expenses and costs of human rights activities are some of the important items to report.
As the embassy in Lagos is channelling human rights suppor t outside the framework of the Fund and as this assistance might even increase in the future, there might be a need to distinguish between the various forms of assistance by establishing guidelines or clear divisions of labour. However, there might also be prospects for achieving economies of scale or cost-sharing in the sense that local consultants are used for screening both Fund projects and other human rights projects. In any case, the current input by the local consultant of four workdays per month does not seem sufficient to cover the need for monitoring Fund projects.
Additional resource costs including costs of travelling in Nigeria should thus be considered.
The Nigerian cost of administering Fund projects should be accounted for in the general Fund administration expenditure. Moreover, the principle that organisations which receive donor aid in excess of USD 100,000 may not receive Fund assistance should be observed in Nigeria in order to distinguish Fund-eligible projects from other MFA human rights projects.
In addition, other distinguishing criteria might also be needed.
In two respects the organisational performance of organisations suppor ted was found to be deficient. The approach to training adopted by many Indian organisations could be better defined. Secondly, many organisations would benefit from project planning methodologies such as logical framework planning or strategic planning. One deficiency of project work, which was symptomatic of every organisation visited, was a lack of systematic monitoring of their own activities. Therefore, in settings where the Fund operates for several years, one possibility is to organise project planning workshops as cooperative ef for ts between Nor wegian embassies, the Fund and its member organisations. The approach taken as regards monitoring of project outcomes in such diverse settings is not an easy one; one would be well advised to consult with member organisations working in similar fields during joint reviews.
While in Nigeria and Liberia, a growing emphasis on benefiting r ural target groups seems warranted, in South India there seems to be a need to combine an overriding rural focus with advocacy support at the state level in Tamil Nadu and eventually Karnataka. In all of the three case countries visited, human rights defence must be combined with improvements of economic, social and cultural rights.
Institutional capacity-building in the context of difficult human rights situations must largely be financed by donors; it is therefore necessary to develop a more consistent practice in this area.
It is recommended that an overhead of up to a maximum of one third of the entire appropriation can be granted for institutional support if a convincing budget of activities is provided. It seems also well advised to develop consistent practices related to the costs of training.
Finally, it seems also important that the Fund be seen not only as a one-off provider of seeds, but as a facilitator of processes that enable young organisations to develop into mature ones. This is already the practice in priority countries such as the three chosen for this evaluation, but it must be recognised as an explicit policy that permits variation in project duration. Presently, there is no systematic distinction between the funding of an organisation that is receiving its first funding and one that is receiving its third.
However, it is possible to envisage a system in which organisations receive funding for a three-year project after the first funding after proper accounting and reporting procedures have been met, and a mid-term evaluation based on reporting from the project built into the process carried out.
EVALUATION OF THE NORWEGIAN HUMAN RIGHTS FUND
1. Background
The Norwegian Human Rights Fund (hereafter called “the Fund”) was established in 1988 by Norwegian non-governmental organisations to protect and promote human rights internationally. The following institutions/
NGOs are today members of the Fund: the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights (NIHR), Nor wegian Church Aid (NCA), Nor wegian Confederation of Trade Unions (NCTU), Church of Norway Council on Ecumenical and International Relations, Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), Norwegian Red Cross (NRC) and Save the Children Nor way (RB). The Fund is a supplement to the member organisations’ own aid activities, and is governed by a board consisting of representatives from the member organisations. The Nor wegian Ministr y of Foreign Af fairs (MFA) and Amnesty International, Nor wegian Section, have observer status on the Board of the Fund.
The member organisations share the belief that more international suppor t should be channelled to the first line of defence in the str uggle for human rights: local, voluntar y human rights activities. Relatively small, flexible grants (USD 10,000 on an average) are therefore given to organisations and groups working locally, regionally or nationally in low-income countries to promote and protect human rights; be it civil, cultural, economic, political or social rights. The organisations often work in dif ficult situations, both politically and materially. Applications may be submitted at any time, and are processed continuously throughout the year. The Fund aims at answering applications rapidly.
Organisations with little or no other foreign support are given priority, and organisations are often supported in their initial phase. Due to this, and to the limited capacity of the secretariat
to follow up and visit the projects, the grants can be characterised as “high risk” grants. However, in the last couple of years the Fund has put more emphasis in following up reporting from the projects. A written report and an audited financial repor t showing how the grant was used must be submitted to the Fund. The same organisation can normally receive a maximum of three grants from the Fund, and satisfactory reporting is a precondition for repeated support.
Grants are mainly given to documentation and information activities and to human rights education. Grants may also be provided for work to influence national legislation to incorporate international human rights agreements, to victims of human rights violations and occasionally to important court proceedings where human rights are at stake.
Grants cannot be given to projects that are otherwise covered by Norwegian assistance.
One third of the Fund’s budget stems from the member organisations, while the Nor wegian Ministr y of Foreign Af fairs contributes the remaining two thirds. In its more than ten years of existence, the Human Rights Fund has assisted approximately 472 projects carried out by 345 different organisations in 74 countries in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East in their efforts to promote human rights in their countries. The total amount granted to these organisations is about NOK 34 million.
2. Purpose of the Evaluation
Internal evaluations have been undertaken in 1994 and 1997. For 2000 a broad external and independent evaluation is wanted both by the member organisations and by the Ministry. The main purpose of this evaluation is:
1. to provide information on the experience of the Norwegian Human Rights Fund for the period 1996–1999 in administering funds to