Mobilisation of UN and EU levers of influence to effect local change in favour of human rights-final evaluation of the project

22/07/2021
contenu

Mobilisation of UN and EU levers of influence to effect local change in favour of human rights - Terms of reference for a final evaluation of the project


The applicants for the evaluation must provide:
1. A technical offer composed of a presentation of the methodological approach, a timetable for the execution of the evaluation and the references of the consultant(s) (detailed Curriculum/a)
2. A detailed financial offer (in euros, showing all the headings, unit costs, number of units, etc.)

Applications must be sent by e-mail to: amadelin@fidh.org no later than August 23 2021. Include in the subject line: “FIDH/application evaluation”
Applications will be processed after the deadline for receipt of applications.


I Purpose of these terms of reference and objectives of the evaluation
In the framework of a programme that FIDH has undertaken between July 2018 and June 2021, FIDH intends to undertake an evaluation of its undertakings through the project, which results will be used to inform future programme planning with the member organisations and will also be shared with other FIDH teams to ensure learning is shared.
This evaluation will be carried out by an independent and qualified expert who will verify whether the programme’s activities have achieved the planned objectives in accordance with the stipulations of the contract that FIDH undertook with the programme’s principal supporter, Irish Aid.
The evaluation must allow, through the methodological tools proposed by the evaluation team, to :
• Analyse the coherence and relevance of the intervention strategy and the mechanism;
• Assess the quality and quantity of the project’s implementation: assessment of the results achieved in relation to the expected results and the means used;
• Assess the impact of the project;
• Analyse the sustainability of the actions and make recommendations in this respect

II Presentation of the organisation and the programme to evaluate :

1. FIDH :
Founded in 1922, the FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights) brings together 184 organisations in 112 countries, which share actions and strategies to strengthen the respect of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. FIDH considers that the transformation of society must be led by national actors.
Its activities aim at empowering its member organisations and partners and increasing their influence at the local level. It acts at the national, regional and international levels to help them fight against human rights violations and consolidate democracy.
FIDH, in support of its member organisations and partners, intervenes to document the most serious crimes, to accompany victims before national, regional and international justice, and to advocate with political authorities and influential diplomats to ensure that judicial systems are sufficiently independent to provide effective remedies for victims.
FIDH deploys different types of actions that have proven to be effective: urgent reactions (public or confidential); international fact-finding missions; judicial observation and defence missions; political dialogue, advocacy, litigation, awareness raising campaigns. FIDH relies on a network of international volunteer experts, while promoting the exchange of experiences between defenders around the world to encourage the sharing of know-how. FIDH evaluates its activities to increase their effectiveness and to adjust its objectives if necessary.

2. Institutional organisation and functioning of the FIDH

The organisation and functioning of FIDH reflect its governance principles: at the base, the 192 member organisations. FIDH is thus based on three pillars:
• The Congress, which brings together the 192 member organisations of FIDH. It meets every three years and debates the thematic and geographical priorities of the FIDH and decides on the political orientations of the organisation.

• The International Board: It is composed of 22 voluntary members from FIDH member organisations and elected by the Congress, the President, the Treasurer, 15 Vice-Presidents and 5 Secretaries General. It sets the main strategic orientations and objectives, in the framework of the political orientations defined by the Congress. It approves the annual accounts of the FIDH. It meets three times a year and reports to the Congress.

• Headquartered in Paris, the International Secretariat is composed of a professional team, headed by a Director General. Its teams are organised by regions and thematic priorities. The International Secretariat has delegations to the UN in Geneva and New York, to the European Union in Brussels, and to the International Criminal Court in The Hague; regional offices in the Middle East (Tunis) and Asia; and joint offices with member organisations in different countries accross the world. It also has a communications department and an administrative and financial department. In permanent contact with the field, it implements the decisions of the FIDH’s political bodies in collaboration with the member organisations, the mission officers and the members of the international and executive boards.

