32/51 Report of the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights



Human Rights Council Thirty-second session

Agenda item 10

Technical assistance and capacity-building

Report of the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights*

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 18/18,

in which the Council invited the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations

Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights to present a

comprehensive report on the Board’s work on an annual basis, starting from the twentieth

session of the Council. It provides an update on the work of the Board of Trustees of the

Fund since the previous report of the Chair of the Board (A/HRC/29/48).

* The annexes to the present report are circulated as received.

Contents

Page

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

A. Background .............................................................................................................................. 3

B. Mandate ................................................................................................................................... 3

II. Activities and results of the Voluntary Fund and the Board of Trustees .......................................... 4

A Forty-second session (Geneva) ................................................................................................ 4

B. Forty-second session (Ukraine) ............................................................................................... 6

III. Technical cooperation ...................................................................................................................... 8

A. Technical cooperation to reflect national development objectives .......................................... 8

B. Synergy and partnerships with other United Nations entities .................................................. 11

C. Measuring results of technical cooperation, and the response of the Office of

the High Commissioner .......................................................................................................... 12

D. Main findings, challenges identified and recommendations .................................................... 13

IV. Status of funding and donors ............................................................................................................ 13

Annexes

I. Voluntary Fund and expenditure trends: 2008 to 2015 ................................................................... 15

II. Voluntary Fund cost plan and expenditure: 2015 ............................................................................. 16

III. Financial status of the Voluntary Fund: 2015 .................................................................................. 17

IV. List of donors and contributors: 2015 .............................................................................................. 18

I. Introduction

A. Background

1. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of

Human Rights, established by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1993/87,

receives voluntary contributions from Governments, organizations and individuals. The

objective of the Fund is to provide financial support for technical cooperation aimed at

building and strengthening national and regional institutions, legal frameworks and

infrastructures that will have a positive long-term impact on the implementation of

international human rights standards.

2. The Board of Trustees has been operational since 1993 and its members are

appointed by the Secretary-General for a three-year renewable term. The mandate of the

Board is to assist the Secretary-General in streamlining and rationalizing the working

methods and procedures of the technical cooperation programme. It meets twice a year and

reports on its work to the Secretary-General and the Human Rights Council. Its current

members are Mariclaire Acosta Urquidi (Mexico), Christopher Sidoti (Australia), Lin Lim

(Malaysia), Esi Sutherland-Addy (Ghana) and Ilze Brands Kehris (Latvia). Ms. Brands

Kehris was appointed to the Board on 17 February 2015, replacing Valeriu Nicolae

(Romania), who resigned in January 2015 following his appointment to the Government of

Romania. The Board elected Ms. Lim as Chair from 30 June 2015 until 30 June 2016, when

she will be succeeded by Mr. Sidoti, who was re-elected as Chair by the Board at its forty-

second session.

B. Mandate

3. Throughout the period under review, the Board continued to engage actively with

the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),

including its field presences, providing advice on policy orientation and strategic vision on

technical cooperation components of all its programmes. This refocused approach was

agreed upon by the Board of Trustees and presented in 2011 to Member States in the annual

report of the Secretary-General to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/16/66).

4. The members of the Board are also the constituent members of the Board of

Trustees for the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance in the

Implementation of the Universal Periodic Review. In that capacity, they continued to

provide OHCHR with policy guidance in order to maximize the effectiveness of technical

assistance and financial support for States in implementing recommendations of the

universal periodic review and other international mechanisms at the State level (see

A/HRC/32/28). In this dual capacity, the Board also sought to promote the synergies and,

hence, the more effective use of both funds.

5. The Board holds its annual sessions both in Geneva and in countries where OHCHR

has a field presence. The field sessions continue to be particularly useful in enhancing the

Board’s understanding of the nature of the technical cooperation provided by OHCHR

through the two funds and in enabling the Board to observe with all partners the

effectiveness of the results achieved. The briefings and analysis of the financial and

programmatic elements governing the two funds during the sessions in Geneva also have

key importance for the Board members to be able to continue to advise OHCHR and its

senior management on the various aspects of the two funds. OHCHR has also increased

opportunities for the Board to provide specific advice on the technical cooperation

components relevant to each of its six thematic strategies. Through these discussions and

advice, the Board has been able to better understand the value added by the Office’s

programmes on the ground, including how these relate to the requirements and expectations

from a wide range of partners.

6. At the beginning of 2015 and in view of the challenging financial situation of

OHCHR, the Board decided, as a temporary measure, to hold only one session in 2015

rather than the usual two, as a symbolic contribution to reducing the existing funding gap.

The Board has decided to resume its two regular sessions in 2016. For this reason the

present report covers the forty-second session of the Board in its capacity relating to the

Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, which was held in

February 2016. The second session for 2016 will be held later in the year in the field.

II. Activities and results of the Voluntary Fund and the Board of

Trustees

7. The Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field

of Human Rights held its forty-second session in Geneva from 18 to 19 February 2016 and

in Kyiv from 22 to 26 February 2016. The session was chaired by Lin Lim, who had been

elected Chair of the Board of Trustees at its forty-first session. Three members of the Board

attended the session in person and two participated using new communications technology.

The Board took the opportunity to welcome formally a new member, Ilze Brands Kehris.

