冒頭、元OECD-DAC議長、現在コンサルタントのJames Michel氏より「人間の安全保障」という概念、概念をどう実行に移すか、又その上での課題などについてプレゼンテー ションがあり、その後の出席者間の議論で様々な意見が出されました。
Development and human security are different, but related and overlapping concepts. The existence of a relationship between them can be readily inferred from the fact that the countries suffering from ongoing or recent conflict, where people are least secure, tend to be those with the highest indicators of underdevelopment, such as high levels of poverty, illiteracy and child mortality. However, acknowledging the fact of a relationship between development and human security is one thing; understanding the relationship and seeing how the two concepts can be made to be mutually reinforcing is another matter.
As a starting point, we can describe the two concepts separately. I do not presume to suggest a single definition of either development or human security. However, I think we can propose descriptions that most can accept.
Development can be described as the holistic process by
Over the last half-century a broad international consensus about basic principles of development has emerged:
・Development comes from within a society. It must be based upon local responsibility for and commitment to integrated policies and strategies that are results-oriented over the long term. These policies and strategies have economic, social, political, environmental and security dimensions, all of which must be heeded.
・International support for locally led efforts can be effective in accelerating and increasing positive development outcomes. Such support should be provided in a spirit of partnership, based on shared goals, an agreed division of labor, adequate resources and effective coordination.
・Development cooperation is more than aid. It needs to be integrated
into a broader framework of coherent policies to facilitate greater
participation by poor countries in the global community and greater
participation by poor and disadvantaged people in the
The United Nations Development Programme's annual Human Development reports, together with a series of UN conferences (on education, children, human rights, population, women, social development, food and habitat) have emphasized that development is ultimately about people.
Beginning with this emphasis on people, the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD suggested in 1996 a limited number of specific inter-related goals to measure the progress of development. Those goals, drawn from the various UN conferences, have now been refined and expanded at the UN Millennium Summit as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). And the MDGs have become the agreed benchmark.
The locally led, people-centered, results-oriented partnership model has become the preferred approach to development cooperation. It is endorsed in policy statements by multilateral organizations and by developed and developing countries. It finds expression in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers prepared by more than 50 developing countries and also in ongoing international efforts to harmonize donor practices so as to better support local capacity and local ownership.
Human security has persisted over the past decade as a powerful idea. At the same time, it is an elusive concept that has attracted much debate but little consensus.
The renowned development economist Mahbub ul Haq provided intellectual leadership to the human development movement, including the initiation of the the Human Development Report. In the 1994 report, he included an entire chapter on "new dimensions of human security." This was the first in-depth analysis of the notion that human security is an essential aspect of sustainable human development.
The 1994 report described human security as "safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression" and "protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life." It suggested that those aspects of human security are related to economic, food, health, environmental, personal and political security.
The idea of a link between human security and human
Some countries, such as Japan, Cadana, and Norway, have
I would describe human security as a special concern to protect and empower people so that they will be able to cope with situations that significantly threaten their survival, livelihoods or dignity. It is not a separate approach to development. Rather, it is an important factor in that people must have a minimal sense of security so that they can engage in development activities and development should contribute to their increased freedom and security.
In 2001, with financing from Japan, the Commission of Human Security was established. Under the leadership of co-chairs Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and Amartya Sen, distinguished economist and Nobel Laureate, the Commission produced a comprehensive report and presented it to the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2003. That report has again brought to the fore the question of how to transform the concept of human security into a practical instrument for advancing sustainable economic and social development around the world.
A principal limitation on making human security an operational concept has been the breadth and vagueness of definitions that have been suggested for it. Various descriptions of human security have employed very broad terms. Often, these descriptions seem to be just another way of describing human development. One author went so far as to ask whether human security represented "paradigm shift or hot air."
Like others, the Commission adopted a very broad definition: "To
protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human
freedoms and human fulfillment." If human security is about human
rights, good governance, and access to education and health care,
The Commission's analysis offers two ideas that provide a basis for strategic thinking:
・First, the report speaks of "systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity" and suggests strategies of protection and empowerment to create such systems.
・Second, it makes the important distinction that, while human development's concerned with progress and augmentation, human security "fruitfully supplements the expansionist perspective of human development by directly paying attention to what are sometimes called 'downside risks'"
The study team has identified these ideas in the Commission's report
as offering a way forward, toward making human security an operational.
