ANNUAL REVIEW 2016

GENEVA, 19-23/3 2016

ANNUAL REVIEW 2016 GENEVA, 19-23/3 2016 Author: Mads Gottlieb & Kristine Yigen(DIHR) Report f inal ised and distributed on the 14 th of June, 2016. This report has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibi l ity of the DIHR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/world/

© 2016 The Danish Institute for Human Rights Denmark’s National Human Rights Institution Wilders Plads 8 K 1403 København K Phone 3269 8888 www.menneskeret.dk This publication, or parts of it , may be reproduced if author and source are quoted. At DIHR we aim to make our publications as accessible as possible. We use large font size, short (hyphen -free) l ines, left-aligned text and strong contrast for maximum legibil ity. We are seeking to increase the number of accessible pdfs on our website. For further information about accessibil ity please click www.humanrights.dk/accessibil ity

SI DE HOVE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

1. INTRODUCTION 8

2. DECISIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES 9

3. STEERING COMMITTEE (19/3, 9-12) 11

3.1 Governance 11

3.2 Status of the project 14

3.3 GANHRI update 16

3.4 GANHRI project-budget 17

3.5 Knowledge Management Needs Assessment 17

3.6 Recap of the meeting 19

4. IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (19-20 MARCH) 19

4.1 Project Status (19/3, 14-16) 19

4.2 Organisational Development (20/3, 9 -11.30) 20

4.2.1 Previous assessments of networks 20

4.2.2 Global Knowledge Brokers 21

4.2.3 Balance Scorecard Model 22

4.3 Re-grants (20/3, 11-30-12) 24

4.4 Bilateral talks (20/3, 14 -18) 24

4.4.1 GANHRI 24

4.4.2 APF 26

4.4.3 ENNHRI 27

4.4.4 AMERICAS 29

4.4.4 NANHRI 30

5. NANHRI & AMERICAS ASSEMBLY PRESENTATIONS 30

6. KNOWLEDGE FAIR (MARCH 23) 30

CONTENT

ANNEXES (see separate document) : Annex 1: Description of the Governance structure in the project document Annex 2: NOTES TO ICC (Notes from March, May and October 2015) Annex 3: Meeting Report on the organisation of ICC and funding avai lable to support the development of ICC Annex 4: Terms of reference for two GANHRI posit ions funded by the NHRI.EU project Annex 5: Meeting report, Berlin 2 Annex 6: Knowledge Management Assessment for GANHRI, UNDP (2016) Annex 7: Agenda for Steering committee meeting Annex 8: Agenda for Project Implementation Committee Annex 9: Status of project (memo) Annex 10: Introduction to the project (power point presentation) Annex 11: Re-grants (power point presentation) Annex 12: Visibil ity (power point presentation) Annex 13: Project leaflet Annex 14: Communication with EU on approval of new governance structure

5

ABBREVIATIONS APF DIHR EIDHR ENNHRI GANHRI GIHR GKB ICC NANHRI NHRI NHRI·EU OD OHCHR RED de Americas KMNA SAHRC

Asia Pacif ic Forum for National Human Rights Institutions The Danish Institute for Human Rights European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights European Network of National Human Rights Institutions Global All iance of National Human Rights Institutions German Institute for Human Rights Global Knowledge Brokers International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Network of African National Human Rights Institutions National Human Rights Institutions The name of the project with the longer t it le; “Capacity Building of National Human Rights Institutions Organisational Development Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Americas Network of National Human Rights Institutions Knowledge Management Needs Assessment South African Human Rights Commission

UNDP

United Nations Development Program

6

1 The project has envisaged that the annual review meetings in the two bodies (steering committee and implementation committee) is to take place in connection with the ICC annual general assembly meeting taking advantage of meeting rooms being available at the OHCHR building. However, in 2016 the ICC meeting were planned just before Easter holidays which meant that project meetings could not be executed following the ICC meeting. Thus, the project meetings were held in the weekend prior to the ICC meeting leading to additional costs for rental of meeting rooms.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report summarises f indings and decisions from five meetings

and/or events that took place before and during the 29 th annual ICC General Assembly meeting, Geneva (21-23 March 2016). The main object ive of the mission to Geneva from 18 to 23 of March was to formally launch the ‘Capacity building of NHRIs project (Contract number EIDHR/2015/367542, DIHR project number 15444) during the ICC General assembly meeting and init iate the global governance structure of the project as described in the adopted project document. The project has set up a structure to ensure, on one hand, alignment of strategic direction between the grant holder, co-applicants and other relevant stakeholders and, on the other hand, to coordinate and discuss issues of collective importance, to take place in connection with the annual ICC general assembly and bureau meetings held in Geneva. The two main bodies in the project governance structure respectively the project steering committee and the project implementation committee meeting met to discuss and review the governance structure, provide status of implementation and plan ahead 1. The contract between DG DEVCO and DIHR was signed on November 12, 2015. The meetings brought together all co -applicants for the f irst t ime after contract signatory and the focus of the meetings included:

i . Adoption of the overall governance structure, i i . Discussion of the inception phase and status of

implementation, i i i . Annual planning.