A. Forty-second session (Geneva)

8. The main objectives of the session held in Geneva were to take stock of the financial

and administrative situation of the Office and of the Fund, in particular in the context of the

implementation of the new financial and administrative management system of the United

Nations Secretariat (UMOJA); to be briefed on work planned by the field presences

scheduled to receive support from the Fund in 2016; to analyse the expected results of these

presences under each of the thematic strategies, and to receive an update on the

implementation of the Organizational Management Plan for 2014‒2017; to share views and

engage closely with the relevant sections of the Research and Right to Development

Division on the practical development and use in the field of the thematic and policy

guidance relevant to technical cooperation; to acquire a better understanding of the work of

OHCHR in the area of migration and economic, social and cultural rights; and to find ways

to continue to encourage the development of sound technical cooperation opportunities on

the ground in these critical areas. The Board also took the opportunity to discuss with the

relevant services possible ways for the Board to better support the Office’s fundraising

efforts, and to be briefed for its visit to Ukraine.

9. In opening the session, the Deputy High Commissioner referred to the financial

situation of OHCHR and the savings made by the measures implemented throughout 2015,

which had included a substantial reduction in a number of programmes. The Board

expressed its support for the ongoing efforts by OHCHR management to reduce the funding

gap further. The Board remained deeply concerned, however, about the impact of these

reductions on the capacities of the Office to respond adequately to the urgent needs on the

ground, and therefore urged States to increase both the proportion of the United Nations

regular budget allocated to OHCHR and their own voluntary contributions to OHCHR and

its trust funds.

10. The Board appreciated the high quality of the analysis, information and specific

reports on the use of the Fund presented by the secretariat, despite the challenges that

OHCHR faced in implementing the new administrative and financial system (UMOJA), in

particular, to access accurate and timely information on expenditures, provide financial

reports and make timely payments of grants to partners. That had resulted in numerous

delays and problems reported by OHCHR partners on the ground and might have had a

negative impact on the credibility and operational capacities of OHCHR, despite the

professionalism of its staff. There was clearly an urgent need to resolve the teething

problems relating to UMOJA and improve administrative and financial arrangements. Such

improvements would also facilitate the Office’s resource mobilization efforts.

11. The Board analysed with the relevant services of the Office the trends of the Fund

over the past seven years. It noted with great concern the drop in contributions compared

with 2009, when total income had stood at $21 million; the demands for technical

cooperation support had nonetheless grown tremendously. In 2015, total income had shrunk

to $13 million, while the needs and requests for technical cooperation support had

amounted to $17.5 million. The analysis is annexed to the present report.

12. The Board held discussions with relevant staff on the Office’s work in the area of

migration. The Board understood the decision taken in 2013 to integrate migration across

all the thematic strategies rather than maintaining it as a distinct thematic strategy. The risk

of such mainstreaming, however, was that it could increase the number of activities on

migration while at the same time cause a disconnect between them as an integral part of the

larger plan aiming at achieving visible and tangible overall results. The Board was pleased

to note that OHCHR, through the establishment of a multidisciplinary task force, was

striving to minimize such risks. Certainly, the crisis in mass movement of people in 2015

had posed unexpected challenges for the Office. There was no prospect of the crisis abating

in the near future; indeed, it could become even worse. Under those circumstances the

Office needed to plan to continue allocating a high priority to addressing the human rights

issues arising from this mass movement of people. It would be important also from a

technical cooperation perspective to ensure that the voices from the field were taken fully

into account when designing the strategic direction on this complex issue, ensuring that the

plans reflected the realities and possibilities for real impact on the ground.

13. The briefings with the Chief of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination

Branch and her team and with the Chief of the Human Rights and Economic and Social

Issues Section during recent sessions of the Board were found to be particularly useful by

the Board. In the Rule of Law Section, for example, the synergies and mutual support

between the field presences and Geneva had been clearly demonstrated during the Board’s

visits to Mexico, Tunisia and Cambodia and, more recently, Ukraine. For example, in

Ukraine, the cooperation and support in preparing the quarterly reports and providing legal

advice on the derogation of certain provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights were, in the view of the Board, excellent practices. It encouraged the Office

to ensure wider access by the field presences and external partners to the thematic

information sheets produced by the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Branch,

which the Board had found to be a key resource in the area of technical cooperation and

advisory services.

14. The Board also confirmed throughout all its field visits that demands for specific

technical cooperation in the area of economic and social rights continued to grow. While

the Office had in recent years invested in strengthening its human capacity to respond

adequately, it had been obliged, owing to recent funding constraints, to substantially limit

or to discontinue relevant staff training. The Board considered that that was an area

requiring particular attention in midterm and long-term strategies to ensure support and

follow-up training to strengthen capacity and yield effective results. The results observed

by the Board, for example in the area of land rights and housing rights, when the Office had

the financial and human resources, were particularly impressive. All the constituencies that

the Board had met during its field visits had particularly valued the Office’s contributions,

convincingly demonstrating that, with a well-staffed OHCHR presence, the chances for

long-lasting results and impact were considerably higher. Understanding the realities on the

ground and having the possibility of closely analysing the needs and how best to address

them jointly with all partners were part of a continuum that could not be artificially

separated.

