1

Measuring Key Dimensions of Progress:

Human Rights and Democratic Governance

By Raul Suarez de Miguel

International Conference… (PUT HERE THE TITLE OF THE CONFERENCE)Sanaa, Yemen, XX-XX April 2007

2

EVOLVING PARADIGM OF PROGRESS Enlightenment: knowledge and freedom (18th cent.)

Modern science and technology (19th–20th cent.)

Economic growth / economic integration (40s-60s)

Social integration / fair distribution of wealth (60s)

Quality of life (70s and 80s)

Human development (80s and 90s)

Sustainable development (90s and 00s)

Millennium Development Goals (late 90s and 00s)

Gross National Happiness (00s)

3

GLOBAL HUMANISM: TODAY’ S PARADIGM OF PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT

Universally shared values

Universally shared goals

Universally shared tools

4

GLOBAL HUMANISM: THREE KEY DIMENSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT

Human rights

Democratic participation

Governance and accountability

5

CAN THESE KEY DIMENSIONS OF

DEVELOPMENT BE MEASURED?

By whom?

With which methods?

Under which conditions?

For which purposes?

6

through several pilot national experiences carried out in different regions of the world in an interactive fashion.

These pilot experiences were willingly selected to address sensitive issues in real difficult environments and in different political, social and cultural contexts.

METAGORA FORMULATES A RESPONSE

7

A Decentralized Laboratory

Content

8

A North/South community

gathering together, on a partnership basis, the multidisciplinary expertise of leading organizations and individuals with different specific skills, missions, institutional profiles and constituencies.

WHO IS IMPLEMENTING METAGORA?

9

METHOD OF WORK

A bottom-up approach consisting of:

identifying with stakeholders national key issues for which evidence-based assessment could be policy relevant;

applying statistical methods adapted to the particular context;

assessing these methods for their capacity to provide national policy-relevant results;

providing stakeholders with a shared knowledge on the policy issues at stake;

contributing to draw global lessons from the local pilot experiences.

10

A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS

based on local multi-disciplinary teams and consultative mechanisms. This includes:

Around 70 experts working in the various national implementing teams;

Some 100 stakeholders involved in local advisory bodies and mechanisms;

Some 550 stakeholders who have been attending, at the national level, consultation meetings, workshops, training sessions or focal group discussions.

11

RESPONDING TO BASIC QUESTIONS

Can multidimensional human rights and democratic governance issues be measured through surveys?

Will people respond to sensitive questions? Will the gathered information be statistically

significant and politically relevant? Can official statistical agencies be involved? How to build rights-based indicators? How can qualitative narrative information be coded

and processed and subject to statistical analysis? etc…

12

LESSON 1

Measuring human rights and democratic governance is technically feasible and politically relevant.

Sensitive data on human rights, democracy and governance can be collected and analysed using statistical tools.

13

Example: measuring irregularities, abuse of power and ill-treatment in Mexico City (Federal District)

Persons withoutabuse47 %

Persons with contact

24 %

Personswith

abuse53 %

Persons with non-physicalabuse93 %

Persons with physical

ill-treatment7 %

Incidence of contact with public security and procurement of justice authorities

Incidence ofabuse

Type ofabuse

Target population:persons aged 15 or more living in the Federal District

(6,400,000 persons)Reference period:

events occurred between November 2003 and October 2004

Measuring method:random sample household survey,

conducted through face-to-face interviews.Persons withoutcontact76 %

14

Example: Non-physical abuse in contacts with law enforcement authorities

(Survey results correspond to 2,300,000 contacts experienced by 1,520,000 persons)

34 000

72 000

114 000

120 000

163 000

248 000

667 000

Were you threatened with hurt to your family?

Were you compelled to confess?

Were you threatened to be hurt?

Were you threatened in order to obtain a confession or some information?

Were you threatened with accusation on false grounds?

Were you insulted or humiliated?

Were you asked for money?

(Number of contacts per type of non-physical abuse)

15

Example: Measuring corruption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Incidence of corruption

General population * (% of victims of corruption from HHhousehold surveys)

Expert panel (mirror survey)(what they believe could be thepercentage of victims of corruption)

HH Survey

Mirror Survey

16

LESSON 2

On the basis of this information, indicators can be produced that are relevant and useful for political decision and action.

17

Example: levels of corruption and civil servants’ wages in Antananarivo, Madagascar

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004

popu

latio

n vi

ctim

of c

orru

ptio

n

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

base 100 = 1995%

Level of corruption Civil servants real w ages (right scale)

18

Example: in Peru, support for democratic regime weakens as corruption perception increases

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

May-03

Jun-03

Jul-03

Aug-03

Sep-03

Oct-03

Nov-03

Dec-03

Jan-04

Feb-04

Mar-04

Apr-04

May-04

Jun-04

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

% p

op

ula

tio

n

10

15

20

25

30

35

Corruption has increased democracy has worsened prefers Authoritarian+ militar gov. (right scale)

Preference for authoritarian regime

Increase of corruption perception

Democracy has worsened

19

LESSON 3

Quantitative data and qualitative information can and should interrelate to properly inform assessment of human rights and democratic governance.

