Happy Planet Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map showing countries shaded by their position in the Happy Planet Index (2006). The highest-
ranked countries are bright green; the lowest are brown

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an index of human well-being and environmental impact that
was introduced by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) in July 2006. The index is designed to
challenge well-established indices of countries’ development, such as Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and the Human Development Index (HDI), which are seen as not
taking sustainability into account. In particular, GDP is seen as inappropriate, as the usual
ultimate aim of most people is not to be rich, but to be happy and healthy.[1] Furthermore, it is
believed that the notion of sustainable development requires a measure of the environmental
costs of pursuing those goals.[2]
Contents
 [hide]

1 Outline
2 International
rankings
3 Views
4 See also
5 Notes
6 External links
[edit]Outline

The HPI is based on general utilitarian principles — that most people want to live long and
fulfilling lives, and the country which is doing the best is the one that allows its citizens to do so,
whilst avoiding infringing on the opportunity of future people and people in other countries to do
the same. In effect it operationalises the IUCN's (World Conservation Union) call for a metric
capable of measuring 'the production of human well-being (not necessarily material goods) per
unit of extraction of or imposition upon nature'.[3] Human well-being is operationalised as Happy
Life Years.[4] Extraction of or imposition upon nature is proxied for using the ecological
footprint per capita, which attempts to estimate the amount of natural resources required to
sustain a given country's lifestyle. A country with a large per capita ecological footprint uses
more than its fair share of resources, both by drawing resources from other countries, and also
by causing permanent damage to the planet which will impact future generations.[5]

As such, the HPI is not a measure of which are the happiest countries in the world. Countries
with relatively high levels of life satisfaction, as measured in surveys, are found from the very
top (Colombia in 6th place) to the very bottom (the USA in 114th place) of the rank order. The
HPI is best conceived as a measure of the environmental efficiency of supporting well-being in a
given country. Such efficiency could emerge in a country with a medium environmental impact
(e.g. Costa Rica) and very high well-being, but it could also emerge in a country with only
mediocre well-being, but very low environmental impact (e.g. Vietnam).

Each country’s HPI value is a function of its average subjective life satisfaction, life

expectancy at birth, and ecological footprint per capita. The exact function is a little more
complex, but conceptually it approximates multiplying life satisfaction and life expectancy, and
dividing that by the ecological footprint. Most of the life satisfaction data is taken from the World
Values Survey and World Database of Happiness, but some is drawn from other surveys, and
some is estimated using statistical regression techniques.

178 countries were surveyed in 2006, compared to 143 in 2009. The best scoring country in
2009 was Costa Rica, followed by the Dominican Republic, Jamaica andGuatemala,
with Tanzania, Botswana and Zimbabwe featuring at the bottom of the list.
physical Quality of Life Index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Quality-

of-life index. (Discuss)

The Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) is an attempt to measure the quality of life or well-

being of a country. The value is the average of three statistics: basic literacy rate, infant
mortality, and life expectancy at age one, all equally weighted on a 0 to 100 scale.

It was developed for the Overseas Development Council in the mid-1970s by Morris David
Morris, as one of a number of measures created due to dissatisfaction with the use of GNP as
an indicator of development. PQLI might be regarded as an improvement but shares the general
problems of measuring quality of life in a quantitative way. It has also been criticized because
there is considerable overlap between infant mortality and life expectancy.

The UN Human Development Index is a more widely used means of measuring well-being.

Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life:

1) Find percentage of the population that is literate (literacy rate).

2) Find the infant mortality rate. (out of 1000 births) INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate = (166 -
infant mortality) × 0.625

3) Find the Life Expectancy. INDEXED Life Expectancy = (Life expectancy - 42) × 2.7

4) Physical Quality of Life =

(Literacy Rate + INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate +

INDEXED Life Expectancy)

______________________________________________________________________
___
3
Human security
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human security is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities whose

proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper
referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Human security holds that a
people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global stability.

