The fourth pillar is the right to development and economic and social and cultural rights. Much of the support for this building block from the OHCHR has been for various sub-regional workshops, most recently on the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights . The right to development remains a contro­versial area internationally and the implementation of this right at the national level remains a challenge in many countries. Activities supported so far under the fourth pillar have veered towards economic, social and cultural rights rather than the right ie plans. to development in a comprehensive sense. There has been little follow-up at the national level pursuant to the OHCHR-supported workshops.

There are both substantive and methodological challenges facing the support given by the OHCHR to the four pillars.

First, the four pillars have concentrated more on cooperation programmes rather than responding to the original rationale for regional human rights arrangements as seen in the various UN resolutions above - namely, the search for a regional machinery to review the human rights situation and provide redress where the national setting is unable or unwilling to do so. This paradigm shift has also been reflected in later UN resolutions which have become more oriented to cooperative activities rather than regional protection activities through the setting up of a regional machinery.

For instance, in 1999 the title of the UN Human Rights Commissions annual resolution on the Asia-Pacific region changed from "Regional Arrange­ments for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian and Pacific Region" (as per its 1998 resolution and earlier resolutions cited above) to "Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian and Pacific Region" as seen in UN Human Rights Commission resolution 1999/69(1999). This resolution concentrated more on national capacity-building based on coopera­tion linked with the four pillars above rather than a regional machinery to review the human rights situation and to provide redress. This was repeated in subsequent resolutions which emphasized regional cooperation rather than regional arrangements targeted to a regional machinery, e.g. UN Human Rights Commission resolution 2000/74(2000), UN Human Rights Commission resolution 2001 / 77(2001), UN Human Rights Commission resolution 2002/82(2002), UN Human Rights Commission resolution 2003/73(2003), and UN Human Rights Commission resolution 2004/74(2004).

Second, there been a tendency to see OHCHR support as a funder in a donor-donee relationship rather than as a partnership. An evaluation of the Frame­work in 2000 suggested that the OHCHR should reduce its role as a conduit of funds to Governments but rather act as a catalyst and invite more commitments from the Governments of the Asia-Pacific region. The primary role of the OHCHR would be to provide technical assistance and know-how in terms of knowledge base and follow-up monitoring rather than financial grants to Governments, and that there was/is a need to access a broader range of actors in the region, particularly civil society and those impacted upon by human rights transgressions.

Third, there is the question how the money under the Asia-Pacific framework has been allocated and spent. Have the activities under the four pillars been cost-effective? The projected cost of the most recent annual workshop in Doha was around 144,000 USD, while the other activities vary in costing. The inter-sessional/sub-regional workshop usually cost tens of thousands of USD, for example the cost for the sub-regional workshop on the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights in North-east Asia was nearly 70,000 USD. According to the OHCHR annual report for 2004, the budget for the plan of action for the Asia­Pacific regional framework was around 258,000 USD for 2004, and the promotion and protection of human rights in Asia and the Pacific, including the cost of the regional office in Bangkok, was around 365,000 USD for 2004. The extra-budget­ary projects for regional and sub-regional activities (through contributions other than the regular UN budget) was around 630,000 USD in 2003. In view of the hundreds of thousands of dollars projected and spent for the Asia-Pacific frame­work directly or indirectly, have the results been worthwhile ?

One can hark back to the evaluation of activities in 2002 whose message still rings true today:

" Implementation has been efficient in relation to some but order in not all activities under the Tehran Framework. The most worthwhile Frame- are the annual workshops and some of the inter-sessional workshops... However, in relation to the inter-sessional workshops, several were organized in too rushed a manner; the lack of adequate preparation affected the cost factor..."

That evaluation also noted that even the generally well-received an­nual workshops were not of a high enough level in terms of participation, and lacked participation from civil society.

Fourth several activities have been ad hoc rather than sustainable or sustained. A classic example is the tendency to organize inter-sessional/subregional workshops with little or no follow up, especially at the level. The approach of workshops has had to be rethought to avoid ad hoc activities. Notably, the 2000 evaluation called for fewer workshop-style activities but more commit­ment to sustained action in building the human rights protection system at the national level; the OHCHR should target more capacity building and the placement of national consultants advisers to help reforms at the national level in addition to establishing an OHCHR office in the Asia-Pacific region. As seen below, since that evaluation, this has been happening to some extent.

Fifth, from the angle of needed implementation, many of the activi­ties in regard to the pillars above are more related to the national perspective and would be better resourced and supported by UN country teams through country programming rather than OHCHR Asia-Pacific regional programming.