
Norma Angelica Bruno Roman

Over the past few years, a troubling new trend at the international human rights level is being observed, where discourses on ‘protecting the family’ are being employed to defend violations committed against family members, to bolster and justify impunity, and to restrict equal rights within and to family life.
The campaign to "Protect the Family" is driven by ultra-conservative efforts to impose "traditional" and patriarchal interpretations of the family, and to move rights out of the hands of family members and into the institution of ‘the family’.
Since 2014, a group of states have been operating as a bloc in human rights spaces under the name “Group of Friends of the Family”, and resolutions on “Protection of the Family” have been successfully passed every year since 2014.
This agenda has spread beyond the Human Rights Council. We have seen regressive language on “the family” being introduced at the Commission on the Status of Women, and attempts made to introduce it in negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals.
AWID works with partners and allies to jointly resist “Protection of the Family” and other regressive agendas, and to uphold the universality of human rights.
In response to the increased influence of regressive actors in human rights spaces, AWID joined allies to form the Observatory on the Universality of Rights (OURs). OURs is a collaborative project that monitors, analyzes, and shares information on anti-rights initiatives like “Protection of the Family”.
Rights at Risk, the first OURs report, charts a map of the actors making up the global anti-rights lobby, identifies their key discourses and strategies, and the effect they are having on our human rights.
The report outlines “Protection of the Family” as an agenda that has fostered collaboration across a broad range of regressive actors at the UN. It describes it as: “a strategic framework that houses “multiple patriarchal and anti-rights positions, where the framework, in turn, aims to justify and institutionalize these positions.”
Los resultados de la investigación también influirán sobre tu trabajo de incidencia ya que, por ejemplo, te habrán revelado qué sectores otorgan más financiamiento y cuáles consideras que necesitan mayor formación para ejercer su rol de donantes.
En esta sección
- Desarrolla la estrategia de incidencia
- Ponte en contacto con tus redes
- Adapta la estrategia a cada sector
1. Organizaciones por los derechos de las mujeres
2. Entidades bilaterales y multilaterales
3. Fundaciones privadas
4. Fondos de mujeres
5. Sector privado y nuevos donantes
En la sección de este Manual dedicada a «Prepara el marco para la investigación», te recomendamos que pensaras en las metas que esperabas alcanzar con la investigación. Esas metas te permitirán desarrollar una estrategia de incidencia una vez que hayas completado la investigación.
Una estrategia de incidencia es un plan para difundir los resultados de la investigación de una forma tal que te permita cumplir las metas, dentro del objetivo más amplio que es hacer incidencia con sectores clave para introducir cambios positivos en cuanto a los recursos disponibles para los procesos organizativos por los derechos de las mujeres.
Cómo utilizar las metas definidas en el marco para la investigación:
De esa lista — que será lo más exhaustiva posible — elige los medios más eficientes para alcanzar tus metas. (Más abajo encontrarás ejemplos específicos de audiencias y métodos de incidencia)
Una vez que hayas desarrollado la estrategia, podrás comenzar con la difusión.
Para difundir los resultados, primero ponte en contacto con las personas/organizaciones a través de las cuales distribuiste la encuesta, y también con todas las que respondieron la encuesta y fueron entrevistadas.
No te olvides de pedirles que identifiquen quién será tu contacto en cada organización y pídeles que te confirmen una vez que hayan realizado cualquier publicación referida a tus materiales.
Esto te permitirá tener un registro de quiénes difundieron el informe pero también construir vínculos más sólidos con las organizaciones y personas con las que trabajas.
A modo de ejemplo te presentamos una lista de sectores sobre los que AWID realiza incidencia.
Para esto te resultará útil la lista de organizaciones y personas que te asesoraron durante la investigación (consultorxs). Ellxs te ayudarán a difundir el informe en distintos espacios y también podrán presentarte a nuevas organizaciones o llevarte a nuevos espacios para hacer incidencia.
Objetivos propuestos: Que las organizaciones por los derechos de las mujeres actualicen sus conocimientos acerca de las tendencias en el financiamiento; pensar colectivamente iniciativas conjuntas para la movilización de recursos utilizando los resultados de la investigación; influir sobre cómo abordan la movilización de recursos
Ejemplos de posibles métodos de incidencia:
Objetivo propuesto: Crear conciencia acerca de cómo el sector del financiamiento no está cumpliendo con sus compromisos establecidos y cómo necesita mejorar los mecanismos de apoyo para financiar los procesos organizativos por los derechos de las mujeres.
Identifica qué entidades bilaterales y multilaterales son las más influyentes en cuanto al financiamiento; esto podría incluir a las sedes locales de las embajadas.
Ejemplos de posibles métodos de incidencia:
Objetivo propuesto: Expandir la calidad y cantidad del apoyo a las organizaciones por los derechos de las mujeres.
