1. KENYA’S CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS EXPERIENCE IN THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) Regional Governance Week Social Accountability In A Changing Region – Actors And Mechanisms Cairo, Egypt, 26-29 November, 2012 Hellen K. Mutellah Steering Committee Member KSC- UPR Programme Officer The East African Centre for Human Rights (EACHRights)

2. Outline of Presentation 1. Formation of Kenya UPR Stakeholders’ Coalition for the Universal Periodic Review (KSC-UPR) 2. Preparation of the Stakeholders and cluster reports 3. Benefits of Having the Thematic Clusters 4. Development of an Advocacy Charter 5. Organize Side Event & Media briefings 6. Human Rights Council Session 7. Post Human Rights Council Session 8. Strategy meeting on implementation of recommendations 9. Development of outcomes charter 10. Preparation for next cycle 11. Engagement with the State 12. Challenge 2

3. 1.Formation of Kenya the Kenya Stakeholders’ Coalition for the Universal Periodic Review (KSC-UPR) – Initiated during a stakeholders meeting convened by KNCHR) – comprised of approximately 97 national and international organisations and institutions working on human rights and development concerns. – Steering committee set up to offer strategic guidance – The coalition members were sub-divided into various thematic human rights clusters for purposes of developing cluster reports. – The coalition was facilitated by the KNCHR with the guidance of a steering committee – Advocacy and lobbying roadmap developed based on the need for a structured engagement in the whole UPR process 3

4. Lessons Learnt – KNCHR it played an instrumental role in providing technical capacity. – Steering committee - opportunities for innovativeness, creativity, brainstorming and sharing of best practices. – coalition joint report and cluster specific reports presented a good baseline for future reporting. – unified and joint advocacy strategy – effective utilization and combination of resource – credibility and legitimacy required in the process – Contacts established need to be maintained – The need to continue using the unity of voice to seek accountability from the State 4

5. 2.Preparation of the Stakeholders and Cluster Reports – Human rights clusters that were set up were tasked with generating individual thematic reports which would then feed into a joint report. – Activity plan developed working back from 2nd November, 2010. – Meetings of thematic clusters were scheduled early – Reports were generated from the thematic human rights groups which included: 5

6. 3.Benefits of Having the Thematic Clusters – Capacity and expertise around thematic human rights areas. – Readily available information, data and evidence. – saved on time to work as each cluster simultaneously worked on their area – Individual organisations were however, not precluded from developing individual reports. – Challenge of defining limit of thematic reports. 6

7. Lessons Learnt – Need to undertake capacity building of CSOs to engage in the UPR process – Need to capacity building in the monitoring UPR recommendation and engaging with the State in the implementation – Whenever stakeholders are being identified to lead any process, need to establish whether they have the capacity, legitimacy and interest to convene stakeholders and if not, what can be done to enhance their capacity. – What kind of data collection techniques are CSO’s adopt in developing to their cluster reports. 7

8. 4.Development of an Advocacy Charter – Three teams specifically set up around certain advocacy strategies: (i) Advocacy Charter Team- coming up with the Advocacy Charter was used to lobby States to ask certain questions and make recommendations. (ii) Media Team - coming up with a media strategy on how to create awareness around the whole UPR process (iii) Mapping Exercise Team - identify States and organisations with ECOSOC status which could be approached to ask questions and make recommendations to Kenya during the review. – Various institutions were tasked with approaching the members of the Human Rights Council based on the member’s geographic representation. – Advocacy Charter forwarded to HRC members and after review thank you letters sent to them. A delegation of KSC-UPR coalition members went to Geneva before review 8

9. Lessons Learnt – The Advocacy Charter successful tool for lobbying in that it had been well thought through and contained in summary the key human rights issues as identified by stakeholders in a clear, concise and comprehensive manner. – Stakeholders have not yet fully engaged with the media. 9

10. 5.Organize Side Event & Media briefings – two side events that were organised for the purpose of engaging with stakeholders on the Kenya review – lobby participants to up stakeholder’s recommendations – engaged both national and international press in Geneva, one before the review and a press conference after the review. Lessons Learnt – Due to the connections KNCHR enjoyed in Geneva they facilitated the hosting of the side event and getting assistance to mobilize the attendance of the media. 10

11. 6.Human Rights Council Session – only organisations that are accredited by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), may engage in the HRC. – Challenge- very few organisations in Kenya were accredited by the Economic and Social Council – Stakeholders deliver a coordinated statement – Not many organisations could attend Geneva session Lessons learnt – KNCHR played an instrumental role in getting international organisations with ECOSOC status to accredit some of the CSO members. 11

