Building Stronger Universities in Developing Countries Phase Two, 2013 – 2015 18 April 2013 Technical Advisory Services 104.Dan.8.l.2600

Contents

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... ii

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Summary of conclusions regarding the envisaged support ............................................ 2

2. Conclusions from preparatory analyses justifying the envisaged support ............... 2

Key experiences of previous support ........................................................................... 2

Strategic conclusions and considerations ..................................................................... 4

Assessment summary of relevant budget support principles .................................... 4

3. Preliminary overview of envisaged programme support ............................................ 4

Brief justification ............................................................................................................. 4

Support strategy and modality ....................................................................................... 5

Preliminary budget .......................................................................................................... 6

Management structure .................................................................................................... 7

Harmonisation ................................................................................................................. 7

Risk and assumptions ..................................................................................................... 8

4. Annexes: ............................................................................................................................. i

a. Updated process action plan .................................................................................... i

b. Assessment according to the ten budget support principles .............................. ii

c. Gender Equality Rolling Plan ................................................................................ iii

d. Climate change and Environmental Screening Note ........................................... v

e. HRBA Screening ................................................................................................... viii

ii

Abbreviations BSU Building Stronger Universities in Developing Countries MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs UD Universities Denmark

1

1. Introduction “Building Stronger Universities in Developing Countries” (BSU) under Universities Denmark is a partnership between research and higher education institutions in developing countries and in Denmark. BSU is organised in four thematic platforms based on needs in partner countries and an assessment of the Danish competencies and the priorities in the Danish development cooperation:

• Environment and Climate • Growth and Employment • Human Health • Stability, Democracy and Rights

The themes are inter-linked and collaboration and interaction between platforms are strongly encouraged. BSU comprises cooperation involving the seven universities in Denmark and selected universities/research institutions in Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Nepal. Focus is on institutional capacity building, including strengthening the capacity and quality of PhD, Bachelor and Master education, strengthening the capacity to undertake research and disseminating research knowledge to stakeholders and supporting PhDs. The initiative is monitored by a BSU working group under the Rectors’ Conference. Besides, the Rectors’ Conference is following the progress of the programme closely and provides support to the overall management of the programme.

Phase two of BSU will primarily be a consolidation phase where the partnerships will be consolidated and further strengthened. Focus will continue to be on institutional capacity building. In 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) provided a two-year grant of 60 million DKK to Universities Denmark/BSU (phase one), and in addition, in 2012 a three-year grant of 19 million DKK was allocated for capacity building within research communication, dissemination, and networking for the same partners. Finally, in 2012 a new fellowship programme - the BSU Scholarship Programme – was approved with a total budget of 20 million DKK for a two-year period. The aim of the programme was to provide talented students holding a bachelor degree from one of the BSU south partner universities/research institutions with the opportunity to obtain a master's degree from a Danish university. The BSU Scholarship Programme is a pilot programme with a total of 30 scholarships.

This Concept Note outlines the proposed continued Building Stronger Universities in Developing Countries, phase two August 2013 – December 2015, presenting the envisaged areas of engagement along with potential partners and defining the main approaches to be used. The BSU-programme will be financed with a commitment given in 2013. A desk appraisal of the new programme is planned in May 2013. Some key strategic questions for the Programme Committee to consider include:

2

a) BSU supports institutional capacity building within research, education, and communication/dissemination. Should BSU in phase two also support more general capacity building targeted non-academic staff and provide support to e.g. infra-structure like laboratories, libraries and buildings?

b) In implementation of BSU it has become clear that the four thematic

platforms are of less importance as the institutional capacity building activities cut across the themes. In phase two, being a consolidation, the themes will be kept, however, for the envisaged coming phases, there could be a need to rethink the usefulness of having the thematic areas in BSU e.g. if BSU should have themes at all?

c) BSU currently supports eleven institutions in five countries within the four

thematic platforms. In the longer time perspective it will be relevant to discuss the country and institutional focus, including whether BSU should work with more or less countries (e.g. fragile countries), or with other research institutions (e.g. outside the capitals)?

