Technology and Human Rights Due Diligence at the UN | IGF 2023 Open Forum #163

Nicholas Oakeschott

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has developed a comprehensive digital transformation strategy that will be implemented from 2022 to 2026. This strategy aims to leverage technology and innovation to improve efficiency and effectiveness in providing support and assistance to forcibly displaced and stateless individuals. Additionally, the UNHCR is in the process of developing a formal policy framework on human rights due diligence. This framework will ensure that the organisation’s use of digital technology is aligned with international human rights and ethical standards.

In managing the risks associated with digital technology, the UNHCR has a wide range of policies and guidance in place. These policies cover areas such as privacy, data protection, and procurement. By implementing these policies, the organisation aims to mitigate any potential negative impacts and ensure the responsible use of digital technology.

The UNHCR is actively exploring the implementation of guidance on human rights due diligence. This includes considering the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and developing a user-friendly digital tool for implementation. The organisation takes a hands-on approach in reviewing existing policies and guidance on human rights due diligence to ensure the practical implementation of these measures.

The engagement with the UN Human Rights team has been crucial for the UNHCR in foreseeing and addressing potential challenges. The guidance on human rights due diligence has been increasingly seen as implementable at the field level, indicating its effectiveness in practice.

The protection of forcibly displaced and stateless people is integral to the mission of the UNHCR. They prioritise the provision of support, assistance, and protection for these vulnerable populations. This commitment is underpinned by the organisation’s concern for reducing inequalities and fostering peace, justice, and strong institutions, which are reflected in the relevant Sustainable Development Goals.

The UNHCR recognises the importance of engaging with states and the private sector based on the guidance they provide. By applying the guidance, the organisation believes it can establish a stronger basis for increased engagements and partnerships in pursuing its mission.

The UNHCR’s digital transformation strategy is a significant step forward in serving people digitally. Prioritising digital protection, digital inclusion, and providing more digital services are key goals of this strategy. It demonstrates the organisation’s commitment to embracing innovative approaches to enhance service delivery and access to information.

Engaging civil society stakeholders in the implementation of human rights due diligence is seen as a major opportunity and challenge for the UNHCR. The organisation values the input and collaboration of civil society in ensuring the responsible and ethical use of digital technology. Ongoing dialogue and discussions with civil society are recognised as necessary for continuous learning and improvement.

While the UNHCR acknowledges the importance of independent assessments and auditing, they are still evaluating the capability of independent entities to undertake audits beyond the existing system. Currently, the organisation has an independent auditing function that reviews the work of UN agencies. Expert suppliers also assist with data protection impact assessments at the global and field level.

In conclusion, the UNHCR is committed to the responsible use of digital technology and the preservation of human rights in its operations. The development of a digital transformation strategy, policy framework on human rights due diligence, and active engagement with stakeholders reflect the organisation’s dedication to continuous improvement and the pursuit of its mission. By leveraging digital innovation and technology, the UNHCR aims to provide better support and protection for forcibly displaced and stateless individuals while upholding international human rights and ethical standards.

Quintin Chou-Lambert

The United Nations (UN) recognises the importance of utilising digital technology across various aspects, such as peace and security, sustainable development, and human rights. This commitment extends to the UN’s internal operations, encompassing recruitment, procurement, and IT services. The UN aims to ‘walk the talk’ when it comes to its own use of digital technology.

A rights-based approach is considered paramount in the UN’s utilisation of digital technology. This is emphasised in the UN’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, which was initiated in 2020. The roadmap places great significance on incorporating a framework that upholds human rights in the UN’s digital endeavours. It serves as a guide and reference point in decision-making processes related to digital technology, aiding individuals in making informed judgments on a day-to-day basis.

Non-binding guidance plays a vital role in promoting horizontal alignment among UN agencies. This guidance assists in addressing the challenges of harmonisation and facilitating effective translation into local contexts. It encourages each entity within the UN to integrate these principles into their own local procedures. By doing so, entities can ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in areas such as the tendering process. Non-binding guidance acts as a beacon, guiding UN entities in hard-coding these principles into their operational procedures.

Each entity within the UN possesses distinct governing bodies and housekeeping rules. The Secretariat follows housekeeping rules prescribed by the General Assembly, while other agencies, such as UNHCR, enjoy more flexibility in certain cases. This diversity highlights the unique nature of each entity’s governance structure within the UN.

