Results framework
Countries & Territories
This section presents the progress and results achieved by the Global Programme (GP) in 2024, aggregating results across the contexts supported by the Global Programme vis-à-vis its results framework. The Results Framework of the Global Programme consists of two outcomes.
The tables below reflect the results achieved in the thematic areas of rule of law, human rights, justice and security (Outcome 1 and associated Outputs 1-4); and in strengthening knowledge creation and sharing and contributing to policy discourse (Outcome 2 and associated Outputs 5-6). Operational effectiveness indicators reflect the Global Programme’s results in promoting an enabling operational environment.
Under Outcome 1, the Global Programme invested in inclusive, people-centred systems that provide quality justice and security services and uphold and protect human rights in order to ensure that they become trusted and accessible, especially in contexts affected by crisis, conflict or fragility. In 2024, the GP redoubled its efforts in strengthening the capacities of institutions, systems and stakeholders to support the fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligations. In 2024 alone, the GP supported strengthening human rights institutions, systems and stakeholders in 48 countries and territories, in addition to strengthening the private sector in 62 countries for advancing human rights.
The Global Programme made concerted efforts in promoting people-centred approaches to justice and security in 2024, supporting the development of nearly 150 people-centred justice or security policies, services and innovative digital solutions.
The programme also provided catalytic seed funding to 44 contexts for access to justice projects/programmes and introduced or strengthened people-centred and gender-sensitive transitional justice solutions in 22 contexts. With GP support, over 5,000 justice and security personnel had strengthened capacity to provide people-centred services in 2024. Overall, the Global Programme achieved or exceeded the targets of 91 percent of its output indicators in Outcome 1.
Under Outcome 2, the Global Programme strengthened its evidence-base to continue informing high-quality programming and provide a solid foundation for engagement. Significant increases are evident in these results, particularly across monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) methods. Almost 120 new methods, including tools, frameworks and processes for MEL, were adopted at global, regional and national levels in 2024, a 110 percent increase from the previous year. Over 90 learning-focused mechanisms (e.g., workshops, trainings, Communities of Practice (COPs), theory of change reflection sessions, etc.) at global, regional and country levels were organized—a modest increase of 10 percent. Increases in these indicators were strongest at the country level, followed by the regional level, reflecting wider interaction with the programme’s results framework and utilization or embedding of MEL practices in supported projects. Additionally, the GP contributed to 15 key UN global learning and/or policy documents.
The Global Programme actively contributed to regional and global level policy on rule of law, justice, security and human rights that affirms a development perspective, as informed by the strengthened evidence base. More than 160 policy discussions/events were convened - an 89 percent increase from the last year. Increases were observed at all levels, with strong improvements at the regional and country level. The GP also produced 4 new publications that were distributed globally, pertaining to adopting a human rights-based approach in programming, the experience of women and justice in Africa, human rights due diligence and the environment for businesses, and the framework on people-centred approach to justice and security. Overall, the Global Programme achieved or exceeded the targets of approximately 76 percent of its output indicators in Outcome 2.
The Global Programme continues to strive for operational effectiveness. In 2024, 92 projects/programmes were funded that integrated a human rights-based approach. Of these, 46 of the GP-supported contexts set at least 15 percent of their project budget for gender investments. Female staff continue to be well represented in the GP team across all contract modalities. Overall, the Global Programme achieved or exceeded the targets of 83 percent of its indicators in this area.
In 2024, the Global Programme provided support to 119 contexts. As an outcome of these efforts, the GP made important contributions to UNDP’s global efforts for supporting people’s access to justice and using digital technologies and services in ways that improve their lives. The GP’s policy activities and programming also both benefitted from and contributed to strengthening partnerships with 148 institutions including UN entities, International Financial Institutions, the private sector, civil society organizations, multi-stakeholders or intergovernmental organizations, government agencies or public institutions, academia and think tanks. This reflects a 74 percent increase in partnerships, with the greatest increases reflected in collaboration with the private sector and government or public institutions.