Summary of conclusions regarding the envisaged support Phase two is mainly a consolidation phase and BSU will continue to comprise the seven universities in Denmark and eleven research institutions in Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Nepal. Focus will be on institutional capacity building, including strengthening the capacity and quality of PhD Bachelor and Master education, strengthening the capacity to undertake research and disseminating research knowledge to stakeholders, and supporting PhDs. BSU will also continue to be organised in four thematic platforms: 1) Human Health; 2) Growth and Employment; 3) Environment and Climate, and 4) Stability, Democracy and Rights. However, the coordination and collaboration between the platforms and with other donors and actors will be strengthened in phase two as well as the south-south collaboration. Phase two will be implemented according to the conditions already agreed upon with Universities Denmark for phase one and two of BSU in terms of co-financiering requirements and allocation between institutions in Denmark and in partner countries. The overhead for the Danish partners will remain the same (20%) whereas the overhead to the partners in the South will be revised to a maximum of 12%.

2. Conclusions from preparatory analyses justifying the envisaged support

Key experience of previous support In June 2011 when The Danida Board endorsed the support to phase one of BSU, they also recommended that a review should be undertaken at the end of the first phase.

3

Therefore a review of the current support has recently been undertaken by Universities Denmark by a Norwegian and a Tanzanian consultant. A representative from the MFA participated in the review as a resource person. The overall aim of the review was to inform the planning of phase two, and the specific objectives of the review were to assess the partnership between Universities Denmark and universities/research institutions in the partner countries, the added value by BSU to the strengthening of the institutions in the South, and the governance structures of BSU at overall platform and institutional level. The review report presents some interesting and positive findings – see more details below – however, the report also has certain weaknesses e.g. in terms of not covering sufficiently all the areas mentioned in the terms of references. According to the MFA, the review report can therefore not be used as the only basis for assessing BSU and informing the planning of phase two. Consequently, MFA will undertake a desk appraisal of the application for support to phase two of BSU in May. The main conclusions of the review were that the partners in the South value the focus of BSU on institutional capacity building, including the sandwich model used for capacity building of the staff member, and BSU is not perceived as a funding programme for research activities. The current BSU structures (management, governance and communication) are assessed as appropriate by the partners in Denmark and in the South, although it had taken some time in the start-up phase to get all the practical things working smoothly. The thematic areas - 1) Environment and Climate; 2) Growth and Employment; 3) Human Health, and 4) Stability, Democracy and Rights - seemed of less relevance to the partners in the South in terms of implementation of the specific activities. However, they functioned as an organizing principle for e.g. calls for PhD grants. In particular for “Stability, Democracy and Rights” the themes played an important role at the institutions, and the themes were seen as highly relevant in the context of three countries. The review mentions a discussion among the partners, in particular in the South, of the possibilities of BSU also supporting more general capacity building to non-academic staff member and e.g. supporting infrastructure, IT, capacity building of non-academic staff members, and in particular among the Danish partners some discussion still prevail on funds for research projects as part of BSU. Most of the platforms reported on their challenges with heavy workloads and what they perceived as limited incentives structures in BSU. The review report highlights the ownership and leadership of the Rectors’ Conference to the BSU programme e.g. by committing the Danish universities to providing co-financing to BSU. However, according to the report these institutional commitments have not yet been adequately reflected in the working conditions of individual staff members. Donor coordination and more strategic approaches to institutional capacity building at the various institutions were generally lacking or not very well developed.

4

As for recommendation for phase two more South-South as well as platform-platform interaction was asked for. The length of the next phase of BSU was discussed during the review e.g. if it should be a longer programme with the same budget, as BSU in 2012 had received additional funds for communication/dissemination as well as for the new fellowship programme. The partners in the South tended to favour a longer programme period of the next phase.

Strategic conclusions and considerations Research-based knowledge is necessary to address development problems faced by partner countries. Development research can play a key role in bringing about a (global) knowledge-based society. It is also one of the requisites for innovation and growth in any society. The development strategy “The Right to a Better Life” concentrates on four strategic priority areas: Human Rights and Democracy, Green Growth, Social progress and Stability and Protection. The strategy also outlines the importance of involving a wide range of partners, including research organisations, and the strategy defines the objective of Danida’s support to development research as “Strengthen research capacity in partner countries and generate new knowledge, which can address development problems”. BSU complements the support provided through The Consultative Research Committee on Development Research which focuses more on support to strategic research programmes with elements of individual capacity building. BSU focuses on strengthening the capacity of institutions in partner countries to develop and implement research and education programmes and effectively disseminate the research results. The four thematic platforms are therefore very well linked to the strategic focus of the development strategy.

Assessment summary of relevant budget support principles The ten budget support principles describe important issues to consider when assessing whether general budget support is feasible. The ten principles are not relevant for the BSU-programme.