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a test for the UN’s application of the human rights due diligence framework. This framework assists in decision-making processes and helped the Secretariat make appropriate judgments during the pandemic. An example of this is when the UN considered the introduction of a contact tracing system. The human rights due diligence framework offered a guiding principle in ensuring that human rights were upheld throughout the decision-making process.

In conclusion, the UN is committed to employing digital technology in various areas, both externally and internally. A rights-based approach is fundamental to the UN’s use of digital technology, as highlighted in the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation. Non-binding guidance aids in maintaining alignment among UN agencies, while entities are encouraged to incorporate principles into their operational procedures to achieve optimal outcomes. Each entity within the UN has its own governing bodies and housekeeping rules. The human rights due diligence framework serves as a guide in decision-making processes, ensuring human rights are upheld.

Scott Campbell

The process of developing guidance on human rights due diligence for digital technology has been lengthy but valuable. It has involved multiple rounds of bilateral consultations, open forums, and heavy consultation with UN entities as well as external partners. Scott Campbell, in emphasising the importance of policy alignment and coherence, notes that the UN has considered these factors at the forefront of its thought process regarding digital technology and human rights due diligence.

The process has not only facilitated the development of guidance on human rights due diligence for digital technology but has also helped in mainstreaming these efforts across the UN. It has fostered a better understanding and alignment across the system, which is crucial for ensuring effective implementation.

The UN is now nearing the completion of this process. Despite its lengthy duration, the value that it has generated cannot be undermined. The involvement of various stakeholders has ensured a comprehensive and inclusive approach to developing this guidance.

In addition to the development of guidance for digital technology, there has been a parallel process to study the implications of expanding the scope of the current human rights due diligence policy. The guidance on digital technology intersects with this broader expansion, and there has been a broad agreement that it should be grounded in the parameters for this expansion. Recently, at an Executive Committee meeting, the parameters for the human rights due diligence framework policy were agreed upon.

Overall, the process of developing guidance on human rights due diligence for digital technology has been challenging but rewarding. It has facilitated the mainstreaming of these efforts across the UN and cultivated a better understanding and alignment within the system. The emphasis on policy alignment and coherence highlights the UN’s commitment to ensuring that digital technology is used responsibly and in a manner that protects and upholds human rights.

Audience

The analysis explores various concerns and issues related to the decision-making processes within the United Nations (UN) system. One of the key concerns raised is the lack of transparency in the procurement of technologies within the UN system. It argues for the consideration of the influences and priorities of specific actors who fund the UN system. This suggests that external factors may influence the decision-making process, potentially not aligning with the UN’s best interests.

Additionally, the analysis acknowledges the current lack of clarity within the internal mechanism of the UN system. This lack of transparency and clarity can impede effective decision-making and hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of the UN system.

Furthermore, the analysis questions the selection of technologies within the UN system. It suggests that the selection process should consider more than just efficiency. An example is given, citing the use of biometric technology by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). While biometric technology has shown some efficiency gains in reducing fraud, the potential risks to the populations exposed to these technologies outweigh the minimal benefits. This highlights the importance of prioritising not only efficiency but also the potential risks associated with implementing certain technologies.

Another topic discussed in the analysis is the independence of assessments within UN agencies. Concerns are raised about who should conduct these assessments and ensuring their independence. Ana Cristina Ruelas from UNESCO specifically questions the independence of assessments and how to navigate diverse member states’ views when conducting evaluations. This raises considerations about maintaining unbiased assessments and managing potentially conflicting perspectives within UN agencies.

Furthermore, the analysis questions the absence of a due diligence process in the current development of UNESCO guidelines. An anonymous individual raises concerns about the lack of due diligence in the guidelines. This highlights a potential gap that could lead to oversight and negative impacts.

To conclude, the analysis highlights several key concerns within the decision-making processes of the UN system. These include the need for transparency and consideration of external influences, the importance of weighing potential risks when selecting technologies, ensuring the independence of assessments within UN agencies, and incorporating a due diligence process in guidelines, such as those being developed by UNESCO. These concerns highlight areas for improvement in the UN system and can contribute to more effective and accountable decision-making processes.