The project was formally launch and presented to the regional networks and exhibited during the ICC knowledge fair . The report summarises key discussions and decisions taken during the meeting and further highlights matters for fol low-up.

7

8

FINDINGS

1. INTRODUCTION In 2014, The European Commission adopted a legal decision to grant funds for capacity development for NHRIs under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Fol lowing a number of consultations and briefings with GANHRI (See Annex 2) in 2015, the project contract between DIHR and the DG DEVCO (EU) was signed on November 12, 2015. The main purposes of the project is to:

Strengthen core funct ions of individual NHRIs focuss ing on selected topics

Support the strengthening of GANHRI and the regional networks and secretariats

The project has f ive co-applicants; i ) GANHRI, i i ) APF, i i i ) NANHRI, v i) ENNHRI and v) the Boliv ian Defensoria del Pueblo, on behalf of the Americas region.

The “Capacity bui lding of NHRIs ” project - named hereafter ‘NHRI·EU ’ –

init ial ly envisaged the establ ishment of two bodies in the governance

structure, respect ively the steering committee and the implementation

committee. See Annex 1 for a Description of the object ive and structure of the

governance model. These two bodies shal l meet annually for a review meeting

in Geneva, Switzer land, in connection with the annual ICC General assembly

meeting.

The f irst annual rev iew was implemented approximately four months into the

project period. The objectives of the annual meetings were as fol lows for the

two bodies:

Steering committee :

Adoption of the overall governance structure Planning of the ICC component as part of the inception phase

9

Coordination with other donor ’s support, specif ically the UNDP knowledge management support

Establishment of a common understanding of the project, including roles and responsibi l it ies of al l co -applicants in relation to implementation of the project’s two main tracks;

o blended learning and re-grants for individual NHRIs, o strengthened global and regional NHRI networks

Implementation Committee :

Establishment of a common understanding of the project document including LFA and governance structure

Provision of detailed status on the project for the regional secretariats on the two tracks of the project viz . blended learning and organisational development

Presentation of the Balance Scorecard Model (BSC) as a potential model for organisational development of the regional networks and secretariats. The BSC is an approach used for analysing organisational development and to assist the co-applicants to understand their needs. The purpose of the presentation was to start a very f irst capacity discussion with each network, and using the model to get a better understanding of urgent and long-term needs. The Global Knowledge Brookers ’ consultants presented the BSC and led the interviews with the regional secreta riats.

Following the review meetings, the project was presented during the general assembly meetings for the African and Americas network (chapter 5) and during the knowledge fair (chapter 6). The knowledge fair allowed individual NHRIs to present a project that they are working on to other NHRIs. The expected outcome of the exhibition for DIHR, was to raise awareness about the blended learning packages and the re -grants that becomes avai lable for individual NHRIs , and to get NHRIs to participate in the learning needs assessment for the blended learning.

2. DECISIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ISSUES 2.1 KEY DECISIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

1) A new organisation f or GANHRI is in the process of being adopted, see Annex 3 . The project has to support this process

10

2) ICC has decided to change name/ brand to GANHRI. The new name was formally adopted on ICC29. The NHRI.EU project will use the new name GANHRI

3) A new GANHRI organisation and statutory amendments have been proposed to the bureau following consultations in the GANHRI structure and with the incoming new chair from GIHR. Upon adoption, the project will fund two newly establ ished GANHRI positions established to lead the secretariat and ensure f inancial management and compliance . ToR for the two posit ions are attached as Annex 4

4) Inception phase activit ies included two preparatory meetings in Berl in. The consultations has formed part of the inception phase to clarify exact needs of GANHRI ( formerly ICC). Meeting reports in Annex 5

5) UNDP has on behalf of GANHRI conducted a knowledge management needs assessment and the NHRI.EU project will upon recommendations from the steering committee include support for knowledge management measures in the GANHRI component of the project. The assessment is annexed as Annex 6

6) A review of the governance structure by the steering committee recommends that the Advisory Panel in the project governance structure described in the project document should be merged with the steering committee to include regional networks also in the

steering committee. The external stakeholders such as OHCHR, UNDP will be invited for a second externally open part of the steering committee meeting. DIHR wil l address the issue with DEVCO to ensure such adjustmen t can take place in the governance structure. The adjustment has no budgetary consequence as regional network have already budgeted for two persons attending the meetings.

7) As a result, the future steering Committee wi l l include chairs from the regional networks in addition to exist ing members. DIHR to draft terms for the changed SC role and composition .

8) The implementation Committee remains as it is . 2.2 FOLLOW-UP MATTERS AND APPROVAL OF CHANGES

DEVCO has approved the change in the governance structure (annex 14)

Two positions for GANHRI have been advertised and job interviews wil l take place in June 2016.

