have been achieved or exceeded, the coordinating committee and relevant agencies should highlight this in the plan’s media and information dissemination programmes. In this way, the value of the plan will be more widely accepted and support will increase. Where targets are not achieved, the approach should be a realistic one. Recriminations should be avoided and steps taken to establish the reason for the shortcomings. Reasons may include unrealistic time frames, inadequate resources, insufficient political support or organizational inadequacies. It may be considered with hindsight that the original targets were excessively vague or inherently unattainable. Whatever the assessment of the reasons for shortcomings, both the coordinating committee and the agency concerned should develop proposals to deal with them. Some organizations may not feel comfortable with what amounts to an external evaluation of its human rights performance. In any exchanges on the subject it should be borne in mind that the evaluation concerns only what the organization itself freely agreed to aim at in the plan. Nevertheless, some coordinating committees may experience difficulties in ensuring that the process of evaluation leads to sufficient attention to areas where shortcomings are identified. This underscores the value of having as chairperson of the committee an individual who has the necessary personal qualities and standing to take up difficult issues with heads of organizations and political leaders. Informal evaluation In addition to this more formal approach, which will constitute the central monitoring vehicle, all those involved should scrutinize the effectiveness of the plan as it unfolds and should not hesitate to take action where shortcomings are apparent. Key figures such as the chairperson and members of the coordinating committee or the focal agency will acquire a good understanding, through their involvement in the plan’s implementation, of the successes and shortcomings of the process. Their insights should form part of the dialogue aimed at improving the plan’s implementation. In addition to formal processes of evaluation, a multiplicity of activities and events will contribute to an understanding of the success of the plan. Individual agencies will provide information through their own ongoing evaluation and reporting systems. In an open society, NGOs, community organizations, the media, political organizations and others will not hesitate to draw attention to any shortcomings in the plan’s implementation. Such informal evaluations should be accepted in an open-minded spirit, without recourse to a combative defensiveness. Revising plans before completion As a plan proceeds, modifications will probably be required in at least some areas. Where objectives have not been achieved, some adjustment to proposed activities will be needed such as the application of more resources, changes in working methods, revision of timetables or perhaps amendment of objectives. As suggested above, this will be the responsibility of the coordinating committee. The committee should be careful not to allow a situation to arise in which implementation falls short of the 96