B. Forty-second session (Ukraine)

15. In accordance with the Board’s practice of holding one of its two meetings each year

in a State where OHCHR has a field presence, the second part of the forty-second session

was held in Kyiv. The main purpose of the visit, as in the case of previous visits to the field,

was to continue to gather in situ observations of the role and added value of OHCHR on the

ground and to increase its understanding of the type of technical cooperation that OHCHR

provides, and to give relevant guidance.

16. The Board’s visit to the Human Rights Mission in Ukraine, its first to this type of

OHCHR field presence, provided the Board with an excellent opportunity to observe in situ

how the Office had been able to respond swiftly to the crisis that unfolded in February and

March 2014 and to deploy a mission in a very complex situation. OHCHR had the

advantage of already having a presence there, with expertise and experience, through the

deployment of a human rights adviser to the United Nations country team since 2011

supported by the Fund. The visit also offered the Board the possibility to observe the

contributions made by the Human Rights Adviser and to gain an insight into the relevance

of such a presence in the preparation and subsequent deployment of the Mission. The start-

up financing from the Secretary-General’s contingency fund and the engagement of

OHCHR senior management were critical to the rapid response.

17. The Board discussed with the staff in the Mission, different national authorities, the

Ombudsman’s Office, United Nations partners, regional organizations and civil society

how OHCHR had managed to establish the Mission in early 2014 and had immediately

commenced its extensive monitoring work. From the outset, it had been a key partner in the

country. The support and visits, constant engagement and advocacy by the Assistant

Secretary-General for Human Rights were found to be critical at all levels. The discussions

with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman’s Office, the

Resident Coordinator and the United Nations country team, and with civil society

organizations, all confirmed this. The Board recognized the positive impact of close and

regular support at the highest levels of OHCHR on field presences.

18. All the Mission’s partners also noted that, over the past two years, the Mission had

developed a remarkable capacity to strike an effective and appropriate balance between the

situations on both sides of the contact line, monitoring and reporting on the human rights

situation, challenges and violations in both areas with a totally impartial and transparent

approach and a strategic use of “protection by presence”. The results of the intensive

monitoring work combined with the unique technical capacity of the staff were used

strategically by all partners to undertake their own endeavours, including the design of

strategic technical support on the ground. This is the essence of the type of technical

cooperation that OHCHR can offer and is best placed to offer, as the Board noted in all its

visits and reported to the Human Rights Council. Human rights monitoring and technical

cooperation and advisory services need to be understood as part of a continuum by which

evidence-based information on the situation and the challenges on the ground are carefully

studied and analysed to advise all interested partners on the extensive variety of tools and

support available to jointly design the best course of action. This natural progression of

work was recognized and appreciated by all the partners that the Board met. While this was

particularly evident in Ukraine, the Board had observed a similar degree of appreciation in

other countries it visited, such as Cambodia, Mexico and Tunisia.

19. During the visit, the Board held discussions with representatives of the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice on the support provided in various thematic

areas, including through technical cooperation and advisory services. Particularly important

for the Board was the clear expectation that the Mission would continue to play a key role

in providing technical advice and support beyond its current short-term mandate. While

there had been numerous reforms, institutions had been established and new laws, policies

and practices relevant to human rights promotion and protection formulated, all partners

interviewed held that Ukraine still required major technical support and advice to continue

to make the reforms and their operationalization fully compliant with international human

rights standards. The current efforts of the Mission to start issuing thematic reports with

focused and analytical discussions were eagerly awaited and welcomed by all partners.

They stated that the reports could further strengthen their own capacity to better support the

State, with cooperation more focused on areas requiring particular attention.

20. The Board considered that one of the most significant factors limiting the capacities

to further build on the achievements made to date was the very short-term nature of the

Mission’s mandate. While the initial deployment was for three months, it had been

subsequently extended every three months for two years, until the most recent extension,

which was for six months, until September 2016. In view of the clear expectations of the

Government and partners in country, the Board very much hoped that the Government and

OHCHR would agree on a three-year plan, based on annual mandates, that would enable

more strategic planning, longer-term programmes and projects to meet ongoing

expectations for technical assistance and to support more sustained and realistic fundraising

possibilities. The Board appreciated the excellent capacities of the Mission to build solid

partnerships with all actors in the country and the openness and frankness of all

interlocutors in expressing their appreciation for the added value of its work at this critical

juncture for Ukraine. Particularly relevant was the interest in relying on the Mission’s

views and guidance to ensure that technical cooperation addressed the key concerns and

focused on achieving sustainable results for the people of Ukraine.

21. Discussions with civil society representatives were also particularly helpful for the

Board to understand the complexities of the situation and to develop expectations of how

the Mission, through technical cooperation, could protect and increase space for civil

society to operate and better engage with the human rights mechanisms.

22. During meetings with the Board, the Resident Coordinator and representatives of

United Nations agencies and programmes, including the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Development Programme, the United

Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and the International

Labour Organization, confirmed the critical guiding role that OHCHR was playing on the

ground, including in advising on the support of the Human Rights Up Front initiative in the

context of implementation of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework. All

agencies confirmed their reliance on the Mission’s reports and advice to adequately

integrate key human rights issues into United Nations common analysis and programmatic

interventions. The Board was extremely pleased by the level of coordination and support on

the ground. The Mission, its advice and its reports served as the main references for all

United Nations partners in the context of their own mandates. How the United Nations

system was taking advantage of the Mission’s expertise was, in the eyes of the Board, a

good practical example of the functioning of the Human Rights Up Front initiative.