11

3. STEERING COMMITTEE (19/3, 9-12) The agenda and part icipants l ist is attached as annex 7. DIHR introduced the project ’s objectives, main act ivit ies and the intervention logic (annex 10) for the project . The co-applicants have had many discussions with the EU to raise awareness of the importance and needs of the networks. A current visible indicator of the success of this work is that EU has capacity building of NHRIs as one of the top priorit ies in their EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015-2019.

3.1 GOVERNANCE

Advisory Panel : The composition and role of the Panel was discussed. It was decided that t he exact composition must be approved by the steering committee , and suggestions for participants were given (such as GANHRI chair, and regional chairs and directors of secretariats). After further discussions, it was agreed that we merge the advisory panel and the steering committee into one body. Regions and externals are invited for the second part of the meeting, where the focus wil l be on knowledge sharing and updating on the project status.

The Steering Committee (SC) is the main governance body, but is

not accountable to EU. DIHR is the project owner and therefore the ultimate responsible entity and therefore chairs the SC meeting.

The reporting l ine between the SC and the Implementation Committee (IC) was discussed, and whether the SC can decide on how the IC spends funds. It was agreed that the s teering committee advises according to thematic priorit ies.

The relationship between the GANHRI Bureau and the two governance bodies (SC and IC) was also discussed, and it was suggested to ensure that the project is al igned t o the GANHRI Bureau ’s strategic thinking. GANHRI chair is responsible for l iaising

with bureau-members to ask if they want annual updates. The GANHRI Bureau meets twice a year, and needs owne rship of

the project. The GANHRI members of the SC should therefore discuss the project with the GANHRI bureau before the annual SC meeting. The bureau ’s feedback can potentially change the

12

direction of the project as much as possible within the contractual possibi l it ies provided by the EU.

Important to come up with a structure that can be easily transferred to GANHRI since the idea is that GANHRI becomes a main applicant in the next phase of the project, (in relation to GANHRI capacity development) which makes it important to consider the l inks between the SC an d the GANHRI Bureau.

The power relation between GANHRI Bureau and the regions was also discussed. The regions are independent and equal to GANHRI in the project. Regions are represented in the GANHRI Bureau, and

it was therefore suggested to have regions as full members in the SC. It was however agreed to only include regions in the session of the SC that is for externals, and then to have regions exercise their influence through the GANHRI bureau meetings.

The Implementation Committee ( IC) was requested to report to

the SC twice a year. KYI reminded that IC only meets once a year, but has regular telephone conversations and also meets bilaterally.

It was agreed that DIHR adjusts terms for the changed governance bodies and structure. The new organogram is shown on next page, while the original organogram is attached as annex 1.

13

Figure 1 : Organogram as agreed on Steering Committee Meeting

Table 1 : Description of the new organogram

Body Composition Functions

Programme Director

DIHR Executive Director

Final decision-making authority and accountability to EU

Steering Committee

1. DIHR International Director (Chairing)

2. GANHRI Chair

The Steering Committee is a mechanism for:

14

3. GANHRI Secretary 4. NANHRI Chair 5. ENNHRI Chair 6. APF Chair 7. Red de Americas

Chair 8. Selected External

stakeholders for the open session: UNDP, OHCHR and donors

a) Deciding on the overall strategic and political direction of the programme

b) Informing the GANHRI about the programme

c) Providing accountability of the programme within the GANHRI

The steering Committee further calls for an open session - as a separate part of the Steering Committee Meeting. Selected external stakeholders are called by invitation, to be informed about the programme, to provide feedback and input, and to identify synergies and opportunities for coordination to other programmes supporting NHRIs.

Implementation Committee

1. DIHR Project Manager (Chair)

2. Co-Applicant 1 3. Co-Applicant 2 4. Co-Applicant 3 5. Co-Applicant 4 6. Co-Applicant 5 7. DIHR Project

Manager 8. DIHR Project

Economist

The Implementation Committee is the mechanism with the responsibility for:

a) Project Management b) Deciding on overall priorities in

line with the EIDHR programme document and legal basis

c) Deciding on any deviations from programme document. The Implementation Committee can alter components, outcomes and outputs

d) Implementation e) Donor Reporting f) Financial Reporting

Secretary to the Committees

DIHR Project Management Unit

The Secretary is a mechanism for preparing and reporting on the annual review meetings. Logistics are handled by each individual participant.

3.2 STATUS OF THE PROJECT DIHR gave an update on developments in the project since signing the contract and a memo describing the status of the project was circulated.