Peggy Hicks

The United Nations (UN) is nearing completion of a guidance document on human rights due diligence, a milestone in its efforts to protect human rights. The directive aims to standardize and harmonize approaches across the entire UN system, emphasizing the commitment and dedication of the UN and its partners to safeguarding human rights.

Partners within the UN have already started applying human rights due diligence as they introduce new technologies. This proactive approach ensures careful assessment and mitigation of potential human rights impacts. The directive seeks to harmonize these approaches and ensure consistency across different sectors of the UN system, preventing any gaps or inconsistencies in human rights protection.

The UN recognizes the importance of aligning actions across various sectors, viewing the directive as necessary to facilitate collaboration and achieve common goals. By implementing this directive, the UN demonstrates its commitment to SDG 16: peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Despite the complexity of some issues, UN agencies are genuinely committed to implementing the human rights due diligence framework. This dedication reflects the UN’s determination to protect human rights and uphold its institutional values.

However, the UN faces challenges in establishing public-private partnerships and engaging with corporations. Adequate funding is essential for the UN’s functioning and the protection of human rights and refugees. Insufficient funding impedes the UN’s work, making partnerships with the private sector crucial in bridging this gap.

Transparency, assessments, and enforcement are crucial aspects that the UN interagency working group will consider. These elements ensure accountability, identify areas for improvement, and enforce the human rights due diligence framework.

The UN’s digital transformation is heavily reliant on funding and partnerships. Many UN agencies recognize the lack of funding available for digital transformation initiatives, except within the context of important partnerships. The UN acknowledges the importance of advancing its digital capabilities to improve efficiency and effectiveness in addressing human rights issues.

In conclusion, the UN’s progress in completing the human rights due diligence guidance document reflects its commitment to promoting and protecting human rights. The directive aims to standardize approaches and ensure consistency within the UN system. Addressing challenges related to public-private partnerships, funding, and digital transformation is necessary to support the UN’s work effectively. Transparency, assessments, and enforcement are critical components that further strengthen the UN’s commitment to human rights.

Marwa Fatafta

The analysis presents several significant points related to human rights evaluation, transparency in decision-making, enforcement of human rights due diligence tools, technology implementations, public-private partnerships, and the need for evidence-based solutions.

One key argument highlighted is the necessity of incorporating independent assessment in human rights evaluation. The analysis argues that internal assessments lack oversight and accountability, and having an independent third party would mitigate bias and ensure proper scrutiny. This approach is perceived as essential in ensuring fair and accurate evaluations.

Transparency in practice and decision-making is emphasized as another crucial aspect. The analysis suggests that transparency in decisions allows affected communities to evaluate the decisions and assess how well they serve their needs and protect their rights. By providing transparency, decision-makers can be held accountable for their actions, leading to better outcomes.

Furthermore, the analysis advocates for the effective enforcement of human rights due diligence tools. It is argued that the tools themselves are only as good as their enforcement. If not implemented properly, sensitive personal data can be exposed to risks. Therefore, strong enforcement mechanisms are necessary to protect individuals’ rights and ensure the effective functioning of these tools.

The potential fallout of not conducting due diligence on technology implementations is also cautioned against. It is highlighted that when technology is used without due diligence, it can result in exposing sensitive personal data and create challenges in safeguarding the collected data. Therefore, it is crucial for organizations to thoroughly assess and evaluate the risks associated with technology implementation before deploying it.

The analysis also underscores the importance of transparency in public-private partnerships, particularly in regards to the selection of specific companies for partnership with United Nations (UN) agencies. It notes a lack of available information on why certain companies are chosen, advocating for greater transparency in these partnerships to ensure fairness and accountability.

Additionally, the need for evidence-based solutions is addressed. The analysis suggests that technologies are sometimes deployed or used without proper evidence, which can have negative consequences. It cautions against relying on “snake oil” solutions that potentially harm human rights. Instead, the focus should be on implementing solutions that have been thoroughly researched and proven effective.

Notably, the analysis raises the significance of scrutinizing certain technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI). It highlights the importance of examining the narratives behind these technologies to ensure they align with ethical principles and human rights standards.

Moreover, the analysis supports the initiative by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to incorporate human rights due diligence in UN bodies. This step is regarded as important and much-needed in the effort to protect and uphold human rights globally.