23. The Board also met with the Ombudsman’s Office to discuss the cooperation

opportunities with the Mission for strengthening the national protection system. Following

the interest expressed by the Ombudsman’s Office in strengthening the mechanisms for

follow-up on the recommendations of the universal periodic review and other human rights

mechanisms, an interest also shared by the Ministry of Justice, the Board provided

information about the possibilities of additional support through the Voluntary Fund for

Financial and Technical Assistance in the Implementation of the Universal Periodic

Review, which could complement the ongoing collaboration within the country. It also

shared with them some recent experiences in various other regions.

24. The work of regional partners, such as the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the European Union, the

cooperation with the Mission and the mutually reinforcing coordination were also areas of

interest for the Board during its visit. In the meetings with the Representative of the

Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and the Chief of the OSCE Monitoring

Mission, the Board discussed how partners in the country make the best use of the reports

and the work from the Mission and how coordination function in practice. The Board was

very pleased to observe the excellent coordination on the ground and how the relevant

partners work strategically to maximize each other’s added value for maximum impact.

Although regional partners have more human and financial capacity, the Board observed

that there are great expectations on OHCHR to provide not only objective evidence and

analysis in its monitoring reports but also active advice and support on the type of technical

assistance required.

25. The Board found that the priorities of OHCHR, as articulated through the Mission,

were very much in line with the expectations from all partners in the country, and that the

Mission’s experience should serve as a good example of what can be achieved even in

difficult and complex circumstances, provided that the Office has the opportunity and

received the support and the resources needed to demonstrate its capacity. While there had

been many developments in the country over the past three years, this was a critical

juncture to ensure that reforms and changes lead to positive results for the effective

promotion and protection of human rights. All the partners that the Board met saw the

Mission’s reporting work and the advice and technical support that it could provide as

playing a key role in ensuring that their own programmes and actions moved towards full

compliance with international standards. They saw that as a role the Office should continue

to play. The Board was most impressed with the professionalism, dedication and

commitment of the Mission’s staff, who work in a very difficult and a challenging context.

26. The Board took the opportunity of its last day in Kyiv to hold an internal meeting on

its future programme of work. During the meeting, the Board formally elected Christopher

Sidoti as its Chair, to succeed Ms. Lim from 1 July 2016. The Board also proposed that its

next field session in October 2016 should be to a country office in Latin America.

III. Technical cooperation

A. Technical cooperation to reflect national development objectives

27. The Board has brought to the attention of the Human Rights Council a number of

components for effective technical cooperation by OHCHR that have become evident in its

experience of overseeing the management of the Voluntary Fund. The Board, through its

reports and presentations to the Council, had already elaborated on (a) the importance of

anchoring technical cooperation to the universality and indivisibility of all human rights,

including both protection and promotion aspects; (b) the critical importance of building and

strengthening national frameworks and institutions in the field of human rights through

technical cooperation and advisory services; (c) the importance of partnerships with United

Nations entities on the ground; and (d) the need for technical cooperation programmes to

ensure the broadest possible participation of all elements of national societies.

28. The Board continues to elaborate on the main elements of the above-mentioned

components, as it considers that this could be beneficial for supporting the Office in the

implementation and development of the technical cooperation aspects of its programme for

2014‒2017 and subsequent ones. In the present report, the Board elaborates on its view that

effective technical cooperation should reflect national development objectives, ensure the

highest levels of ownership and sustainability and respond to genuine interest, international

commitments and efforts for human rights promotion and protection.

29. The Board is of the view that, on the one hand, for technical cooperation in the field

of human rights to have effective and sustainable results, it has to be closely aligned with

national development objectives and, on the other, sustainable socioeconomic development

hinges on the human rights-based approach. The human rights-based approach is both a

perspective and a process that can lead more directly to increased enjoyment of human

rights and socioeconomic development. Development processes — traditionally, technical

and economically oriented — are becoming increasingly focused on the enjoyment of

rights. Such an approach is based on the conviction that human rights and development are

closely interrelated and mutually reinforcing.

30. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable

Developments Goals1 makes it even more important and feasible for OHCHR technical

cooperation programmes to support national development objectives. States individually

and collectively have committed to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the 17

Sustainable Developments Goals. That requires the Agenda and the Goals to be

incorporated into State development objectives, strategies and plans. The Agenda and the

Goals are, in turn, closely related to human rights. The Agenda is grounded in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights treaties.2 Every Goal has a

basis in international human rights law. OHCHR has a central role to play in promoting the

2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Developments Goals through human rights. Its technical

cooperation programmes should contribute substantially to that effort and seek to do so

especially in association with national development objectives, strategies and plans.

31. The importance of the human rights dimensions of each of the 17 Sustainable

Development Goals cannot be underestimated. The Board is pleased to note the efforts of

OHCHR to undertake a thorough review of its thematic strategies and their relevance to the

implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The technical support from OHCHR for legislative

and policy development and reform and capacity-building for rights holders and civil

society, for instance, are areas where the Board has been able to observe the critical impact

that the Office’s advocacy, convening role and technical expertise can make to support real

and tangible change on the ground. The Board encourages States to continue to use and

request the Office’s support and guidance while transforming their national development

objectives.