15

(Annex 9). The project follows three main tracks, which is being referred to as Blended Learning (Result 1 & 2), Organisat ional Development (Result 3) and Project Management (Result 4). Figure 2 : An overview of the project’s results and main activit ies

16

On Organisational Development , the importance of using existing analysis and assessments was underlined. The Knowledge Management Needs Assessment conducted by UNDP will be taken into considerat ion in recommendations in the OD-process. The baseline that this project develops can then focus on additional areas. The Knowledge Management Needs Assessment focuses on GANHRI, and not the regions. I t is important for GANHRI to get clarif ication on which of the recommendations this project can pay for (agreed and see chapter 3.5) . UNDP later plans to implement the KMNA recommendations, but their t imeframe is longer (at least one year ahead) due to a current lack of budget. The baseline study has not been init iated yet, since consultants needs to be hired through a procurement process . Prior to this, identif ication of the needs / direction should take place in order for DIHR to ensure a n appropriate procurement process with correct specif ications. It is expected that the procurement process wil l take place in July depending also on when the new GANHRI staff s are hired. Issues such as clar if ication on whether four regional baseline studies will be conducted and a global , or just one global covering all f ive partners are sti l l pending. Two specif ic OD consultants were invited for the IC meeting to assist the process, ensure feedback and input to that process.

3.3 GANHRI UPDATE UNDP has prepared an ideal budget for GANHRI, which sums to 12 mill . USD. UNDP wants to assist GANHRI to fundraise. UNDP told GANHRI that they might have 170,000 USD for GANHRI in 2016. UNDP wants to sign a one-year agreement starting from April 2016 that includes funds for the tri-partite meeting and the proposed special representative function. On the staffing side, GANHRI suggest to hire a special representative with a high profile that knows how to act in the network and in the international community. This EU-grant already has funds for two staff members, which will be a daily operations manager and a f inance assistant. The GANHRI budget, including the three new positions (of which two are funded by this project), wi l l be presented for the ICC Bureau meeting. Job profiles has been circulated. UNDP has been asked to provide office space for GANHRI in Geneva , but UNDP would incorporate the funds into the budget if possible.

17

3.4 GANHRI PROJECT-BUDGET The budget was presented by Michael Windführ, GIHR. Questions/comments:

Who decides how the 100,000 € for organisational development are used? Can they be used for implementation of the KMNA recommendations?

SC generally decides the direction of the GANHRI project, and indirectly, how money is spent. DIHR sti l l has to secure that decisions follows the project objectives and as long as they do, DIHR will approve/recommended decisions made by SC.

It was mentioned that SC only meets annually, and we need decision-making processes that doesn’t stop implementation.

3.5 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT The KMNA recommendations was reviewed. The relevance of each of the 23 recommendations was compared to the projects objective and a joint analysis of all the needs was thereafter made. It was assessed that an admin or intern can implement some recommendations, while others needs a communication specialist and a separate budget. The exact budget for many activit ies is sti l l unknown, but the review went as below. Table 2: Matrix of review and decisions. Numbers in the table refers to the 23 recommendations from the report (annex 6).

KMNA Re-commendations

High priority* Potential ** Not supported ***

Necessary Groundwork

3) general office impediments

1) mediation through discussions 2) mutual understanding of mandate

Communication 5) global communication protocol 7) links between websites

4) Consolidating mailing lists 6) taking translation serious

18

Knowledge Management

8) virtual intranet space

9) mitigation plan for transition period

Knowledge Services

15) webinars 14) implement recommendations from accreditation process 18) online discussions 19) GANHRI blog

10) formulate a menu of GANHRI services 11) managing requests centrally 13) contact information list 16) experience with new formats at events 17) facilitated peer advice sessions

Knowledge Products

20) develop new knowledge products 21) promote existing products 22) FAQ on the role of NHRIs and GANHRI 23) good practice examples and cases on accreditation

*) High priority means that the recommendation is considered high priority and/or urgency for GANHRI, that it falls within the project s’ objectives and that no other funding sources have been identif ied yet. **) Potential means that the recommendation is considered less important by GANHRI to implement now and under this project, but the recommendation falls within the projects’ objectives and other funding sources have not been identif ied yet. ***) Not supported means that the recommendation is not going to be supported by this project, either because it is of least importance to GANHRI, or that it is not within the project’s objectives , or that another funding source has already been identif ied.

19

3.6 RECAP OF THE MEETING

GANHRI suggests that GKB looks at the KMNA as a start ing point for the OD-process with GANHRI , but GANHRI are open to additional recommendations .

SAHRC staff continues to support GANHRI during the transition period and coordinate the budget, and terms of reference needs to be developed. DIHR and GANHRI to f ind a solution to SAHRC staff.

4. IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (19-20 MARCH)

4.1 PROJECT STATUS (19/3, 14-16) As an introduction to the IC meeting, the key decisions taken at the SC meeting was recapped. The project ’s objectives, main activit ies and expected outcomes was presented before informing about the status of the project , the re-grants and the vis ibil i ty requirements and opportunities (see chapter 3.2 and annex 10-12) DIHR then outlined the timeline and upcoming process within the blended learning and organisational development area. The following feedback were given:

APF reminds that they have well -established e-courses and blended learning projects, and that they would l ike to use their existing platform and software that they recently invested in (e.g. a software that translates e-courses to Arabic). APF further asks to roll planned courses by using their existing e-courses, workshops and sub-grants (5,000 € each)

ENNHRI says that they have l imited experience with blended learning, but are positive after giving their input to the Learning Needs Assessment (LNA). ENNHRI mentions the importance of regional adaptations of courses . ENNHRI further asked for clarity on how the strengthening of the networks will be implemented, and whether they can begin with their accreditation advi ce and international presence. The OD-process is to clarify this matter.

NANHRI suggests that we focus more on the bilateral support to NHRIs (re-grants), which was decreased in the application process. NANHRI says that it becomes diff icult to measure the impact to NHRIs now. On reporting, NANHRI say s that they lack capacity,

20

especially when it comes to EU-grants. NANHRI also says EU are f lexible when it comes to no-cost extensions and that we should init iate a dialogue with the EU sooner rather than later.

4.2 ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (20/3, 9-11.30)

4.2.1 PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF NETWORKS

Michael Windfuhr from the German NHRI presented the KMNA and its main recommendations for the regions. The KMNA is not adopted yet, so it is not for circulation. The large focus on communication was underlined, including that some of the recommendations relates to basic, but urgent infrastructure needs, while others requires a communication expert or even strategy to implement. The KMNA is only for GANHRI, but GKB can also include the regions views.

APF comments on the importance of looking at the relationship between ICC and the OHCHR (1 s t recommendation), which is a matter that has remained un resolved for many chairperson periods.

ENNHRI suggest GANHRI to consider how they engage EU and uses EU ’s large focus on NHRIs in the ir newly adopted action plan. EUs approach is to build up NHRI-staff’s knowledge, but we need consistency within the NHRI-network before we can approach EU, that looks at the global picture. EU does a mid-term report on their action plan in 2017. Recommends that we look at the GANHRI future office structure this week, and postpones discussions with the EU for later .

After GANHRI presented the KMNA, the other regions was asked to mention previous assessments and OD recommendations, and further gave some general feedback to the implementation of both objective 1 and 2 (Blended Learning), and Objective 3 (OD of networks).

APF has a program for implementing blended learning, and the y have lots of pre-analysis that we can use. APF has concerns about the indicative timelines, especially on blended learning, since they already have own e-courses and projects.

On OD, APF prefers a focus on implement ing a newly prepared recommendation on a better monitoring and evaluation framework that focuses on measuring APF’s impact on NHRIs protection and promotion of HR via their blended learning and capacity bui lding projects .

21

ENNHRI reminds that they have some very time -sensitive needs, and further commented that it is very important to consider regional perspectives when implementing the KMNA. GANHRI agrees and says that they would l ike to include regions feedbacks in their process.

GKB believes that their approach is f lexible, and also mentions that they are experts on EU funding, reporting and on measuring impact. Also says that they are open to get feedback from regions on how they understand the process.

4.2.2 GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE BROKERS

The two consultants (Morten Schmidt and Martin Dickler) introduced themselves. They shared their personal CVs and the self- introduction is therefore not summarised here. GKB is a network of 15 independent consultants (Americas, Europe, Asia and beginning to get some in Africa). They don’t see themselves as typical consultants and they mainly work with CSOs and networks. GKB refers to the McKinsey model and explain s how the balance scorecard differs. MS also informs that he knows Marie Louise Muff from DIHR from way back, and that that is how he got involved in the project. GKB underlines that they have massive e xperience in handling EU contracts . The two consultants underlines that they have experience working with organisations in crisis, such as Danish NGOs that had 20%-50% cutbacks, e.g. one of the reasons why they had to close down their Latin-America activit ies, and those reductions meant that the institutional set -up changed. Performance gap s is important knowledge when you design what you want to achieve. GANHRI comments that the complex structures in the NHRI system and the UN system is a good reason for doing OD. GKB says it is important not to do changes as an escape from the daily work, which some institutions do, and because they think change is easier than actually achieving what they should. OD can be a distraction, if not planned properly. Many OD models tries to adapt organisations to models, rather than adapting models to organisations. Organisations has to adapt to clients’ needs and the reason for doing OD is to make it possible to del iver to clients. OD in itself is not the purpose, and it is important to include exist ing assessments. GKB can coach and facil itate in trying to identify needs and priorit ies, but organisations has to do the

22

work. First priority is to strengthen regional secretariats, and potentially to strengthen regional secretariats abi l ity to capacity b uild NHRIs on OD in the future.

