Part I Defining the issues to be monitored Importantly, OHCHR also emphasizes the need to identify further indicators that assess the State’s policies and programmes and the behaviour of public officials. In other words, indicators that measure conduct are needed, as well as those that measure result. OHCHR’s framework sets out three types of indicators:11 • Structural indicators: that seek to measure the State’s commitment to meeting its human rights obligations (e.g. treaties ratified, constitutional provisions) • Process indicators: that evaluate how these commitments are transformed into results through the development and implementation of policy measures and programmes of action • Outcome indicators: that assess the results of the State’s efforts by measuring the level of enjoyment of human rights. OHCHR has also drawn up tables of indicators for different rights. The different ways that structural, process and outcome indicators can be integrated into OPERA is discussed further below. 4.3. WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS BENCHMARKS? Benchmarks, as noted previously, provide a reference point to compare data against. Human rights benchmarks have been described as: Targets established by governments, on the basis of appropriately consultative processes, in relation to each of the economic, social and cultural rights obligations that apply in the state concerned ... They will be linked to specific time frames. And they will provide a basis upon which the reality of ‘progressive realization’ … can be measured.12 However, there is less agreement on how to identify human rights benchmarks than there is about human rights indicators. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides little guidance on benchmarks. To date, efforts to identify benchmarks that can be used to judge human rights indicators have tended to be based on comparisons, negotiations or recommendations. Comparative benchmarks simply compare indicators across different categories. Relevant categories might include different population groups, different municipalities or different countries. For example, if data suggests that malnutrition rates are particularly high in one part of a country compared to others, this is a red flag that suggests deprivations of the right to food. If girls are graduating from school at a lower rate than boys, this suggests discrimination or barriers to equality in the right to education. If a particular country is spending a lot less on healthcare than its neighbours, even though it has a high mortality rate, this is a red flag that suggests it is not dedicating its maximum available resources to ESCR. Comparative benchmarks are a simple and straightforward way to judge indicators. However, it is important to note that it might not always be possible to find an appropriate comparator. For example, if sewerage connection rates in a country were only 40%, we would not want to interpret this outcome as “good” simply because it was at a similar level in neighbouring countries. Negotiated benchmarks are those that are agreed on through some kind of consultative process. Such consultations might happen between governments, either regionally or internationally; between governments and civil society; or between NHRIs and civil society. Some examples of negotiated benchmarks are shared below. Negotiated benchmarks are useful because they enjoy at least a certain amount of political “buy in”. Nevertheless, a challenge with negotiated benchmarks is that they might be the result of compromise between different interests and therefore they are not ambitious enough or they do not fully capture the issue being monitored. 11 OHCHR (2012), Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation, at pp.34-38. 12 International Human Rights Internship Program (2000), ‘Module 19: Monitoring and Assessing the Enjoyment of ESC Rights’, in Circle of Rights: economic, social and cultural rights activism – a training resource, at p.374. Chapter 4: Working with indicators and benchmarks | 45