CHAPTER 6: SITUATING NHRI SUPPORT IN THE UN PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS Please refer to Figure 2 (page 93), for a description of the analytic framework within which the UNDAF is developed. Please refer to section 6.5, below, for a discussion on Country Programmes. Further discussion on the UNDAF, including detail on its development, content and significance is found in the Guidelines, in particular Part 3, Strategic Planning. Information on monitoring and evaluating a UNDAF is found in the Guidelines, Part 4 Monitoring and Evaluation. 6.4.1 NHRIs and the UNDAF NHRIs should be engaged as partner institutions in the development of the UNDAF. In particular, it is important to ask the NHRI to provide comment on the draft Results Matrix, which forms the core of the UNDAF. Their experience and expertise will enhance the Matrix design. The NHRI should also be identified as the partner institution for any programme activity that will support the NHRI directly, in addition to any other programme initiatives to which the NHRI may make a useful contribution. UNCTs should keep in mind the need to support cooperation and collaboration between human rights stakeholders as a way to promote better, faster and cheaper service, as well as a way to build linkages between government and non-government sectors. If there is no NHRI, UNCTs must identify appropriate partner institutions for programming geared towards the establishment of a NHRI. (See Chapter 7 for details on the pre-establishment phase, in particular, the section dealing with “Supporting a National Process: Steps and Strategies”.) 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. >> Example: Audit Findings of the UNDAF for Uganda 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)” 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. 111