4.2.3 BALANCE SCORECARD MODEL

The Balance Scorecard Model (BSC) is a 20-year-old proven model, which gives a holistic picture of the organisation and the different roles that it is performing. The BSC is not just another OD analysis , but identif ies concrete wishes, indicators, baseline, reporting requirements to EU and prepares a baseline of the organisat ions needs and starting point. A network can become a project -organisation, via members, if the members demands it. GANHRI reminds that their mandate goes beyond servicing NHRIs, i .e. to also protect and promote Human Rights internationally via the international systems and mechanisms . Regions might have different views, but it is important not to circle around oneself. DIHR says that there is not necessarily any contradictions, but it is important to remember. APF says that they have a clear theory of change with a target of having effective NHRIs that protects and promotes human rights nationally, where APFs role is to enable NHRIs to fulf i l that role. APF also understand that GANHRI might have a different approach especially because of their tr ipartite relationship. APF also suggests that the OD process looks at the collective voice in regions and globally . APF believes that the BSC model represents customers as too simple, and says that regions does not refer to GANHRI, but are indepen dent. GANHRI is probably constrained because they are not able to guide regions. The fact is also that APF is currently stronger as an institution than GANHRI, but GANHRI is actually the bigger player . This project has the opportunity of addressing this issue. GANHRI secretary, who worked at al l three levels (nat ional, regional and global) during the past years, bel ieves that the networks roles should be to nationally ensure credible and effective national institutions, to regional ly ensure credible organisations ensuring credible NHRIs , and globally that GANHRI becomes respected on the policy- level and impacts international human rights obligations. GANHRI secretary recognises that

23

the NHRI world is unique and challenging, but also a f lexible structu re that needs to be developed and nurtured. GANHRI says that NHRIs already has a collective voice and believes that GANHRI should talk on behalf of all , but not dictating anything. Networks can’t only look at national needs and s ecure that those are fulf i l led. An example is that al l countries would say that they have important national needs and overlooks international issues such as SDGs. ENNHRI believes that regions and GANHRI are interdependent of each other, and regions would not be sitt ing here without GANHRI. GKB remind that a secretariat consists of all the BSC’s four key-areas (f inance, customers, internal, people). BSC is not just a model for reacting to members needs and f eels that the complexity of the global NHRI network can be merged into the balance scorecard model. GKB also says that they have a broadened picture and understanding of the work to be done. GKB says that it is important to include exist ing assessments, and ensure that starting points are adapted to the regions/GANHRI start ing points. Cross-ferti l isation is not replication - don’t count on consultants to run the process, it has to be networks themselves. Each scorecards becomes

individual action plans . Always change scorecards when strategies are changed. Follow-up is more important than the planning itself . GKB rounds of the agenda item by saying that vision and mission is at the centre of everything GKB they do, and then gave two examples on previous BSC analysis . GANHRI questions that most indicator targets in the two examples are numbers, and that we need qualitative targets. Do we engage in the right way and do we have the impact we want? GKB agrees and says that some of the indicators had to be revised because they were hitting h eads against walls with numbers. GKB believes that the OD-process is mult i- layered, because of the regions relationship to members and the layer of protecting and promoting HR at regional and international levels (collective voices). The next step is therefore to do an analysis of the regions view on their own roles and responsibi l it ies. GKB also feared that most networks would jump directly to quick f ixes. One example is that stress is not only a matter of lacking

24

resources, but equal ly important to ask oneself on why there is a feeling of stress i .e. are we doing the right things in the most efficient manner. Technical f ixes is the easy solution and what most do, but luckily, not the solution that seems relevant based on these discussions. GKB finally believes that the KMNA should be seen as an analysis for al l networks, but that the regions are a bit overlooked. GANHRI says that they have an upcoming strategy process, which they hope the OD process can feed into, which GKB believes is an excellent suggestion.

4.3 RE-GRANTS (20/3, 11-30-12) The presentation is attached as Annex 11. APF repeated their concerns about the timeline and asked for f lexibi l ity . DIHR agrees and says that we are f lexible on the way forward and doesn’t want to stop projects that are ready. GANHRI commented that we might not need to send the re -grants via the regional networks. DIHR responded that we don’t have to, and that DIHR can manage them. DIHR explains that channelling re-grants via networks might be a way to position the networks and getting networks ready to run similar processes in the future.

4.4 BILATERAL TALKS (20/3, 14-18) After presenting the Balanced Scorecard Model, all network secretariats met with the consultant for discussions on what kind of organisational priorit ies and needs they have and secondly a short discussion on how they see the BSC model in this process.

4.4.1 GANHRI

Partic ipants from GIHR, SAHRC, Costa Rica, Scottish HRC, ICC permanent secretariat, GKB and DIHR Feedback on the BSC model by GANHRI:

Not much new in terms of approach BSC is a very comprehensive model for a secretariat that has low

capacity to organise and follow-up.

25

ICC has few and cheap, but urgent needs, and they prefer to begin by solving those and GKB could then come back to GANHRI one year later, after the office is functional.

