1 Introduction

In 1993, human rights, democracy and the rule of law were made one of the five priority topics of Swiss foreign policy. In order to respond to this changing policy orientation, the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC), a department of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, established an Intra-governmental Working Group to identify ways of making the new orientation relevant to its staff and external partners. Two policy documents were issued and distributed widely to SDC staff and partners:
• Promoting Human Rights in Development Co-operation in 1997 (a binding text).
• The Rule of Law Concept: Its Significance in Development Co-operation in 1998.

SDC has very limited information about their specific use and impact. Moreover, its Thematic and Technical Resources Department would like to issue new policy documents. Relatively little is known, however, within SDC and more generally amongst donors, about the key factors that affect how policy guidance can affect practice. Given a perception of ‘policy fatigue’, SDC wishes to find out how future guidance could be made more effective.

Given this context, the purpose of the Evaluation was three-fold:
• to assess the influence exerted by the Human Rights Guidelines and Rule of Law Conceptual Framework in terms of their policy and programmatic guidance;
• to identify ways of making these specific policy orientations more effective and more relevant;
• to highlight key factors that might foster or hamper the impact of policy guidance documents.

This independent Evaluation was undertaken by the Overseas Development Institute. The study went beyond an evaluation, and included elements of ‘learning’. A number of different techniques were used to gather and triangulate information:
• semi-structured interviews with SDC staff, Swiss government departments and Swiss NGOs;
• a review of SDC policy and programme documents and financial data;
• a brief electronic survey;
• four country case studies (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pakistan, Peru and Rwanda);
• focus group discussions with staff from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Geneva-based development experts;
• an ‘Episode Study’ of changes to gender policy within SDC;
• a review of the experience of four development agencies: DFID, Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

2 Analytical Framework

Our approach emphasises that guidance documents are only one aspect of a broader process of policy change within development agencies. This is a complex, non-linear process, where policy-making and implementation cannot be fully separated and change can take a long time to become apparent. The following list identifies the key requirements for ‘successful’ policy change processes, drawing on lessons learnt by the ODI Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) programme, SDC’s experience with gender mainstreaming, and that of other donors in the area of human rights and the rule of law. According to our findings, important elements of successful processes include:

1. a supportive international and domestic environment;
2. a clear, concise and well-communicated policy statement;
3. policy champions and the commitment of senior managers;
4. instructions, systems and resources to put the policy in practice;
5. visible translation into policy dialogue, programmes and projects;
6. supporting measures, such as staffing, training and communication;
7. practical guidance, using evidence and lesson-learning to support the policy; and
8. links and networking.

There is very little practical experience of integrating human rights into development practice. Two main approaches have been identified: an ‘empowerment’ or inspirational approach, which privileges social contestation and civil society interventions, and a ‘legalistic’ or institutional approach, grounded in international human rights instruments, and focusing on how states can better meet their obligations. To date, this second approach has often been associated with prioritising civil and political rights. Best practice would suggest taking on board both approaches. SDC’s Guidelines combine both institutional and empowerment dimensions.

Integrating human rights into development assistance can take a number of forms. The starting point involves assessing the political context of the partner country. Human rights can also become the subject of diplomatic dialogue. In terms of programming, specific projects can be developed, for example in the areas of access to justice, political participation, labour standards, minority protection, etc. A greater challenge is to ‘mainstream’ human rights, that is to ensure that all donor-funded activities contribute to the realisation of rights and cause no harm, and that rights are not considered a separate area of programming. ‘Human rights-based approaches’ to development assistance not only involve mainstreaming but also treat respect for human rights as constitutive of development itself, and not just a way of achieving it. Development should follow a number of human rights principles, including non-discrimination, equity, participation, accountability, and respect for human dignity. SDC’s Guidelines include the use of positive measures, dialogue, and conditionality, and recommend a ‘programmatic’ rather than project-based approach. They do not explicitly discuss adopting a ‘rights-based approach’.