32. Aligning technical cooperation on human rights with national development

objectives should entail support for States to ensure that policies and institutions to promote

development base themselves on the obligations that emanate from international human

rights standards. Human rights instruments provide a coherent framework for practical

action to carry out national development objectives, such as the reduction of poverty. For

economic and social development processes to be sustainable and effective, they have to be

1

General Assembly resolution 70/1.

2 Ibid., para. 10.

participatory, transparent and non-discriminatory. The protection of the right to participate

in decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of the people that the United Nations

serves, the voice to express their needs, the ability to engage in development projects and

programmes, and the right to share fairly and equitably in the fruits of development are

some of the paramount premises that should govern these technical cooperation

programmes. The Board reiterates its views that “participation” should be understood as an

inclusive term that refers to engagement with all relevant actors in all the stages of the

technical cooperation process: design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

33. Corruption, discrimination, inequality, especially gender inequality, and abusive

power relations are often at the heart of development challenges and obstacles. The Board,

through its experiences on the ground, is convinced that technical cooperation programmes

aimed at respecting and strengthening the rule of law, in accordance with international

standards, are critical in the establishment of conducive and supportive environments

enabling sustained and sustainable development. Through such programmes, the

establishment of effective, transparent and accountable institutions should form the basis of

development and equitable distribution. Capacity-building programmes aimed at

strengthening national institutions, such as the judiciary and national human rights

institutions fully compliant with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions

(the Paris Principles),3 are essential. Equally critical are programmes to enable civil society

to work freely and to participate actively and effectively in these processes.

34. Since its establishment, the Fund has supported numerous programmes on the

ground aiming at integrating human rights into national development efforts, notably

through OHCHR country presences and human rights advisers in United Nations country

teams. The Board has noted and valued the role of OHCHR, in particular the role of the

Human Rights Advisers, in providing technical know-how and support to mainstream

human rights standards into United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks and to

assist the United Nations country teams to operationalize such standards. One example is

Ecuador. In 2008 the national report of Ecuador to the universal periodic review defined the

inclusion of a human rights-based approach to planning as a priority for international

cooperation and in 2009 the National Secretariat for Planning and Development (Secretaría

Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo) requested OHCHR support for this endeavour

through technical cooperation. Through the support of the Human Rights Adviser, the

collaboration between OHCHR and the National Secretariat produced a number of relevant

results, including the guidelines for the integration of a human rights-based approach in the

national development plan, which were adopted by ministerial decree making them

compulsory, as well as the development of an atlas of socioeconomic inequalities. This

collaboration has been presented in Human Rights Council debates by the State on various

occasions as successful in placing people and their rights at the centre of development

planning and in guiding the implementation processes. In 2011 the Ministry of Justice of

the Palestinian National Authority requested OHCHR assistance in preparing an action plan

that integrated a rights-based framework into national development. This resulted in the

preparation of effective and implementable guidance for the incorporation of human rights

into the 2014–2016 Palestinian National Development Plan.

35. In 2015, several results of this type of cooperation were achieved with resources

from the Fund. The Bolivian Human Rights Council approved the National Human Rights

Action Plan for 2015–2020, which is being considered by the Ministry of Development

Planning. The Office assisted in its preparation. In March, the Bolivian Human Rights

Council also approved the Plurinational Human Rights Policy for 2015–2020, which

3 General Assembly resolution 48/134.

includes a comprehensive overview of human rights actions to be undertaken by the State.

OHCHR supported the State through technical cooperation in this endeavour and continues

to support national efforts for its nationwide dissemination. In Paraguay, the inter-

institutional mechanism (SIMORE) developed with the support of the Human Rights

Adviser to facilitate the implementation of and follow-up to recommendations issued by

regional and international human rights mechanisms is being used to inform policy and

practice. In addition to contributing to the State’s accountability and transparency, the tool

supports the activities of a large range of users, including many national and international

development partners. Based on the information available in the inter-institutional

mechanism, the Government in 2015 developed, inter alia, a national plan for the rights of

persons with disabilities.

36. During its field visits, the Board had the opportunity to see and discuss the results of

technical cooperation with the relevant authorities and partners, for example during its

visits to Tunisia, Mauritania, Mexico and Cambodia. The discussions have reflected the

contribution of technical cooperation programmes to national development plans. During

the Board’s recent visit to Ukraine, the Government and United Nations partners on the

ground informed the Board of the technical support received for the preparation of the draft

national human rights plan of action. OHCHR supported the preparation of the draft by

stressing the importance of reflecting the recommendations made by United Nations human

rights mechanisms in relation to Ukraine. The draft plan of action now identifies key

objectives, well-defined activities, a clear implementation time frame and responsible

actors, and benchmarks and indicators to monitor implementation. The Office facilitated the

participation of United Nations agencies in the drafting process by establishing a working

group, comprising 10 United Nations agencies, which met regularly to coordinate their

inputs to the draft. In addition, in November 2015, the Resident Coordinator submitted an

assessment of the draft by the United Nations country team, based on consultations with

United Nations agencies and substantive support provided by OHCHR, to the Government

of Ukraine.