GANHRI is to begin a strategic planning process in Apri l GANHRI hopes that the staff from SAHRC can stay during the

transition period. DIHR supports this idea. GANHRI is in a phase where they need to have resources directed

to them, while trying to build the secretariats organisation. Also questioning whether the method is entirely internal, and whether it can accommodate the complexity within the global system

GANHRI expressed concerns that we shouldn’t de stroy what already exists by a new and comprehensive assessment

GANHRI is in a change-process and has had on-going talks about similar processes with UNDP. They will communicate this proposal to the ICC/GANHRI bureau.

The Sub-Committee for Accreditation’s (SCA) processes cannot be ignored when looking at the GANHRI structure

Judith: Fundraising and how to engage with donors and coordinated fundraising etc. might be a priority for GANHRI. BSC looks l ike the same process that would be run for any multination al corporation, so an excellent knowledge base when it comes to branding and communication. Neil worked on it for months. Johannes only spent two weeks on his assessment.

GKB response to the feedback:

GKB prefers not to do things globally without l inking to the regional. Can be a good idea to begin with regions, but GANHRI process must not be seen as a response.

The methodology is internal, but more complex than only looking at NHRIs. Also has to include OHCHR and international systems.

The approach can also be used for multinational corporations, which are more complex than the NHRI-system, so the model can be used. The model can also be used to facil itate a strategic planning process.

Agrees that GANHRI needs clarity on roles and that they need assistance in facil itating needs, but does not agree that they have to wait until a new office is ful ly in place.

Follow-up:

26

DIHR agrees with GANHRI for a solution on staff during the transition period that needs to joint planning.

GANHRI (Michael) wi l l come back on the OD-process after April , once they know more about the strategic process .

DIHR reminds that we should do a k ick-off once new staffs are hired.

4.4.2 APF

DIHR introduces by acknowledging that APF is not in a survival mode, and that it seems that APF has M&E as a possible focus area for this project.

APF agrees and says that they probably didn’t do proper M&E in the past. They recently got an evaluation from SIDA on their impact and the lack of

measuring it . APF says they now have a framework that a joint donor-group recently approved. But APF would l ike to assist their members on better M&E frameworks and creat ing synergies in t he region. GKB requested feedback from the presentation in the morning, and asked how APF sees the scorecard as f itt ing APFs needs. APF says that the model does not contain any major surprises, and further says that many of their members are not typical ly seen in the

donor-community, such as Qatar, India and South Korea. APFs further went on to explain their organisat ion. APF has an annual budget of 2,5 mill . Aus. $, which probably increases to 3 mil l . Aus. $ soon. APF has six staff members. They have three institutions that currently seeks memberships, bringing the total number up to 22. The NHRIs in their region range from institutions with 20 to 650 staff , and the average is probably around 250. T he 3 NHRIs (Iraq, Bahrain and Pakistan) that applied needs to be accredited before they can become members. APF thereafter do their own assessment, but have never turned down NHRIs. Language is a barrier, and everything has to be translated to Arabic. APF opens up a sub-regional office in Qatar, with currently one identif ied staff. The main role of the office will be to identify Arabic

speaking experts and to establish and maintain context-knowledge from the region. APF has 6 Arabic-speaking members. APF also coordinates their Southeast Asian activit ies from Jakarta. APF recently had a joint

donor coordination evaluation, which they will share with DIHR and GKB. APF currently manages an EU-funded project focusing on prevention of

27

torture that ends this year. They won the grant via a competitive negotiation in competition with CSOs. GKB asks about APFs internal staff management and governance, and APF informs that each staff members has a staff development plan and holds annual meetings and biannual follow-up meetings with their Director (Kieren). A board that consists of chairs and directors from all member NHRIs oversees the Director . The board is for the f irst t ime ever, g oing through a governance review because decision-making has become increasingly complex with the increasing number of members that

currently stands at 19 . The board will be reduced to 5 people, who has to be elected. APF says that they have the staff ready for them to implement the blended learning part of the project from now, and that they hope that the starting date can be in June, where they plan to begin with their Human Rights Education (HRE) project. APF’s “projects” means e-learning, face-to-face and sub-grants. DIHR to respond to APF ASAP on the starting date. DIHR suggest a kick-off meeting in May 2016, but APF has to come back with a f inal answer.

4.4.3 ENNHRI

ENNHRI believes that the BSC model is a good method, but that ENNHRI had new staff the last couple of months and that their offices capacity has been constantly challenged. ENNHRI believes that they need OD more than others, and are aware that they need to focus on this, but that they also have their l imits. ENNHRI believes that fundraising, governance and communication would be key OD-areas. On governance, ENNHRI prefers a wide approach, and they see Knowledge Management as a solution to address governance and communication .

ENNHRI has 5 staff and 2 trainees, but only had one staff some months back. ENNHRI believes that they need a n additional staff as a development officer. ENNHRI has 40 paying members and they have two EU-grants besides this one (one signed and one pending ).

