Synopsis of the Action 2 Three-year Review

1. Synopsis of the Action 2 Three-year Review 3 October, 2008

2. Review structure 2 high-level consultants Interviews, 29 UNCT reports, 5 field visits, 1RC New York (HQs) Geneva (HQs) Guyana (UNCT/LAC) Chile (UNCT/LAC) Kyrgyz Republic (UNCT/CIS) Ethiopia (UNCT/Africa) Mali (UNCT/Africa) Bangkok (Regional center/Asia)

3. Principals Action 2 Task Force Reference Group Donors Secretariat (OHCHR) AA/UNDP (PTM/DGTTF) UNCTs

4. Main types of Action 2 support to UNCTs Seed funding for joint programming and capacity-building Learning resources Deployment of HRA Knowledge Management

5. Has the project implementation contributed to UNCT’s capacity building? Yes. Where Action 2 has been implemented through HRBA training, UNCT joint activities, and/or HRA deployment. However, delays were due to the following factors High field staff turnover (BF, Guyana, Senegal, Kyrgyzstan) Slow interagency coordination processes (Peru, BF, Senegal) National contexts e.g. changes in the national or political settings (Paraguay) Lack of HR-qualified staff including trainers/consultants (Peru, Senegal, Ethiopia, Guyana) Mgt./fin./adm. bottlenecks (ATLAS)

6. Is there sustainability of capacity-building –possibly with follow-up by participants? Knowledge increased but not necessarily applied in programming unless further assistance is provided Need to train senior managers including RCs and Heads of Agencies Integration of HRBA in national planning policies and tools, not simply in CCA/UNDAFs Need to go beyond strengthening UNCT capacity

7. Has there been development of joint programs/projects through UNCTs and/or integration of human rights into the programs of individual agencies? Large array of UNCT requests Implementation still incipient Need to develop sustainability mechanisms for joint programs

8. Has there been implementation of international human rights standards with the support of Action 2? Action 2 has contributed to the progress in implementation on HR standards through the application of HRBA and/or joint programs and/or HRA However, the relatively short time of Action 2 implementation has not allowed for a more systematic approach to strengthening NPPS Complex and far-reaching programs require more time and need to become one of the standing elements of the UN agenda

9. Has there been strengthening of UN system-wide harmonization and coordination on HRBA through Action 2? Action 2 adds to UN system-wide coherence and coordination on HR work. Like the other features of Action 2, its impact in this regard is nascent Humanitarian agencies are less involved in this endeavor, including the application of HRBA However, Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) and Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) opens the door to joint work

10. Has there been capability of management? Yes. However, slow project setup and limited agency engagement (in staff and resources) has been a barrier On the financial side, the variety of Action 2 stakeholders (multiple agencies, donors, UNCTs, funding sources) make management challenging However, one AA (UNDP), instead of several agencies, facilitates the process

11. Has there been sensibility to vulnerable groups? Action 2 focus on UNCT capacity-building rather than direct access to vulnerable groups Is it worth spending so much on UNCTs instead of directly helping vulnerable groups?

12. Lessons Learned The relatively short time of implementation of a complex project like Action 2 requires more time to evaluate its impact and draw tangible lessons therefrom UNCTs advised that a future program, be it a variation of Action 2 or any other arrangement, should be envisaged for a period of time to make its impact sustainable Ensure a continued availability of expertise to UNCTS