The concept emerged from a post-Cold War, multi-disciplinary understanding of security

involving a number of research fields, including development studies, international relations,
strategic studies, and human rights. The United Nations Development Programme's
1994 Human Development Report[1] is considered a milestone publication in the field of human
security, with its argument that insuring "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" for all
persons is the best path to tackle the problem of global insecurity. Frequently referred to in a
wide variety of global policy discussions [2] and scholarly journals,[3] human security is often
taught in universities as part of international relations, globalization, or human rights studies.[4]

Critics of the concept argue that its vagueness undermines its effectiveness;[5] that it has
become little more than a vehicle for activists wishing to promote certain causes; and that it
does not help the research community understand what security means or help decision makers
to formulate good policies.[6]
Contents
 [hide]

1 Concept
o 1.1 UNDP's 1994 definition
o 1.2 Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want and beyond
o 1.3 Relationship with traditional security
o 1.4 Relationship with development
o 1.5 Relationship with human rights
o 1.6 Gender and human security
o 1.7 Prevent, react, and rebuild
2 Practice
o 2.1 Humanitarian intervention
o 2.2 Anti-personnel landmines
3 Criticisms
4 Formulation of a Human Security Index and an environment for discussing
same
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

[edit]Concept

[edit]UNDP's 1994 definition

Dr. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United
Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report and sought to influence
the UN's 1995 World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen. The UNDP's
1994 Human Development Report's definition of human security argues that the scope of global
security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas:
Coloured world map indicating Human Development Index (as of 2008). Countries coloured
green exhibit high human development, those coloured yellow/orange exhibit medium human
development, and those coloured red exhibit low human development.

The 2003 map

 Economic security — Economic security requires an assured basic income for

individuals, usually from productive and remunerative work or, as a last resort, from a
publicly financed safety net. In this sense, only about a quarter of the world’s people are
presently economically secure. While the economic security problem may be more serious
in developing countries, concern also arises in developed countries as well. Unemployment
problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence.

 Food security — Food security requires that all people at all times have both physical
and economic access to basic food. According to the United Nations, the overall availability
of food is not a problem, rather the problem often is the poor distribution of food and a lack
of purchasing power. In the past, food security problems have been dealt with at both
national and global levels. However, their impacts are limited. According to UN, the key is to
tackle the problems relating to access to assets, work and assured income (related to
economic security).
 Health security — Health Security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from
diseases and unhealthylifestyles. In developing countries, the major causes of death
traditionally were infectious and parasitic diseases, whereas in industrialized countries, the
major killers were diseases of the circulatory system. Today, lifestyle-related chronic
diseases are leading killers worldwide, with 80 percent of deaths from chronic diseases
occurring in low- and middle-income countries.[7] According to the United Nations, in both
developing and industrial countries, threats to health security are usually greater for poor
people in rural areas, particularly children. This is due to malnutrition and insufficient access
to health services, clean water and other basic necessities.

 Environmental security — Environmental security aims to protect people from the

short- and long-term ravages of nature, man-made threats in nature, and deterioration of
the natural environment. In developing countries, lack of access to clean water resources is
one of the greatest environmental threats. In industrial countries, one of the major threats
is air pollution. Global warming, caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, is
another environmental security issue.

 Personal security — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence,

whether from the state or external states, from violent individuals and sub-state actors,
from domestic abuse, or from predatory adults. For many people, the greatest source of
anxiety is crime, particularly violent crime.

 Community security — Community security aims to protect people from the loss of
traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. Traditional
communities, particularly minority ethnic groups are often threatened. About half of the
world’s states have experienced some inter-ethnic strife. The United Nations declared 1993
the Year of Indigenous People to highlight the continuing vulnerability of the 300 million
aboriginal people in 70 countries as they face a widening spiral of violence.

 Political security — Political security is concerned with whether people live in a society
that honors their basic human rights. According to a survey conducted byAmnesty
International, political repression, systematic torture, ill treatment or disappearance was still
practised in 110 countries. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of
political unrest. Along with repressing individuals and groups, governments may try to
exercise control over ideas and information.
Since then, human security has been receiving more attention from the key global development
institutions, such as the World Bank. Tadjbakhsh, among others, traces the evolution of human
security in international organizations, concluding that the concept has been manipulated and
transformed considerably since 1994 to fit organizational interests.[8][2]

[edit]Freedom from Fear vs Freedom from Want and beyond

In an ideal world, each of the UNDP's seven categories of threats would receive adequate
global attention and resources. Yet attempts to implement this human security agenda have led
to the emergence of two major schools of thought on how to best practice human security —
'"Freedom from Fear"' and '"Freedom from Want"'. While the UNDP 1994 report originally
argued that human security requires attention to both freedom from fear and freedom from
want, divisions have gradually emerged over the proper scope of that protection (e.g. over
what threats individuals should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for
responding to these threats.