3. Preliminary overview of envisaged programme support

Brief justification Studies show that only 2% of the world’s researchers live in Africa, and that African researchers produce less than 1% of world output of scientific articles. Furthermore, within Africa researchers are concentrated in a few countries. The partner countries cannot meet the massive challenges and needs for country-specific research and capacity development on their own. Consequently, assistance from the donor community remains necessary, not only by passing on knowledge produced in donor countries, internationally, and in cooperation with developing countries, but also by supporting research capacity development in partner countries.

5

Based on the challenges outlined above and the experience from Danish support for development research so far, the objective of the support to development research takes the point of departure in the needs of partner countries. The main objective of the Danish support to development research is to strengthen research capacity in partner countries and to create new knowledge capable of alleviating development problems. This objective is to be supported by pursuing three specific objectives, and considering the diversity of the needs in the various partner countries:

To strengthen research capacity in partner countries.

To strengthen innovative research which can contribute to addressing development problems.

To strengthen the use of research results. BSU focuses on strengthening the capacity of institutions in partner countries to develop and implement research and education programmes and effectively disseminate the research results.

Support strategy and modality In the BSU programme, the institutional capacity building concept in relation to the South universities/research institutions will emphasize:

strengthening the capacity of the institution to develop and implement

education and research programmes, and effectively disseminate the research

results.

The programme will include capacity development activities in the partner institutions in the following areas:

development and strengthening of relevant PhD programmes (PhD courses,

supervision guidelines, training of supervisors)

support the capacity to undertake research-based education and supervision

within selected areas of research by increasing the number of academic staff

with PhD qualifications (PhD scholarships)

strengthening relevant research capacity and international collaboration (joint

research projects and research networks)

strengthening methods and capacity for effective dissemination of research

results and findings to stakeholders (PhD courses, senior staff training and

web development)

building capacity for effective and efficient management of activities (mentor

programmes and staff training)

building capacity for effective external fundraising (support to fundraising

units and proposal development).

As mentioned, phase two will mainly be a consolidation phase, and will be

implemented according to the conditions already agreed on with Universities

Denmark for phase one and two of BSU in terms of co-financiering requirements

6

(1:1 of the Danish part of the budget) and allocation between institutions in Denmark

and in partner countries (45/55 in year one and 60/40 in year two of phase two). The

overhead for the Danish partners will remain 20% whereas the overhead to the

partners in the South will be revised to a maximum of 12% as the current 7% has

been assessed as being too low according to national regulations in some of the five

countries.

Based on the findings from the review, phase two will explore the possibilities for

more South-South collaboration, better donor coordination, and in additional

encourage more cross and joint platform activities.

Depending on the specific needs identified in the partner countries, some Danish

universities and their faculties/institutes will be very active and others will play a less

dominant role. In phase two, a review of the programme will be conducted by MFA

in order to provide guidance on the country focus in a third phase. The countries will

have to be partner countries for Danida and countries with a substantial and long-

term involvement and collaboration between researchers from Denmark and

researchers from the partner country.

The collaboration between Danish and south partner institutions will be based on the

assumption that the Danish research institutions participating in BSU are bringing

added value to the partnership. E.g. with long-term involvement in human and

institutional capacity building in developing countries, and scientific/academic

strength within the selected scientific focus areas of the platform.

Other research institutions outside Danish Universities can, if relevant, participate as

associated partners, and participate in the specific activities - e.g. as in the current

phase in the Platform for Human Health where the hospitals are participating in

thematic working groups. If other partners want to participate, they participate under

the same conditions as the other Danish Universities partners.

Preliminary budget The overall budget is envisaged to be 90 million DKK for a two year and five month period (August 2013-December 2015). The Rectors’ Conference has suggested the following distribution of the total budget between the four platforms and the Universities Denmark Secretariat:

Growth and Employment Platform 25.5 Platform on Human Health 25.5 Platform on Environment and Climate 18.0 Platform on Stability, Democracy and Rights 18.0 Universities Denmark secretariat 3.0

Total 90.0

7

When the application from Universities Denmark has been received, the MFA will appraise the proposal, including the relevance of the suggested budget with special attention to a more equal distribution of the budget between the four platforms, and the question of funding a staff member at the Universities Denmark Secretariat.

The review of phase two will be outside the budget provided to Universities Denmark.