Programme Outcome 1
Inclusive, people-centred systems that provide quality justice and security services and uphold and protect human rights are trusted and accessible, especially in contexts affected by crisis, conflict or fragility
| Outcome Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Global Programme (GP) supported contexts’ average World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index score; and 1.1.1 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) (for African countries only) |
0.49 (2022) 46.99 (2021) |
0.49 46.99 (2021, latest data) |
0.50 48.76 (2021, latest data) |
0.49 46.03 (2023, latest data) |
World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2024, Ibrahim Index on African Governance 2023, GP reporting | GP support and GP-supported refer to the provision of tailored, context specific assistance provided through the Global Programme and may include, but is not limited to, pipeline or non-pipeline funding, technical and strategic expertise and advice provided by ROLSHR staff or consultants, or the mobilisation of agile capacities. Of 119 GP-supported contexts, 89 have a 2024 Rule of Law Index score; 37 GP-supported contexts are in the 2023 IIAG. |
| 1.2 Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age | 5.7 (2019) | 5.6 (2020) |
5.8 (2021, latest data) Male: 9.3 Female: 2.2 |
5.6 (2022 latest data) | Corporate data, IRRF Development Outcome 3, Outcome Indicator 5 | Disaggregation by sex is stated, where applicable or available. The data sources for SDG 16.1.1 are "Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General A/79/79-E/2024/54" and the "Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024". |
|
1.3 Number of strategic partnerships for advancing programming and policy objectives with: i. UN entities ii. International Financial Institutions iii. private sector iv. civil society organizations v. multistakeholders or intergovernmental organizations vi. government agencies or public institutions vii. academia and think tanks viii. other |
52 (2021) i. 19 ii. 1 iii. 1 iv. 11 v. 19 |
73 i. 29 ii. 1 iii. 3 iv. 8 v. 23 vi. 5 vii. 4 |
85 i. 30 ii. 1 iii. 3 iv. 11 v. 28 vi. 9 vii. 3 |
148 i. 35 ii. 1 iii. 26 iv. 16 v. 25 vi. 31 vii. 4 viii. 10 |
GP reporting | Strategic partnerships are any formal agreement for cooperation entered into by the Global Programme with another entity. This could include, for example, an MOU, a partnership agreement, or email exchange detailing the arrangements for partnering on a specific project or thematic area of work. Multi-stakeholder partnership refers to a partnership that brings together a range of different actors such as civil society, governments, international bodies, media, and academic or research institutions. Civil society organizations may include, but are not limited to, faith-based organizations, regional and international non-government organizations, academia, think tanks and research institutions, professional associations.a |
| 1.4 GP-supported contexts’ average NHRI accreditation status |
Out of 38 contexts (2022): A: 16 B: 10 Lapsed: 1 N.A: 11 |
GP-supported contexts (as per output indicator 1.2): out of 38 contexts: A: 16 B: 10 Lapsed: 1 N.A: 11 Globally: A: 84 B: 33 |
Of 34 GP-supported contexts: A: 18 B: 7 Lapsed: 1 N.A.: 8 Globally: A: 88 B: 32 |
Of 48 GP-supported contexts, the accreditation status is as follows: A: 28 B: 10 N.A.: 10 Globally A: 91 B: 27 |
GANHRI, Chart of the Status of National Institutions Accredited by the Global Alliance of NHRIs as at 14 May 2025 |
The accreditation status of GP-supported contexts is as follows (per output indicator 1.2). A: Costa Rica, Ecaudor, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uganda, Ukraine, Zambia. B: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, North Macedonia, The Maldives, Senegal, Tunisia, Turkiye. N.A.: Belize, Brazil, Cambodia, Comoros, Djibouti, Japan, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe, Suriname, Viet Nam. |
| 1.5 Number of people supported, who have access to justice | 44,741,459 (2021) | 50,839,978 | 55,224,779 | 58,770,514 | Corporate data, UNDP overall reporting |
This indicator is cumulative. The result for 2024 was calculated based on UNDP IRRF data as of April 2025, which included a revision in the corporate dataset (see indicator 2.2.3a, b, c). Based on the revision in the dataset, results for 2022, 2023 and the baseline were recalculated. |
Programme Outcome 2
Regional and global level policy on rule of law, justice, security & human rights is evidence-based, affirms a development perspective and informs high-quality programming
| Outcome Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Average score of Programme Quality Index for GP-funded contexts |
Highly satisfactory, GP3 (2019) Highly satisfactory, SALIENT (2020) |
Exemplary, GP4 (2022) | 3.83 (High) | 3.53 (High) | UNDP Quality Assurance Portal | The methodology applied in 2022 and at baseline years was for the overall GP. In 2023, the QA score was calculated as an average of the total number of GP-funded contexts in 2023; this method was applied for all future reporting. |
| 2.2 GP-supported GPN/Express One Roster deployments: a) Number of: i. UNDP staff ii. Consultants iii. UNVs iv. Stand by Partner experts (all by gender); b) Volume of deployments (in USD) c) Expert deployments conducted under the GFP framework, including deployments by DPO Standing Justice and Corrections and Standing Police Capacity (expenses are covered by DPO, thus, amount not available in UNDP) |