 Freedom from Fear — This school seeks to limit the practice of Human Security to
protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are
strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities.[9] This
approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach
towards Human Security. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, peace-
building are the main concerns of this approach. Canada, for example, was a critical player
in the efforts to ban landmines and has incorporated the "Freedom from Fear" agenda as a
primary component in its own foreign policy. However, whether such “narrow” approach can
truly serve its purpose in guaranteeing more fruitful results remains to be an issue. For
instance, the conflicts in Darfur are often used in questioning the effectiveness of the
"Responsibility to Protect”, a key component of the Freedom from Fear agenda.

 Freedom from Want — The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human
security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease
and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of
human insecurity[1] and they kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined.
[10]
 Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis
on development and security goals.

Despite their differences, these two approaches to human security can be considered
complementary rather than contradictory.[10] Expressions to this effect include:
 Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous Four Freedoms speech of 1941, in which "Freedom from
Want" is characterized as the third and "Freedom from Fear" is the fourth such fundamental,
universal, freedom.

 The Government of Japan considers Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want to be
equal in developing Japan’s foreign policy. Moreover, the UNDP 1994 called for the world’s
attention to both agendas.

 Surin Pitsuwan, current Secretary-General of ASEAN cites theorists such as Hobbes,

Locke, Rousseau and Houme to conclude that "human security is the primary purpose of
organizing a state in the beginning.".[11] He goes on to observe that the 1994 Human
Development Report states that it is "reviving this concept" and suggests that the authors of
the 1994 HDR may be alluding to Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech without
literally citing that presentation.

Although "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" are the most commonly referred to
categories of human security practice, an increasing number of alternative ideas continue to
emerge on how to best practice human security. Among them:

 G. King and C. Murray.[12] King and Murray try to narrow down the human security
definition to one's "expectation of years of life without experiencing the state of generalized
poverty". In their definition, the "generalized poverty" means "falling below critical thresholds
in any domain of well-being"; and it is in the same article, they give brief review and
categories of "Domains of Well-being". This set of defition is similar with "freedom from
want" but more concretely focused on some value system.
 Caroline Thomas.[13] She regards human security as describing "a condition of
existence" which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful
participation in the life of the community, and an active and substantive notion of democracy
from the local to the global.
 Roland Paris.[14] He argues that many ways to define "human security" are related with
certain set of value and lose the neutral position. So he suggests to take human security as
a category of research. As such, he gives a 2*2 matrix to illustrate the security studies field.

Security for Whom? What is the Source of the Security Threat?

Military Military, Non-military, or Both

 National security Redefined security

States (e.g., environmental and economic [cooperative or

(conventional realist approach
comprehensive] security)
to security studies)

Intrastate security Human security

Societies, Groups,
and Individuals (e.g., civil war, ethnic (e.g., environmental and economic threats to the
conflict, and democide) survival of societies, groups, and individuals)

 Sabina Alkire.[15] Different with those approaches seek to narrow down and specify the
objective of human security, Sabina Alkire pushes the idea a step further as "to safeguard
the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, without impeding long-term
human fulfilment". In a concept as such, she suggests the "vital core" cover a minimal or
basic or fundamental set of functions related to survival, livelihood and dignity; and all
institutions should at least and necessarily protect the core from any intervention.

 Lyal S. Sunga.[16] In 2009, Professor Sunga argued that a concept of human security
that is fully informed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law,
international criminal law and international refugee law, and which takes into account the
relevant international legal norms prohibiting the use of force in international relations, will
likely prove more valuable to international legal theory and practice over the longer term,
than a concept of human security which does not meet these conditions because these
fields of law represent the objectified political will of States rather than the more subjective
biases of scholars.
[edit]Relationship with traditional security
See also: Political realism

Human security emerged as a challenge to ideas of traditional security, but human and
traditional or national security are not mutually exclusive concepts. Without human security,
traditional state security cannot be attained and vice-versa.[17]
Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

Traditional security is about a state's ability to defend itself against external threats. Traditional
security (often referred to as national security or state security) describes the philosophy of
international security predominance since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the rise of
the nation-states. While international relations theoryincludes many variants of traditional
security, from realism to idealism, the fundamental trait that these schools share is their focus
on the primacy of the nation-state.

The following table contrasts four differences between the two perspectives:

Traditional Security Human Security

Human security is people-centered.

Traditional security policies are designed to promote Its focus shifts to protecting
demands ascribed to the state. Other interests are individuals. The important dimensions
Referen
subordinated to those of the state. Traditional security are to entail the well-being of
t
protects a state's boundaries, people, institutions and individuals and respond to ordinary
values. people's needs in dealing with sources
of threats.