Lastly, the analysis acknowledges the role of civil society in building bridges and reaching out to stakeholders. Access Now, for instance, is mentioned as an organization willing to connect and provide consultation when needed. This highlights the potential for civil society to contribute to promoting human rights and fostering collaboration among different stakeholders.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on various aspects related to human rights evaluation, transparency in decision-making, enforcement of human rights due diligence tools, technology implementations, public-private partnerships, and evidence-based solutions. It emphasizes the importance of independent assessment, transparency, and effective enforcement in safeguarding human rights. The analysis also advocates for responsible technology implementation, transparency in public-private partnerships, and the need for evidence-based solutions. The support for the OHCHR’s initiative and the role of civil society in building bridges further strengthen the call for greater human rights protection and collaboration among stakeholders.

Catie Shavin

The guidance for human rights due diligence has undergone significant enhancements as a result of thorough consultations with both UN and external stakeholders. Four drafts of the guidance document have been circulated, and valuable feedback has been gathered during this process. The consultation process involved engagement with various actors, both within and outside the UN system. This inclusive approach ensured that a wide range of perspectives were considered, resulting in a more robust and comprehensive guidance.

One key aspect that emerged from the feedback received was the need for gender and intersectionality sensitivity in human rights due diligence. Entities highlighted the importance of considering the diverse impacts on girls, women, and gender non-conforming individuals. As a response, the new approach to the guidance explicitly incorporates this inclusion, addressing the concerns raised during the consultation process. By incorporating gender and intersectionality sensitivity, the aim is to ensure that the guidance is applicable and effective in promoting equality and reducing inequalities.

Furthermore, the consultation process resulted in insightful learnings that will support UN entities in effectively implementing the guidance. Entities with significant experience in human rights due diligence have been identified, and their insights have been gathered to understand the best practices and challenges associated with the implementation. Additionally, the consultation process helped identify the language and approaches that resonate with colleagues across the UN. These valuable learnings will aid in supporting UN entities and enhancing their capacity to implement the guidance.

The consultation process also shed light on the areas of alignment and divergence between UN entities and business enterprises when it comes to implementing human rights due diligence for digital technology use. The process initiated conversations regarding the adaptation of approaches such as the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. By identifying areas of alignment and divergence, the consultations have contributed to a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities in implementing human rights due diligence in the digital technology sector.

In conclusion, the guidance for human rights due diligence has significantly evolved through extensive consultations with UN and external stakeholders. The process has led to the inclusion of gender and intersectionality sensitivity, generating valuable insights that will aid in supporting UN entities in effectively implementing the guidance. Moreover, the consultation process has provided a clearer understanding of the alignment and divergence between UN entities and business enterprises in implementing human rights due diligence for digital technology use. These findings contribute to a more comprehensive and adaptable framework for promoting human rights and ensuring accountability in various contexts.

David Satola

The World Bank’s operational work differs from other organizations in that it provides member states with financing for projects, known as recipient-executed activities, instead of directly conducting the work themselves. This approach allows for a distribution of resources and responsibilities, as member states are responsible for implementing and managing the projects. It promotes economic growth and development within member states by leveraging the World Bank’s financial support.

However, the World Bank’s approach faces challenges due to a lack of clarity and synthesis of rules for member states to apply. The nature of the World Bank’s business model presents member states with difficulties in understanding and navigating the set of rules required for project implementation. The absence of a unified framework can result in confusion and discrepancies in the application of rules across member states. To address this issue, an improved clarity and synthesis of rules are needed to provide a more uniform approach to project implementation.

In the realm of human rights due diligence, the use of a principles-based approach is seen as commendable and beneficial. This approach allows for more flexibility in interpreting and applying human rights standards. By considering the evolving nature of standards and rules, the principles-based approach seeks to overcome the limitations of a rigid ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. It recognizes that different countries have varying levels of development and economic maturity, making it challenging to impose the same model on all member states. Adopting a principles-based approach enables the World Bank to acknowledge and address these differences, promoting a more inclusive and adaptable framework for human rights due diligence.