a) i. 1 (IPSA, female) ii. 22 (12 female, 10 male) iii. 0 iv. 2 (1 female, 1 male) b) US$ 746,000 c) 24 (including remote deployment during COVID-19) |
a) i. 3 (IPSA, 3 female) ii. 23 (15 female, 8 male) iii. 0 iv. 1 b) US$ 864,509 c) 12 |
a) i. 1 (IPSA, female) ii. 15 (9 female, 6 male) iii. 2 (2 female) iv. 2 (2 female) b) US$ 469,034 c) 10 |
a) i. 3 (2 IPSA, all female) ii. 39 (27 female, 12 male) iii. 2 (2 female) iv. 1 (female) b) US$ 1,615,982 c) 8 |
GP reporting, GFP reporting | Disaggregation by sex is stated, where applicable or available. This is a proxy indicator for the Global Programme’s agile capacities and responsiveness to requests for the rapid provision of high-quality technical and strategic expertise, particularly in contexts experiencing conflict, crisis and/or fragility. Deployments may be crosscutting, supporting several outputs within the results framework. Deployments may include UNDP staff missions (both virtual and in-person) and detailed assignments, including to HQ for the purposes of supporting Phase IV delivery. c) The 8 missions were both strategic and expert deployments, with 1 in a non-mission setting, 1 in a Special Political Mission setting, and 6 in peacekeeping mission settings. In terms of location, 4 were in Central African Republic for an assessment mission, 1 each was for expert support in Burkina Faso and Somalia, and 2 were for expert support in Democratic Republic of Congo. |
| 2.3 Number of GPsupported impact, country programme, thematic and outcome reviews, assessments and evaluations | 2 (2022) | 2 | 2 | 6 | GP reporting | Results include: the GP4 Final Evaluation (ongoing), Business Model Review of the Governance, Rule of Law and Peace building Hub (completed), thematic case studies of the SALIENT and Tri-Partite Partnership to Support National Human Rights Institutions partnerships (completed), country case studies of Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan (both in the final stages). |
| 2.4 Number of people using digital technologies and services in ways that improves their lives, in GP-supported contexts | 2,575,766 in 19 contexts (2022) |
2,575,766, Female: 827,524 Male: 1,608,763 Sex-disaggregated data unavailable: 139,479 |
32,903,451 Female: 8,317,837 Male: 11,050,380 Sex-disaggregated data unavailable: 13,535,234 |
19,160,923 Female: 1,628,680 Male: 2,356,913 Sex-disaggregated data unavailable: 15,175,330 |
Corporate data, GP reporting |
Disaggregation by sex is stated, where applicable and available. Of 119 GP-supported contexts, 28 had 2024 IRRF data available (see IRRF Enabler E.1, Indicator E1.3). |
Output 1
Legal frameworks and underlying norms and practice are more inclusive and non-discriminatory and people have greater agency and opportunities to know and claim their rights, solve disputes and seek redress for rights violations
| Output Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Number of contexts where GP support strengthened legal and/or policy strategies or frameworks to expand civic space | 4 (2022) | 4 | 15 | 5 | 23 | GP reporting | The contexts are: Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Viet Nam, Zambia. |
| 1.2 Number of contexts where GP-supported human rights institutions, systems or stakeholders strengthened capacities to support the fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligationsb,c,d | 38 (2022) | 38 | 50 | 45 | 67 | Corporate data, GP reporting |
This indicator is cumulative. The contexts are: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, The Maldives, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Peru, Phillipines, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Of 67 contexts, 35 have 2024 IRRF data available. According to the IRRF rating scale for this indicator, 19 contexts have reported the capacity as high or very high (see IRRF indicator 2.2.1b). |
| 1.3 Number of contexts in which GP support provided to constitution making processes by introducing or supporting at least one mechanism for civic engagementb,e | 6 (2022) | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | Corporate data, GP reporting |
The contexts are: Armenia, Somalia, South Sudan. UNDP provides a wide range of constitutional assistance around the globe consisting of support in designing and conducting constitutional reform process, including support in civic engagement as crucial to inclusive and participatory constitution making. The results indicate only those countries where GP support centred around civic engagement in such processes. Of 3 contexts, 2 have 2024 IRRF data available. According to the IRRF rating scale for this indicator, 1 context has reported the work as in place (see IRRF indicator 2.4.1a). |
| 1.4 Number of contexts with GP-funded access to justice programmes or projects introduced or supported | 24 (2020) | 17 | 23 | 22 | 48 | GP reporting | The contexts are: Albania, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Montenegro, Montserrat, Myanmar, Nepal, North Macedonia, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, Viet Nam, Yemen. |