37. Human rights technical cooperation programmes in support of national development

objectives need to take into account how these programmes address the particular situation

of the most discriminated and disadvantaged groups in society, including ethnic minorities

and indigenous peoples. Ensuring that their needs and concerns are not only heard but taken

into account in the design and implementation of these programmes should be a priority.

The Office has developed numerous good practices to support free and informed

participation processes, in particular in the Americas. The Board has observed during its

visits how the Office enables cross regional fertilization of these experiences. During the

visit to the OHCHR country office in Cambodia, in the context of the extended role of the

Board for policy advice to OHCHR on the broader technical cooperation programmes, the

Board learned about the ongoing technical support programme for rights holders to

strengthen their capacity to meaningfully participate in processes that affect them with

regard to land and housing rights and indigenous rights. This process includes capacity-

building for all relevant actors, including the local authorities. In 2015, the Board learned

that one of the communities supported by the Office successfully claimed more than 700

hectares of ancestral land through the communal land titling process.

B. Synergy and partnerships with other United Nations entities

38. During its visits to OHCHR field presences, the Board continues to give attention to

the synergies and partnerships among United Nations agencies and programmes in the area

of technical cooperation in the field of human rights. Through the discussions with United

Nations Resident Coordinators and representatives of other United Nations agencies and

programmes in Cambodia, Mauritania, Mexico, Tunisia and most recently in Ukraine, the

Board has had the opportunity to observe how the United Nations system-wide

commitment to human rights, as grounded in the Charter of the United Nations, is reflected

in the programmes on the ground supporting national development processes.

39. The Board has had many opportunities in recent years through its field sessions to

observe and discuss in situ with relevant partners, including United Nations agencies and

programmes and national and international partners, the impact and tangible results that

human rights mainstreaming efforts across the United Nations work on the ground have

yielded. The developments achieved to date equip the United Nations on the ground to

respond more effectively to the exciting challenges ahead as the world transits from the

Millennium Development Goals to the new Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030

Agenda for Sustainable Development.

40. Discussions held with resident coordinators in many countries revealed that, while

there had undoubtedly been important results in the full application of the human rights-

based approach as a programming principle for the United Nations, there was still an

undeniable need for guidance on its implementation. The recent Guidance Note on Human

Rights for Resident Coordinators and United Nations Country Teams, issued by OHCHR in

collaboration with the United Nations Development Group Human Rights Working Group

and the United Nations Development Coordination Office, certainly represents an important

technical tool to support them in this direction. The Board also found particularly important

the materials and guidance on concrete actions based on good practices that resident

coordinators and the United Nations country teams could undertake to meet the human

rights responsibilities and assist national efforts.

C. Measuring results of technical cooperation, and the response of the

Office of the High Commissioner

41. At its most recent sessions in Geneva, in 2014 and 2016, the Board was briefed on

OHCHR progress assessments of programmes in the field, including programmes that are

being covered by the Fund. The Board welcomed the information received on the progress

of such evaluations, and was pleased to learn that the visits of the Board to the field

presences and the outcomes and reports of the visits were proving useful in the preparation

of the framework for these evaluations. This has been the case, for example, in Mexico. For

technical cooperation to be effective, monitoring and evaluation and the assessment of the

results achieved are critical. For this reason, the Board welcomes the efforts of OHCHR in

the area of evaluations and encourages it to continue to take advantage of the Board’s views

when useful for strengthening the technical cooperation components of its programmes.

42. The Board continues to regard the OHCHR performance monitoring system as

particularly useful. The Board has observed how the system and the information gathered is

of great value, not only for planning, monitoring and reporting, but also for enabling data-

based analysis that can inform management decisions and optimize the allocation of

financial and human resources. The Board has observed in its field visits how the system is

fully used by all planning entities; in the sessions held in Geneva, it has also been

impressed by how all planning entities are interlinked, thus ensuring greater coherence and

mutual contributions towards jointly defined results.

43. The Board welcomes the Office’s continuous efforts to ensure the full functioning

and use of the system. The Board has already drawn attention to the need to ensure that the

financial module is fully functional, and has discussed with relevant OHCHR staff the

importance of interfacing the system promptly with the implementation of UMOJA. The

Board encourages the United Nations Secretariat to support OHCHR in ensuring that the

implementation of UMOJA does not undermine the excellent performance of the OHCHR

performance management system, but strengthens it further.

D. Main findings, challenges identified and recommendations

44. The Board has continued to engage with relevant parts of OHCHR regarding the

technical cooperation components of each of the OHCHR thematic strategies and to

provide advice on their implementation within the 2014‒2017 programming cycle.

45. The Board considers that technical cooperation in the field of human rights has

substantially advanced in recent years. What is needed now is an improved understanding

of the type of technical cooperation that OHCHR can and is best placed to provide, taking

into account its mandate and expertise. The Board very much hopes that its views regarding

the components of effective technical cooperation and the outcomes of its sessions can help

to strengthen this understanding. This is particularly important in view of the critical

support that the Office can provide, as described in the present report, in the review of

national development objectives in the context of the 2030 Agenda and other important

international initiatives, such as Human Rights Up Front. The Board has been pleased to

learn from national partners about the key contributions that OHCHR has been able to

provide when it has a presence, and when the presence is properly staffed and financed, and

has a framework of operations that adequately represents the High Commissioner’s

mandate.