While accountability is considered crucial within the World Bank, there is currently no specific mechanism in place to address human rights issues. However, the World Bank possesses multiple tools, such as the grievance redress mechanism, fraud and corruption guidelines, the Inspection Panel, and the Independent Evaluation Department. These tools have the potential to be adapted and expanded to include human rights considerations. Incorporating human rights issues into these existing mechanisms enhances the World Bank’s accountability measures and ensures that human rights violations or concerns are properly addressed.

The World Bank has also taken measures to protect personal data within its projects, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the significance of data protection, the World Bank has worked with borrowers to embed data protection frameworks in sovereign-to-sovereign agreements. This incorporation of data protection into projects serves as a powerful legal tool to safeguard personal data in countries without existing data protection laws.

In conclusion, the World Bank’s operational work provides member states with financing for projects, promoting economic growth and development. However, challenges arise from a lack of clarity and synthesis of rules for member states to apply. To address these challenges, a principles-based approach is lauded for its flexibility and adaptability. While accountability mechanisms within the World Bank currently lack specificity regarding human rights, existing tools can be tailored to include human rights considerations. Additionally, the World Bank has implemented measures to protect personal data in projects with countries lacking data protection laws. It is suggested that the World Bank enforce specific mechanisms for human rights as part of its accountability measures, enhancing its commitment to promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Peggy Hicks:
Hello, everyone. Welcome. Very glad that you’ve decided to join us competing against receptions and other responsibilities for this session on technology and human rights due diligence at the UN, from guidance to practice. My name is Peggy Hicks. I’m the director of the thematic division at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. And I’d like to very much welcome all of you and thank our co-sponsors, the Office of the Tech Envoy and the European Union, for their help in this session. We thought it’d be good to reconvene around these issues. Many of you have been involved in this process for some time. We are working on the human rights due diligence guidance for the UN, and we’re nearing the finish line is the phrase that I’ve been told to use. Scott Campbell from our office will tell us more about what that means in practice. But I do want to emphasize that while we’ve been working on this document, it hasn’t stopped our partners within the UN from applying human rights due diligence on an ongoing basis as they have rolled out and used new technologies. And through that process, they’re also sort of seeing some of the challenges they face in implementing the need to harmonize approaches across the UN system. So it’s sort of reinforced our desire to move forward on this process. And we’ll talk about that more as we go forward. Before we do that, I’d like to give the floor to Quentin Lambert from the Tech Envoy’s office for some opening words.

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Thank you very much, Peggy. Yes, and thank you all for being here. My job is very simple and short, just to give a couple of welcoming remarks and to frame this discussion. So this human rights due diligence for digital technology is really about the United Nations walking the talk when it comes to its own use of digital technology. Grounded in the roadmap for digital cooperation back in 2020, this was already on the agenda for the UN as technology was coming into the UN’s work. And since then, the UN’s been grappling with this issue internally like many other organizations. As you can imagine, the different areas of the UN’s work across the peace and security pillar, sustainable development, and kind of human rights work itself, but also in its internal operations. So the use of digital technology in things like UN recruitment or recruiting UN personnel, UN procurement, IT services, and that kind of thing. So obviously there are challenges which all organizations are grappling with, and this is a really good opportunity to take a rights-based approach and walk the talk when it comes to digital technology in the UN. So back over to you, Peggy.