| 1.5 Number of contexts where GP support has contributed to the establishment and/or strengthening of justice and security mechanisms, processes and frameworks to prevent, respond to, and address sexual and gender based violence/ conflict-related sexual violence | 17 (2022) | 17 | 17 | 20 | 26 | GP reporting | The contexts are: Afghanistan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, The Maldives, Mozambique, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Philippines, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Ukraine, Yemen, Kosovo. |
Output 2
Mechanisms to hold duty bearers and power holders to account in order to ensure the rule of law and promotion and protection of human rights are in place and actively used
| Output Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Number of contexts in which GP support has contributed to:c,f a) implementation of UPR recommendations b) closer integration between human rights and SDG systems |
a) 5 (2022) b) 7 (2020) |
a) 5 b) 13 |
a) 8 b) 19 |
a) >10 b) >13 |
a) 14 b) 24 |
GP reporting |
This indicator is cumulative. a) The contexts are: Bahrain, Botswana, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Eswatini, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Uruguay. b) The contexts are: Bahrain, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Chad, Djibouti, Eswatini, Guinea, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Niger, Pakistan, Morocco, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tunisia, Uruguay, Uzbekistan. |
| 2.2 Number of contexts where GP-supported private sector institutions, systems, or stakeholders (including publicly owned companies) have strengthened capacities to support fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligationsb,c | 25 (2022) | 25 | 31 | 29 | 67 | Corporate data, GP reporting |
This indicator is cumulative. The contexts are: Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, The Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sri Lanka, State of Palestine, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zanzibar (included in the count as Tanzania). Of 67 contexts, 14 have 2024 IRRF data available. According to the IRRF rating scale for this indicator, 2 contexts have reported the capacity as high (see IRRF indicator 2.2.1c). |
| 2.3 Number of contexts where GP support has improved capacities of justice and security institutions for oversight and accountabilityc | 11 (2022) | 11 | 16 | 15 | 49 | GP reporting |
This indicator is cumulative. The contexts are: Albania, Algeria, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Burundi, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eswatini, Fiji, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Montenegro, Myanmar, Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, State of Palestine, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Ukraine, Viet Nam, Yemen, Kosovo. |
| 2.4 Number of contexts with GP-introduced or strengthened people-centred and gender-sensitive, transitional justice solutions | 9 (2022) | 9 | 11 | 11 | 22 | GP reporting | The contexts are: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Guatemala, Iraq, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Nepal, Philippines, South Sudan, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Kosovo. |
Output 3
Justice and security systems are service-oriented and better able to protect human rights and respond to people’s justice and security needs through high-quality performance
| Output Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 Number of contexts where GP-support to rule of law and justice institutions, systems, or stakeholders has strengthened capacities to support fulfilment of nationally and internationally ratified human rights obligationsb,c | 22 (2022) | 22 | 37 | 25 | 63 | Corporate data, GP reporting |
This indicator is cumulative. The contexts are: Albania, Algeria, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, State of Palestine, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Yemen. Of 64 contexts, 23 have 2024 IRRF data available. According to the IRRF rating scale for this indicator, 13 contexts have reported the capacity as high or very high (see IRRF indicator 2.2.1a). |
| 3.2 Number of new or strengthened people-centred justice policies, services or innovative digital solutions developed with GP support | 45 (2022) | 45 | 42 | 51 | 109 | GP reporting | Policies, services and digital solutions were developed at the global level; at the regional level in Africa, Arab States, Asia-Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean; and at country level in the following contexts: Albania, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon (2 projects), Liberia, Malawi, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, North Macedonia, Peru, Senegal, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Tanzania and Zanzibar, Trinidad & Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen. |
| 3.3 Number of new or strengthened people-centred security policies, services or innovative digital solutions developed with GP support | 13 (2022) | 13 | 17 | 17 | 39 | GP reporting | Policies, services and digital solutions were developed at the global level; at the regional level in Africa, Arab States, Asia-Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean; and at country level in the following contexts: Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, The Maldives, North Macedonia, Panama, Somalia, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago. |
