This study examines the practice of Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). It argues that, while a uniform HRIA process in all fields will not be appropriate, eight core elements represent the ‘minimum core’ of a valid process: screening, scoping, evidence gathering, consultation, analysis, producing policy-oriented recommendations, publication, and monitoring and review. Overall, better performance monitoring is crucial, and the people undertaking HRIAs need a deep understanding of human rights. More reflection is also required on the connection between HRIAs and the people affected by the policies and practices that HRIAs seek to influence.
During the last decade, HRIA has been used increasingly to measure human rights impacts in many fields. HRIA is potentially important as a mechanism for advancing evidence-based human rights arguments. However, there is currently no shared understanding of what constitutes a valid HRIA process and in many areas the process lacks professionalisation.
Using the terminology of ‘human rights impact assessment’ does not necessarily mean that human rights values and standards are being adhered to. Further concerns about the current practice of undertaking HRIAs are that:
- There is a tension between the ultimate HRIA methodology and one that is usable by a range of actors in practice. A balance has not yet been found between the requirements of robustness and usability.
- There is a risk that HRIAs and their terminology will be used merely to validate existing policies and practices. HRIAs were pioneered by civil society organisations, but businesses – many of which have received criticism regarding human rights – now use HRIA terminology. Governmental actors could use HRIAs to legitimatise controversial policies.
Issues related to these concerns are the need to:
- Use human rights standards appropriately as the basis for impact assessment: careful thought is required to assess how indicators can best be harnessed
- Avoid the bureaucratisation (and thus dilution) of HRIAs
- Use evidence to inform the assessment: meaningful analysis and evaluation depends on robust evidence-gathering processes
- Ensure consultation, participation and transparency: guidance is needed on how to implement consultation and participation, and a transparent record of the HRIA process should be kept
- Enhance the ability of HRIAs to lead to policy change: HRIAs need to generate clear conclusions and recommendations and ongoing monitoring and review processes.
There is no quick fix for the more substantive challenges to enhancing this policy instrument. Long-term commitment to underlying human rights values is needed as well as increased research on methodology, ongoing monitoring and effective differentiation between good and bad assessments. However, eight core methodological elements would significantly enhance existing practice:
- Screening weeds out those policies, practices, or activities for which a full HRIA is not necessary. It provides a justification for the assessment being undertaken.
- Scoping seeks information on who will undertake the assessment, the aims of the policy or practice to be assessed, who is affected by it and how they should participate. Scoping also seeks information on human rights impacts and indicators and the timescale of the assessment. A clear strategy on these issues will enhance the chances of a meaningful process.
- Evidence gathering and consultation with those potentially affected are two key stages. These overlap, but consultation and participation should still be regarded as a vital part of the impact assessment process.
- Analysis of the human rights impact must follow codified human rights obligations and fundamental human rights principles if the human rights approach is to have value.
- Policy-orientated conclusions and recommendations should be produced. This requires considerable time, thought and attention.
- Publication of the HRIA and other documentation ensures that the body responsible can be held to account by rights-holders and other interested actors.
- A monitoring and review procedure will show whether recommendations have been implemented and whether impacts are as predicted or if unexpected impacts have arisen.
See also: Harrison, J., 2011, ‘Human Rights Measurement: Reflections on the Current Practice and Future Potential of Human Rights Impact Assessment’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 162-187