The rule of law, as a topic for donor dialogue and intervention, can be defined in a broad sense, to mean that state behaviour should remain within the confines of the law and be rules-based. It can also be used in a narrower sense to refer to the functioning of the justice system, and in particular the independence of the judiciary. SDC’s Concept adopts a broad definition, and notes that the rule of law is not just a topic for projects.

3 Summary of Evaluation Findings

The main focus of the Evaluation was to assess the influence the two policy guidance documents have had on SDC and its partners, in terms of awareness-raising, policy and programmatic impact. We did not review the details of SDC programmes nor their impact on countries. We placed greater emphasis on the Human Rights Guidelines, which were considered to be ‘binding’ and which are a more complex policy issue to put in practice.

3.1 Relevance
The development of policies on human rights and the rule of law was highly relevant, given both the international and domestic political and policy contexts. SDC was amongst the first agencies to have done so at the time. The process adopted, that of a Working Group, suited the domestic style of policy-making.

The documents, and the existence of the policy, were particularly relevant for SDC staff because of the need to take greater account of the political situation in partner countries, as was particularly the case in Rwanda, and the specific human rights and rule of law objectives for support to Eastern European and the former Soviet Union. The documents themselves were not relevant for SDC’s partners, who encounter SDC policy through its actions rather than statements. It was, however, important to have a public policy orientation, and this was achieved by the documents, which had much less operational relevance, and could be made more poverty-focused, in line with SDC’s current policy priority.

3.2 Efficiency
The Working Group approach to elaborating the documents took time but was cost-effective through its use of a consultant. It helped achieve intra-governmental consensus. Greater efficiency in terms of influence would have required a higher degree of investment in the production and communication of the documents, including relevant training and awareness-raising activities, senior-level supportive messages and more involvement of the country offices (COOFs). SDC’s reorganisation at headquarters, in particular the loss of experienced staff involved in the policy process, also caused disruption.

3.3 Effectiveness and Impact
Human rights awareness remains general and there is an absence of consistent knowledge about the content of the human rights policy amongst SDC staff. There is also a degree of complacency; ‘we know about human rights because we are Swiss’. There is also confusion as to the boundaries of rule of law interventions. The Human Rights Guidelines were generally better known and more used than the Rule of Law Concept. SDC partners, including donors, have little awareness of the policies.

Policy coherence across government remains a challenge, and the SDC documents have little influence on other departments, including those with differing priorities such as the State Department for Economic Affairs (seco) and the Refugee Office. There is a perception that SDC could do more to promote human rights overseas. Human rights dialogue can be difficult given the projectised nature of SDC assistance, and the demands this makes on COOF staff. There are also possible tensions between political and development priorities. The Swiss government has recently reviewed its human rights policy conditionality approach in light of problems in consistent implementation.

There has been an increase in funding for human rights and rule of law activities, estimated at 2.6% of SDC bilateral programming in 2002, but it remains a marginal proportion of SDC’s overall budget (though it constitutes 22% of aid expenditure in the Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union). Human rights programming mostly takes the form of projects, principally in the area of civil and political rights, and usually for short-term activities. Very few countries have adopted human rights as a transversal (that is, cross-cutting) theme or have developed human rights strategies. This assessment does not capture activities, for example in the social sectors, which might be consistent with human rights and rule of law principles, but which were not designed or labelled as such, and thus cannot be included in a global evaluation.

There is an absence of management systems to ensure that human rights and rule of law issues are systematically taken into account at the level of assessment, implementation and monitoring. This is problematic given the ‘binding’ nature of the Human Rights Guidelines, and the need to assist staff in prioritising policy areas. There is a demand for more practical tools to complement the policy documents, and for training and learning events. The implementation of the human rights and rule of law policy orientations seems to depend a great deal on the priorities set by regional divisions or as identified by country teams. The professional background of staff is also important. The decentralised nature of SDC explains this pattern.