| 3.4 Number of justice and security institutions with enhanced capacity to provide people centred services, in line with human rights/gender/LNOB principles, through GP-supported interventions | 94 (2022 | 94 | 42 | 100 | 153 | GP reporting | The results include 132 institutions at the national level and 21 at the sub-national level. Institutions were supported in the following contexts: Albania, Algeria, Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Bhutan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, The Maldives, Montenegro, Nepal, North Macedonia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, State of Palestine, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Ukraine, Yemen, Kosovo. |
| 3.5 Number of justice and security personnel with enhanced capacity to provide people centred services, in line with human rights/gender/LNOB principles, through GP-supported interventions | 3,025 (2022) | 3,025 | 7,321 | 3,328 | 5,165 | GP reporting | Personnel were supported in the following contexts: Albania, Algeria, Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Bhutan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, The Maldives, Montenegro, Nepal, North Macedonia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, State of Palestine, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Ukraine, Yemen, Kosovo. |
Output 4
Community security, safety and resilience strengthened through people-centred strategies, processes and mechanisms
| Output Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 Number of contexts in which GP-supported local government, justice and security providers respond in a more holistic & people-centred way to community safety and security needs and grievancesf | 4 (2022) | 4 | 7 | >5 | 21 | GP reporting | The contexts are: Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Myanmar, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Somalia, St. Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, Yemen. |
| 4.2 Number of contexts where GP support introduced or strengthened gender-sensitive and people-centred evidence-based security strategies for reducing armed violence and/ or controlling small arms at the community levelf | 3 (2022) | 3 | 8 | >4 | 6 | GP reporting | The contexts are: Ghana, Honduras, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Panama, Papua New Guinea. |
| 4.3 Number of GP-funded integrated programmes/ projects in stabilization and/or triple nexus contexts that support people centred community security and social cohesion and: a) financial volume of support; b) number of joint programmes/ projects |
12 (6 GP3 funded, 6 GP4 funded) (2022) a) US$ 3,353,534 ($1,603,534 GP3; $1,750,000 GP4) (2022) b) 5 (2022) |
12 (6 GP3 funded, 6 GP4 funded) (2022) a) US$ 3,353,534 ($1,603,534 GP3; $1,750,000 GP4) (2022) b) 5 (2022) |
Total 15 (13 GP4 funded; 2 GP3 funded) a) Total US$ 3,713,540 (GP4 funds: US$ 3,013,540; GP3 funds: US$ 700,000) b) 7 |
12 a) US$ 3M b) 5 |
Total 11 a) US$ 2,463,420 b) 7 |
GP reporting |
a) Results reflect projects that were funded by GP4 in 2024, in addition to funds allocated in 2022 and 2023 but projects were operational through 2024. The contexts are: Burkina Faso ($200,000), Burundi ($200,000), Democratic Republic of the Congo ($250,000), Iraq ($300,000), Lebanon ($200,000), Liberia ($299,880), Mali ($200,000), Mozambique ($200,000), Myanmar ($108,000), Somalia ($200,000), Yemen ($300,240). b) Joint programmes were implemented in: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Iraq, Lebanon, Mali, Somalia, Yemen. |
Output 5
Strengthened Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) systems support project/ programme design and implementation
| Output Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1
Number of new methods (including tools, frameworks and processes) for GP-related monitoring, evaluation and learning adopted at:f i. global ii. regional and iii. country level |
0 (2021) |
i. 0 ii. 2 iii. 15 |
i. 3 ii. 7 iii. 48 | i. >1 ii. >3 iii. >16 | i. 9 ii. 9 iii. 104 | GP reporting |
ii. Methods were developed at the regional level in Africa, the Arab States, Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean regions. iii. Methods were developed in the following contexts: Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, India, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen. |
| 5.2
Number of key UNDP global knowledge and learning products produced and disseminated by GP; in a) English; and/or b) other languages |
a) 5 (2020) b) 0 (2020) |
a) 14 b) 1 |
a) 3 in English b) 2 in other languages |
a) 3 (total 9) b) 3 (total 7) |
a) 5 in English (8 total) b) 1 in other languages (3 total) |
GP reporting |
Products produced in English: The Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Programming: HRBA Toolkit (new), People-Centred Justice and Security Policy Framework (new), Practical Tool for Business on Human Rights Due Diligence and the Environment (new), UNDP Implementation Framework Tool on Human Rights Due Diligence (previously published but updated and re-published), and Women in Justice in Africa: A Comparative Study of Women Judges in 14 Countries (new, joint with UN Women). Products produced in other languages: Guidance Note on Women, Peace and Security and the United Nations Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law (previously published in 2022, with translations published in 2024). |
