development councils, which allowed the needs of citizens at the community and national
levels to be raised with the government authorities. Those needs were incorporated into
national planning and converted into action through municipal plans.
56. The above mechanisms are examples of promoting the participation of different
groups, including those in situations of vulnerability, in the implementation of the
Sustainable Development Goals and, more generally, in decision-making processes.
However, the information provided by States is limited by the format of the voluntary
national reviews and the time constraints of the process.
57. According to the global indicator framework,47 the following indicators are to be
used to measure inequality within countries: growth rates of household expenditure or
income per capita among the bottom 40 per cent of the population and the total population
(10.1.1); proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by sex, age and
persons with disabilities (10.2.1); proportion of population reporting having personally felt
discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of
discrimination prohibited under international human rights law (10.3.1); and labour share of
GDP, comprising wages and social protection transfers (10.4.1). The indicators, however,
are largely insufficient to track progress in eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and
practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
58. The global indicator framework contains a larger number of indicators to measure
the progress towards achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls.
Countries must evaluate: whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce
and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex (5.1.1); proportion of ever-
partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or
psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months,
by form of violence and by age (5.2.1); proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and
older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous
12 months, by age and place of occurrence (5.2.2); proportion of women aged 20–24 years
who were married or in a union before age 15 and before age 18 (5.3.1); proportion of girls
and women aged 15–49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting, by
age (5.3.2); proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and
location (5.4.1); proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments and (b) local
governments (5.5.1); proportion of women in managerial positions (5.5.2); proportion of
women aged 15–49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual
relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care (5.6.1); Proportion of total
agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex (5.a.1
(a)); proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex (5.b.1).
59. While the above indicators look at a number of areas, notably they do not cover
issues such as availability of mechanisms for access to information or conditions for
participation of women or other groups in a situation of vulnerability in decision-making
related to issues that concern them. Furthermore, they do not measure, for example, the
number and success rates of anti-discrimination complaints. Such additional qualitative
assessment would go a long way towards promoting both equality and participation. To
move beyond the slogan of leaving no one behind, additional efforts should be invested in
tracking multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination48 and the scaling up measures
undertaken to address these.
46 Submission of 23 April 2018.
47 See footnote 38 above.
48 See para. 17 above.
VI. Conclusions and recommendations
60. The widening disparities of today’s world require the adoption of sound
national and international policies to empower the bottom percentile of income
earners and promote inclusion of all regardless of sex, race, ethnicity or any other
prohibited grounds of discrimination.
61. What are the steps necessary to effectively reduce inequalities within countries?
While this is a complex question that requires context-specific answers, it is
nevertheless possible to identify some key areas of action.
A. Identifying those left behind
62. One issue that needs to be addressed urgently is the limited availability of
adequate data that is disaggregated by, inter alia, gender, age, disability, income, race
and ethnicity. Such disaggregated data is needed to accurately assess a situation, to
make inequalities visible, and to identify those who have been left behind. Only based
on such data can we develop evidence-based policies that specifically target those most
in need. Disaggregated data is also important for the implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of development policies and programmes, as well as for the overall
tracking of progress in the implementation of the right to development on an equal
basis for all segments of society.
63. The Special Rapporteur would like to underline that the collection of data to
assess levels of inequality and discrimination has to be done in accordance with a
human rights-based approach. This means that data collection should be based on the
principles of participation, informed consent (for example, the consulted communities
and individuals should have full information about the purposes of the data collection)
and self-identification (for example, individuals should be able to identify themselves
as members of a minority or indigenous people, rather than the State’s authorities determining such membership). Consultations with relevant stakeholders brought
forward the suggestion that civil society organizations with relevant expertise could
engage in data collection exercises at community level. This could not only contribute
to reducing the cost of data collection but also empower communities to participate in
informing development policies at the local level. States need to seek innovative
approaches to bridge capacity gaps in data collection, including by encouraging
communities themselves, with the engagement of civil society organizations and
academic bodies, to perform data collection as a complement rather than a substitute
to that done by the State, which retains the primary responsibility for such function.
