NANHRI NAPs Dialogue Summary

Dialogue with Members of the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions on the National Action Plans Project 28 November 2013 Accra, Ghana

The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) and the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) are convening a series of dialogues across world regions to gather valuable inputs and recommendations from experts and key stakeholders to inform the ICAR/DIHR National Action Plans (NAPs) Project. The NAPs Project is aimed at developing a comprehensive Toolkit to support national implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), including through the development of baseline studies, NAPs, and reporting mechanisms to give practical effect to the UNGPs.

On 28 November 2013, the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI) hosted the NAPs Project’s Dialogue with NANHRI Members in Accra, Ghana as part of its 9th Biennial Conference on the theme of “Business and Human Rights: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Role of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs).” The Dialogue involved over 50 NHRI representatives from across the African region. The NAPs Project Team extends its thanks to all participants for their time and for sharing their insights and experiences with the Team, as well as to NANHRI for its excellent leadership and collaboration in this endeavor.

The Dialogue was led by Claire Methven O’Brien (DIHR), Amol Mehra (ICAR), and Sara Blackwell, (ICAR). A short summary of the discussion follows.

Summary of Participants’ Observations

Integrating business and human rights into general human rights processes

Participants noted that a number of African governments have already committed to or are currently in the process of developing NAPs on human rights in general. Depending on the national context, responsibility for developing, vetting, and approving such plans may rest with NHRIs, parliaments, ministerial bodies, or other government entities.

1

Against this background, some participants raised concerns that the development of freestanding NAPs on business and human rights could, in some countries, duplicate existing exercises, create potential redundancies, and result in inefficient uses of resources. Participants therefore suggested that integrating business and human rights issues into existing processes for general human rights NAPs should be considered.

Value of national baseline studies

Participants drew attention to the wide dispersal of responsibilities across government ministries, regulatory agencies, and other public bodies in relation to business and human rights issues at the national level. At the same time, a very large volume of legislation and policies remain relevant to business and human rights, given the wide scope of the UNGPs.

Participants therefore emphasized the potential value of baseline studies on business and human rights to all stakeholders in collating and rationalizing this body of information. As such, national baseline studies and NAPs could constitute an authoritative “one-­‐stop shop” for government agencies, businesses, and civil society—as well as NHRIs themselves—when in need of information on the regulatory framework for business and human rights.

Potential roles for NHRIs in the development of NAPs

Participants noted that, given their mandates to promote and protect human rights, NHRIs have a major role to play in advising and supporting governments in the development of NAPs and in designing human rights-­‐based NAPs processes. NHRIs should also be able to lay the groundwork for the development of NAPs, particularly in terms of undertaking baseline research. However, participants noted that many NHRIs—and many African NHRIS in particular—face tremendous resource constraints that would pose significant challenges in executing these tasks.

Lowering “barriers to entry” for governments on NAPs

In addition to resource constraints, participants noted a lack of engagement, to date, by African governments in the area of NAPs on business and human rights. To mitigate these constraints, it was therefore suggested that knowledge-­‐sharing or “twinning” approaches could be adopted in the African context, in which two or more governments would coordinate their efforts to develop baseline assessments and NAPs. A further suggestion was that the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights could promote the development of NAPs at the regional level, such as through a requirement or invitation to States to report to the Commission on measures and progress in national implementation of business and human rights standards, such as those outlined in the UNGPs.

Key issues to include in NAPs

Participants highlighted the following amongst issues that should be addressed by baseline studies and NAPs on business and human rights in the African context:

2

• •

• •

International investment agreements and the integration of human rights protections into the terms and procedures for enforcement of such agreements; Environmental impact assessment legislation and the need for integration of human rights considerations, effective participation, and transparency in relation to the performance of such assessments; The need to strengthen capacity with regard to business and human rights issues across all stakeholder groups in the region; and The influx of foreign direct investment from Asian countries, particularly China.

Participants commented that the generation of national baseline studies on business and human rights could help to clarify the above issues and other underlying issues and provide an informed basis for the development of NAPs that strategically address those issues.

Participants further noted that, in relation to common concerns across African jurisdictions, best practices and guidance could be developed at the regional level in addition to being developed within context-­‐specific implementing measures included in each country’s NAP.

NAPs are not a checklist approach and should be iterative

As noted above, participants assessed that the development of NAPs offers a significant benefit to African States as an opportunity to bring into one consolidated space a range of governmental activities and policies related to business and human rights. However, at the same time, participants cautioned that NAPs should not become a “checklist” for governments that are completed on a one-­‐time basis only. Rather, participants suggested that NAPs processes should be iterative and continue over time, with reporting elements to be developed in conjunction with NAPs in order to ensure that national implementation is continuous, progressive, and consistently communicated to stakeholders.

Next steps

Participants’ responses will be reflected in the development of the NAPs Project Toolkit and Final Report, scheduled for released in June 2014. Participants are encouraged to continue sharing knowledge, information, and recommendations on NAPs developments through the NAPs Project Google Group at napsproject@googlegroups.com.

For further information regarding the NAPs Project, contact Sara Blackwell, ICAR Legal and Policy Fellow, at sara@accountabilityroundtable.org.

3