| 5.3
Number of GP-led or GP-supported knowledge and learning-focused mechanisms (e.g. workshops, trainings, COPs, theory of change reflection sessions etc.) at:f i. global ii. regional and iii. country level |
i. 33 (2022) ii. 15 (2022) iii. 5 (2022) |
i. 33 ii. 15 iii. 5 |
i. 43 ii. 36 iii. 7 |
i. >34 ii. >16 iii. >6 |
i) 29 ii) 25 iii) 41 |
GP reporting | Results reflect knowledge and learning-focused mechanisms at the global level; at the regional level in all regions; and at country level in the following contexts: Angola, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Papua New Guinea, Zambia. |
Output 6
Sustained high-quality, evidence-informed analytics and learning contribute to shaping global and regional level policy discourse on rule of law, justice, security and human rights
| Output Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 Number of key UN global learning and/or policy documents published referencing GP-specific evidence-based findings/ knowledge/results | 11 (2022) | 11 | 11 | 9 | 15 | GP reporting | Contributions to key UN global learning/ policy documents were in the areas of business and human rights, environmental justice, gender justice, human rights, and the rule of law. Contributions were published in statements from the Human Rights Council Sessions; various Secretary General, UN Working Group, Inter-Agency Coordination Group, Special Rapporteur, and High Commissioner reports; and global reports produced through GP partnerships with other UN agencies. |
| 6.2 Stakeholders’ general perception of GP analytics and policy work in terms of a) quantity / frequency; b) quality of outputs; c) level of impact on global rule of law, justice, security and human rights policy landscape |
a) Appropriate: 71% (2022) b) Excellent: 29%; Good: 71% (2022) c) High level: 57%; Average level: 43% (2022) |
a) Appropriate: 71% b) Excellent: 29%; Good: 71% c) High level: 57%; Average level: 43% |
a) Appropriate: 75% b) Excellent: 25% c) High level: 50%; Average level: 50% |
a) >Appropriate: 72% b) >Excellent: 30% c) >High level: 58% |
a) Appropriate 57% b) Excellent 14% c) High level: 71% Average level: 29% |
GP reporting |
Seven responses were received for the stakeholder survey. According to the results: a) Approximately 57% of respondents agree that the quantity/frequency is at an appropriate level; the remaining 43% neither agree nor disagree. b) 14% of the respondents agree that the quality of the outputs is excellent, while 71% agree that the quality is good. The remaining 14% found the quality to be fair. c) 71% of the respondents rated the GP knowledge and policy work as having a high impact on the global policy landscape. The remaining 29% rated the level of impact as average. |
| 6.3 Number of rule of law, justice, security and human rights related policy discussions/ events (UN and non-UN): a) that are convened by GP b) to which GP is invited to contribute (e.g. staff representation or expertise, data); c) to which the GP contributes: at the: i. global ii. regional and iii. country level |
a) 28 (2022) b) 41 (2022) c) i. 27 (2022) ii. 10 (2022) iii. 4 (2022) |
a) 28 b) 41 c) i. 27 ii. 10 iii. 4 |
a) 27 b) 31 c) i. 15 ii. 7 iii. 9 |
a) 25 b) 40 c) i. 25 ii. 10 iii. 5 |
a) 45 b) 30 c) i. 48 ii. 23 iii. 22 |
GP reporting | Results reflect rule of law, justice, security and human rights-related policy discussions/events at global, regional and country levels, which are convened by GP (a), or with GP contribution (b + c = 123). |
| 6.4 Number of downloads of key GP-produced policy documents and knowledge products | 2,174 (2022) | 2,174 | 514 | 2,511 | 2,522 | GP reporting, Google Analytics |
Total downloads: 2,522 Total page views: 5,639 Note that Google Analytics does not provide an exact number of downloads, as it applies some thresholds and does not count the number of downloads from the servers where the assets are cached (CDN - Content Delivery Network). |
Operational Effectiveness
| Indicators | Baseline & Year | Results Year 1 (2022) | Results Year 2 (2023) | Target Year 3 (2024) | Results Year 3 (2024) | Data Source | Reporting Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OE1 Number of country-level GP-funded projects/ programmes that integrate a human rights-based approach | 34 (2020) | 64 funded by GP4, plus 37 funded by GP3 but operational in 2022 | 73 funded by GP4, and 2 funded by GP3 but operational in 2023 | 36 | 92 | GP reporting |
GP4 countries = 47: Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Fiji, The Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Panama, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, State of Palestine, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Türkiye, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zanzibar (included in the count as Tanzania). BHR countries = 36: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Serbia, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zanzibar (included in the count as Tanzania). SALIENT countries = 6: Ghana, Honduras, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Panama, Papua New Guinea. Gender Justice Platform countries = 40: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guyana, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Lao PDR, Liberia, Malawi, The Maldives, Mali, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Rwanda, Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, Kosovo. Justice Action Coalition Fund countries = 5: Colombia, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone. TPP countries = 13: Comoros, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Georgia, Jordan, Malawi, The Maldives, Moldova, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Peru, Timor-Leste, Ukraine. KNPA countries = 4: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia, North Macedonia. |