In this regard, civil society should work closely with national statistical institutes for
capacity-building purposes. States could also adopt mixed approaches to data
collection, in order to capitalize on existing resources. This could include the use of
mass media and communication tools as resources and building networks of opinion
leaders (e.g. traditional/religious leaders and women leaders), while ensuring the
inclusion and active participation of disadvantaged groups, such as indigenous peoples,
forest communities and nomadic communities, in compliance with human rights
principles governing data protection and safeguards.
64. Another crucial question in leaving no one behind is to identify, acknowledge
and address the root causes of inequality and discrimination. Only when we know why
some groups or countries are left behind, can we develop appropriate polices and
strategies. Understanding how various forms of discrimination intersect is key in this
regard. States should support independent critical research, conduct comparative
studies, resorting to both qualitative and quantitative methods. The collection of
disaggregated data is crucial to realizing the right to development and national
statistics agencies need to be properly equipped to collect it by developing capacity to
use qualitative and quantitative human rights indicators when analysing inequalities.
Furthermore, States should systematically and coherently assess their progress
towards implementing Sustainable Development Goals 10 and 5 and other targets
related to progressing towards equality in their voluntary national reviews.
B. Participatory processes
65. Furthermore, ensuring inclusive and participatory processes is of utmost
importance from the perspective of the right to development. Once those who have
been left behind are identified, efforts need to be geared toward systematically
reaching and empowering them. Evaluating how this can best be accomplished is a
critical first step in the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The success of
targeted policies and programmes will depend largely on the level of participation and
consultation of the beneficiaries.
66. Since the right to development entitles all persons and peoples to participate in,
contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, a key
task is to ensure inclusiveness and meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders
at all levels of decision-making. Enabling disadvantaged and marginalized individuals
and groups to actively participate in decision-making processes is essential to
overcome structural inequalities and discrimination; to ensure their place as key
actors in the development of countries; and to ensure the equal sharing of benefits.
States, as the ultimate bearers of responsibility for reducing inequalities, must ensure
that participatory approaches, reaching all concerned segments of the society, are
developed and adequately financed. The cost of civil society participation should be
duly budgeted into development planning processes at both policy and programmatic
levels. States should also work to increase the capacity of civil society to develop
technical expertise and provide space for coordinated actions with Governments.
States must also establish mechanisms for easy and effective access to up-to-date
information related to development policies and processes, define reliable information
schemes while designing development plans, and allocate adequate resources to that
end.
67. Ensuring that no one is left behind requires a dedicated focus on the equal
rights of women and on ensuring women’s participation in decision-making. States must take action to provide genuine opportunities and strengthen capacity of women
to actively and meaningfully participate in national planning, policy design,
implementation and budgeting, which affect their livelihoods and wellbeing.
Participation of women without discrimination of any kind in economic and political
decision-making and policy formulation so as to advance gender equality and
women’s empowerment is indispensable for the effectiveness of all development processes.
C. Accountability mechanisms
68. While the right to development is only justiciable in the context of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, for participation to be genuine and effective, it should be accompanied by adequate accountability mechanisms. Effective legal
mechanisms to defend equality can go a long way towards protecting and promoting
the right to development as well. During the regional consultations, held by the
Special Rapporteur, it was highlighted that effective access to information is an
important prerequisite in this respect. To this end, detailed information/consultation
schemes should be integrated in all development policies and activities at the
international and domestic levels. Such schemes should ensure that affected
individuals and communities understand how they can claim their rights when the
latter have been violated in the context of development processes. National
accountability mechanisms, such as anti-discrimination complaints mechanisms,
should have the capacity to process and provide effective remedies for violations.
Existing mechanisms must be made more visible and accessible, including to persons
speaking minority languages and persons with disabilities. National human rights
institutions can also play a role in ensuring equal participation in economic, social,
cultural and political development by, for example, taking up social and economic
rights issues and discrimination complaints.