Scope Traditional security seeks to defend states from In addition to protecting the state
[Link] Lippmann explained that from external aggression, human
state security is about a state's ability to deter or security would expand the scope of
defeat an attack.[18] It makes uses of deterrence protection to include a broader range
strategies to maintain the integrity of the state and of threats, including environmental
 pollution,infectious diseases, and
protect the territory from external threats.
economic deprivation.

The state is the sole actor, to ensure its own survival.

The realization of human security
Decision making power is centralized in the
involves not only governments, but a
government, and the execution of strategies rarely
broader participation of different
involves the public. Traditional security assumes that a
Actor(s) actors,[19] viz. regional and
sovereign state is operating in an anarchical
international organizations, non-
international environment, in which there is no world
governmental organizations and local
governing body to enforce international rules of
communities.
conduct.

Human security not only protects, but

Traditional security relies upon building up national
also empowers people and societies
power and military defense. The common forms it
Means as a means of security. People
takes are armament races, alliances, strategic
contribute by identifying and
boundaries etc.
implementing solutions to insecurity.

[edit]Relationship with development

See also: International development and Development economics

Human security also challenged and drew from the practice of international development.

Traditionally, embracing liberal market economics was considered to be the universal path
for economic growth, and thus development for all humanity.[20] Yet, continuing conflict and
human rights abuses following the end of the Cold War and the fact that two-thirds of the global
population seemed to have gained little from the economic gains of globalization,[21] led to
fundamental questions about the way development was practiced. Accordingly, human
development has emerged in 1990s to challenge the dominant paradigm of liberal economy in
the development community. Human development proponents argue that economic growth is
insufficient to expand people’s choice or capabilities, areas such as health, education,
technology, the environment, and employment should not be neglected.

Human security could be said to further enlarge the scope for examining the causes and
consequences of underdevelopment, by seeking to bridge the divide between development and
security. Too often, militaries didn’t address or factor in the underlying causes of violence and
insecurity while development workers often underplayed the vulnerability of development
models to violent conflict . Human security springs from a growing consensus these two fields
need to be more fully integrated in order to enhance security for all.

The paper "Development and Security" by Frances Stewart argues that security and
development are deeply interconnected.[22]

 Human security forms an important part of people’s well-being, and is therefore an

objective of development.
An objective of development is “the enlargement of human choices”. Insecurity cuts life short
and thwarts the use of human potential, thereby affecting the reaching of this objective.
 Lack of human security has adverse consequences on economic growth, and therefore
development.
Some development costs are obvious. For example, in wars, people who join the army or
flee can no longer work productively. Also, destroying infrastructure reduces the productive
capacity of the economy.
 Imbalanced development that involves horizontal inequalities is an important source of
conflict.
Therefore, vicious cycles of lack of development which leads to conflict, then to lack of
development, can readily emerge. Likewise, virtuous cycles are possible, with high levels of
security leading to development, which further promotes security in return.

Further, it could also be said that the practice of human development and human security share
three fundamental elements[23]:

 First, human security and human development are both people-centered. They

challenge the orthodox approach to security and development i.e. state security and liberal
economic growth respectively. Both emphasize people are be the ultimate ends but not
means. Both treat human as agents and should be empowered to participate in the course.
 Second, both perspectives are multidimensional. Both address people’s dignity as well
as their material and physical concerns.
 Third, both schools of thought consider poverty and inequality as the root causes of
individual vulnerability.

Despite these similarities, the relationship with development is one of the most contested areas
of human security . "Freedom from fear" advocates, such as Andrew Mack,argue that human
security should focus on the achievable goals of decreasing individual vulnerability to violent
conflict, rather than broadly defined goals of economic and social development. Others, such as
Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy, argue that human development and human security are inextricably
linked since progress in one enhances the chances of progress in another while failure in one
increases risk of failure of another.[24]

The following table is adopted from Tadjbakhsh[25] to help clarify the relationship between these
two concepts.

Variables Human Development Human Security

Values Well-being. Security, stability, sustainability of development gains

Moves forward, is progressive and Looks at who was left behind at the individual level:
Orientation
aggregate: “Together we rise” “Divided we fall”

Combines short-term measures to deal with risks with

Time Frame Long term
long term prevention efforts.

“Insuring” downturns with security. Identification of

Growth with equity. Expanding
General risks, prevention to avoid them through dealing with
the choices and opportunities of
objectives root causes, preparation to mitigate them, and
people to lead lives they value.
cushioning when disaster strikes.

Protection and promotion of human survival (freedom

Empowerment, sustainability,
Policy goals from fear), daily life (freedom from want), and the
equity and productivity.
avoidance of indignities(life of dignity).