It is Governance which has become an important issue during the period under review. A Governance Network and Governance Division have been established. Governance and gender have been made transversal issues, whereas human rights are not considered cross-cutting, and responsibility for technical support has been located under the ‘access to justice’ thematic area of intervention. A number of country programmes are developing governance strategies, which subsume human rights and the rule of law. There is a danger that human rights may be reduced to civil and political concerns if they are seen only as constitutive of governance, and not as part of a broader approach to development assistance.

3.4 Conclusion on Policy Guidance Documents
SDC produces a variety of guidance documents aimed at influencing policy (within SDC and externally) on a range of issues. There does not appear, however, to be a coherent approach. Staff complain of a policy ‘overload’ and a lack of prioritisation, and that the organisation is producing too many dense documents of limited operational relevance. They prefer more operational advice and learning from the experience of their colleagues. There seems not to be a coherent strategy towards influencing SDC’s partners. The Evaluation confirmed that documents, on their own, cannot achieve policy change. They are only one aspect of broader processes of policy and institutional change within development agencies.

4 Recommendations on Policy Guidance Documents

4.1 Move beyond projects towards macro policy influence:
Locally-based assistance or short-term activities tend to have limited policy-influencing consequences unless they are designed as such. Greater impact would be achieved by explicit efforts to identify and influence key players and processes at the macro level, plus a strategic shift, including in the use of aid instruments. SDC should start by piloting such an approach in particular countries.

4.2 Clarify the meaning of ‘binding’.
SDC produces quite a large number of often lengthy policy guidance documents, some of which are considered ‘binding’ but with no particular instructions to reflect that status. Only a limited number of key policy statements should be classified as binding, and it should be clear upon whom they are binding, objectives should be set, and a monitoring and evaluation system should be put in place to measure progress. Funding should also be allocated to support their promotion. Some issues may therefore need to be ‘de-prioritised’.

4.3 Practical recommendations

1. Clarify the different products needed for different purposes.
2. Adopt a dynamic approach to preparing and sustaining policy guidance.
3. More effective communication is essential and policy guidelines need to be differentiated, as to whether they are internal to SDC or meant to be ‘publicity’ tools.

5. Recommendations to Further SDC’s Human Rights and Rule of Law Policy Orientations

5.1 Strategic considerations

1. Re-affirm SDC’s commitment to human rights.
The Evaluation noted a lack of explicit senior-level support to prioritise human rights. Current practice, in particular the Strategy 2010 and associated SDC restructuring, is privileging ‘governance’ and has made human rights a sub-sector under the ‘access to justice’ theme. This is not consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law as one of the five top Swiss foreign policy objectives. Senior management should reaffirm the importance of human rights for development, plus the allocation of sufficient resources. Staff recruitment and training needs to take into account the ability to understand and respond to human rights considerations.

2. Update SDC’s human rights and rule of law policies.
SDC will need to decide if it wishes to explicitly adopt a ‘rights-based’ approach, and the Rule of Law Concept should be replaced by an up-to-date Access to Justice document.

3. Adopt adequate management systems in line with the ‘binding’ nature of the human rights policy.
A Working Group should be established to review how human rights are taken into account at the levels of: (i) country assessment; (ii) policy dialogue; (iii) programming; and (iv) monitoring and evaluation, and to consider how management systems need to be amended, possibly by adopting a sequenced approach, building on country pilots where human rights are already better integrated in programmes.

1.5.2 Practical recommendations

1. Communicate better and develop a consistent understanding.
Both the Human Rights Guidelines and Rule of Law Concept should immediately be put on the SDC website. It should also be made clear to COOFs that these are public documents and should be displayed along other SDC documents, in particular in countries where human rights programming is taking place.

2. Provide more support to implementing the policies by way of training and learning events, practical tools, and networking, including opportunities for staff to learn from one another via workshops.

Click here for the full report (Adobe Pdf 399Kb)