46. The Board encourages States to continue to work with OHCHR in implementing

innovative approaches and replicating and sharing good practices and lessons learned

across regions. This is critical to continue strengthening the human rights programme. The

Board notes that an increasing number of States are openly acknowledging the role and

support of the OHCHR field presences during the thematic panel discussions on technical

cooperation at the sessions of the Human Rights Council. Such positive recognition should

be translated into more substantial and sustained funding for OHCHR to be able to

adequately support States in the promotion and protection of human rights.

47. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, with

their strong and explicit human rights-based approach, requires a new understanding of

what constitutes official development assistance (ODA). The Board is of the strongly held

view that all the contributions to OHCHR should now be treated as ODA in view of the

critical importance that all its work has for sustainable development and the achievement of

the 2030 Agenda.

IV. Status of funding and donors

48. At its meeting in Geneva in February 2016, the Board was updated on the overall

financial status of OHCHR and the 2015 financial situation of the Voluntary Fund for

Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights. The Board also discussed and

analysed the funding projections and proposed workplan for the Fund for 2016. Its

considerations were made difficult because of the uncertainties relating to the end-of-year

financial situation owing to the introduction of UMOJA. Nonetheless, it was clear that,

despite expenditures under the Fund being significantly reduced in 2015 compared to 2014

in line with the actions of the Office to limit its funding gap, requests for technical

cooperation and expenditures continued to exceed the voluntary contributions made in

2015.

49. In 2015, the total expenditure of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in

the Field of Human Rights amounted to $17.4 million, substantially less than in the

previous year. The reductions were due to the termination of or substantial reduction in a

number of programmes previously covered by the Fund, including those in Ecuador, the

Republic of Moldova, Togo and Kosovo.4 The Fund received a total of $13.1 million in

voluntary contributions, of which $8.2 million were earmarked and $4.8 million were

allocated to the Fund from unearmarked contributions to OHCHR. The resulting deficit at

the end of 2015 was covered from existing reserves. During this period, the Fund continued

to provide resources for technical cooperation to build strong human rights frameworks at

the national level in 30 regions, States and territories. This included support for 15 human

rights advisers (Chad, Ecuador (closed in June), Honduras (discontinued after the opening

of a country office), Kenya, Madagascar, the Niger, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, the

Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Serbia, South Caucasus (Georgia),

Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste); 9 human rights components of peace missions (Afghanistan,

the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Liberia, Libya, Somalia

and the Sudan (Darfur)) and 6 country/stand-alone offices (Bolivia (Plurinational State of),

Kosovo (closed August), Mauritania, Mexico, Togo (closed end of June) and State of

Palestine). Details of contributions and programmes are provided in the annual report of

OHCHR for 2015.

50. Through the Fund, the Office has facilitated efforts made at the country level to

incorporate international human rights standards into national laws, policies and practices,

and contributed to the establishment and strengthening of national capacities to adhere to

these standards. Strengthening the administration of justice and increasing capacities to

promote gender equality and women’s rights have also been the focus of numerous

programmes receiving support from the Fund. The establishment and functioning of

responsive national human rights institutions compliant with the Paris Principles and

human rights education programmes continued to receive support. United Nations resident

coordinators and country teams have also seen their human rights capacity strengthened by

the deployment of human rights advisers. Detailed information on income and expenditure

under the Voluntary Fund, its financial status in 2015 and a list of donors and contributors

are annexed to the present report (see annexes II – IV).

51. The Board continues to emphasize the importance of ensuring sustainable increased

contributions to OHCHR and to the Fund.

4 Reference to Kosovo should be understood to be in full compliance with Security Council resolution

1244 (1999) and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

Annex I

Voluntary Fund funding and expenditure trends: 2008 to 2015

Annex II

Voluntary Fund cost plan and expenditure: 2015

IMIS V. F. for Technical Cooperation (AHA) Expenditure 2015

Project Number Staff costs Activities Total Total

Number Field Operations & Technical Cooperation Division of staff USD

(a) Human Rights Advisers in UNCT (16) */:

- Activities implemented by OHCHR HRAs

to the UNCT in:

B-414 - Russian Federation 6 515,126 535,241 1,050,367 644,097

B-409 - South Caucasus, Georgia 5 476,613 236,137 712,750 714,658

B-504 - Moldova 2 158,499 72,306 230,805 216,324

B-541 - Ukraine (until end July/From August moved to HCA trust fund) 38 1,181,973 493,031 1,675,004 1,619,717

B-745 - Serbia 3 424,586 63,144 487,730 481,121

B-441 - Rwanda 3 312,625 107,463 420,088 400,305

B-488 - Kenya 5 484,272 176,133 660,405 548,111

B-503 - Niger 1 47,058 27,587 74,645 50,169

B-584 - Chad 3 452,289 139,273 591,562 552,780

B-539 - Madagascar 3 356,140 119,282 475,422 359,045

B-436 - Ecuador (closed end June) 1 49,756 10,051 59,807 46,253

B-531 - Paraguay 3 375,996 196,502 572,498 555,766

B-532 - Honduras (co-sharing with UNDP) 3 - 221,826 221,826 141,690

B-502 - Papua New Guinea 3 411,983 563,893 975,876 774,943

B-439 - Sri Lanka 2 106,323 70,501 176,824 44,864

B-797 - Sri Lanka (USAID) 1 49,367 81,592 130,959 155,277

B-652 - Timor Leste 3 98,814 125,430 224,244 174,139

sub-total HR Advisers: 85 5,501,420 3,239,392 8,740,812 7,479,259

(b) Human Rights Components of UN Peace Missions (9)