28

ENNHRI further explains that they already has a lot of OD/Objective 3 related expenses in their budget for the year, and that they already had a governance assessment prepared. ENNHRI informed that they do have policies and procedures for staff, but also lacks resources to implement additional new pol icies . ENNHRI started to allocate tasks within the secretariat. The budget and the l ist of policies that ENNHRI recently developed wil l be shared with DIHR after the meeting.

Debbie reminds that ENNHRI have immediate needs this year, which could be implemented while we carry out the BSC analysis. Under capacity bui lding 3.1.2, ENNHRI suggests accounting software , under accreditation 3.1.3 & International presence 3.1.4, they suggests immediate funds for travel expenses. DIHR says that we st i l l need to coordinate better, and that a lot of the information given is new. DIHR also says that ENNHRI should not focus only on surviving the next few months, but should consider long -term initiatives. ENNHRI says that they have much more funds next year, so timing is sensitive which is why they need urgent needs covered now.

DIHR reminds that funds from this project is targeted support to the long-term sustainabi l ity of ENNHRI and if ENNHRI feels otherwise, then we have to coordinate better and solve that. GKB asks ENNHRI how we best support on-going work that is already happening. How do ENNHRI support their members while all these guidelines are being developed? ENNHRI says that they will st i l l be growing the next couple of years, and that they know that DIHR invested a lot of t ime in ensuring proper project management, but that ENNHRI have urgent needs. DIHR suggested ENNHRI to send a clear plan, in addition to their report

for the f irst quarter soon, before we can continue moving forward, but ENNHRI says that they sti l l wait for feedback on their input sent in June 2015.

29

4.4.4 AMERICAS

The Costa Rican Ombudsman (Montserrat Solano) represented the Americas network in the absence of the Bolivian . The Americas main challenge is the language barrier, because most from the Bolivian Ombudsman only speaks Spanish. Past project -discussions only happened with Bolivian Ombudsman and did not involve the region, which could have solved the language issue as well . Montserrat asked DIHR to make a presentation of the project during the Americas regional

meeting two days later (chapter 5). Costa Rica asked DIHR where we are in terms of the process with the Bolivian Ombudsman, and DIHR informed that we are in contact with Bolivia, and have agreed on a f irst meeting in week 17. We wil l do a f irst capacity assessment of the Bolivians in terms of f inding out if they are capable of fulf i l l ing that role and if they have polit ical support from the region. Costa Rica raised concern about having an extremely strong Bolivian Ombudsman with a dual role, outcompeting other NHRIs in the region. If the other members don’t want a regional secretariat , then w e have to look for alternatives. GANHRI asked Costa Rica to identify what they think Americas need as a region and what they are looking for and what type of support. A rotating chairperson office was mentioned as a model. DIHR suggested some sort of a virtual solution as a good option for knowledge-sharing in the Americas network, and Costa Rica believes that that idea will be well received by the network. GKB was interested in their reaction to the balance scorecard approach given the current situation. Costa Rica would l ike a permanent structure, but the region is against that and prefers something else. Costa Rica mentions that we need to build up trust, and an example is the fact that we didn’t try to engage Bolivia until almost 6 months into the project, so they urge us to do it now and to explain the project properly. Costa Rica also recommends that we establish personal contact with Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica immediately. DIHR mentions that it was always part of our plan, but that this is the f irst opportunity

30

for us to do so is now. Costa Rica also reminds that one of the biggest opponents of a regional secretariat used to be Bolivia .

4.4.4 NANHRI

NANHRI had a regional meeting on the same day as the OD took place (March 20), so the bi lateral meeting had to be rescheduled. Instead, the following was agreed at a short 20-minutes meeting at the end of the day:

DIHR presents the project at the NANHRI general assembly meeting Outstanding partner contract details to be clarif ied this week, and

signed shortly after Easter. GKB presents the BSC-model via skype on the 31 s t of March DIHR and NANHRI continues objective 3 talks at the kick-off

meeting in May (24-26)

5. NANHRI & AMERICAS ASSEMBLY PRESENTATIONS DIHR was asked to present the project at the African and the Americas network meetings, and in addition handed o ut the project leaflets (annex 13). Few quest ions asked; one asked for clarif ication on the division of budgets between the four regions and GANHRI, and other questions focused on further clarif ication on the re -grants; i .e. the amount, the timeline and the purpose. It was explained that we have 16 re -grants ( i .e. 4 for each region), each with an average amount of 15,000 €. We expect the implementation to start end of 2017, and the plan is to al low NHRIs - who participated in the blended learning process - to get f inancial resources for national follow-up interventions within the four thematic areas.

6. KNOWLEDGE FAIR (MARCH 23) DIHR used the knowledge fair to get in contact with NHRIs to inform them about the projects opportunities (Blended Learning and Re -grants), and to get NHRIs involved in the learning needs assessment process.

31

The project leaflet is attached as annex 13, while the picture below shows how the knowledge fair took place, and what material DIHR presented. Picture 1 : DIHR’s project exhibition during the Knowledge Fair

32