20

Example: linking quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess indigenous peoples’ rights in the Philippines

Quantitative approach:SURVEY FINDINGS

Qualitative approaches:FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

High perception and awareness of rights to ancestral domain and land (Bago, 68%), Bugkalot (70.8%), Kankana-ey (60.8%)Government is in second place as source of information of rights to ancestral domain and land: Bago 28.4%, Bugkalot 54.2%, Kankana-ey 22.4%.Experienced violations of rights consisting of encroachment (Bago-6%, Bugkalot 30.9% and Kankana-ey 13.2%); pollution (Bago, 4.7% Bugkalot, 17.7%, Kankana-ey, 8.8%); illegal entry (Bago, 5.3%, Bugkalot, 46.3% and Kankana-ey, 13.2%). Existence of violations on land grabbing by private individuals (Bago 50%; Bugkalot, 56.5%, Kankana-ey, 55.6%), council of elders and others Substantial awareness and availment of governmental programs and servicesEnjoyment of land ownership and acquisition of right to ancestral domainAverage satisfaction (68-78%) on delivery of government programs and services90% considered customary laws helpful in solving land issues; 52% of land issues are resolved by customary lawsTop five primary needs: adequate food, housing, water system, livelihood and education

Tribal leaders and women with higher awareness and perception of rights to ancestral domain and land. Youth has lowest awareness. Right of ownership, to develop lands and natural resources and to stay in territories well understood. Low or no awareness of other rights listed under IPRA. Apparent confusion of rights due to lack of knowledge about distinction or difference between rights to ancestral domain and landPositive effect of IPRA on their rights to ancestral domain and rightsExistence of violations and sources are tribesmates, other tribes, private mining companiesRecognition of government efforts in fulfilling rights to ancestral domain and landCustomary law as primary source of dispute resolution affecting rights to ancestral domain and land LOCAL CONSULTATIONSDemand for relevant and deeper human rights and IPRA educationNeed for livelihood and organizing especially from women sectorsDevelopment aggression of private sectors permitted/not controlled by government and co-opted by some tribal leadersLack of delivery of vital servicesDiscriminatory policies to access rights to education and other social servicesPollution of and inadequate water resourcesPeace and order to ensure personal security

21

LESSON 4

Official Statistical Agencies can be efficiently involved in evidence-based assessment of human rights and democratic governance.

22

VARIOUS FORMS OF INVOLVEMENT OF NATIONAL STATISTICAL OFFICES

Leading / conducting measurement

Supporting / advising SCOs based work

Providing SCOs and policy-makers with

proper measuring tools

23

LESSON 5

Statistical analysis and quantitative indicators bring a significant value-added to the work of national Human Rights Institutions.

24

LESSON 6

Statistical methods can substantially enhance the research and advocacy of civil society organizations in the fields of human rights and democracy.

25

LESSON 7

Evidence-based assessment of human rights and democratic governance is a widespread need emerging worldwide. Many initiatives in different regions of the world, with approaches and objectives similar to those of Metagora, have been identified and documented.

26

LESSON 8

Pilot experienceds, problems encountered and lessons learned were documented in the form of training materials. These aim at facilitating the replication and extension of the pilot experiences in other countries and other contexts.

27

LESSON 9

A North/South network of experts and institutions has been consolidated around Metagora and is continuously growing. This operational network, which is unique in the world, is able to provide the international community with skills and capacities for making a decisive jump towards the enhancement of measuring methods and indicators

28

LESSON 10Use measuring tools as a policy-oriented engine for: generating evidence-based assessment and monitoring of

progress,

addressing grass-roots, nationally specific concerns and expectations,

developing indicators that reflect what local actors consider important,

enhancing sustainable national capacity to measure and analyze human rights and democratic governance isues, in NGO / official statistics / academic intersection,

replacing fragile expert-based estimates by robust survey-based data and analysis,

enhancings the role of leading national institutions, in particular National Statistical Offices, Civil Society and Academy.

29

Conclusion: official statistics can inform policies and have a concrete impact.

• Mexico: dialogue between human rights institutions, stakeholders, political authorities and heads of law-enforcement authorities;

• Philippines: empowerment of stakeholders action and review of census design to increase visibility of indigenous people;

• South Africa: institutional follow-up of surveys’ results (Dept of Land Affairs) and improved interaction between stakeholders;

• Palestine: concrete interaction and mutual support between the NSO and NGOs in monitoring social and economic rights;

• Madagascar and Peru: starting of analysis of impact of policies based on time series produced by NSOs.

30

Warm Thanks for Your Attention !