Scott Campbell:
Great, thanks very much. We’re very glad to partner with the office on this important area of work. As I said, I’m now going to turn the floor to Scott Campbell, our senior human rights officer with UN Human Rights who leads on this process, and he’ll give us an update on where the process currently stands. Over to you, Scott. Thank you very much, Peggy, and just a quick sound check to make sure you’re hearing me okay in the room. All great. Fantastic. Very pleased that we’re here today, and as Quintin, I think, very rightly put, seeing us all moving forward at the United Nations on walking the talk, and also pleased, as Peggy mentioned, to be nearing the finish line on this process. The drafting and consultation process for the guidance has been quite lengthy. It’s involved multiple rounds of bilateral consultations of open forums like this one, other public events, and we’ve consulted heavily with UN entities as well as with external partners, including member states, tech companies, and diverse members among our civil society partners. The process internally, while it has been lengthy, I should underscore it’s been very useful in giving us an opportunity to engage on human rights with a large number of entities across the full UN family, and some of these entities are very familiar with human rights mainstreaming, human rights due diligence, we’ll hear from a couple of them today, other entities far less familiar with human rights. So the process has really reinforced a broader mainstreaming of human rights due diligence efforts across the UN, and has assisted us in building more understanding and aligning approaches across the system. The process externally, the mandate given to us by the Secretary General to develop the guidance called specifically for consultations with external partners, and in particular, those most affected by digital tech, and I think this has really added a lot of value to where we’ve landed in terms of the content of the guidance. And I want to give a shout out to Access Now for having facilitated a number of public events and consultations with civil society partners. Just quickly on the timing, a fourth draft of the guidance was circulated back in July to the Secretary General’s Call to Action Interagency Working Group, which is a UN body. Comments were received, we’ve done some consultations in August and September, and we are, as mentioned, nearing the finish line. I just want to mention one note before handing it back over. As the process has evolved, alignment and policy coherence across the UN system has really been forefront in our thinking. And this guidance on digital tech intersects with another parallel and very much related process, which is a study to examine the implications of expanding the scope of the current human rights due diligence policy of the United Nations. And as many of you may be aware, this is a policy that’s been in effect since 2011, but has a narrow focus on UN support to non-UN security forces. So this study on expanding the existing policy, which was also mandated by the Secretary General’s Executive Committee, was begun before we began our work on this non-binding guidance for our use of digital tech at the UN. And in discussion with many actors along the way throughout the process, there was broad agreement that in drafting the human rights due diligence guidance, we needed to first be grounded in the parameters for the broader expansion of the existing human rights due diligence policy, which is a binding policy. And that that first, that groundwork, that foundation first needed to be set. We’re very, and of course the guidance that we would develop, which is non-binding guidance should of course align with that broader policy. So we were very pleased to see back in June at the Executive Committee agreement on the parameters of the human rights due diligence framework policy agreements on the next step to draft that policy and to develop an implementation plan and to seek resources. So with that set that we’re now, we’re now have the space to move forward on finalizing the draft guidance for tech, ironing out any remaining details and preparing for consideration of the guidance by the Secretary General’s Executive Committee on which you’re now trying to get on the calendar for that, that committee’s meeting. Following consideration by the Executive Committee and we, we trust with their endorsement, the Secretary General may decide to share the guidance with the Chief Executives Board for their consideration and potential use across the full UN system. So I’ll leave it at that on, on the process and hand it back over to you Peggy. Thank you.

Peggy Hicks:
Great. Scott will stay online for, for interpretation of, of all of that, which some who are maybe not as deep in the UN system may need at some point. But before we do, to move to that, I’d like to beg your indulgence for one more member of our team who will give us a substantive update on, on the issues that have arisen through the consultations and, and where we stand and on the guidance itself. So Katie Chavin, who’s our Senior Project Advisor on the project will come in now. Over to you, Katie.