Management structure The management of BSU is envisaged to be as follows: The Rectors’ Conference of Universities Denmark, assisted by the Universities Denmark Secretariat and advised by the Universities Denmark/BSU working group, will oversee the implementation of BSU. They will also have the overall responsibility of the appropriate use and reporting of the core funding from MFA. Each of the four platforms will have a Danish Platform Steering Committee with representatives from the involved Danish universities which is chaired by a chairperson appointed by the Rectors’ Conference. The Platform Steering Committee approves the overall platform activity plans and budgets, guides the division of tasks and responsibilities between the Danish partners, and reports back to UD. The Platform Steering Committee is supported by small Platform Secretariat, hosted at one of the Danish universities. The Platform Secretariat manages funds, organises and coordinates the collaboration among the partner universities/research institutions in Denmark and the partner countries. The collaboration between the involved thematic platforms and the partner institutions in the South is governed by a joint BSU Partnership Steering Committee while day-to-day planning, implementation and coordination takes place within the Working Groups of the four platforms. In the recent review of BSU, the management, governance and communication structures were reviewed and although it might seem “complex and daunting” it was assessed to function well. In particular, the structures in Denmark were originally set-up to accommodate the need to ensure ownership. Therefore it is not envisaged to make any major changes in the management structures in phase two.

Harmonisation As was mentioned earlier, one of the findings from the review of phase one of BSU was that donor coordination and collaboration is not very well developed at the partner institutions. It is a general tendency within development research that coordination has not moved very far and therefore there is a need for strengthening collaboration, harmonisation and alignment both at international and at national levels within development research. BSU can in phase two do more also to strengthen the capacity of the partner institutions in terms of donor coordination.

8

Support towards preparing national research strategies and strengthening national research councils in partner countries is on the agenda for the new Danish strategic frame for development research.

Risk and assumptions BSU is subject to several risks, which will be specific to each country and collaborating institutions. The risks include technical, financial, policy, and sustainability aspects. The key assumptions relate to: 1) Research and research capacity development is recognized by relevant stakeholders; 2) Research agendas, partnership approaches and capacity development targets are relevant to country priorities; 3) Partner universities/research institutions have sufficient, well-recognized scientific and research capacity development skills and experience; 4) Research, education and management competences available among partners; 5) Existing trust among collaborating institutions/researchers is maintained. BSU will identify and analyse the risks to define measures that will reduce the likelihood of their occurrence and that will reduce the impact if the risk does materialise. E.g. financial, administrative, and legal risks are minimised through a professional project management with clear guidelines for all participating institutions. The risk related to scientific networking and collaboration will be minimised through selection of experienced partners with recognised expertise and long-standing track records.

i

4. Annexes:

a. Updated process action plan Preparation phase:

Activity/output Timing Responsible Unit

Status/comments

Review of phase one of BSU Jan-March 2013

UD and UFT

Done

Assessment according to ten budget support principles

- - N/A

Gender Equality Plan March UFT Done

Environmental screening note March UFT Done

HRBA screening note March UFT Done

Concept note March UFT Done

Public hearing March-April

UFT In process

Programme Committee meeting April 18 KVA Confirmed

Minutes for PC meeting April KVA

Formulation and appraisal phase:

Activity/output Timing Responsible Unit

Status/comments

Consultations with partner country institutions and Danish universities on draft

March-April

UD In process

Draft BSU programme document/application

April 24 UD

Desk appraisal and appraisal report April-May UFT

Notification of agenda item May 16 UFT

Programme Grant Note May 24 UFT

Grant committee meeting and minutes June 12 KVA

Final programme document? June/July UFT

Minister cover for Appropriation June/July UFT

Formal agreement with DU July UFT

ii

b. Assessment according to the ten budget support principles N/A

iii

c. Gender Equality Rolling Plan Gender Equality Rolling Plan Basic information

Programme title Building Stronger Universities in Developing Countries, phase two

Sector Higher Education/Research

Countries Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Nepal

Budget (Danida’s contribution) DKK 90,000,000

Starting date and duration August 2013 – December 2015

The BSU programme is a capacity building programme and therefore most of the areas mentioned in the rolling plan is of less relevance to the programme. The plan was be partly filled.

Phases in the programme cycle and documentation

Action required

Responsibility

Preparation phase

Include the following information:

Donor harmonisation and alignment in the area of gender.

Availability of sex-disaggregated data.

Assessment of major gender issues at national and sector level.

Opportunities/constraints for addressing these issues.

Gender Studies to be used/up-dated/prepared including Country Gender Analysis (Gender Toolbox booklet 4), Sector Gender Analysis (Gender Toolbox booklet 5).

Proposed gender equality objectives/outputs to be addressed by the programme.