Ejemplos de posibles métodos de incidencia:
Objetivo propuesto: Alentarlas a continuar y expandir su trabajo.
Ejemplos de posibles métodos de incidencia:
Objetivos propuestos: Incrementar su conocimiento del campo y alentar a la coherencia entre sus intereses filantrópicos y sus prácticas comerciales.
Ejemplos de posibles métodos de incidencia:
Asegúrate de adaptar las presentaciones, propuestas y aplicaciones a cada uno de los grupos a los que quieres llegar.
Insistimos en recomendarte que consultes nuestra Planilla ¿Estoy listx? para evaluar cómo has ido avanzando.
1-2 años, dependiendo de los objetivos de incidencia
• 1 persona (o más) de comunicación
• Lista de espacios para hacer publicidad de la investigación
• Lista de los blogs y revistas en línea donde se pueden publicar artículos acerca de su hallazgo de la investigación
• Lista de asesores
• Sus productos de información WITM
• Ejemplo de plan para incidencia
Paulina Cruz Ruiz, from the Rabinal, Baja Verapaz region of Guatemala, was an ancestral Maya Achí (Indigenous) authority and a human rights defender.
She was actively involved in community organizing and resistance, including legal measures against mining projects on Indigenous territory, projects that would severely affect and damage the socio-environmental fabric.
“The extractive industry model promoted by the Guatemalan government and the construction of large-scale development projects on indigenous lands without community consent has been a source of ongoing disputes with resistance movements.” - Minority Rights Group International
Paulina was also part of the March for Dignity, Life and Justice, in which on 1 May 2019 thousands of Guatemalans started a march of eight days against corruption and impunity in the prosecution and assassinations of human rights, peasant and Indigenous leaders and land defenders.
Paulina was murdered on 14 September 2019 near her home in the village of Xococ.
According to the Minority Rights Group International, “one of the major ongoing issues affecting Mayan communities is the increasing activity of the mining industry.”
Read more about the Mayans of Guatemala
Read more about the March for Dignity, Life and Justice
The current global economic crisis provides stark evidence that the economic policies of the last 3 decades have not been working.
The devastation that the crisis has wrought on the most vulnerable households in the Global North and Global South is a reminder that the formulation of economic policy and the realization of human rights (economic, social, political, civil and cultural) have for too long been divorced from one another. Economic policy and human rights do not have to be opposing forces, but can exist symbiotically.
Macroeconomic policies affect the operation of the economy as a whole, shaping the availability and distribution of resources. Within this context, fiscal and monetary policies are key.
These policies affect key prices such as interest and exchange rates that directly influence, among other things, the level of employment, access to affordable credit, and the housing market.
Applying a human rights framework to macroeconomic policy allows States to better comply with their obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill economic and social rights. Human rights are internationally agreed-upon universal standards. These legal norms are articulated in United Nations treaties including, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Article 1 of the UDHR states that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
Although the UDHR was written about six decades ago its relevance is enduring. Many of the ideas address concerns and critical issues that people continue to face globally. Issues regarding inhuman punishment (Art. 5), discrimination (Art. 7), property ownership (Art. 17), equal pay for equal work (Art. 23/2), and access to education (Art. 26/1) are pertinent matters in countries South and North of the equator.
More specifically, States have an obligation under international law to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, including the economic and social rights of people within their jurisdiction. This is particularly relevant now given the financial crisis. In the U.S., regulation is skewed in favor of certain interests. The failure to extend government’s supervisory role in the context of social and economic change is a failure with regard to the obligation to protect human rights.
States should abide by key human rights principles to achieve economic and social rights. Some of the principles have potentially important implications for governance of financial institutions and markets, yet these possibilities have been underexplored.
Economic and social rights have a concrete institutional and legal grounding. Global declarations, international treaties, covenants, and, in a number of cases, national constitutions have incorporated aspects of the economic and social rights framework—providing an institutional infrastructure in national and international law.
Some have suggested that a consideration of global justice may not be a useful pursuit because of the institutional complexities involved. However, this does not get around that fact that global institutions already have an impact on social justice, both positive and negative.
It is useful to tease out the implications that elements of alternative frameworks have for economic governance, specifically those supported by existing institutions. Economic and social rights represent one such concrete framework. The framework is an evolving one, and ongoing discussion and deliberation is necessary to address underdeveloped areas and potential deficiencies.
This section is based on CWGL’s blog “Applying a Human Rights Framework to Macroeconomic Policies” (2012).
Anti-rights actors have had a substantive impact on our human rights framework and the progressive interpretation of human rights standards, especially rights related to gender and sexuality.
When it comes to the impact of conservative actors in international policy spaces, the overall picture today is of stasis and regressions.
We have witnessed the watering down of existing agreements and commitment; deadlock in negotiations; sustained undermining of UN agencies, treaty review bodies and Special Procedures; and success in pushing through regressive language in international human rights documents.
The CSW, held annually in March, has long been one of the most contested sites in the UN system. In March 2015, conservative efforts set the tone before events or negotiations even began; the outcome document of the Commission was a weak Declaration negotiated before any women’s rights activists even arrived on the ground.
At 2016’s CSW, the new Youth Caucus was infiltrated by large numbers of vocal anti-abortion and anti-SRHR actors, who shouted down progressive youth organizations. Again, intensive negotiations resulted in a lacklustre text, which included regressive language on ‘the family.’
Precisely when addressing women’s human rights is of urgent importance, the CSW has been rendered a depoliticized and weakened space. Using it to advance rights has become harder and harder since progressives’ energy is taken up trying to hold the ground against conservative backlash.
As the intergovernmental body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, the HRC is a key entry point for conservative actors. In recent years, this mechanism has been the scene for a number of damaging anti-human rights moves.
In conversation with other anti-rights actors, one strategy of conservative states, and blocs of states, is to aggressively negotiate out positive language and to introduce hostile amendments to resolutions, most often resolutions focusing on rights related to gender and sexuality.
To take one example, during the June 2016 session of the HRC, opposition was mounted towards a resolution on discrimination against women by the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and allies. During contentious negotiations, multiple provisions were removed, including women’s and girls’ right to have control over their sexuality, sexual and reproductive health, and reproductive rights; and the need to repeal laws which perpetuate the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in families, and those criminalizing adultery or pardoning marital rape.
The HRC has also been the site of pernicious conservative initiatives to co-opt human rights norms and enact conservative “human rights” language, such as that of the Russia-led “traditional values” resolutions, and more recently the “Protection of the Family” agenda.
In 2015, moving their sights to another front, a number of religious right organizations began to target the Human Rights Committee, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a pivotal human rights instrument.
Anti-human rights groups mobilized in hopes of cementing their anti-abortion rhetoric into the treaty.
When the Committee announced it was drafting a new authoritative interpretation of the right to life, over 30 conservative non-state actors sent in written submissions, advocating their misleading discourse on ‘right to life’ - that life begins at conception and that abortion is a violation of the right - be incorporated in the Committee’s interpretation of article 6.
Conservative groups targeting the Human Rights Committee was a shift considering that historically anti-human rights actors have repeatedly attempted to undermine and invalidate the essential work of the treaty monitoring bodies, including the Human Rights Committee.
Anti-human rights actors were involved in lobbying towards the development of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, focusing again on rights relating to gender and sexuality. These efforts had limited traction in their attempts to embed regressive language in Agenda 2030.
However, after successfully pushing back against progressive language in the final text, conservative actors then pivoted to another strategy. In an attempt to evade state accountability and undermine the universality of rights, several states have repeatedly made reservations to the Goals.
On behalf of the African Group, Senegal claimed that African states would only “implement the goals in line with the cultural and religious values of its countries.”
The Holy See also made a number of reservations, stating it was “confident that the related pledge ‘no one will be left behind’ would be read” as meaning “the right to life of the person, from conception until natural death.”
Saudi Arabia went one step further, declaring that the country would not follow any international rules relating to the SDGs that reference sexual orientation or gender identity, describing them as running “counter to Islamic law.”
Anti-rights actors have made increasing headway at the UN General Assembly (GA). Most recently, during the 71st session in 2016, the GA was the scene of feverish anti-rights organizing in opposition to the new mandate created by the Human Rights Council resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity in June 2016: the Independent Expert on SOGI. Four separate attempts were made to undercut the mandate in GA spaces.
One approach was to introduce a hostile resolution at the Third Committee[1], led by the African Group, which in essence aimed to indefinitely defer the new mandate. While this approach was not successful, such an attempt in the GA to retroactively block the creation of a mandate brought forward by the Human Rights Council represented a new and troubling tactic - anti-right actors are now working to directly undermine the HRC’s authority respective to the General Assembly.
Another approach targeted the Fifth Committee (responsible for administration and budgetary matters) as an entry point to attack the mandate. In an unprecedented move a number of States attempted (again, unsuccessfully) to block the funding of UN human rights experts, including the new IE on SOGI[2],.
While these multiple efforts were unsuccessful in blocking the creation and continuation of the new mandate, the significant support they received, the novel strategizing employed, and the strong alliances built along regional lines through negotiations point to difficulties ahead.
[1] The Third Committee of the GA deals with agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs, and human rights issues. Each year it discusses and issues resolutions on issues including the advancement of women, the protection of children, family, and youth.
[2] While UN Special Procedures experts (i.e. Special Rapporteurs, Working Group members and Independent Experts) work pro bono, some funds are generally allocated to facilitate country visits on the invitation of the national government, and support staff.