| OE2 Number of contexts where the respective GP portfolio of projects/ programmes meets the set 15% budget quota for gender investmentsf | 18 (2022) | 18 (Gender Justice Platform) | 34 | >19 | 46 | GP reporting |
All GP-funded projects are GEN2, making a significant contribution to gender equality and/or the empowerment of women and girls. Gender Justice Platform is a GEN3 project. The contexts supported include SALIENT countries: Ghana, Honduras, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Panama, Papua New Guinea; and Gender Justice Platform countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guyana, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Lao PDR, Liberia, Malawi, The Maldives, Mali, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Rwanda, Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, Kosovo. |
| OE3 Total number and proportion of full-time female staff among ROLSHR team contract holders: i. international professional staff ii. general service staff and iii. other contract categories (incl. interns, seconded staff, UNVs, consultants etc.) |
i. 32 total, 69% female (2022) ii. 3 total, 67%female (2022) iii. 48 total, 54 female (2022) |
i. 32 total, 69% female (2022) ii. 3 total, 67% female (2022) iii. 48 total, 54% female (2022) |
i. 34 total, 71% women ii. 6 total, 67% women iii. 16 total, 81% women |
i. 50% ii. 50% iii. 50% |
i. 38 total, 63% women ii. 5 total, 80% women iii. 42 total, 71% women |
GP reporting |
i. International professional staff Of 38 international professional staff, 24 were women = 63%. Categories as follows: -15 women out of 26 P staff -9 women out of 12 IPSA staff ii. General service staff Of 5 G staff, 4 were women = 80%. Categories as follows: -1 woman out of 2 G staff -3 women out of 3 DAs iii. Other contract categories (interns, UNVs, secondees, consultants) Of 42 personnel in other categories, 30 were women = 71%. Categories as follows: -27 consultants -2 UNVs -1 secondee |
| OE4 Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law (GFP) partnerships:f (a) Total number of GFP-funded joint programmes/ projects (b) Total budget amount of GFP-funded joint programmes (c) Number of contexts where GFP-supported joint rule of law assessments, strategies, programmes and/or frameworks developed (complementing a UN political strategy or reinforcing implementation of a UNSC mission mandate) |
a) 3 (2022) b) US$800,000 (2022) c) 5 (2022) |
a) 3 (GP4 2022), plus 3 (GP3) b) US$ 800,000 (GP4), plus $795,534 (GP3) c) 5 |
a) 5 (GP4 funded) and 1 (GP3 funded) b) GP4 funds: US$ 1,050,000; GP3 funds: US$ 200,000 c) 2 |
a) >5 b) >US$ 1,050,000 c) >2 |
a) 1 (GP4 funded) b) US$ 300,000 (GP4 funds) c) 6 |
GP reporting, Google Analytics |
a) and b) GP4 = 2 funding allocations for 1 project in 1 context: Liberia ($100,000), allocated in 2024 and operational in 2025 (added on to GP-approved funding of $200,000 bringing country allocation to $300,000). c) The contexts are: Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Mali, Somalia. |
a i UN entities: Aarhus Convention/United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; Call to Action Working Group; Chief Digital Office of UNDP; Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD); Executive Office of the Secretary General (EOSG); Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO); Global Focal Point for the Rule of Law (GFP); Inter-Agency Coordination Group Against Trafficking in Persons; Inter-agency Task Force on Policing; International Organisation for Migration (IOM); International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation (ITC-ILO); UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPO) via Global Focal Point; UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA); UN Development Coordination Office (DCO); UN Environment Programme(UNEP); UN Interagency Network on HR, LNOB and Sustainable Development; UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict; UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC); UN Team of Experts on the Rule of Law and Sexual Violence in Conflict (ToE); UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights; UNDP-OHCHR-Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI): Tri-Partite Partnership to Support National Human Rights Institutions; UNDP- UN Women: Gender Justice partnership; UNDP-UNHCR: Global Partnership on Rule of Law and Governance; UNDP-UNODA partnership: SALIENT, Saving Lives Entity, including UNODA Regional Centres; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Regional Collaboration Centre for Asia-Pacific; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR); United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI); United Nations Office of Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA); United Nations Police (UNPOL); United Nations University (UN University’s Centre for Policy Research); World Health Organisation (WHO).
ii International Financial Institutions: World Bank.
iii Private sector: AIM Progress; Amfori; Business for Social Responsibility; Cobalt Institute; Corporate Section of Japanese Association in Ghana (Nihonjinkai Houjinbukai); Drive+ Sustainability; Environmental Resources Management; Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FNCCI); Global Business Initiative; Global Reporting Initiative; International Council on Mining and Metals; International Organisation of Employers; Investor Alliance for Human Rights; Japan Business Federation; Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI); National Confederation of Private Business Institutions (CONFIEP); Pakistan Suzuki; Pakistan-Japan Business Forum; Peruvian-Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCIPJ); Responsible Business Alliance; Sal Forest; SMEUnited; Turkish Enterprise and Business Confederation (TÜRKONFED); Ulaanbaatar Chamber of Commerce; UN Global Compact; World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
iv Civil Society Organisations: Asia Pacific Network of Environment Defenders (APNED); Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT); Business and Human Rights Resource Centre; Client Earth; Frank Bold; Global Witness; Greenpeace; Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL); Human Level; Institute for Human Rights and Business; International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ); National Human Rights Centre; Oxfam; WalkFree; World Benchmarking Alliance; World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
v. Multi-stakeholders or intergovernmental organisations: African Union (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, African Court on Human and People’s Rights, African Union Commission); Asia Pacific Forum (APF); Banco de Desarrollo de América Latina y el Caribe (CAF); Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat; Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ); Conference of Ministers of Justice of Ibero-American Countries (COMJIB); Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC); European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI); European Union (EU); Geneva Center "for Security Sector Governance (DCAF); Insitituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (Interamerican Institute on Human Rights [IIDH]); International Development Law Organisation (IDLO); International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA); International Labour Organisaiton (ILO); International Network for Open Justice (RIJA); International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO); International Security Sector Advisory Team (ISSAT); Justice Action Coalition (JAC); League of Arab States; League of Arab States; Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI); Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)/Organisation for Security and Coordination in Europe (OSCE); Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies; Red de Instituciones Nacionales de Derechos Humanos del Continente Americano (RINDHCA) ; Taskforce on Inequality and Social-Related Financial Disclosures.
vi. Government agencies or public institutions: Arab Network for National Human Rights Institutions; Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Ghana; Danish Institute for Human Rights; EU Agency for Fundamental Rights; Folke Bernadotte Academy; German Helpdesk on Business and Human Rights; Jamaica Bureau of Standards; Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO); Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA); Korean National Police Agency (KNPA); Ministry of Economy of Ukraine; Ministry of Economy, Kyrgyz Republic; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan; Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Peru (MINJUSDH); Ministry of Justice, Kyrgyz Republic; Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security (MoLESS), Nepal; Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (MoLJPA), Nepal; Ministry of the Interior (Secretaría de Gobernación), Mexico; National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Nepal; Norway Grants; Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD); Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (OPMCM), Nepal; Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice (AGMoJ), Ghana; St. Lucia Bureau of Standards; Thailand Institute of Justice; The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); The Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand; U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through UNDP InfoSegura and CARISECURE Regional Projects; Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights; United States International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Section (INL).
vii. Academia and think tanks: Centre for Responsible Business – Universitas Airlangga; Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking; National Economics University of Vietnam; University of the West Indies (UWI).
viii. Other: Center for International Environmental Law; Geneva Trade Platform; International Association for Impact Assessment; Pillar Two; Shift; Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery; Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment; Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Climate Change; Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development; Thinking Ahead on Societal Change (TASC) Platform.
b The following indicators were modified from 2023 and future reporting to track the number of contexts based on GP reporting, instead of proportion of contexts based on UNDP IRRF data: Output Indicators 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 and 3.1.
c The following indicators are cumulative, as indicated in the reporting notes: Outcome Indicator 1.5, Output Indicators 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 3.1.
d The IRRF rating scale for this indicator at country level is as follows: 0 = Not in place, 1 = Capacity low, 2 = Cap city neither low nor high, 3 = Capacity high, 4 = Capacity very high.
e The IRRF rating scale for this indicator at country level is as follows: 0 = Not in place, 1 = Work started, 2 = Work in progress, 3 = Work almost complete, 4 = In place.
f The targets for these indicators were set as >2023 during target setting exercises that year. The targets as indicated here for 2024 are therefore interpreted and set as greater than the 2023 target.