UD and UFT

Formulation and appraisal phase

Describe how gender issues will be addressed in the programme, Specify gender specific purpose, strategy, activities, expected outputs and financial allocations of planned interventions (Gender Toolbox booklet 5 provides examples of how to mainstream gender in selected sectors).

List identified gender equality indicators aligned with national targets on gender.

List how gender equality will be included in proposed monitoring and evaluation systems.

UD and UFT

Appraisal report Include the scope of gender-specific work in TOR for the appraisal mission.

Assessment of the proposed objective, strategy, activities and expected outputs as regards mainstreaming of gender in the programme.

The appraisal team/UFT

iv

Phases in the programme cycle and documentation

Action required

Responsibility

Revision of the draft programme document as needed.

UD

Implementation phase Review report

Assess whether gender has been considered in the preparation of action plans and in the reporting format as part of regular reporting and monitoring mechanisms.

Assess progress achieved in addressing gender issues in the programme; achievements of relevant outputs/activities etc.

Recommend changes as required.

UD The review team/UFT/DU The review team/UFT/DU

Completion phase Completion report

Document whether the programme has achieved its gender objectives using specific data.

UFT

v

d. Climate change and Environmental Screening Note The BSU programme is a capacity building programme and therefore most of the areas mentioned in the screening note are of less relevance to the programme. The note was partly filled. In general, the platform on “Environment and Climate” is working on building the institutional capacity of the 4 institutions in Ghana and Tanzania e.g. in order to ensure that there is a national capacity to perform SEAs and EIAs.

Screening of Country and Sector Environmental Framework

Assess the adequacy of legislation, policies and procedures for environmental management and impact assessment in the country and sector. If an issue is inadequately dealt with (indicated by a tick in the “no” box), please add comments and indicate further work to be undertaken (see also “next steps” section, below).

Issue: Yes No Comments and further work to be done:

1. Do national procedures and legislation for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) exist?

N/A

2. Are there operational national environmental action plans or environment sector program-mes?

N/A

3. Are there regularly updated state of the environment reports and environmental monitoring systems with indicators?

N/A

4. Is environmental management sufficiently integrated into the sector plans?

N/A

5. Is there sufficient institutional and human capacity for environmental management in the sector concerned?

N/A

Summarize the overall impression of the Country and Sector Environmental Framework: n/a

Opportunities and risks of the programme related to Climate change and the environment

Assess how climate change and environmental opportunities and risks will arise through the programme:

Will the programme ... Opportunity:

Risk: None:

vi

1. ... have an impact on the pollution of soil, water or air as a result of emissions or discharges?

X

2. ... lead to changes in land and resource tenure and access rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples?

X

3. ... include activities within or adjacent to protected or environmentally sensitive areas?

X

4. ... result in livelihood changes (including resettlement) that can increase or reduce the pressure on available natural resources?

X

5. ... have direct or indirect impact on occupational health and safety?

X

6. ... have direct or indirect impact on environmental health?

X

7. ... have direct or indirect impact on climate change (e.g. through increasing or reducing emissions of greenhouse gases)?

X

8. ... have direct or indirect impact on the resilience of communities in the face of natural disasters?

X

Summarize and explain climate change and environmental opportunities:

n/a

Summarize and explain climate change and environmental risks:

n/a

Identify requirements for undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Categories are: [ A ] Full EIA required; [ B ] Partial EIA required; [ C ] No EIA required. Component Name: Category A, B or C:

1: Select category:

2: Select category:

3: Select category:

Will national regulations and procedures for EIA be applicable to activities of the programme that have potential environmental impacts? – Yes - No When will the EIA be undertaken?:

Next Steps – process action plan

Need for further work during the preparation, appraisal and implementation of the programme arising from the climate change and environment screening: Suggested activity: Action needed Comments and elaboration:

1. Assessment of Environmental Management in sector development plan.

N/A

2. Assessment of capacity for Environmental Management in the sector.

N/A

3. Prepare ToR for and conduct Country Analytical Work.

N/A

4. Prepare ToR for and conduct SEA(s) of sector policies or plans.

N/A

vii

5. Prepare ToR for and conduct EIA(s) for programme support activities.

N/A

6. Initiate donor harmonisation in the sector on environmental assessment and management.

N/A

7. Other...?

N/A

Signature of Screening Note

Tove Degnbol, TAS ……………………………………………

viii

e. HRBA Screening The BSU programme is a capacity building programme and therefore most of the areas mentioned in the screening note is of less relevance to the programme. The note was partly filled. In general, the platform on “Stability, Democracy and Rights” is working on building the institutional capacity of the Uganda, Kenya and Nepal in order to ensure that there is a national capacity to work with HRBA among other things.

