or reformulating recommendations that aren’t clear, conducting advocacy with specific authorities, including parliament, or meeting with key individuals and institutions to understand and overcome their resistance. Some NPMs also use the media to help exert pressure on authorities, particularly when other methods of persuasion have failed. Systematically analysing all of the different organisations and individuals who might be relevant to the implementation of a recommendation is also a useful way to overcome obstacles. A key element of this kind of “stakeholder analysis” is to think about the different levels of power and interest that different institutions and individuals may have in relation to a specific recommendation or priority. This can help NPMs to identify which actors might need further persuasion (for example, those that have power but little interest in the topic – maybe including parliamentarians, relevant ministers or the media) as well as which actors might form good coalition or advocacy partners in pressing for change (for example, those that have a lot of interest but, little power when they act alone – maybe including NGOs or families of victims). How to systematise and keep track of recommendations over time? Many NPMs use tools to track the recommendations they have made and their degree of implementation. Practice among NPMs varies, with some using databases and others simple spreadsheets. Whatever tool is chosen, however, it needs to be adapted to the NPM’s needs and capacities. Prior to developing such a tool, NPMs should consider the type of information they need to track and the overall purpose of the tool. When developing a tool for recording their recommendations and tracking their implementation, NPMs may want to record some or all of the following factual and analytical information: Factual details • The date the recommendations made (and whether it is a repeated recommendation) • The place to which they relate • The type of place • The authority to whom they were made • The specific report in which they were made, with a link to the full document • The overall theme or problem area • Whether they relate to a specific vulnerable group or detention practice • Any responses from the authorities and/or the agreed timeframe for implementation • Staff members involved in the visit/drafting of the recommendation Analytical information • Whether a recommendation has been accepted by the authorities • Whether a recommendation has been implemented (and checked by the NPM) ��� Whether a recommendation has not been implemented (and why) Information on themes and keywords linking recommendations to cross-cutting issues and groups may allow NPMs to analyse their (often very large) databases of recommendations and identify themes and trends that change over time or relate to more than one institution. This can be useful for institutional memory as well as in an NPM’s regular strategic and operational planning processes. Systematising and keeping track of recommendations is also important for NPMs in that it allows them to measure their own progress, helping them to understand where and when they have been effective and helping staff to stay motivated over time. NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs 33