Inga T. Winkler

The Sustainable Development Goals and human rights: a critical early review

This special issue on the Sustainable Development Goals and human rights developed from a workshop of the Economic and Social Rights Group at the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connect...

Muddying the Water? Assessing Target-based Approaches in Development Cooperation for Water and Sanitation

Abstract In the debate on the post-2015 development agenda, a clear preference exists for simple and quantifiable targets. The water sector provides a useful perspective in which to evaluate the use of this strategy because it has been subject to quantitative target setting since 1976. We critically analyze two early periods of target setting together with their most recent incarnation in the Millennium Development Goals. In so doing, we identify two stories concerning the utility of such a turn to metrics: the first is a perennial and at times justified optimism in target setting, and the second is a more cautionary tale about the dangers of measurement and its tendency to gloss over challenging but significant issues. In addition, we offer some brief conclusions on the implications for the post-2015 agenda and some potential measurement alternatives.

Governing wastewater, curbing pollution, and improving water quality for the realization of human rights

The integration of the human rights framework in water policy and management is slowly gaining strength. What is too often overlooked, though, is the ‘other’ side of the water cycle: wastewater governance. What do human rights have to do with sewage, sludge, and septage? What are the links between human rights and water contamination? The article starts by explaining the concept of wastewater, outlining the impact of water pollution on the realization of human rights, exploring the interface between access to sanitation and wastewater governance, and presenting the relevant human rights framework. It goes on to describe how households, agriculture, and industry contribute to water pollution. Its main contribution lies in demonstrating the value of integrating human rights into wastewater governance and water pollution control to address challenges in the legislative and regulatory frameworks, institutional settings, appropriate technology choices, financing and pricing, and strengthening accountability an...

Leaving no one behind? Persistent inequalities in the SDGs

ABSTRACT With a rallying cry of ‘leave no one behind’, the Sustainable Development Agenda has moved inequalities centre stage. A number of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include a cross-cutting focus on inequalities and the advancement of some communities that have historically experienced discrimination. However, the litmus test for whether the SDGs will truly ‘leave no one behind’ is not the inclusion of such (aspirational) language, but whether this language will translate into implementation. In that regard, monitoring through indicators will play an important role. As metrics pegged to specific targets, indicators have the power to concentrate effort and attention. Moving beyond aggregate outcomes will require that the data related to these indicators be sufficiently disaggregated to demonstrate the existence, magnitude and interplay of multiple forms of inequalities. However, despite a mandate to produce disaggregated data, there has been little attention to disaggregation based on some of the most important axes of discrimination – especially race or ethnicity. Human rights call for focusing on those who are often pushed to the margins of society – through political, social and economic processes as well as by data collection and analysis itself.

Doing It All and Doing It Well? - A Mandate’s Challenges in terms of Cooperation, Fundraising and Maintaining Independence

The Special Procedures are often referred to as the ‘crown jewels’ of the UN human rights system. Yet, judging from the regular budgetary resources allocated to the Special Procedures system, the UN seems to consider its crown jewels to be of largely symbolic rather than material value. Providing an insiders’ perspective and drawing on the experience of the mandate of the first Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation from 2008 to 2014, the chapter will address three aspects that are deeply interwoven and influence each other: firstly, the decision to pursue a very active agenda for the mandate, secondly, the role of the Special Procedures, their independence and the need for cooperation with other actors, and thirdly, the question of funding. The mandate was comparatively well-funded, which provided it with unique opportunities but also gave rise to distinct challenges. The chapter starts by briefly explaining the evolving mandate from ‘Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation’ (as it was named in 2008) to Special Rapporteur (as it was renamed in 2011) after the explicit recognition of the human right to water and sanitation. It details the approach the Special Rapporteur took to her mandate and its achievements, outlining the shift from advocacy for the explicit recognition of the right to water and sanitation to a much stronger focus on implementation of this newly recognised human right, inter alia through close engagement with sector professionals and production of materials aimed at guiding the practical implementation of the human rights to water and sanitation. The chapter continues by discussing the independence of Special Procedures and their unique position in the human rights system, but also highlights the need to cooperate with a range of other actors, including States, UN organisations, civil society organisations, academic institutions and many other stakeholders. Such cooperation allows the mandate-holders to amplify their work and its impact.In addition to cooperation, (external) funding is necessary to pursue an agenda as active as the one of the water and sanitation mandate. While the mandate was comparatively well-funded, the nature of funding, the priorities of donors, the fact that the mandate-holder herself is unpaid, and the potential lack of transparency raise challenges for the independence of the mandate-holder and similarly placed Special Procedures. Their independence is often considered their key asset. However on the one hand, the system itself pushes mandate-holders to raise funds (which might risk their independence) and on the other hand, mandate-holders must avoid the danger of independence turning into isolation and disconnect, which would put them in an ivory tower. These dilemmas result in a delicate balancing act between securing funding for carrying out impactful work and not risking the mandate’s independence.