3. Summary of the project:
Context prior to the Project
An active, vibrant and independent civil society is an essential driver for peaceful and inclusive societies, the objective of SDG16. Beyond this specific goal, the overall 2030 Agenda, as “an Agenda of the people, by the people and for the people” which calls for the establishment of a global partnership “with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people” to work on its implementation, requires that governments provide for an environment in which meaningful civil society engagement is possible and encouraged.
Yet, across the world, attacks on civil society in general and the human rights movement in particular have moved from being reported incidents to becoming a global trend. In particular, in countries like Bangladesh, Burundi, Cambodia, Egypt, Honduras, the Philippines and Turkey, human rights organisations which played an active role in developing their own societies have increasingly been under attack or are now totally curtailed. In dictatorial or oppressive regimes like Belarus, Iran and Vietnam, civil society has been able to resist and organise independently, but remains silenced even though their governments engage in economic openings. Strengthening their role and voice would be essential to furthering their country’s alignment with SDG16.
Further, in its report on the implementation of SDG16, the UN Secretary General ("Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals", ), regretted how violent conflicts have increased in recent years, and a few high-intensity armed conflicts are causing large numbers of civilian casualties. Progress towards promoting peace and justice, and towards effective, accountable and inclusive institutions, remains dire in Mali, the DRC, Myanmar/Burma, Palestine, the Sudans, Syria and in Yemen, which are the focus of attention of both the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council. As a significant counter-example, Colombia, which after a 50-year long conflict is engaged into a historical drive towards peace, our hopes are for a significant advancement in the country’s road towards the end of poverty.

Project Approach and Rationale

In situations where dialogue between civil society and authorities is impossible or blocked because of deliberate attempts to prevent the deployment of independent critical voices, or where conflicts have been sparked and/or entrenched, FIDH’s experience demonstrates that improvements are achieved by combining action from inside the country with pressure and activation of relevant monitoring mechanisms from outside, using international levers of influence and monitoring mechanisms that have developed within the United Nations (UN), in both political and judicial or quasi-judicial fields, that help characterise violations, call upon the countries concerned to remedy them and provide them with technical assistance. UN human rights protection mechanisms provide advice, cooperation, and qualification on the realisation of human rights at the global level. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), previously less likely to consider human rights, is currently almost systematically including significant references to human rights in its specific country and thematic mobilisation, thus becoming another institution to target for mobilisation. Beyond these fora, States and groups of States have also been including human rights in their political dialogue with third countries, and developed their foreign and development policies as levers for change in third countries. As such, the European Union (EU) has been developing an important number of policy instruments that are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and often tailored to follow-up on the conclusions and recommendations of the UN human rights recommendations. As the world’s first development donor, and a leading trade and investment player, its human rights policy, tuned appropriately, has proven to contribute to exercising significant leverage towards third states, and contribute to their legislative and policy changes. The EU and UN instruments and institutions often rely upon or benefit from the information and the expertise of human rights NGOs (HRNGOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs) to formulate relevant recommendations to the authorities concerned. Yet, the interaction between HRNGOs and UN or EU institutions and instruments is complicated as a result of the isolation of HRNGOs and HRDs in certain countries, or the absence of opportunities or appropriate methodology to interact with the institutional actors of the monitoring mechanisms to contribute to their evaluation and recommendations.
In addition, in becoming efficient and pertinent, many UN human rights mechanisms have also been under attack by States at the international level, that have mobilised for the reduction of their protective capacities. In particular, mechanisms dedicated to condemning or monitoring human rights in specific countries have been limited, or re-designed to address a limited number of violations, “agreed upon” by the authorities responsible for their commission, in exchange for technical support in reforms. In this context, the interaction of local HRNGOs and HRDs with UN and EU intergovernmental fora and their stakeholders has proven useful to guarantee that the human rights mechanisms or policies address genuine human rights challenges locally.

Project Objectives
This project seeks to achieve mobilisation of intergovernmental mechanisms and international levels of influence in favour of local change in the target countries, by strengthening interactions between HRNGOs and HRDS and with targeted mechanisms, strengthening documentation and information on human rights situations, and increasing public visibility of these situations.
Project Results Framework (see attached at end of document)
Project Countries :
Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Honduras, Iran, Mali, Myanmar/Burma, Palestine, Philippines, South Sudan, Sudan, Turkey, Vietnam, Yemen