[edit]Relationship with human rights

See also: Human rights

Human security is indebted to the human rights tradition (the ideas of natural law and natural

rights). The development of the human security model can be seen to have drawn upon ideas
and concepts fundamental to the human rights tradition. Both approaches use the individual as
the main referent and both argue that a wide range of issues (i.e. civil rights, cultural identity,
access to education and healthcare) are fundamental to human dignity. A major difference
between the two models is in their approach to addressing threats to human dignity and
survival. Whilst the human rights framework takes a legalistic approach, the human security
framework, by utilizing a diverse range of actors, adopts flexible and issue-specific approaches,
which can operate at local, national or international levels.

The nature of the relationship between human security and human rights is contested among
human security advocates. Some human security advocates argue that the goal of human
security should be to build upon and strengthen the existing global human rights legal
framework.[26] However, other advocates view the human rights legal framework as part of the
global insecurity problem and believe that a human security approach should propel us to move
above and beyond this legalistic approach to get at the underlying sources of inequality and
violence which are the root causes of insecurity in today's world.[27]

[edit]Gender and human security

Human security focuses on the serious neglect of gender concerns under the traditional security
model. Traditional security’s focus on external military threats to the state has meant that the
majority of threats women face have been overlooked. By focusing on the individual, the human
security model aims to address the security concerns of both women and men equally. Women
are often the worst victims of violence and conflict: they form the majority of civilian deaths; the
majority of refugees; and, are often the victims of cruel and degrading practices, such as rape.
[28]
 Women's security is also threatened by unequal access to resources, services and
opportunities.[28] Human security seeks to empower women, through education, participation and
access, as gender equality is seen as a necessary precondition for peace, security and a
prosperous society.[28]

[edit]Prevent, react, and rebuild

See also: Responsibility to protect

Human security seeks to address underlying causes and long-term implications of conflicts
instead of simply reacting to problems, as the traditional security approach is often accused of
doing. "The basic point of preventive efforts is, of course, to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the
need for intervention altogether,"[29] while an investment in rehabilitation or rebuilding seeks to
ensure that former conflicts do not breed future violence. The concepts of prevention and
rebuilding are clearly embraced as the “responsibility to prevent” and well elaborated in
"The Responsibility to protect report of the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty."

[edit]Practice

While there are numerous examples of the human security approach in action, two notable
global political events with direct ties to the human security agenda include the development of
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principles guiding humanitarian intervention and the passage of
the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines.

[edit]Humanitarian intervention
Main article: Humanitarian intervention

The application of human security is highly relevant within the area of humanitarian intervention,
as it focuses on addressing the deep rooted and multi-factorial problems inherent in
humanitarian crises, and offers more long term resolutions. In general, the term humanitarian
intervention generally applies to when a state uses force against another state in order to
alleviate suffering in the latter state (See, humanitarian intervention).

Under the traditional security paradigm humanitarian intervention is contentious. As discussed

above, the traditional security paradigm places emphasis on the notion of states. Hence, the
principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention that are paramount in the traditional security
paradigm make it difficult to justify the intervention of other states in internal disputes. Through
the development of clear principles based on the human security concept, there has been a
step forward in the development of clear rules of when humanitarian intervention can occur and
the obligations of states that intervene in the internal disputes of a state.

These principles on humanitarian intervention are the product of a debate pushed by United
Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. He posed a challenge to the international community to
find a new approach to humanitarian intervention that responded to its inherent problems.[30] In
2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) produced the
"The Responsibility to protect", a comprehensive report detailing how the “right of humanitarian
intervention” could be exercised. It was considered a triumph for the human security approach
as it emphasized and gathered much needed attention to some of its main principles:

 The protection of individual welfare is more important than the state. If the security of
individuals is threatened internally by the state or externally by other states, state authority
can be overridden.

 Addressing the root causes of humanitarian crises (e.g. economic, political or social
instability) is a more effective way to solve problems and protect the long-term security of
individuals.

 Prevention is the best solution. A collective understanding of the deeper social issues
along with a desire to work together is necessary to prevent humanitarian crises, thereby
 preventing a widespread absence of human security within a population (which may mean
investing more in development projects).

