HURIST lessons learned document on the development of National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAP)

HURIST, (the joint OHCHR-UNDP Programme on human rights strengthening) has produced a lessons learned document on the development of National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAP). Please see attached.

The Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 recommended "that each State consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would improve the promotion and protection of human rights”. The Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights encouraged countries to heed the recommendation from the Conference. In its first phase, 1999 – 2002, HURIST made it one of its objectives to support the development of NHRAPs, presenting this approach as its preferred way to help governments build their national systems for the protection of human rights.

HURIST was invited to explore the feasibility of plans in nine countries. Support for the development of plans was extended in the case of six. Of these, Lithuania, Moldova and Mongolia have had plans approved by parliaments, Cape Verde and Mauritania by governments, while in the case of Nepal, the finalization of the Plan was prevented by the civil war situation.

The document that HURIST has produced presents briefly the cases of Lithuania, Mongolia and Mauritania and draws lessons, mainly based on the experience in these three countries.

What have we learnt?
Caution: Countries should not lightly rush into development of plans but instead consider carefully whether a NHRAP is the best way to improve the human rights situation in a country. This caution is justified on many grounds: To be meaningful, the development of Plans takes a lot of time – normally two to three years - and considerable human and financial resources. To succeed, a Plan needs strong and broad political backing and committed leadership, it requires the involvement of the central, regional and local administrations, the active involvement of civil society etc. And the Plan that results from this effort may be difficult to implement because of scarcity of resources and competition with other plans. Under all circumstances, the implementation of the Plan has to be selective, leaving most of the implementation to be undertaken within the regular government development programme, hopefully influenced by the recommendations of the NHRAP.

Alternatives: Alternatives are more limited initiatives- this sentence does not make sense? to improve the human rights situation, like broad programmes for human rights education, the improvement of the justice system or the establishment of a Commission for Human Rights. An alternative for general policy influence may be to try and bring human rights into ongoing policy processes like the PRSP or to make work on the MDGs clearly based on the values and principles of human rights.

Value on NHRAP: Even if the NHRAP would not be the optimal way to improve the human rights situation in a country, the experience of the initiatives supported by HURIST shows that the approach can bring much to recommend it. The experience of the pilot countries is evidence that the preparatory process may have a value of its own. The preparation of a plan can create a forum for dialogue, making people reflect and discuss human rights. It may make human rights visible in a setting where this traditionally has not been the case. An approved plan sends a political signal of the importance of human rights. It can facilitate a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to human rights improvements in contrast to a piecemeal approach consisting of a number of disconnected interventions. It can strengthen the case for action in whatever political and administrative framework that a country finds best suited to its situation. And an implemented Plan, as in Lithuania, seems to be able to bring a genuine improvement in a country’s human rights situation.