III Methodology, timetable for the evaluation
This evaluation is contractual and was foreseen at the outset of the project. It concerns all the activities carried out within the framework of the programme. This evaluation should make it possible to highlight the major results of the programme while pointing out the strategic horizons.
The evaluation must allow, through the methodological tools proposed by the expert / the evaluation team and following the evaluation criteria of the OECD DAC which are "relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability" to achieve the following objectives
1. Analyse the coherence and relevance of the intervention strategy and the mechanism. Evaluative questions that the evaluation will seek to answer include
• To what extent did the coherence of the activities and the methodology chosen for the intervention contribute to the achievement of the programme’s results?
• How do beneficiaries and programme partners assess the relevance of the intervention strategy?
• How did they take ownership of the activities and approaches chosen in the intervention?
• Which strategic choices have proven to be appropriate to the context and objectives of the programme and which should be made differently for the continuation of the programme?
• Has the programme’s steering system been able to adapt to the changing context?
2. Evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively the implementation of the project: assessment of the results achieved in relation to the results anticipated and the means used. Evaluative questions that the evaluation will seek to answer include
• Have the results of the programme been achieved in relation to the results set out in the logical framework?
• What results have exceeded those initially anticipated and why? What lessons can be learned from this analysis ?
• Which operational and strategic choices contributed most significantly to the achievement of the programme results?
• What is the assessment of the activities and results achieved in relation to the human and financial resources used?
3. Assess the impact of the project. Evaluative questions that the evaluation will seek to answer include :
• Assessment of the programme in view of the objectives and issues to which the programme sought to respond
• Assessment of the programme in relation to the intended impact on beneficiaries and target groups.
4. Analyse the sustainability of the actions and make recommendations in this regard. Evaluative questions that the evaluation will seek to answer include
• What sustainability measures have been implemented and how do local partners, target groups and beneficiaries assess them?
• To what extent has the project management system (partnership, steering committee, consultations) contributed to the ownership and sustainability of the programme?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programme to capitalise on in order to continue activities in the field?
Proposed methodology for the evaluation process
The evaluation will be based on :
• a document review :
• documents related to the programme (project, activity reports, etc.)
• public documents produced throughout the project (press releases, video, guide, reports, analysis note)
• Methodology documents produced in the framework of the project
• Information and interviews collected from :
• the team in Brussels, Geneva and Paris in charge of the implementation of this programme and the supervision
• the project beneficiaries throughout the world
• other international experts, diplomats and relevant stakeholders with whom the project interacted with.
Following an initial consultation with the team in charge of the programme, the evaluator will produce a scoping note which will include the evaluation methodology, the list of people to be interviewed and the field mission(s) to be planned.
Based on this note, the evaluator will then conduct individual and group interviews, mostly online, and where possible in Geneva and Brussels.
An initial report will be submitted to the team in charge of the programme and to the FIDH management on the basis of a provisional report. The final report will then be produced, taking into account any comments made during the feedback.
Suggested calendar
The evaluation could take place as early as Septembre 2021, for an initial report to be submitted a month later.

IV Practical arrangements, deliverables, contracts, selection procedure
Profile of the candidates
The evaluation will be carried out by a consultant or a team of consultants who should have the following qualities
• Proven experience in evaluation of civil society actor strengthening programmes
• Knowledge and experience on the functionning of UN institutions, international human rights protection mechanisms and EU human rights policies.
• Very good knowledge of the current situation of local human rights civil society is an asset.
• Competence on the challenges of strengthening civil societies in the South
• Ability to explore multi-stakeholder programmes
• Knowledge of French and Spanish are a strong asset
For obvious reasons of independence and externality of the evaluation exercise, persons who are members or employees of organisations that are members of the programme and consultants in relation to the programme cannot apply for this call.
Evaluation budget :
The budget for the evaluation will not exceed EUR 10 000 including VAT (including direct costs and contingencies).
Terms and conditions:
• Consultancy contract
• Payment in two instalments: a first instalment upon signature of the contract and a second instalment upon delivery of the final report
Expected deliverables
• Deliverable 1. At the beginning of the assignment: a methodological offer (8 p. maximum)
• Deliverable 2. A draft evaluation report
• Deliverable 3. A final evaluation report (60 p maximum)

V Evaluation procedure
The tenders will be evaluated technically according to the following grid.
Points of the technical offer scale
Methodological proposal 10 points
Suitability of the team of consultants for the service 10 points
Suitability of the financial offer for the service 10 points

Read more
contenu