The report illustrates the usefulness of the human security approach, particularly its ability to
examine the cause of conflicts that explain and justify humanitarian intervention. In addition, it
could also act as a paradigm for identifying, prioritizing and resolving large transnational
problems, one of the fundamental factors that act as a stimulus for humanitarian intervention in
the first place. However, human security still faces difficulties concerning the scope of its
applicability, as large problems requiring humanitarian intervention usually are built up from an
array of socio-political, cultural and economic problems that may be beyond the limitations of
humanitarian projects.[31] On the other hand, successful examples of the use of human security
principles within interventions can be found.

The success of humanitarian intervention in international affairs is varied. As discussed above,

humanitarian intervention is a contentious issue. Examples of humanitarian intervention
illustrate, that in some cases intervention can lead to disastrous results, as
in Srebrenica and Somalia. In other cases, a lack of clarity as to the rules of when intervention
can occur has resulted in tragic inaction, as was witnessed during the Rwandan genocide. One
example is of a successful humanitarian intervention and also of humanitarian principles being
applied is East Timor which, prior to its independence, was plagued with massive human rights
abuses by pro-Indonesian militias and an insurgency war led by indigenous East Timorese
against Indonesian forces. A peacekeeping mission was deployed to safeguard the move to
independence and the UN established the United Nations Transitional Administration in East
Timor (UNTAET). This not only dealt with traditional security priorities, but also helped in nation
building projects, coordinated humanitarian aid and civil rehabilitation, illustrating not only a
successful humanitarian intervention but also a effective application of human security
principles.

[edit]Anti-personnel landmines
Main article: Ottawa Convention
  State Parties to the Ottawa Treaty

In contrast to the traditional security discourse which sees security as focused on protecting
state interests, human security proponents believe that Anti-personnel mines could not be viable
weapons of war due to the massive collateral damage they cause, their indiscriminate nature
and persistence after conflict. In particular, they argue that Anti-personnel mines differ from
most weapons, which have to be aimed and fired since they have the potential to kill and maim
long after the warring parties have ceased fighting. The United Nations has reckoned that
landmines are at least ten times more likely to kill or injure a civilian after a conflict than a
combatant during hostilities.[3] The effects are also long-lasting. The ICBL estimates that anti-
personnel mines were the cause of 5,751 casualties in 2006. [4]Whereas traditionally, states
would justify these negative impacts of mines due to the advantage they give on the battlefield,
under the human security lens, this is untenable as the wide-ranging post-conflict impact on the
day-to-day experience of individuals outweighs the military advantage.

The Ottawa Convention, which led to the banning of anti-personnel landmines, is seen as a

victory for the Human Security agenda. The Ottawa Convention has proved to be a huge step
forward in the ‘Freedom from Fear’ approach. In Ottawa, the negotiations were moved outside
traditional disarmament forums, thus avoiding the entrenched logic of traditional arms control
measures.[32] According to Don Hubert,an advocate of Human Security from the Canadian
Department of Foreign Affairs, the main reason for its success was a multilateral focus.
While INGO’s like the UN and the ICRC remain the key players along with middle power states
like Norway and Canada, its actual power and push comes from the involvement of a host
of civil society actors (NGOs) and the general public.[33] Human Security proponents believe that
this treaty has set new standards in humanitarian advocacy and has acted as a landmark in
international lawmaking for a more secure world.
Critics of the treaty, however, caution against complacency on its success. Many states, they
point out, have neither signed nor ratified this convention. They include China, Russia and the
United States who are major contributors to the global weapons trade.[34] Second, even though
there were a diverse group of civil society actors, the real influence on the treaty came from the
ones in the ‘global north’. Third, cynics may argue that the success of this campaign stems from
the fact that these weapons were outdated and of limited military value and this treaty just
helped to accelerate a process that would have happened anyway.[35]

[edit]Criticisms

Tadjbakhsh introduced seven challenging questions on the concept of human security on

September 13, 2005 at the “Human Security: 60 minutes to Convince” discussion held at
UNESCO:

1) Can there be an agreement on definitions? Without a consensus on the definition of

human security, it will be difficult to implement and decide on a common human security
program. Today, there is an agreement that human security should be taken from a people-
centered more than a state-centered approach, but as mentioned above, the definition or scope
of human security is still vague.

2) Is the rise of “National Security” disrupting the process of expanding human

security? Since the September 11 attacks, the attention on security has become more on
national security rather than human security. According to a study by Christian Aid, “the year
2004 saw $1 billion in aid was diverted to the war on terrorism at the expense of poverty and
MDGs.” As the focus has shifted from a bottom-up approach to a top-down approach, this has
also meant that the investments made are strategically long-term plans rather than short term,
and this has been reflected in the amount of spending. Military expenditures as of 2004 were
apparently “twenty times larger than aid outlays,” as stated by the SIRPI Yearbook 2004. The
question now is, is it too late to revive the focus of state and national security to human
security?