- Activities implemented by UN Peace Missions

Human Rights Units in:

B-443 - Haiti - 89,327 89,327 63,724

B-421 - Afghanistan - 264,985 264,985 244,057

B-442 - Côte d'Ivoire - 186,843 186,843 179,951

B-444 - Liberia - 68,874 68,874 68,719

B-451 - Somalia - 73,281 73,281 75,149

B-733 - South Sudan - 176,337 176,337 176,337

B-582 - Guinea Bissau - 70,659 70,659 70,659

B-583 - Central African Republic - 109,818 109,818 109,818

B-611 - Libya - 168,275 168,275 124,331

sub-total Peace Missions: 0 - 1,208,399 1,208,399 1,112,745

(c) Country/Standalone Offices (6)

B-505 - Mauritania 8 653,830 405,470 1,059,300 635,628

B-418 - Togo (closed end June) 10 608,098 220,904 829,002 827,614

B-404 - State of Palestine 20 2,354,391 613,847 2,968,238 2,679,653

B-633 - East Jerusalem, public information and legal analysis (funded by Switzerland) 4 519,188 55,879 575,067 340,769

B-419 - Bolivia 11 1,325,228 361,405 1,686,633 1,806,074

B-401 - Mexico 23 1,990,270 439,516 2,429,786 2,456,636

B-420 - Kosovo (closed end June) 6 228,417 22,600 251,017 106,287

sub-total Country /Standalone Offices: 82 7,679,422 2,119,621 9,799,043 8,852,661

Sub-Total 167 13,180,842 6,567,412 19,748,254 17,444,665

Total (including 13% PSC) 88%

Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation - Status of cost plan for 2015

OHCHR EXTRABUDGETARY RESOURCES (31 December 2015 - Preliminary closing )

Cost plan 2015 (USD)

19,748,254

Annex III

Financial status of the Voluntary Fund: 2015

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations Voluntary Fund

for Technical Cooperation (AHA)

Statement of Income and Expenditure

USD

I. Income

Voluntary contributions in 2015 13,179,220.84

Loss on exchange (on contributions) -108,402.57 **/

Miscellaneous and interest income 77,993.85

T ota l income 13,148,812.12

II. Expenditure */ USD

Staff costs (including consultants) 11,408,170.80

Travel of Staff/Representatives 433,271.07

Contractual Services 445,234.51

General operating expenses 1,239,327.13

Supplies & Materials 304,288.39

Grants, contributions and seminars 1,496,234.45

Programme Support Costs 1,992,448.43

T ota l expenditure 17,318,974.78

Net excess/(shortfa ll) of income over expenditures for the period (4,170,162.66)

Opening Ba lance 1.01.2015 13,037,163.50

Misce llaneous adjustments/savings/re funds to donors (3,732.00)

Loss/ga in on exchange (25,521.73)

T ota l fund ba lance as a t 31.12.2015 8,837,747.11

*/ Includes disbursements and obligations

**/ Loss on exchange will be recorded as expenditure in the UNOG financial statements

Estimated Net funds to be made available for activities in 2016 6,904,490.00

PSC (13%) 897,584.00

Operating reserve (15%) 1,035,673.00

T ota l funds ava ilable for 2016 (with PSC & Op. reserve ) 8,837,747.00

for the period 1 January - 31 December 2015

(Preliminary closing)

Annex IV

List of donors and contributors: 2015

____________________

Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation (VFTC)

Voluntary contributions in 2015 (as at 31 December)

Donor US$ Earmarking

Finland 773,481 VFTC

India 100,000 VFTC

Germany 848,356 VFTC

Liechtenstein 39,841 VFTC

Switzerland 1,554,404 VFTC

United States of America 1,250,000 VFTC

(a) total contributions earmarked to VFTC 4,566,082

109,048 Timor Leste

109,048 Papua New Guinea

72,699 Sri Lanka

133,690 Côte d'Ivoire

55,310 HRMM Ukraine

Canada 13,067 Côte d'Ivoire

European Commission -30,929 Bolivia (closed project adjustment final 2014 payments)

France 44,893 Mauritania

IOM-Migrations 30,800 Mauritania

Lithuania 12,195 HRMM Ukraine

Mexico (Oaxaca) 80,443 Mexico

24,401 Chad

38,344 Togo

22,658 Haiti

9,100 Madagascar

Poland 32,268 HRMM Ukraine

Russian Federation 400,000 Russian Federation (consolidation of the Human Rights Master Programme)

Sweden 540,833 Kenya

-10,000 OPT Office in East Jerusalem (adjustment reduction pledge 2014)

200,000 HRMM Ukraine

UNDP - Moldova 39,994 Moldova

United States of America 1,500,000 Americas projects

USAID - Sri Lanka 300,000 Sri Lanka

(b) total contributions earmarked to specific projetcs 3,727,862

Unearmarked funds allocated to VFTC 4,885,277 Unearmarked

(c) total unearmarked funds 4,885,277

TOTAL (a) + (b) + (c) 13,179,221

Australia

Switzerland

Belgium

Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie