Making Rights Work for the Benefit of Poor and Marginalized Assessing the Impact of CARE’s Rights-Based Work in South-Western Uganda Hans-Otto Sano Danish Institute for Human Rights 2010 1 2 Table of Contents Foreword........................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction................................................................................... 5 2. A Rights-Based Approach, but How?.................................................7 2.1. Summarizing CARE’s Approach.................................................................................................13 3. Analyzing the Impact of HRBA........................................................15 3.1. Monitoring and Impact in Relation to Collaborative Strategies with Duty-Bearers....................17 3.1.1. Monitoring of Duty-Bearers ............................................................................................................................17 3.1.2. Governance and Resource Allocation Mechanisms.........................................................................................18 3.1.3. Are Power Balances Changing, and are the Changes Sustainable?................................................................21 3.2. Impact in Relation to Rights-Holders..........................................................................................22 3.2.1. Incomes, Access to Resources, and Services....................................................................................................22 3.2.2. Land and Agriculture........................................................................................................................................24 3.2.3. Dignity and Non-Discrimination......................................................................................................................26 3.2.4. Empowerment - in What Measure and Kind?..................................................................................................29 4. Conclusions................................................................................... 31 4.1. Recommendations........................................................................................................................34 5. Literature...................................................................................... 37 3  Foreword This report presents findings on the impact of implementing human rights-based programs. It is a research study rather than a consultancy report inasmuch as the purpose and the terms of reference have been defined by the researcher and accepted by the recipient organization. In terms of purpose, the work focuses mainly on one aspect of the project cycle, namely impact, while much less on other evaluation issues such as relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability – although aspects of the latter are discussed. The methodology and length of field visit also distinguish the work from a more conventional evaluation work as more time has been spent in the field. However, the format of the report incorporates elements from consultancy reports. At the request of the recipient organization, a section on Recommendations has been inserted at the end of the report. The genre of the study is therefore close to evaluation and impact studies or to evaluation research. More data of this report have been generated in situ as a result of more lengthy interviews with program beneficiaries than would normally be the case in an evaluation undertaken by a team of consultants. It should be underlined strongly though that this approach is not thought to make the study more authoritative than a conventional evaluation, nor more legitimate in terms of its conclusions. What has guided the choice of methodology is a broader interest in learning about the impact of rights-based programming and on the implications for poverty eradication of rights-based approaches. These concerns guide the selection of emphasis in the study. The author wishes to thank CARE Denmark and CARE Uganda for good discussions and comments. Thanks in particular are due to, Anders Aalbaek, Edith Kabesiime, James Bot, Marianne Haahr, Patrick Ndoleriire, Sam Karuhanga, Samuel Besigye, Tracy Kajumba, and to all colleagues and partners met during the visit. 4 1. Introduction CARE Uganda has implemented natural resource management project and programs in South-Western Uganda for 20 years. The first generation of projects were based on integrated conservation and development (ICD) approaches that delivered a range of interventions among which agricultural extension services, gravity water schemes, tree planting activities, energy conservation, problem animal management, rotational saving and loans schemes, the promotion of in- forest and out-of-forest livelihood strategies, capacity building, and logistical support to Uganda National Parks (today Uganda Wildlife Authority) to develop its capacity for fulfilling its mandate. Since 2003, CARE Uganda has worked according to a rights-based approach with the support of CARE Denmark under the Rights, Equity and Protected Areas Program (REPA I). The program started March 2003 and expired during December 2008. A new REPA II program was started during January 2009 and will run until 2013. This report examines two issues: 1. How has rights-based programming been implemented in REPA? 2. What kind of impact is evident? This research relates to a wider interest in examining the impact of rights-based programming. Many international and local NGOs have started to work according to a human rights-based approach (HRBA)1 since the beginning of the decade. In 1 The report will use HRBA as the acronym of a human rights-based approach. This is the acronym employed by UN and by most organization working rights-based. CARE employs RBA as the acronym, distancing itself to some extent from human rights while acknowledging other rights elements, but otherwise, and increasingly, working with a similar methodology as many other human rights-based organizations. Thus CARE 5 addition, UN organizations have also adopted rights-based programming as part of their work. Yet little has been said about the impact of rights-based programming. Assumptions prevail as regards the potential of the approach in terms of poverty eradication, empowerment, better accountability and social justice , while evidence is meager. It might be argued that the application of rights-based programming by many organizations including the UN ones has been adopted based on assumptions rather than firm knowledge. This is far from uncommon, but it seems pertinent now to reflect more systematically about the “pro’s et con’s” of the approach. Four issues seem particularly important: • How well does HRBA create tangible benefits for the poor and the marginalized? • Can the target groups themselves (mostly the poorest and the most marginalized) use the approach? Do they have sufficient knowledge for adapting it? • How well is the human rights platform on which organizations work and formulate their strategies adapted to create relevant linkages and advocacy vis-à-vis local authorities, and authorities generally? • Is HRBA likely to create more sustainable and more democratic solutions? The report below will deal with these issues. The report is intended for the use of CARE Uganda and CARE Denmark. It is not a scientific report with a large theoretical and methodological section, reflecting on a broader research discussion, but is intended for practical use by CARE and by those who are concerned about the implementation of HRBA. Yet the overall problematique of the study has been guided by a perceived need of research on the impact of human rights-based approaches and by an understanding of the wider problems of implementing rights-based development. The REPA program was selected, partly because CARE has been implementing rights-based programming for a number of years, but also because the field of natural resource management is highly relevant, not least as regards how human rights approaches can be applied in relation to climate change. Two brief methodological observations are pertinent: A model of impact assessment is made in chapter 3 of the report. One caveat is that short term field work (a fortnight in this case) allow some level of understanding, but not an in depth one. In its approach, the study resembles evaluation work (with a typical focuses on duty-bearers and rights-holders, and on the empowerment of the latter, and the accountability of the former. Similarly, CARE puts a strong emphasis on non- discrimination, equality, and participation . 6 element of “elite interviews “ (duty-bearers, institutional interviews) combined with focus and mixed group interviews. Compared to an evaluation study, more time has been spent in the field in the present work and we have used household interviews as an important, additional research tool in comparison with an evaluation study. This additional element is crucial for understanding how program target groups interpret the situation and possibly also to gain a firmer ground on how change experienced by target groups can be attributed to program activities. The other methodological observation is that impact is often perceived to be most solidly discernible by comparing for instance an HRBA program to a non-HRBA program – all other elements being equal.2 The study managed to find non-HRBA and HRBA programs implemented by the same partner, but only in six out of 14 programs it was possible to identify programs being implemented during nearly the same period in time. Thus the context in terms of conjunctures, politics, and climate may have changed significantly over time. 2. A Rights-Based Approach, but How? How do the ideals of rights-based development translate into the program reality in Uganda? First, it may be pertinent to recall what the HRBA ideals are? Table 1 illustrates how HRBA has been contrasted with what is called Needs-based approaches. According to this description, HRBA is distinct from the needs-based approach through its structural approach to poverty, in its social justice and legal literacy emphasis, in challenging discriminatory practices and norms of exclusion, notably in relation to gender, via process monitoring, through mobilization and empowerment of rights-holders, and by creating new lines of accountability with an emphasis on down-stream linkages. Finally, HRBA is described as having a stronger emphasis on power relations, redressing unequal balances of power. One can reflect about whether the left side of the table is somewhat of a caricature, for instance in describing the Needs-based approach to gender discrimination as encouraging attendance in meetings or as being mainly working with people in poverty as part of a victimizing (and not empowering) strategy. 3 However, in the discussion below, the focus is on its right side of table 1. 2 The most prominent example in this field is UK Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights- Based Approaches to Development, no year, The Impact of Rights-Based Approaches to Development. Evaluation Learning Process Bangladesh, Malawi and Peru. 3 After all, the concept of empowerment was employed before anybody in the human rights community had thought much about empowerment of the poor. See for instance, Friedman, John, 1992. Empowerment. The Politics of Alternative Development. Also Deepa Narayan, 2000. Can Anybody Hear Us. Voices of the Poor, vol. 1. 7 A look at how CARE describes its rights-based engagement may elucidate how well the ideals reported in table 1 tally with the reality. In the REPA II program, the program document formulates the following about the approach: “The RBA has, in many ways, superseded the needs-based approach (NBA) but is a move too far from addressing the immediate needs of the poor natural resource-dependent households. As a compromise, the ICD approach is reflected in the Programme approach, to provide for short-term benefits for the poor. The pragmatic approach to the implementation of RBA will be applied” (REPA II Programme Document, p. 6-7. In REPA I, the following formulation was used: “A rights approach affirms the importance of systematic identification of the fundamental, or “root” causes of vulnerability and of commitment, wherever possible, to help confront such causes in our work. This is because if root causes are not addressed, the ability of programme beneficiaries to realize their rights is limited, if not completely undermined. Root causes are often systemic or structural, residing at the societal or even global level and underpinned by vested interests at all levels” (REPA I, p. 31). Table 1. The Description of How Rights- and Needs-Based Approaches are Distinct Needs based approaches… Rights based approaches…. Vulnerability viewed as a symptom of Vulnerability viewed as a structural issue poverty and an underlying cause of poverty Focus on poverty reduction or alleviation Focus on poverty eradication and social justice Programme interventions rarely take Programme interventions specifically account of power and even if it is acknowledge power, its unequal distribution recognised, no remedial action is taken and seek ways to redress the balance, or level the “playing field” Poor are seen as victims, who are there to RBA supports the transformation of the be helped and to accept assistance as and poor person from a passive receiver to one when it is provided participating in decision making and asserting rights Extension focuses on technical In addition to technical solutions/innovations to address poverty solutions/innovations, extension focuses on (such as new agricultural practises) helping the poor to claim their rights through supporting legal literacy Gender: Focus tends to be on addressing Gender: Focus tends to be on challenging the symptoms of discrimination (such as discrimination and social, cultural and encouraging attendance in meetings, but institutional norms related to exclusion 8 not supporting meaningful participation Partner selection driven by track record in Partner selection driven by a commitment service delivery to rights and empowerment Monitoring measures success in the form of Monitoring measures success in the form of tangible outputs (farmers trained, new process indicators (empowerment, agricultural practises adopted, etc.) increased rights and greater accountability) Accountability flows from the implementing New lines of accountability are explored, agency to the funding agency such as to government and to target group, and links between these two Source: Quoted in Blomley et al. 2009, p. 2 from Lutrell, C. and L-H Piron, 2005 . Between REPA I and REPA II, the application of HRBA has been adapted, allegedly as indicated in the first quote in the interest of responding to the needs of the poorest population. Hence, a certain shift from “root and structural causes” to what can be termed a less ambitious approach, perhaps closer to the priorities of the most important target group, is apparent. During 2005, CARE International issued the Unifying Framework for Poverty eradication and Social Justice4. The report addressed how the various conceptual approaches of CARE could be combined. In particular, the report discussed how the approach of Household Livelihood Security (HLS) adopted during the mid- 1990s could be combined with a rights-based approach. Programming tools such as promotion of gender equity and diversity, and advocacy were also discussed. While the HLS framework provided a focus on empowerment and participation, partnership, and sustainable results, the HRBA was seen to strengthen actions of non-discrimination, accountability and promotion of responsibility together with an enhanced emphasis on analyzing and addressing the underlying causes of poverty. The synthesis of these two approaches implied what can perhaps be seen as an attempt to integrate the strongholds of the two HLS and HRBA, or to combine needs-based and rights-based concepts. Thus the Unifying Framework explained that while the needs-based approaches had focused attention on Human Conditions and people-centered development, the rights-based emphasis added a focus on Social Positions, i.e. supporting people’s efforts to control their lives and fulfil their rights, responsibilities and aspirations including efforts of redressing discrimination and inequality.5 4 See McCaston et al. 2005. Unifying Framework for Poverty eradication & Social Justice: The Evolution of CARE’s Development Approach. 5 See Unifying Framework, 2005, p. 11-17. The Framework presented three upper level outcome categories: Improving Human Conditions, Improving Social Positions, and Creating a Sound Enabling Environment. Strangely, while the last outcome category public, private, civic and social institutions, it did not relate in any systematic way the HRBA to this category which had obvious linkages to a focus on duty-bearers. 9 It is unclear to what degree these thoughts were instrumental in furthering the more pragmatic approach of REPA as the Uganda documents did not reference it. However, the thoughts of the document may nevertheless have been instrumental in engendering the position that the rights-based work of CARE should not imply that former approaches described as needs-based ones were to be discarded. The efforts of synthesizing needs- and rights-based approaches (and of lowering the expectations as regards addressing the root cause of poverty) could be an important lesson when applying HRBA. Is such a synthetic approach justified, based on objectives of poverty reduction/eradication and on objectives of realizing human rights? Will a less pragmatic approach more in line with REPA I give better human rights results? Below an effort is made to answer these questions. In dealing with that, an answer will also be attempted as regards the other components of table 1. According to the evaluation of the REPA I program, “the translation of the abstract RBA approach into concrete practice has been a major challenge for REPA” (Gjedde-Nielsen and Isoba 2008, p. 20-21). Some of the problems quoted in the evaluation study relate to service delivery and how such concerns were combined with a rights-based approach when dealing with resource-poor local authorities. Other problems concerned conflicts among ethnic minorities for support from CARE. HRBA could lead into unintended strategies of ethnic chauvinism. The risk of an overly legalistic approach was also mentioned. This could sacrifice collective rights in favour of individual ones. The evaluation study recommended that a pragmatic approach to HRBA be applied. This was indeed adhered to in the REPA II strategy which stated that “A pragmatic approach to RBA implementation has been adopted, combining it with (e.g.) a needs based approach. Service delivery is used carefully to build aspects of sustainability, and to leverage long-term commitment from Uganda duty bearers” REPA II, 2008, p. 9). What does this mean in practice? Where are the major distinctions between REPA I and REPA II as regards the rights dimension? Listening to CARE staff, they express a well-known view that more emphasis has been put on service provision during REPA II, while REPA I is described as putting more emphasis on enabling target groups to claim their rights. Others would describe the approach taken in REPA II as a compromise between a rights- and needs-based approach, and a more balanced one. Moreover, the internal discourse would also point to the fact that governance is more in focus now than during REPA I. However, as regards service provision, it is clear that CARE partners also provided services during REPA I, for instance in the form of seed loans or distribution (for the Batwa), 10 facilitation of access to e.g. health services for women, providing inputs for food security, and support for goat rearing (for the Batwa).6 Hence, some of the shift in terms of service provision might be discursive rather than real in the sense that during REPA II it has been made more legitimate to respond to demands for service provision. Comparing the logical framework tables of respectively REPA I (the revised one from 2005) and REPA II, the distinctions as regards HRBA are, as it seems: REPA I: An emphasis on minority groups parallel to an emphasis on poor and marginalized households REPA II: Emphasis on “pro-poor” strategies and on livelihoods REPA I: Emphasis on “Poor and marginalized groups and individuals are effectively articulating and fulfilling their interest and rights. REPA II: Stronger emphasis on indirect methods on making rights claims, i.e. through awareness raising, through monitoring organizations and through representatives of various sorts.7 REPA II: Stronger emphasis on good governance in the logical framework, linking governance to participation of civil society and poor communities REPA I: Emphasis on local governance, especially after 2005. An issue carried forward to REPA II. Going back to table 1, it is now possible to take a more informed look at how CARE applies HRBA in South-Western Uganda. Looking at the right side of the columns in table 1, the following observations can be made: Table 2. CARE’s Application of Components of HRBA HRBA as interpreted in table 1 Comments Vulnerability viewed as a structural issue Where CARE seems to be most active as and an underlying cause of poverty regards this component is in terms of advocacy undertaken at central-Kampala level, and at the level of local governance, and with UWA and NFA8. Advocacy is often undertaken on the basis of a rights-based argumentation, however, from a collective 6 The seed loans implied that the farmers were given seeds for planting, but had to return the seeds after harvest with an interest. The seed distribution to the Batwa were instrumental in facilitating their roles as farmers and thus worked to discard the belief that the Batwas could not grow their own food. Also, the provision of goats to the Batwa seen to serve as a means to raising their social esteem. See also section 3.2.2. 7 See also Blomley et al. 2007, p. 15. 8 UWA stands for Uganda Wildlife Authority and NFA for National Forestry Authority. 11  point of view. Focus on poverty eradication and social CARE supports efforts of poverty justice eradication by enhancing dignity and awareness, access to social services, and by institutionalizing revenue sharing in natural resource management (NRM). CARE pursues a broad strategy of poverty eradication, where land rights, dignity, and equality are elements provided from HRBA. Social justice conceptualization tends to be ambiguous, but are also linked to rights as well as to service provision. Program interventions specifically Comments similar to comments under first acknowledge power, its unequal cell. Inequality is linked to general notions distribution and seek ways to redress the of discrimination, but rarely to an balance, or level the “playing field” individualized or case based understanding of discrimination. Thus the entry into a focus on inequality is collective rather than individual and case based, while a human rights-based approach may pursue both. RBA supports the transformation of the This component has changed somewhat poor person from a passive receiver to one during REPAII in favour of a stronger participating in decision making and governance element whereby asserting rights organizational inputs rather than person- centered ones are emphasized. In addition to technical Legal literacy is not pursued. Neither most solutions/innovations, extension focuses on partners, nor target groups are conversant helping the poor to claim their rights with human rights in any precise meaning through supporting legal literacy of the term. The constitution and legislation of Uganda are not issues to which partners or program managers refer to except in the rare case. Gender: Focus tends to be on challenging This describes the norms of practices of discrimination and social, cultural and partners and programs. A stronger legal institutional norms related to exclusion approach (and individualized or case-based in some instances) could be integrated to reinforce HRBA, putting more emphasis on constitutional rights. Legality can be linked to empowerment, even locally. Partner selection driven by a commitment As acknowledged by CARE, this describes to rights and empowerment well the selection of some partners, while not others. Overall partners are selected also for their capacity to deal with NRM issues according to a human development approach Monitoring measures success in the form of This is correct. As regards rights realization, process indicators (empowerment, CARE has decided to work with procedural increased rights and greater accountability) rights, rather than with e.g. economic, 12  social and cultural rights. Rights of access, rights to information, and rights to take part are therefore in focus. In practice, this invites a focus on rights processes, rather than on outcomes. New lines of accountability are explored, Collaborative strategies have been such as to government and to target group, consistently pursued since 2005; hence, and links between these two linking of targets groups to authorities prevail in this regard, though through intermediaries. New lines of accountability are explored, for instance by institutionalizing local monitoring groups 2.1. Summarizing CARE’s Approach To sum up the interpretations from table 2, rights-based strategies in CARE’s work are mainly pursued from a collective point of view. A case-based approach, founded on legal arguments, is not part of the general tool box. Individualized cases could be considered to be pursued with respect to gender discrimination. Legal literacy is not the strongest element in CARE’s tool box. The transformatory ambitions of HRBA which one can find in general policy statements on the subject have largely been abandoned in favour of more realistic, and contextually adapted governance policies. Partners are selected, not necessarily for their potential in driving an approach based on rights and empowerment, but because of their capacity in natural resource management and in working with a human development approach (people centered, pro-poor and with a perspective from below). CARE works mainly with procedural rights: rights of access and with the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. Allegedly, the right to information is also part of the tool box, but no examples were mentioned during the interviews. New lines of accountability are pursued through collaborative strategies. Advocacy and duty-bearer engagements are significant elements in the application of HRBA. It seems that CARE and its partners have managed to retain a dialogue with authorities where respect and perceptions of mutual interests describe the relationship. Table 2 therefore indicates that CARE has adapted its HRBA thinking, partly to the reality of Uganda, but perhaps also partly to an institutionally inadequate experience of working legally. Public interest litigation was mentioned as part of the tool box in some of CARE’s documents (e.g. Blomley et al, p. 13), but this is not an approach pursued in South-Western Uganda. However, other legally inspired strategies are not pursued either, such as for instance more consistently taking the departure in the Constitution of Uganda. What is important here is not 13 to promote a legalistic interpretation of HRBA, but to acknowledge that this could be a component to take inspiration from. Part of the difficulties of applying HRBA during REPA I can possibly be ascribed to the linking of HRBA to attack the root causes of poverty, as indicated in the introductory quotations to this section. This is a notion prevailing in many organizations working rights-based, but it is somewhat difficult to translate into practical and grounded policy. Attacking root causes of poverty can hardly be done overnight or in the course of a limited program period. It must be part of a longer term endeavour. Attacking landlessness of Basongora, Banyabutumbi, Batwa or Banyabindi groups may be one strategy to pursue which would relate to a longer term strategy of dealing with the root causes of poverty as discussed further below. However, such a strategy moves slowly and it can be realized in the course of neither REPA I, nor REPA II. However, poverty reduction and social justice are crucial elements in the strategy. The issue of land allocation has already been mentioned. However, poverty reduction and social empowerment relates to more than that. In the analysis below, an assessment is made of the impact is this field. One major question is whether the approach adopted is synergetic, combining HRBA tools with broader development tools, or whether it is overridingly conceived from a HRBA point of view. The more pragmatic approach during REPA II indicates that broader and more synergetic approaches are pursued. Broader and less ambitious strategies of poverty eradication than transformation of social relations and structural causes of poverty relate to income earning, to poverty sensitive capacity building, to efforts of non-discrimination, and to better service provision, eventually linked to rights-based empowerment. Some of these are linked to a rights-based project, others are not. CARE’s work in South-Western Uganda relate to all of them. These strategies and tools deserve all attention and they need to be analyzed from a HRBA perspective as well as from a broader perspective, elucidating their merits from the point of view of the target groups. One of the most misleading statements of HRBA is thus the one on attacking the root or structural causes of poverty. This is putting the approach on a level of dreams, rather than on tested reality (Sano and Thelle 2009, pp. 91-109). CARE’s strategy of working rights-based has convincingly made progress in terms of institutionalizing accountability and in creating collaboration with duty-bearers. This is analyzed below, but the consistent emphasis on this dimension during the second part of REPA I and during REPA II seems to pay off, also because it seems that the collaborative strategy adopted rather than the confrontational one has been successful. As regards HRBA and the approaches towards rights-holders, more ambiguity prevails concerning the value-added of HRBA. Sometimes it is difficult to 14 distinguish HRBA from broader development strategies. Partners do not always seem to have a strong conceptually based approach to this and maybe they are not guided well by CARE in this matter. These issues are further analyzed below. 3. Analyzing the Impact of HRBA Figure 1 provides a model of impact analysis from the perspective of the two main entries of work in a human rights-based approach, accountability and empowerment. The model is constructed on the basis of impulses influencing policies, behaviour, and methods; processes representing schedules of implementation and action, and impact reflecting wider outcomes of intended and unintended change. Impulses  Processes  Impact According to figure 1, impact can be analyzed from the point of view of duty- bearers and rights-holders. On the left side of the figure duty-bearers are capacitated, alerted and influenced by a number of internal or external influences including those monitoring their policies and activities. These impulses result in new policies and procedures, in reconfiguration of governance measures, and in new models of collaboration. The impact of these impulses and processes on the duty-bearer side is that new specific measures of governance are introduced, that values and principles may be changed, resources re reallocated, and that power balances are altered. In some situations, it is relevant to conceptualize this as the creation of new democratic space. At the empowerment side of the figure, impulses range from rights-holder mobilization, over civil society participation, to advocacy strategies including campaigns and litigation. The impulses result in processes of knowledge enhancement and learning, in organizational development and capacity building, in direct actions of rights-realization, and in the creation of new channels of interactions. On the rights-holder side, these processes together with processes of duty-bearer reconfiguration result in income increase, better access to resources and services, in new measures of non-discrimination and in relations of equality, in power relations in favour of the poor and the vulnerable, and in a new sense of dignity. In the analysis below, the first attention is devoted to impact in relation to duty- bearers. Under this heading two dimensions are analyzed: monitoring and collaborative approaches, and change of governance in NRM, i.e. issues relating to resource allocation and to power. Impact in relation to rights-holders is analyzed under four headings: access to incomes and services, access to land and 15 livelihood, non-discrimination and equal treatment, and dignity. Impact areas in this respect concern incomes, access to resources, equality, and dignity. The impact analysis is therefore focused on duty-bearers and rights-holders. Each section will seek to describe activities briefly, to relate activities to human rights and to HRBA, and to examine indications of impact. Figure 1 Model of HRBA Impact 16  ACCOUNTABILIT EMPOWERMENT Y IMPACT Duty-bearers alerted as Rights-holders raising regards responsibilities DUTY-BEARERS demands on the basis of their Duty-bearers obtain new  New specific forms of rights knowledge via the interaction in governance Rights-holders' participation of external actors institutions, internally and representatives are making Duty-bearers capacitated externally demands Communities monitoring duty-  New values and principles Civil society organizations bearers instituted participating at different levels Duty-bearers influenced by  Reallocation of resources Rights-holders linked via advocacy  Change of power balances organizational capacity- Disclosure of corruption building  Democratic space and Rights-holders linked via accountability network campaigns and RIGHTS-HOLDERS advocacy  Incomes Legal literacy Reform of policies and Knowledge enhanced Litigation  Access to resources and to institutions Organizational development services Improved procedures and capacity-building  Equality and non- New modes of governance Actions of rights-realization discrimination New modes of collaboration Creation of space and access  Fulfilment of rights  New power relations  Dignity 3.1. Monitoring and Impact in Relation to Collaborative Strategies with Duty-Bearers The main thrust of the research was focused on the impact in relation to rights- holders. Hence, the analysis below on the duty-bearer impact is of more general nature. Duty-bearer processes and impact are analyzed under two headings: monitoring duty-bearers and governance and resource reallocation mechanisms. 3.1.1. Monitoring of Duty-Bearers According to the progress report of the SLOGIN project (Strengthening Local Governance in Natural Resource Management), good progress had been achieved in forming and building the capacity of CBOs and CSOs to engage with and influence natural resource management and use in a manner that benefits the poor and marginalised in society. It was argued that the grass roots capacity building of monitoring duty-bearers in conjunction with the higher-level, more 17 centralized, policy advocacy work, is a very effective approach for delivering on strengthening civil society in improved governance of natural resources. 9 The community-based natural resource management covers seven districts in the Albertine rift in Western Uganda. Within this area community-based natural resource management associations have been established, among other things to interface with duty-bearers. Two civil society organizations are training groups in monitoring of environmental Natural resource management.10 One of the groups trained was visited during the field work in Kasese District. The stories (see box below) by the community monitors reveal how the monitors act as brokers between communities and authorities, sensitizing community populations about their rights and duties. However, the monitors have also assumed the role of alerting leaders to the concerns of the population and they have sometimes sensitized authorities (the police) in rights matters.11 For the costs incurred by the project (one bicycle per group, rubber boots, umbrellas, and training), the monitors seem therefore to provide an effective link in brokering rights concerns from marginalized groups. There is little question that issues raised by the Karusandara group would hardly have been raised if the monitors had not been trained. The monitors in this community have therefore filled in a gap which is otherwise pertinent in other situations where organizations are working rights-based, i.e. giving voice to concerns in the communities. However, in order to have a more consolidated view of the functions and effectiveness of the monitor groups a more thorough study is needed involving more groups, and interviews have also to be undertaken with the authorities in question. Gender based violence could possibly be a subject to which the training devoted more interest as it is prevalent in communities.12 3.1.2. Governance and Resource Allocation Mechanisms 9 Status Report to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen as regards progress under SLOGIN (strengthening Local Governance in Natural Resource Management), 2009, see also CARE 2007, SLOGIN Project Document. 10 See CARE 2010, Annual Programme Progress Report, January-December 2009. March 11 The training of monitors in Karusandara undertaken in cooperation with a local partner KALI: Karambi Action for Livelihood Improvement. 12 A baseline study in Kasese district revealed that 17% of interviewed women experienced gender based violence on a daily basis, nearly 13% on a weekly basis, almost 45% on a monthly basis, and 4% as a yearly occurrence. 21% indicated non- existent gender based violence. See The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, 2009. Promoting Sustainable Access to Justice for Vulnerable Women and Children in Uganda. It was not clear from the report what forms of gender based violence prevailed according to these interviews. 18 The REPA programme emphasizes natural resource management as well as natural resource governance. The emphasis on governance is expressed in the collaborative approach and in the priority given to information, awareness, and knowledge about local government decisions, access to authorities among other things in meetings between Uganda Wildlife Authority and resource users, especially in Park adjacent communities. However, one question remains in relation to the monitors which was also raised in Kanungu District: are these initiatives sustainable? The Monitors in Karusandara, Kasese Five community monitors (all men) were interviewed. After one hour one female monitor turned up. The group described their job as ensuring public accountability. The conversation with the group covered a number of subjects including police monitoring, health clinic construction, water user committees, problem animals, and revenue sharing. The activities of the group related to community sensitization and exchange with duty-bearers about rights issues. Subjects related to the police concerned time of detention and torture. Allegedly, torture had been reduced due to sensitization and advocacy. The group spent most of their time on water sensitization trying to persuade households not to fetch polluted water from the lake. Water use committees were established in order to manage fees from every household in order to finance the investment in boreholes. Domestic violence was not a subject that the monitors devoted a lot of attention to. As regards relationship with national park authorities, two dimensions were broached. One related to problem animals which had been barred for entry into the fields through community collective efforts. The other concerned elaboration of proposals for revenue sharing projects where three proposal were being 19  prepared, one for each of the park adjacent parish. 15 Mill. Shillings were budgeted for all three. In the vicinity of the park, the drummer of KALI, the local organization training monitors, had been sensitizing the community to their rights and duties. According to the monitors, one parish had never received revenue sharing funds although the money was released (Kanamba Parish). The monitors also reported that community projects for revenue sharing were sometimes in competition with sub-county proposals and that the sub-county authorities tended to collate with their peers in deciding on revenue allocation. The case of the disappearing funds had been addressed to the district environment officer, but no action had taken place. Another issue reported by the monitors related to contractors who had plastered a local primary school. The work had been done poorly, according to the monitors. Hence, they had complained to the District Development Officer with the result that the school had been re-plastered. A major achievement was decisions on revenue sharing projects had been deferred to the sub-county level. For the duty-bearers in Park Administrations and in local government councils at district and at the sub-county level, the collaborative strategies have implied a growing level of community interaction, not only under REPA, but also due to other natural resource management activities. Thus, under the Rwenzori Mountains National Park 45 Memorandum of Understandings had been elaborated covering 4000 community members. Both forest management and park authorities expressed an interest in continued collaborative arrangements, not only because of perceived common interests in protecting parks, forests, and animals, but also because valuable information about community issues reached the authorities due to collaborative efforts.13 This did not mean that the duty- bearers were entirely happy with the rights-based strategies of REPA. For instance, UWA expressed some concern over what was considered a collation of CARE with community groups. It was also emphasized that earlier UWA had worked directly with CARE in communities whereas under REPA the collaboration had been made more difficult. However, for authorities the impact of collaboration can be perceived as • Improved access to information about use of resources and institutions by the local population 13 During the field work, interviews were held with UWA in Kampala and with the Conservation Area manager (CAM) in Buhoma. Interviews were also held with Rwenzori Mountains National Park authorities, with National Forest Authority in Kampala, and with the District Forest Officer in Kyenjonjo. 20  • Improved regulation of natural resource management due to joint agreements • Improved monitoring of protected areas due to participation from local communities. For the rights-holders the impact of collaboration has implied: • Access to resources and revenues, although so far only provided to a limited number of users under REPA14 • More transparency as regards budgets and information about decision- making • Protection against problem animals where collaborative schemes of fencing and trenches are successful15 • Improved channels of communication to decision-makers. • Community level empowerment for the management of natural resources outside protected areas – especially wetlands Altogether these features of governance and interaction imply better communication, access to information, and eventually access to and management of resources. 3.1.3. Are Power Balances Changing, and are the Changes Sustainable? In sum, the discussion above indicates a feeble change of power balance and accountability. It is discernible in the popularity of monitoring 16 and in the fact that duty-bearers have had to redress situations due to monitoring activities. The improved channels of communication and collaboration and the greater transparency of decision-making at closer quarters to the target groups indicate 14 There are some examples of resource access at Echuya forest reserve and Kayamja in Queen Elizabeth National Park and several processes are now under way in REPA II. However, in REPA I as well as II transparency and accountability issues have been issues to deal with in order that the scheme benefits the intended beneficiaries. At Bwindi National Park, the programme has succeeded in securing the allocation of gorilla fees to Batwa, as discussed below. 15 Partly as a result of these efforts, the Program reported an emerging demand from different corners of the country pushing central government to address problem animal issues to an extent that it has been now included in the new National Development Plan. 16 According to the Field coordinator in Kanungu, the monitoring activities scored high in popularity of REPA activities among the target groups. 21 an opening of democratic space and a less authoritarian conceptualization of accountability. However, it is hardly possible to argue that these mechanisms are sustainable. There are limits to voluntarism, as observed in context of the monitors. 17 The major question is whether duty-bearers in local government councils and in UWA will have the commitment, the capacity, and the incentives to reach out to rights- holders. Further research is needed on these matters. The institutionalization of democratic space is therefore founded on a fragile ground. It is there, but one cannot be convinced that it remains where it is now in the field of natural resource management. 3.2. Impact in Relation to Rights-Holders While the issue of duty-bearer impact has focused on process as well as institutional outcomes in the form of transparency, prospective budget allocation, and new agreements, the focus on rights-holders is devoted more to the tangible benefits that accrue to the rights-holders. How well are these benefits appreciated by rights-holders and do the benefits derive from HRBA? 3.2.1. Incomes, Access to Resources, and Services A lot of attention was paid to the potential conflicts between service delivery and HRBA in the mid-term evaluation report and in the general CARE reflections. The services in question that were mentioned also in group interviews are clean water, health services, schools, extension services, goat rearing training, seedlings (for tree planting for instance), and business services such as handicraft training18. However, what should also be assessed is how HRBA associates access to resources and with income generation. Avenues of income generation in REPA comprised Voluntary Saving and Loan Associations (VSLA) and business enterprises such as beekeeping, handicrafts, milk selling, and goat management. These activities together with the services are of considerable interest as they provide potential benefits to the target groups of rights-holders. They are among the priorities mentioned by target groups when interviewed. 17 See also the Mid-Term Evaluation p. 14. 18 The Meta evaluation also tends to focus more on service delivery than on income generation, See Nordic Consulting Group, 2010. Meta Evaluation of CARE Denmark’s Country Programmes. Uganda, Niger, Nepal and Ghana. Draft April. 22 Four different ethnic groups were visited during the field work, located in six different communities or areas. The groups visited were: The Basongora, the Banyabindi, the Banyabutumbi, and the Batwa. The themes addressed by the different groups depended on the compositions of the group. With the Banyabindi where the leaders were present cultural and political issues were addressed (the repression of Banyabindi and their lack of access to land). With the Basongora, where female members of VSLA groups and other women were present, issues of business, services, and VSLA incomes were discussed19. As regards the Banyabutumbi part of the conversations related to the exit of CARE from support while other elements emphasized were land access and services. Concerning the two Batwa communities visited where community householders were present, issues brought up were problem animals, medical drugs, hygiene and sanitation, water, agricultural production, businesses such as handicrafts, bricklaying and beekeeping. For all the groups visited, VSLA’s had been or were in operation. According to the Banyabindi, the VSLA was defunct now due to defaulters. In one of the Batwa communities, the VSLA was equally defunct for the same reason. For all other groups and communities, the VSLA groups were functioning, and meeting once a week to receive savings and borrow money. A few of these groups did also use the meeting to deal with other matters than savings, i.e. the meeting could be used as an entry ground for joint information, for sensitization concerning educational issues, and for dealing with domestic violence, an issue which was subsequently taken to the local government. Hence, the prospects of combining micro-credit activities with rights issues were taken advantage of in isolated cases. However, other VSLA groups dealt more exclusively with savings and loans affairs. The VSLA contributed where they worked to financing school fees, domestic purposes such as clothes, food security, seed purchases, and setting up of small grocery businesses. VSLA is an example of the potential synergy between a traditional development activity and rights-based approaches. In the communities visited it worked more often than not and provided important benefits to their members. In a few cases, members had been able to save substantial amounts which could then be invested. The synergy materializes the moment that VSLA groups systematically use the meetings for dealing with issues that may subsequently lead into advocacy or into taking charge of issues such as domestic conflicts. It seemed that this avenue was not explored sufficiently in REPA. One coordinator 19 The local partner for working with the Basongora during REPA I was FURA Foundation for Urban and Rural Development. 23 interviewed, for instance, had never been alerted to the possibilities of a broader set of concerns which could be raised during the meetings of the groups. Business enterprises such as bee-keeping were also examples of income generating activities. The negotiations between park authorities and the communities concerning rights of people to exploit forest land for beehives were important, allowing community groups access to the national parks and reserved areas for commonly agreed purposes. An ad hoc, preliminary Memorandum of Understanding had been established between UWA and the Banyabutumbi during 2007 which permitted access to Park resources: firewood, grass, and herbal medicine. Under revenue sharing, the community had received 2007: 3 Mill UGX which had been shared by every household in the community 2008: An unknown amount which had been spent on the maintenance of the house of the chief 2009: 5 Mill UGX from which the community bought a boat plus an engine. In sum, negotiated access to services, to park resources, and combining income earning opportunities with rights issues were important and appreciated strategies by which the community members and even some of the poorer ones could benefit. Of six Batwa householders interviewed in a community where the VSLA was now in a state of deficit, all had been members, and some of them belonging to the poorest community members. In another Batwa and mixed community where the VSLA still worked, 12 Batwa households were members out of a total membership of 29 households. Altogether there were 45 Batwa households in the community. Among the Banyabutumbi, there were four VSLA groups operating. Hence, in a program like REPA which addresses human rights as well as natural resource management, income generation and services must be used with a human rights perspective if the program has the ambition to work rights-based. To some of the poorest community members rights issues are mixed with immediate livelihood concerns. To them the priority is to get immediate relief as regards their livelihood problems. Whether this happens through a human rights-based strategy or through more traditional development interventions is not of the most immediate concern for the rights-holders. What pays off as being the most effective ways of intervening must be assessed by the program, but there is hardly any question that the emphasis of HRBA on advocacy, fighting non-discrimination of the marginalized groups, and engaging with authorities pay off in the longer term. For that reason, and in order to drive a coherent rights and development agenda, synergies must be established where rights issues are not immediately addressed. 3.2.2. Land and Agriculture Access to land was an issue for all the groups visited. The Basongora was resettled during 2007 as Government had granted them land access outside the Queen Elisabeth National Park during 2006. Land access had not been obtained 24 due to program efforts in isolation, but during REPA I, the program had made advocacy efforts with other partners at the national level to persuade the Office of the Prime Minister to deal with the landlessness of the Basongora.20 For the Banyabindi, access to land was a key feature of their struggle. They were displaced and now lived in scattered groups. The REPA I program had trained them in advocacy and had helped them in making petitions to Government concerning their land rights. However, so far no progress had been achieved and it is hardly justified to analyze activities vis-à-vis this group in terms any major impact except for a certain cultural assertiveness which had been brought about supporting drama training and other cultural support by the program. Thus, access to land remained a major concern for this group especially as they felt displaced due to historical injustices. For the community of Banyabutumbi visited at the shore of Lake Edward, they claimed that they had been promised land as a compensation for resettling, but they had only been given 20 boats for fishing. Land access for cultivation remained an unsolved issue. The REPA II program is making efforts to establish a Batwa Land Trust (in collaboration with forest Peoples program and other advocacy organizations in Uganda) with the purpose of establishing long term titles for the Batwa in cooperation with a national advocacy NGO (ACODE) and the Uganda Land Alliance and with The Forest Peoples Program (FPP) involved as well in Kisoro and Kabale Districts. The Program considers these activities as being a means to strengthen the economic rights of the Batwa. In Kanungu District where the field work was undertaken, access to land for some of the Batwa households had already been secured during the early 2000s outside the program framework. 21 During the community and household visits it was therefore possible to observe the impact of land acquisition for a group considered to be marginalized. However, note should be taken of the fact that the REPA 2009 Progress Report underlines the substantial difficulties involved in making land available currently in Kisoro and Kabale.22 Access to land had implied a tremendous boost in the livelihood security of the Batwa households. While they had earlier been squatting on other peoples’ land, they now had access and use rights of land. In one community, men assessed the changes during the last five years. They mentioned: - Availability of clean water 20 See Program Progress Report 2006, p. 26. 21 During REPA I, the Program linked these communities to Kanungu Local Government which gave free seeds to the communities to plant fences along the park boundary. 22 See CARE Progress Report 2009 p. 10-11, published 2010. CARE Uganda had with aid from the Ford Foundation managed to purchase land that would allow the resettling of 125 families by the end of 2010. 25  - Many goats - All children in school - Increased literacy The women commented: - Many livestock - General sanitation in houses - School - More land - Pit latrines As regards agricultural production and livestock, they had received support from extension services via the government system, while CARE had provided training in goat rearing and management during REPA. I. The household interviews reported in box 2 and the group interviews indicated the importance of access to land, micro credit, agricultural extension. Village Based Training in sanitation, hygiene, and interaction with other groups (of which more below) was appreciated by the households interviewed. The interviews emphasized goat rearing as a significant contribution to the livelihood of the Batwa. These interviews confirm therefore how immediate livelihood concerns combine with longer term rights issues. The rights perspective implies a focus on non- discrimination and on rights of access to resources and extension services of the most vulnerable groups. What CARE and other NGOs have been involved in is the redress of former injustices (eviction from forest land without compensation) of the Batwa. These efforts have resulted in access to land and therefore to a livelihood beyond squatting and piecework as the only source of income. Within these parameters of redress, the approach appreciated by the Batwa is one where dignity combines with income and livelihood gains. The element of dignity prevails in the appreciation of Village Based Training and owning of property. 3.2.3. Dignity and Non-Discrimination Village Based Training has been provided with a local partner during REPA I as well as REPA II.23 A total number of 75 trainers had been supported by CARE. The program worked on sanitation and hygienic practices, shelter maintenance, food security, health care and awareness, and school attendance of Batwa children. 23 Uganda Functional Literacy Resource Centre (UFLRC). 26 Generally, the program aspired to mobilize the Batwa target groups as citizens through awareness training. The household and group interviews indicated that the program had some success in improving Batwa interactions with non-Batwa groups and in improving housing, health, and food standards of a group who had been marginalized since colonial times. This happened partly through shorter term awareness raising. Other cooperating actors in the area, e.g. the Batwa Development Program, facilitated affirmative actions such as allowing children of Batwa families to attend separate boarding schools.24 According to the interviews with Batwa groups and with households, the program implied a greater sense of dignity and diminishing propensities to discriminate against the Batwa group. It is difficult to assert whether the economic integration of Batwa in e.g. agricultural production or the cultural impact of village based 24 One of the households interviewed among the Batwa had children in such a boarding school. 27  Box 2. Batwa Livelihoods and Rights Byumba Community (Six household interviews and one mixed group meeting) Household 1. Husband and wife middle aged, four children, three in school. Children must sometimes be persuaded to go to school. Obtained land from BMCT 1 acre and 0.5 acre from church Cultivation: Matoke, sweet potatoes, finger millet, and maize. Most important income source: Labour (piecework) CARE impact: Most important goat rearing and Village Based Training (see below) Human rights mean: “living in harmony with others. Seeking justice” Household 2: Wife married (elder) but with a husband drinking. Seven children of whom two here. Moved to this place 10 years ago, obtained land 1.5 acres like previous household. Grow millet, bananas, sweet potatoes, beans, cassava. Benefits from VSLA: possibility to buy seeds Other income sources: Piecework and garden produce (cabbage) Has sold the last goat now. CARE impact: VSLA when it worked Household 3. Young couple. Two children. Came to his place 10 years ago, allotted 1.5 acres like the previous households. Grow maize, millet, beans, cassava, and bananas. Other income sources: piecework. Benefits from VSLA: bought a saucepan, blankets, and clothes. CARE impact: The goats, Village Based Training, establishment of a saving culture. Household 4. Wife interviewed, husband working.. They have three children, two in boarding school, sponsored by the Batwa Development Program and by BMCT. The third child in local school. Came here from Kisoro 1.5 years ago and are now squatting in the uncle’s land while he is squatting elsewhere. 1.5 acres. VSLA: they joined the scheme while it worked. Obtained saucepan and plates. CARE impact: Goats, seeds, and Village Based Training (very important). Household 5: Middle aged couple. Three children, two of whom in school. Moved here in 1992. Acquired 1.5 acre of land. Grow bananas, maize, millet, beans, sweet potatoes and yams Other income source: Selling labour, working with timber. VSLA benefits: Bought a goat, iron sheets for roof. CARE impact: The goats most important. They helped him paying bride price. The Village Based Training. Apart from CARE: access to land have made them feel empowered. Household 6. An elderly widow. Four grown up children, one in boarding school, sponsored by Batwa development Program. They came here 10 years ago. She has 1.25 acre. Grow millet, maize, beans and matoke. Other Income sources: Sell eggs from poultry. VSLA benefits: Blankets, dress, and plates. CARE impact: Goats, cabbages, onions, beans 28 and yams. They got seeds from CARE, no charge. training has more important strategies in achieving a sense of dignity, but the stronger sense of assertiveness was clearly discernible in the groups visited. Expressing themselves on the relationship with other groups, the Batwa asserted that relationships had improved. It was possible now to sit in the same bar drinking from the same containers25. Their children can now play with other children. One lady argued that they can now talk more freely and sit with the other groups in churches. The purchase of plates and cups from the savings obtained under VSLA had partly been undertaken for the purpose of receiving visitors, she explained. This generally positive assessment from Kanungu District should, however, be balanced with the fact that this district is alleged to be the one where most of the positive impact as regards Batwa non-discrimination has been achieved, while discrimination in Kabale and Kisoro neighbouring district was alleged to be much worse. 3.2.4. Empowerment - in What Measure and Kind? Empowerment is a concept which is endlessly referred to in discussions with CARE and its partners. However, during the feed-back meetings after this field work is was argued that some precision must be involved in defining empowerment if it is to have some operational meaning. What does empowerment mean when thinking about it in a rights-based framework? Narayan (2005) distinguishes between Opportunities and Agency of the Poor and includes both of these dimensions in the conceptualization of empowerment. This results in a fairly broad definition of empowerment which tends to mix causes with characteristics: “Empowerment is the expansion of assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and hold accountable institutions that affect their lives.”26 This broad definition is related to the interest of the author in measuring empowerment, but it precludes a more precise definition of the core of the concept, not least from a rights-based perspective. The concept goes back to discussions about the roles of social movements in Latin America and to Asian notions of the Weapons of the Weak. Empowerment overlaps with self-reliance as originally coined in African contexts, but it does not have a similar notion of self- imposed relative isolation. By contrast, empowerment relates to interaction and agency as pointed out by Narayan, more precisely by the confidence of poor and marginalized people to act in their own interest. From a rights-based perspective 25 Similar trends were reported when discussing the impact of HRBA with Dalits in India. 26 Narayan, Deepa, 2005. Measuring Empowerment. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. The World Bank. 29 empowerment must be understood to denote actions of the poor and marginalized in defense of their rights and in the struggle to promote them. Hence, from a rights-based perspective empowerment can be understood as: “The capabilities and confidence of individuals or groups to take charge of their own rights and to advance their rights vis-à-vis duty-bearers and agents in society existing at local, national or international levels”. Given this understanding of empowerment, does CARE address empowerment strategies systematically in Uganda? First, CARE’s work tends not to make sufficient distinction between empowerment and advocacy. Overlapping as these concepts are, their distinction relates to that particular quality of advocacy whereby marginalized groups are themselves capable of taking charge, i.e. of bringing their own issues to the fore and attention of duty-bearers. This does only happen on an ad hoc basis in Uganda. It could happen more systematically via VSLA groups as indicated above, but it must also be recognized that the groups and individuals in question are not accustomed at all to bring matters forward to duty-bearers.27 On the basis of these observations the strategy of CARE tends to remain one of advocacy rather than of direct empowerment, i.e. support is given to groups who can represent and channel claims made on behalf of the marginalized. 28 Answering the question about what kind of empowerment would indicate that the approach to empowerment is indirect rather than direct, i.e. demonstrating to the target groups that changes can be made via monitors and organizational capacity building. Given the context in Uganda, this may be a well justified strategy, but then it could be recognized that a strong impact on empowerment is not really what is sought in the implementation of REPA programming. 27 The author has worked with groups in Malawi, Nepal, India, Uganda, and Sudan who had been exposed to rights-based strategies. A very general observation is that empowerment from a rights-perspective was more feasible in Asian contexts compared to the African ones. In Malawi, the marginalized groups did not have much confidence in the capacity of local government authorities to respond to any claims made. The Meta evaluation quoted in this report makes the observation that user groups are hardly sustainable as an organizational initiative. This is probably true. However, in terms of individual empowerment and confidence building, the building of capability to act, possibly via such groups, may be more sustainable than the formation of the group itself. See Nordic Consulting Group 2010. 28 The Meta evaluation also makes observations about the empowerment of Batwa in the Uganda program. However, given the understanding of empowerment outlined, I would argue that the Batwa have hardly been empowered to take matters in their own hands. They have been made more dignified and aware of their own situation, but others are still acting on their behalf. A support has been given to OUBDU, the United Organisation for Batwa Development in Uganda and among the Basongora to Basongora Association. By REPA. These organizations undertake advocacy on behalf of the marginalized groups, but the question remains whether they actually achieve to empower these groups themselves. 30 4. Conclusions The UK Interagency Group which is one of the organizations making a more systematic assessment of HRBA projects, comparing them to non-HRBA projects, assessed HRBA projects according to nine criteria. 29 There are three conclusions from that study which I want to highlight as a departure for the Conclusions of this report. The Interagency report stated: “All RBA projects could demonstrate significant impact in terms of reduction of vulnerability for their constituent groups. In RBA projects, vulnerability was seen as a structural issue, both driving from, and resulting in, inequitable power relations in society” (p. 9). In the present work it has been reported that CARE has adopted an approach which is described by CARE as pragmatic where income gains and service delivery are combined with advocacy to create sustainable change for the poorest households. The change from attempting to implement HRBA according to a method being defined more exclusively as HRBA was quickly changed during REPA I in favour of a mix of needs- og rights-based work. This change was described by CARE as a shift to a more pragmatic approach. It came about by listening to partners and to the poorest sections of society and the preferences indicated by these groups. As has been argued when discussing the impact on rights-holders, immediate livelihood concerns are vital to some of the poorest group. A participatory approach can easily imply a mix of needs- and rights-based strategies. Poverty has been addressed as a structural issue in the efforts to allocate land to some of the marginalized groups. This has happened as a result of alliances and local partnerships. Nevertheless, the achievements of land allocation during the REPA program have been modest. It would therefore be somewhat off the mark to argue that CARE’s rights-based approach has been addressing structural issues of poverty as the main component. Advocacy at the national level takes place, but it is still in a phase where it seems more correct to talk about processes than about outcomes. As regards reducing the vulnerability of the poorest groups, REPA has made an impact in terms of income earnings, isolated cases of revenue sharing, and in terms of micro-credit. These achievements have contributed to reduction of 29 The Interagency Group analyzed: Asset accumulation, Reduction of vulnerability, Issue-based alliances, Improved access to justice, Livelihood security and diversification, Increased knowledge and skill, Increased protection against gender-based and other social discrimination, Increased protection against social and work-based exploitation, Increased social and political capital improving the ability to manage risk. See UK Interagency Group, 2007, pp. 9-11. 31 vulnerability in the short term, like the goat program among the Batwa groups, but questions must be raised concerning the sustainability of these actions. The UK Interagency Group also stated as regards Increased protection against gender-based and other social discrimination: “The RBA projects had begun to challenge social norms and practices underpinning discrimination on the grounds of gender, social background, ethnicity and age, although more could be done.” (p. 10). These observations describe well how CARE works with gender- and ethnicity- based discrimination. A positive impact as regards the Batwa is significant, not only due to CARE’s work, but due to the local alliances and partnerships. The impact in relation to other groups in terms of anti-discrimination is less clear also because exit from support has been fairly rapid. As regards gender-based discrimination, CARE’s work does not differ much from a conventional development program. Where it could contrast more compared to conventional approaches would be in devising more case-based approaches to gender discrimination and violence. One report quoted above indicates that almost 45% of the women interviewed in Kasese experience gender based violence on a monthly basis. Given such prevalence, VSLA and other groups could be used more systematically for addressing such issues. Engagement with local government councils at lower levels could be another strategy in this regard. Finally, the Interagency study observes on Issue-based alliances: “In the RBA projects, there was a trends towards establishing different types of partnership and alliance from those found in the non-RBAs. In non-RBA projects, partnership usually took the form of an NGO/CSO liaising and mediating between citizens and official organizations. In RBA projects, there was more effort to link citizens and state (voice and response) directly” (p. 9). It is difficult to recognize these alleged direct linkages between citizens and state in the REPA program. The transformation of the poor person from a passive receiver to one participating in decision making and asserting rights, as it was put in table 1, is hardly a reality. The linkages with authorities go through intermediaries, whether monitors or organizations. Where more direct linkages would be relevant could be at the community level between target groups and local councils, but this has not been researched sufficiently to warrant firm conclusions. Going back to the impact model presented in figure 1, the strongest impact of REPA in relation to rights-holders seems to be as regards incomes, access to services, and concerning equality and non-discrimination with respect to ethnic 32 forms of discrimination especially. Concerning fulfillment of rights and new power relations, the impact is hardly discernible. As regards dignity, the program has made achievements, partly due to its own efforts, partly due to the networks with others. These achievements are important and are due to a combination of economic and attitudinal strategies. Concerning the impact in relation to duty-bearers, the analysis has shown, that REPA combines advocacy with collaborative strategies. Constitutional rights could perhaps be explored better in such efforts, also at the decentralized level. The procedural rights chosen (rights of participation, information, rights of access and transparency invite a focus on processes rather than outcomes with duty-bearers. This focus lends itself well to a less confrontational form of advocacy and it seems that this is appreciated by the duty-bearers as they themselves gain from access to ideas, information about local situations, and improved collaboration on regulation of natural resource management with rights-holders. Concerning duty-bearer impact as outlined in figure 1,the impact identified relates to more access to governance institutions from the representatives of the rights- holders, a beginning negotiation on resource allocation, a feeble change of power balances, and an opening of democratic space in terms of democratic forms of accountability. However, these changes cannot be deemed to be sustainable. There are limits to voluntarisms and the formation of ad hoc groups. The institutionalization of democratic space and accountability therefore rests on a fragile ground. The incentives of collaboration, of access, redress, and institutionalized linkages can therefore be a territory for further exploration. The program has moved forward without much attention being paid to human rights knowledge among partners, rights-holders and duty-bearers. The program has seen competing demands for many agendas and strategies, but the absence of basic human rights knowledge was somewhat surprising. If the ambition prevails as regards the implementation of a human rights-based approach, then efforts in this field with selected target groups could be relevant. Finally, what does all this tell about the value added of working rights-based? Empowerment in terms of having the most disadvantaged rights-holders cross a boundary of passivity is difficult to identify, while empowerment of group members and monitors may be more discernible. In answering the question with departure in the current report, the major value added can be located in three areas: 33  • First, in the simultaneous focus on rights-holders and duty-bearers and in the forms of advocacy employed at different levels, with an increased interaction and transparency as a result, not least at the local level. • Second, in the emphasis on dignity and non-discrimination which has proven to be significant in working with marginalized groups in the current program. • Third, in the combined focus on poverty, disadvantage, and rights. In isolation, a focus on either incomes, services or rights deficits may prove inadequate. However, these entries combined can yield results because they link norms and practices in ways which may provide rights-holders with a stronger defense against arbitrary decisions compared to more conventional approaches. 4.1. Recommendations A number of recommendations are relevant. Below they are structured in a way which follows the flow of the study. The efforts of synthesizing needs- and rights-based approaches (and of lowering the expectations as regards addressing the root cause of poverty) could be an important lesson when applying HRBA. The Conclusions of this study tend to confirm this view. Attacking root causes of poverty can hardly be done overnight or in the course of a limited program period. It must be part of a longer term endeavour. The more pragmatic approach during REPA II indicates that broader and more synergetic approaches are pursued. Broader and less ambitious strategies of poverty eradication than transformation of social relations and structural causes of poverty relate to income earning, to poverty sensitive capacity building, to efforts of non-discrimination, and to better service provision, eventually linked to rights-based empowerment. Some of these are linked to a rights-based project, others are not. CARE’s work in South-Western Uganda relate to all of them. These strategies and tools deserve all attention and they need to be analyzed from a HRBA perspective as well as from a broader perspective, elucidating their merits from the point of view of the target groups. One of the most misleading statements of HRBA is the one on attacking the root or structural causes of poverty. This is putting the approach on a level of dreams, rather than on tested reality. Rights-based strategies in CARE’s work are mainly pursued from a collective point of view. A case-based approach, founded on legal arguments, is not part of the 34 general tool box. Individualized cases could be considered to be pursued with respect to gender discrimination. Legal literacy is not the strongest element in CARE’s tool box. It seems also that CARE has adapted its thinking to the reality in Uganda, but perhaps also to an institutionally inadequate experience of working legally. Taking departure more consistently in the Constitution of Uganda can be more relevant than what is pursued in the present program efforts. Domestic violence prevails in South-Western Uganda. This issue could be addressed more systematically in the program. CARE’s strategy of working rights-based has convincingly made progress in terms of institutionalizing accountability and in creating collaboration with duty-bearers. The consistent emphasis on this dimension during the second part of REPA I and during REPA II seems to pay off, also because it seems that the collaborative strategy adopted rather than the confrontational one has been successful. This approach seems relevant to continue For the costs incurred, the monitors trained and used by the program seem to provide an effective link in brokering rights concerns from marginalized groups with duty-bearers. However, to have a more consolidated view of the functions and effectiveness of the monitor groups, a more thorough study is needed involving more groups, and interviews must be undertaken with the authorities in question. The improved channels of communication and collaboration and the greater transparency of decision-making at closer quarters to the target groups indicate an opening of democratic space and a less authoritarian conceptualization of accountability. However, it is hardly possible to argue that these mechanisms are sustainable. There are limits to voluntarism. The major question is whether duty- bearers in local government councils and in UWA will have the commitment, the capacity, and the incentives to reach out to rights-holders. Further research and a better understanding are needed on these matters. VSLA is an example of the potential synergy between a traditional development activity and rights- based approaches. In the communities visited it worked more often than not and provided important benefits to their members. In a few cases, members had been able to save substantial amounts which could then be invested. The synergy materializes the moment that VSLA groups systematically use the meetings for dealing with issues that may subsequently lead into advocacy or into taking charge of issues such as domestic conflicts. It seemed that this avenue was not explored sufficiently in REPA. In a program like REPA which addresses human rights as well as natural resource management, income generation and services must be used with a human rights perspective if the program has the 35 ambition to work rights-based. To some of the poorest community members rights issues are mixed with immediate livelihood concerns. To them the priority is to get immediate relief as regards their livelihood problems. Whether this happens through a human rights-based strategy or through more traditional development interventions is not of the most immediate concern for the rights-holders. What pays off as being the most effective ways of intervening must be assessed by the program, but there is hardly any question that the emphasis of HRBA on advocacy, fighting non-discrimination of the marginalized groups, and engaging with authorities pay off in the longer term. For that reason, and in order to drive a coherent rights and development agenda, synergies must be established where rights issues are not immediately addressed. CARE’s work tends not to make sufficient distinction between empowerment and advocacy. Overlapping as these concepts are, their distinction relates to that particular quality of advocacy whereby marginalized groups are themselves capable of taking charge, i.e. of bringing their own issues to the fore and attention of duty-bearers. This does only happen on an ad hoc basis in Uganda. It could happen more systematically via VSLA groups as indicated above, but it must also be recognized that the groups and individuals in question are not accustomed at all to bring matters forward to duty-bearers. On the basis of these observations the strategy of CARE tends to remain one of advocacy rather than of direct empowerment, i.e. support is given to groups who can represent and channel claims made on behalf of the marginalized. The approach to empowerment is indirect rather than direct. CARE could consider a more direct approach to empowerment which aimed at empowering individuals and groups rather than capacitating organizations. Given the context of poverty and marginalization in Uganda, such an approach can be a challenge. Nevertheless, it seems relevant to acknowledge the type of empowerment employed. 36 5. Literature Blomley, Tom, Phil Franks, and Maksha Ram Maharjan, 2009. From Needs to Rights. Lessons Learned from the Application of Rights Based Approaches to Natural resource Governance, in Ghana, Uganda and Nepal. Washington, Rights and Resources Initiative. CARE, 2010. Annual Programme Progress report. Reporting period: January – December 2008. Rights, Equity and Protected Areas Programme (REPA II), 2009- 2013. CARE 2008, Annual Programme Progress Report. Rights, Equity and Protected Areas (REPA) Programme. Reporting Period, January – December 2008. CARE 2006, Programme Progress Report for the Period January to December 2006. Rights, equity and Protected Area Programme. CARE Denmark/Danida. CARE, 2008. REPA II, Rights Equity and Protected Areas II. Framework Programme 2009-2013. CARE, Programme Document, CARE International in Uganda & CARE Denmark, 2003. Rights, Equity and Protected Areas (REPA) Programme, March 2003- December 2008. CARE, 2009. Status Report to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen as regards progress under SLOGIN (strengthening Local Governance in Natural Resource Management. CARE, 2007. Strengthening Local Governance in Natural Resource Management (SLOGIN) Using Natural Resource Issues to Increase CBO-CSO-LG Accountability and Transparency. Project Document, November. CARE 2010. Annual Programme Progress Report, January-December 2009. Rights, Equity and Protected Areas (REPA II Programme, 2009-13. March. Gjedde-Nielsen, Flemming and Moses Isoba, 2008. Rights Equity and Protected Areas (REPA Programme. Final Evaluation Report. konsulentnetværket. Friedman, John, 1992. Empowerment. The Politics of Alternative Development. Cambridge, Mass. Blackwell. 37 The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative in Cooperation with HIVOS (Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation), 2009. Promoting Sustainable Access to Justice for Vulnerable Women and Children in Uganda. Report of Baseline Survey Kasese District. Lutrell, C. and L-H. Prion, 2005. Operationalising Norwegian People’s Aid Rights- Based Approach. A Review of Lessons from International Non-Governmental Organisations of Relevance to Norwegian People’s Aid Adoption of Rights Based Approach. Overseas Development Institute. McCaston, Katherine M. with Michael Rewald and CARE’s Integration Team, 2005. Unifying Framework for Poverty eradication & Social Justice: The Evolution of CARE’s Development Approach. Narayan, Deepa, 2000. Can Anybody Hear Us. Voices of the Poor, vol. 1. Washington, the World Bank. Narayan, Deepa (ed), 2005. Measuring empowerment. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. The World Bank. Nordic Consulting Group, 2010. Meta Evaluation of CARE Denmark’s Country Programmes. Uganda, Niger, Nepal and Ghana. Draft April Sano, Hans-Otto and Hatla Thelle, 2009. The Need for Evidence Based Human Rights Research. In: Methods of Human Rights Research. (Eds. Fons Coomans, Fred Grünfeld and Menno T. Kamminga. Maastricht Centre for Human Rights, Intersentia. UK Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development, no year, The Impact of Rights-Based Approaches to Development. Evaluation Learning Process Bangladesh, Malawi and Peru. 38