Our recommended approach would be to defer the debate about broad definitions
and universal application. Instead, we propose that the international
community begin by trying
In such countries, the team is recommending concentration on core issues of survival, livelihoods and dignity. While specifics need to be determined on a country-by-country basis to reflect local circumstances, we have developed a chart to illustrate core issues. I have included that chart in the written text of my remarks.
We believe there are good reasons for recommending a selective approach.
Much of the international doubt about the operational value of a human
security orientation relates to the broad nature of the concept, and
the uncertainty as to where human security ends and other concepts
begin. Also, while the partnership approach is
Certainly, human security is needed everywhere. We see an initial focus on low income countries under stress and core issues as a starting point. As experience is gained, lessons learned can be applied to consider a broader range of countries and a broader range of issues. However, if the initial effort were to make human security an operational concept immediately and simultaneously in all its potential aspects and in all developing countries, the result would likely be frustration and disappointment.
The essence of our recommendations to JICA is that it should develop a strategic plan to incorporate several elements:
In this way, we believe it will be possible to build a broad international
consensus to embrace human security as
コメント：the value added of HS is: 1) human centered character (which challenges the traditional mechanism of government-to-government aid relations by questioning the government ’s ability to protect its own people), 2) a holistic approach, 3) selectivity, in terms of focusing on the down-side risks
質問・コメント:The US strategy in implementation of HS in Iraq seemed inconsistent with the presentation. The US is doing everything in Iraq in a very short-term. However, the categorization of HS identifies some aspects of human security as short-term and others as medium and long term. Looking at this from the human security perspective, is the US approach in Iraq practical and feasible?
応答： The study team cannot respond about US policies or practices in Iraq. It appears that the US is trying to doing what has to be done to meet its immediate goals leading to the creation of an Iraqi government. There will still be much to be accomplished and a large role for the international community in addressing medium and long term issues. We are not suggesting that Iraq should be a pilot HS project. More generally, our interviews with USAID found that Agency staff focus on the MCA and results-oriented partnership. At the same time, they are increasing the emphasis on conflict countries. While the rhetoric is of partnership and good performance, if you look at where they are actually carrying out their programs there is also an evident emphasis on countries emerging from conflict or difficult partnerships.
応答２：The Coalition Provisional Authority was trying to do everything
with a staff of only 1200. Their size limits how much they can do.
While their learning curve is steep, they may be starting to do their
応答: The fact that developed countries are not perfect does not necessarily
mean that we cannot engage in development activities, including areas
to improve conditions of human security in developing countries. LICUS
are usually the countries that lack the capacity to cope with issues,
including violence, and where
コメント: The experience in the past of the difficulty and the importance
of protection issues can be used to place emphasis on the importance
of human security. Protection is crucial in humanitarian and conflict
situations. There are, unfortunately, many readily available examples:
where those in charge of distributing
コメント: Looking at HS from the human rights perspective, HS has an advantage because there are universal, prevailing cultural variations. Looking at HS from a national security perspective, HS is appealing as such issues as human rights or development alone do not appeal to traditional ‘security’ professionals but HS do.
コメント: The idea of focusing exclusively on LICUS does not really represent the essence of human security. For example, Kazakhstan has environmental problems due to nuclear tests being done and those environmental problems are human security concerns to people, yet Kazakhstan is not a LICUS state/country.
質問: What is the relationship between protection and empowerment within
the framework of human security? What
応答: Interviews at UN found that some agencies just focus on protection and others focus on empowerment. Humanitarian agencies approach the issue more from the protection angle and development agencies approached it more from the development angle. However, the general trend shows significant efforts being done to integrate conflict school and development school. E.g. Currently there is a working group to look at how better to link humanitarian (protection) work with development (empowerment) work.
コメント: Human security can be useful in two aspects. One is as a programming tool (to integrate various aspects of various issues) the other is as a diagnostic tool to determine the country ’s needs. In this sense, HS can be useful both to aid practitioner and to the recipient.
質問・コメント: The question is whether this concept adds something new, whether this concept can help agencies do better a job; meaning coordination with partner organizations to improve the use of resources in a given country. We should look at a specific strategy or instruments and not necessarily a pilot project at the country level, for example, such instrument as risk management.
応答: Put simply, without a pilot project we cannot go on to develop successful instruments. Until we can work on designing a pilot project in a specific country with specific needs, demands and available resources we cannot adequately develop specific instruments.