6.4.2 Targeting NHRIs in the UNDAF
It is vital that the UNDAF identify and situate NHRIs in the development assistance framework. Otherwise, without a direct or inferred link to the UNDAF outcomes, it will be difficult to include activities relating to NHRIs in Country Programmes or in any projects, unless some generic project can be found to “accommodate” the NHRI project after the fact. Although this is not unheard of, it is less than ideal.
The UNDAF outcomes will, of course, reflect the country’s needs as determined in the CCA, and these will, in turn, serve as the basis for developing the CP. The importance of identifying and situating NHRIs in these processes is highlighted in the examples given below.
In this example, an audit was undertaken of the UNDAF for Uganda. It revealed the following shortcomings regarding the link between the NHRI and the Country Program, which had failed to mention independent oversight bodies such as the NHRI:
“A plain reading of the CP Outputs does not necessarily indicate that the UN is interested in supporting these bodies [independent oversight agencies, including the NHRI] in their roles as accountability and oversight bodies. The importance of independent bodies is critical to a human rights-approach (due process safeguards in the conduct of Government) as are effective representative bodies (they enable/effect citizens exercise their right to participate in public affairs)”
The UNDAF, therefore, must refer to the support that will be provided to the NHRI in light of the current situation, as defined in the CCA. That support will vary depending on the development phase of the NHRI (non-existent; pre-establishment; establishment; consolidation, etc.) as well as the accreditation status that the NHRI holds.
Case Study: Kenya National Commission of Human Rights (KNCHR)
While UNDP Kenya supported the national NHRI, the pre-establishment phase of the KNCHR was not, in fact, the result of a specific program for that institution: rather, it took place under a general “Governance for Poverty Reduction Program”, which in turn was based on the Common Country Framework 1999 – 2003.
The original focus was on an earlier institution called the Standing Committee of Human Rights (SCHR), which had been created by Presidential Decree.
The UNDP supported a strategy paper that would underpin a Kenyan National Action Plan for human rights. The Plan, in turn, identified the establishment of an independent NHRI as a prerequisite for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The OHCHR then provided two forms of technical assistance: first, was regional learning and exchange with the Ugandan and South African commissions. The second area of technical assistance was in the form of a special adviser, who played an instrumental role in the enabling law that established the KNCHR in 2002.
Despite these positive aspects, the Common Country Framework 1999 – 2003, mentioned above, had failed to mention an NHRI and this posed a major challenge to transitioning support to the KNCHR
In 2004, UNDP Kenya, having by then having taken over the process from the SCHR, signed a work plan with the KNCHR for the support of the Kenyan National Action Plan process. This included secretariat support, including equipment and provision of consultants for the KNCHR.
Lessons Learned: The UN Country Team’s priority areas played a role in ensuring the establishment of a NHRI, but as mentioned earlier, UNDP Kenya’s support occurred in an ad hoc or incidental manner. The programme was not specifically designed to support the establishment of the SCHR or the successor independent institution, the KNCHR. It was placed under the “Governance for Poverty Reduction Programme”, but if “Governance” had not been a priority area for UNDP Kenya, even that incidental support may not have been possible because there would have been no appropriate category of programming in which to place the NHRI support objectives. The failure to mention the NHRI as a specific programme in the Common Country Framework 1999 – 2003 and then in the UNDAF or equivalent document meant that only an ad hoc approach was possible, and even then only by inserting the project into a generic programme that did not originally envisage an NHRI.
- Based on a presentation by Ms. Enid Ndiga-Irungu, Programme Officer, Human Rights, UN Country Office, UNDP Kenya. 2009.