3) Who is responsible for implementation? Much discussion today has been in regards to the
approach of human security, but with little emphasis on who is in charge of implementing it.
Many states have “adopted it as a foreign policy tool” but it has mostly been disregarded “as a
domestic policy on development and human rights.” Also, people seem to be absent in the
process of human security; “people are not passive recipient of security,” or victims of its
absence, but active subjects who should contribute directly to identifying and implementing
solutions to security problems.” There also lies the lack of mandate for IGO's to act in times of
need. The genocide in Rwanda and to a certain degree the acts which are currently occurring in
Darfur seem to point to this direction. The lack of the strong political will to act in times of dire
need has been cited by former UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan as a major speedbump to
eliminating immediate security threats.

4) What are the priorities and trade-offs? “Which of the many threats that exist deserves the
most attention?” There is no prioritization or “hierarchy” today on which issues are more
important than others. This can cause difficulties in establishing goals and directing resources
on specific solutions to immediate problems. Specifically under the current context of the world,
where there are so many growing problems, including increasing food prices, scarce fresh water
sources and the ever-prevalent threat of regional instability in "hotzones" around the world; it
seems necessary to have some sort of an agenda as to what threat must be contained first.

5) Can a “true inter-sectoral agenda” be implemented? Are we ready or able to create “inter,

or better yet, intra-sectoral interventions?” There needs to be more focus on “relationships,” how
an intervention can positively or negatively affect other areas and how these effects can
improve the human security intervention approach. However, as idealistic as this sounds, the
question is how we will implement this when there is a "lack of interdisciplinary approaches
among donors and governments”? Once again this also raises the issue of the scope of
security. Under current status quo it is primarily states and IGO's that are the primary actors in
any security crisis, whereas it is the individuals of the states that are actually at harm. While
NGO's and other humanitarian organizations do raise efforts to focus on individuals, there is still
a massive gap between the two.

6) How can we better understand conflicts? It is important to understand conflicts in order to

resolve and prevent them, and it is easiest to understand conflict during times of conflict, “both
to address conflict prevention and for rebuilding and reconstruction in post conflict-stages.”
Today, we question how well do we really understand conflict? How can we improve our
understanding of it?

7) How can we best implement human security and not do harm? In the past, when human
intervention was taken in countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda, some
have argued that more harm was done than benefit. Interventions must be better “targeted,
implemented, monitored, and coordinated” to decrease “dependency, power and patronage of
certain groups.” Something must be done to ensure that future interventions do not cause harm,
but the question now is how.[36]

Elsewhere Tadjbakhsh [37] noted that measurement of Human Security has been difficult. She
noted the lack of consensus on one definition, data, and formulation as challenges. However,
she also stated that "these challenges do not mean that measuring Human Security is a futile
exercise. On the contrary. To become a malleable concept, especially for policy makers, there
must be a way to recognize it and measure it."

[edit]Formulation of a Human Security Index and an environment for discussing same

As if to answer the points above, a Human Security Index [38] was prototyped and released in
2008. Project coordinator D. A. Hastings notes that “if one were challenged to create an index
on the condition of people-centric Human Security, such as the authors of the Human
Development Index faced in 1990 and expanded qualitatively in 1994, one could now begin to
do so – at least for the sake of discussion and resultant improvements.” 200 countries are
included in this Human Security Index. The release document and a United Nations Bangkok
Working Paper [39] publish and discuss:

 An Equitability/Inclusiveness Enhanced Human Development Index – in which each

of the components of the HDI (education, health, and income) are modified by an indicator
of equitability in an attempt to adjust, for example, for the gap between the indicator of
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita (adjusted for purchasing power parity) and the desired
measure of financial resources “in the pocket” of a typical person in a country. In that index
some countries with relatively equitable ratings compared to their Human Development
Index (such as Iceland, the Slovak Republic, and Estonia) do relatively well, whereas some
countries with relatively inequitable ratings compared to their HDI (such as Ireland, Greece,
and the USA) do less well.
 A Social Fabric Index which enumerates human security with respect to environment,
diversity, peacefulness, freedom from corruption, and info empowerment. This was blended
with the Human Development Index to form the prototype Human Security Index.

