11. Monitoring A national human rights action plan should be approached in much the same way as any other government programme. It should thus contain objectives, strategies, programmes of implementation, resource provisions and mechanisms for evaluation. One of the main concerns of a national plan is to move human rights activity from the realm of idealism and rhetoric into the realm of practice and routine. This is not to argue that idealism and inspiring rhetoric have no place in human rights promotion: quite the contrary. But so long as human rights are regarded as a field in which results are produced by methods outside normal government processes, such processes will not be effectively used to promote and protect human rights. Human rights will tend to be left in the hands of those who do not have the means to bring about human rights improvements directly. As the Bolivian plan states, “[Human rights objectives] must … become a permanent component of ... state policy.” An essential component of any programme of organizational action is a regular and dispassionate process of evaluation. Experience in many areas has demonstrated that activity without objectives and evaluation tends to be both ineffective and selfperpetuating. Stating of objectives amounts to little more than rhetoric if they are not accompanied by a process of evaluating the activities aimed at implementing them. Most contemporary organizations, in both the public and private sectors, are aware of these potential problems. Many seek to ensure that their programmes are productive by developing detailed implementing plans, including targets, and providing for regular monitoring. Where necessary, plans or activities are revised in the light of the monitoring and evaluation process. There is a need to evaluate both ongoing plan processes and the plan as a whole. In this Handbook, “monitoring” refers to the ongoing process of assessing the effectiveness of the plan, while “evaluation” refers to its overall assessment and the results achieved. Reference is made below to the national coordinating committee as the body responsible for monitoring implementation. However, experience has shown that it may be more appropriate and cost-effective to entrust this function to other preexisting bodies such as a human rights commission, an inter-ministerial committee or a ministry responsible for human rights. 11.1 Monitoring and reporting techniques and mechanisms From the point at which a national action plan is proposed and developed, all players should accept that monitoring and evaluation mechanisms must be incorporated in the plan as an essential component. The national coordinating committee or other designated follow-up body should be the primary mechanism for maintaining an effective monitoring process. A prototype of such a process will emerge at the development stage of the plan, as implementing 94