12. – Consultative forum convened to assess the value of the work which stakeholders had undertaken unto the review, gains/strengths and draw-backs/weaknesses of the UPR activities, make assessments and identify strategies which stakeholders should employ to engage with the State in the period preceding the September meeting, and to ensure maximum gains for human rights at the completion of Kenya’s review by the Human Rights Council (HRC) in September 2010 – Advisory to the State - on UPR recommendations and Optional Protocols. 12 7.Post Human Rights Council Session

13. 13 – Strategic meeting to consolidate, concretize and prioritize recommendations emanating from Kenya’s UPR; deliberate on strategies for monitoring and actualizing implementation of the UPR recommendations develop an outcome charter and plan of action to follow-up implementation of UPR recommendations. – Advisory sent to the State on the UPR recommendations and Commitments- requested State to prepare a roadmap for its follow -up of the UPR Recommendations including developing a national action plan – A team of cluster convenors was set up to follow up on implementation of specific themes Lessons Learnt – Advisories were seen as a useful tool – The need to rope in grassroots organisations – Need to stream-line the UPR recommendations into their on- going work. 8.Strategy meeting on implementation of recommendations

14. 14 9.Development of Outcomes Charter – consolidate and prioritize recommendation including unpack aging UPR recommendations, in a manner best perceived by stakeholders if implemented by the State would lead to improvement of human rights situation in Kenya. – Clear baseline of recommendations and action-points for guiding stakeholders work during the 4 years of the UPR cycle (2010- 2014)and presented a basis upon which stakeholders will monitor and assess both the substance and the pace of implementation of the UPR recommendation and issue periodic reports in this regard. Lessons Learnt Good Advocacy tool i.e. infuse stakeholders human rights agenda in the State panning meeting on its UPR action plan.

15. 15 – Stakeholders have already started preparing for the next phase of the UPR cycle. In this regard, stakeholders have been monitoring the status on the implementation by the state of UPR recommendations and have so far developed 2 annual progress reports and a tool linking UPR recommendations with recommendations from Human Rights treaty bodies. – KSC-UPR 1st Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of UPR Recommendations assessed the States progress on the implementation of UPR recommendations within the 1st year, highlighted some initiatives undertaken taken by CSO’s in complimenting the States work, contained stakeholder’s s recommendations on what the State needed and put the State on notice that rejected recommendations 10.Preparation for Next Cycle

16. 16 – KSC-UPR 2nd Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of UPR Recommendations similar format to 1st KSC_UPR Annual Progress Report, but this time, stakeholders sought to rank the Kenyan State in its performance under each thematic area. Red denoted an area where there is little or no attempt to implement; green denoted an area where implementation had been on track and yellow denoted an area where there is at least half the effort to implement. – KSC-UPR documents linking UPR recommendation to National, Regional and International Human Rights Mechanism recommendations - analyzed recommendations from other UN and Regional mechanisms (Treaty Bodies, Special Rappoteurs) and linked them to the UPR recommendations through a template. Demonstrated recommendation made to Kenya by various treaty body largely similar to recommendation under the UPR. Template highlighted ongoing national processes and opportunities for leveraging action.

17. 17 – Stakeholders engaged with the State, before, during and after the review. – Constructively engagement as opposed to confrontations – CSO’s would have however wished to have more constructive engagements on the follow up and implementation of the UPR recommendations. – 2 years since Kenya was reviewed and the State is yet to issue any progress report on the status of implementation of the UPR recommendations nor share with Stakeholders its implementation strategy of the UPR recommendations. – Challenge- Ministry designated with a recommendation on which its Ministry is crucial in its implementation might not pick it up. – Fatigue - multiplicity of recommendations from various human rights treaty, overwhelmed with report writing. 11.Engagement with the State

18. 18 – UPR process provided an opportunity for the State and Stakeholders to begin dialoguing, continuous interaction with the State should therefore be maintained. – Need to be aware of what the State is doing to be one step ahead.. Lessons Learnt

19. 19 1. Resources mobilization of UPR related activities – UPR is a resource intensive process particularly if the process targets to have the wide participation of stakeholders. – Plan with what you have – Joint KSC-UPR activities. – There are national and international organisations that can offer technical support towards the UPR cause. – Inadequate resources also saw membership of the coalition kept fluctuating at different stages of the UPR process affects momentum. – In order to ensure meaningful participation of CSO’s in the UPR process, a level of commitment and passion required from both individuals and organisations. 12.Challenges

20. 20 Lessons Learnt – Need for organisation to incorporate UPR related activities into their respective organizational plans of action. – Keep stakeholders constantly informed on the process 2. Limited participation of grassroots organisations – Implementation of UPR recommendation required to start at National level so that the impact can be felt and adopted at the local (grassroot level). – Most UPR meetings and activities took place at the national level thereby limited opportunities for the participation of grassroots organisations. Lessons learn – Need to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in thematic clusters – Grassroots organisation need to be encouraged to take an active role in UPR the process.. Challenges Cont’

21. 21 Thank You For You’r Attention