Besides the papers cited here, several workshops and discussion seminars have been held
toward an improved formulation of HSI Version 2, anticipated for release late in 2010, according
to project Website [Link].[40] The release note of HSI Version 2 [41] notes that
Version 2 attempts to connect to concepts on the Triple bottom line of John Elkington as well as
to goals of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social
Progress.[42]
[edit]
Human Poverty Index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Human Poverty Index is an indication of the standard of living in a country, developed by

the United Nations (UN). For highly developed countries, the UN considers that it can better
reflect the extent of deprivation compared to the Human Development Index.[1]
Contents
 [hide]

1 For developing countries (HPI-1)

2 For selected OECD countries
(HPI-2)
3 See also
4 Footnotes
5 References

[edit]For developing countries (HPI-1)

The Human Development Reports website summarizes this as "A composite index measuring
deprivations in the three basic dimensions captured in the human development index — a long
and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living." The formula for calculating it is:

 HPI-1 = 
P1: Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40 (times 100)
P2: Adult illiteracy rate
P3: Unweighted average of population without sustainable access to an improved water source
and children under weight for age
α: 3

[edit]For selected OECD countries (HPI-2)

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent

events or newly available information. Please see thetalk page for more
information. (November 2010)

The Human Development Reports website summarizes this as "A composite index measuring
deprivations in the three basic dimensions captured in the human development index — a long
and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living — and also capturing social
exclusion." The formula for calculating it is:

 HPI-2 = 

P1: Probability at birth of not surviving to age 60 (times 100)

P2: Adults lacking functional literacy skills
P3: Population below income poverty line (50% of median adjusted household disposable
income)
P4: Rate of long-term unemployment (lasting 12 months or more)
α: 3

The last report, 2007–2008, only has a ranking for 19 of the 22 countries with the highest
Human Development Index. The ranking is as follows (with the country with the lowest amount
of poverty at the top):
Probability at People lacking Population
Long-term
Ranking HPI- birth of not functional below 50% of
Country unemployment
2 surviving to age literacy skills median income
(%)
60 (%) (%) (%)

1 Sweden 6.3 6.7 7.5 1.1 6.5

2 Norway 6.8 7.9 7.9 0.5 6.4

3 Netherlands 8.1 8.3 10.5 1.8 7.3

4 Finland 8.1 9.4 10.4 1.8 5.4

5 Denmark 8.2 10.3 9.6 0.8 5.6

6 Germany 10.3 8.6 14.4 5.8 8.4

7 Switzerland 10.7 7.2 15.9 1.5 7.6

8 Canada 10.9 8.1 14.6 0.5 11.4

9 Luxembourg 11.1 9.2 - 1.2 6.0

10 Austria 11.1 8.8 - 1.3 7.7

11 France 11.2 8.9 - 4.1 7.3

12 Japan 11.7 6.9 - 1.3 11.8

13 Australia 12.1 7.3 17.0 0.9 12.2

14 Belgium 12.4 9.3 18.4 4.6 8.0

15 Spain 12.5 7.7 - 2.2 14.2

United
16 14.8 8.7 21.8 1.2 12.5
Kingdom

United
17 15.4 11.6 20.0 0.4 17.0
States

18 Ireland 16.0 8.7 22.6 1.5 16.2

19 Italy 29.8 7.7 47.0 3.4 12.7

The countries ranked in the top 22 by HDI that are not on this list are Iceland, New
Zealand and Liechtenstein.

Note that not all countries are included because data for the indicators are not always available.
So positions could change if they were. Especially countries at the bottom could drop
considerably if the list were extended. For specific values for other countries than the ones on
the list, see source links below.
Indicators used are:

 Probability at birth of not surviving to age 60 (% of cohort), 2000-2005. Varies from 7.1%
for Japan to 11.8 for the USA. This is the indicator that is best known for all countries
(including the ones not on the list). The USA has specific values associated with disease
characteristics of poverty. Worse values start only at position 35 of the HDI, indicating that
many countries could climb on an extended list based on this, knocking down lower ranked
countries on the above list.
 People lacking functional literacy skills (% of people scoring in the range called “Level 1”
in the International Adult Literacy Survey, age 16-65, 1994–2003). Varies from 7.5% for
Sweden to 47.0% for Italy. These figures are higher than most commonly cited illiteracy
rates due to the choice of the literacy test.
 Long-term unemployment (12 months or more, % of labour force), 2005. Varies from
0.4% for the United States to 5.0% for Germany. This indicator has by far the greatest
variation, with a value as high as 9.3% at HDI position 37.
 Population below 50% of median adjusted household disposable income (%), 1994-
2002. Varies from 5.4% for Finland to 17% for the USA.