HRBA Screening Note

Purpose: The HRBA Screening Note complements the HRBA Guidance Note.

The purpose of the note is to facilitate and strengthen the application of the Human

Rights Based Approach to development in policy dialogue and programming related

to Danish development cooperation. It can be used as an inspiration checklist by all

staff.

The preparation of the HRBA screening note is mandatory for all Danish

programme support. Preferable, the HRBA screening note should be developed in

collaboration with the partner country and relevant donors. The HRBA screening

note will be updated through the programme cycle (preparation, formulation and

appraisal) accounting for the integration of the HRBA in key documents pertaining

to these phases. This means that the ‘Analysis’ section must be prepared for

Concept Note submission while the questions in the ‘Policy Dialogue’,

‘Formulation’ and ‘Results/Indicators’ sections can be filled tentatively at this point.

These sections must then be updated or elaborated on for the appraisal and

submission to Financing Decision.

In order to minimize duplication of work, please highlight key pages or sections in

the relevant document(s) below, indicating where HRBA is reflected. This may

include information on results, actions or expectations related to the identified duty-

bearers/right-holders.

Basic info

Title Building Stronger Universities in Developing Countries, Phase Two

Country/

region

Tanzania, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and Nepal.

Budget in

DKK m

90,000,000

Starting date

and duration

August 2013, two years and 5 months

ix

Analysis Issue/ Question Yes No

Relevant

sections(

s)

If not applicable, please

explain why

Human

Rights

Standards

Are key

international

human rights

standards in

focus area

reflected?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Where relevant,

is application at

national level,

including major

gaps between

human rights in

principle vs.

human rights in

practice,

evaluated and

identified?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Are key

recommendation

s from UPR for

the thematic

intervention areas

and from any

treaty bodies,

special

procedures,

INGOs, NHRIs

etc. that require

follow up at

national level

considered?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Are rights-

holders

identified?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

x

..and duty-

bearers?

☐ ☐

Principles

Non-

discriminatio

n

Are any groups

among rights

holders that are

excluded from

access and

influence in the

focus area

identified?

Are disaggregated

data available on

most vulnerable

groups?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Participation

and

Inclusion

Are barriers for

participation,

inclusion and

empowerment of

rights holders

identified?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Transparency Is the extent to

which

information is

accessible to

rights holders

including

marginalised

groups assessed?

Where relevant,

whether

information is

available in other

than official

languages of the

country in

question should

be indicated.

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

xi

Are steps taken

by duty-bearers

to make

information

available to rights

holders assessed?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Accountabilit

y

Are key

accountability

mechanisms in

the relevant area

– both horizontal

and vertical

listed?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Are obstacles,

e.g. capacity and

political-

economy

incentives that

duty-bearers and

rights holders

face to exercise

their obligations

and rights listed?

☐ ☐ See above for

explanation.

Policy

dialogue Issue/ Question Response/ Comment

Objective State objective of policy

dialogue, incl. reference to

specific human rights

standards and principles,

recommendations from UPR

etc.

-

Dialogue

partner(s)

Define key dialogue partners

(duty-bearers) to be addressed

-

Alliance

partner(s)

Define key alliance partners -

xii

Dilemmas/

risks

State major dilemmas/ risks

associated with the policy

dialogue and proposed

mitigation measures (incl.

reference to Framework for

Risk Assessment)

-

Formulation Issue/ Question Response/ Comment

Outcome Where relevant, explain which

international human rights

standards and/ or mechanism

have influenced choice and

formulation of outcome

areas. Explain how.

-

Principles (to be filled out where relevant and appropriate) N/A

Non-

discriminatio

n

List any key support elements

included to promote non-

discrimination

A)

B)

C)

Participation

and

Inclusion

List any key support elements

included to promote

participation and inclusion

Transparency List any key support elements

included to promote

transparency

Accountabilit

y

List any key support elements

included to promote

accountability

Results/

Indicators Issue/ Question

Indicator(s) no.

xx Page number(s)

xiii

Outcome

List any indicators designed

to monitor the realisation of

specific human rights

- -

Principles

List any indicators designed

to monitor the integration of

the four principles

- -

Capacity

development

goals

List any key indicators chosen

to track capacity of key

partners (both rights holders

and duty-bearers)

- -

Signature

Place/ date, Copenhagen March 22, 2013

Department TAS