Catie Shavin:
Thanks very much, Peggy and everyone. It’s wonderful to be here with you. As Peggy mentioned, I’m a Business and Human Rights Specialist and I’ve been working with Scott and his team to support the development of this guidance. I thought I would very briefly just offer a description of how the guidance has evolved through these rounds of consultation and share a few lessons and insights that we’ve gained throughout the process. Sorry, my computer’s a little slow today. So in terms of the process itself, as Scott mentioned, we’ve now circulated four drafts of this guidance for feedback with both UN and external stakeholders. And we’ve been very grateful for the time reviewers have given to this process. We’ve received an enormous amount of very constructive, thoughtful and helpful input, which has really supported us to strengthen the guidance, but also to ensure that it responds to the needs in the different contexts of UN entities. And it’s also given us some insight to inform early planning to support the guidance’s implementation, if indeed it goes forwards. For those who haven’t been following this process, earlier rounds of feedback really focused in on seeking clarity about the status of the guidance. Is it a guidance document? Is it UN policy? Will it be mandatory? Is it there to support entities? What is the guidance about? What is it trying to achieve? We also gained some insight into the different levels of familiarity that UN entities have with human rights due diligence processes, which has really helped us tailor the language and the approach to the guidance, particularly for those users who are newer to working with these types of concepts. Some of the earlier feedback provided an opportunity also for us to reflect on and to discuss with entities the appropriate scope of the guidance, what’s practicable, what best helps us steer towards a strong longer-term approach to managing the human rights risks of digital technology use. We received some requests for more concrete examples to help bring the material to life and give people a sense of what it would actually look like to implement in practice. And some of the UN entities actually worked with us to develop some examples that are hypothetical but also realistic of the types of situations that they face or anticipate facing as the digital technology use grows. We’ve also had some opportunities to explore how the guidance can be applied in sensitive contexts, for example by entities involved in the provision of emergency or humanitarian support, so we could tailor it to enable those entities to apply the guidance while navigating often very challenging and complex contexts and considerations. And we’ve also been able, through the process of consultation, to really explore how best to apply concepts and language around human rights due diligence that were originally developed for the private sector to UN entities, you know, recognising that there are some differences in the mandate, in the purpose, in the everyday language that is used across the UN family. When it comes to the most recent round of feedback, we generally heard very strong support for the approach that the guidance now takes, which was encouraging, and also some very targeted and very helpful feedback to support us to further hone and strengthen it. So, for example, a number of entities provided some helpful suggestions as to where we could more closely align the guidance with other agendas that are important across the UN system. So, for example, more prominently highlighting where digital technology use and human rights due diligence need to be sensitive to the different impacts on girls, women and gender non-conforming people, and to support an approach that is based on the principles of inclusion and intersectionality, so we’ve made that much more explicit. Some of the reviewers also helped us to identify other relevant principles, guidance documents and other resources on human rights and technology that are already in use across the UN, which has supported us to really promote an approach to the guidance that aligns with, rather than duplicates, those existing processes. The most recent round of review also offered us a chance to test some of the hypothetical examples that were now included in the guidance with other stakeholders, and we received some input on how we could further refine those to reflect issues that arise across different entities, not just the entities that helped us develop these examples, and to ensure that the language that we’re using resonates with users across different parts of the UN family. Finally, we heard that our efforts to clarify the relationship between this guidance and the process to develop a framework policy on human rights due diligence hadn’t quite hit the mark, and we received some helpful suggestions on how we could make this clearer for readers earlier in the guidance. As Scott mentioned, we’re currently working on the fifth and hopefully final or near final draft, and I think it’s likely to look very similar to the fourth draft, for those of you who have seen that. As I mentioned, the most recent round of feedback has really yielded input that’s helped us strengthen the guidance by tweaking the language in subtle but, I think, important ways, and to include more explicit connections to existing processes and resources, so they’re not major changes. Stepping back to reflect on the process as a whole, it’s generated some interesting learnings that are supporting us to start to think through how best we might support UN entities to implement the guidance when finalised. The consultation process, it’s not just helped us to hone the guidance, it’s provided us with some time and opportunities to learn more about where different entities are at when it comes to human rights due diligence, meaning that we’ve got a better sense of what might be needed to support capacity building in a more targeted and hopefully helpful way going forwards. We’ve learned a lot about what language resonates with colleagues across the UN. We’ve also been able to identify entities across the UN that already have significant experience working with human rights due diligence and have practical approaches and insights that they could potentially share with others to support that capacity building process. Our engagement across the UN has also generated a lot of food for thought on what risk management for the UN looks like in a world where a proactive approach to human rights is increasingly expected. Perhaps especially as we enter into an era in which increasing use of digital technology paves the way for a new world of human rights risks as well as potential human rights benefits. We’re very mindful that expectations not just of business but also of other organisations, including UN entities, when it comes to managing human rights risks and issues are becoming stronger and are also becoming increasingly connected to discussions about how to address environmental issues including the climate and biodiversity crises. Related to that, the process overall has provided a great opportunity to reflect ourselves and with both UN and external stakeholders who’ve been involved in the various rounds of consultation on the similarities and differences between UN entities and business enterprises when it comes to implementing human rights due diligence for digital technology use. We went into this process, I think it’s fair to say, with a general sense that it made sense to leverage and build on standards such as the UN guiding principles for business and human rights which were developed for business and we’ve been able to start the work of initiating conversation with those involved in the consultations on the nuances of adapting that approach. I might leave my comments there, though like Scott I will stay on the line in case there are any questions later.

Peggy Hicks:
Great, thanks very much Katie for that overview. We’re going to turn now to a discussion that looks at the practical realities and challenges of applying human rights due diligence for the use of technology within the UN system. As noted, while the work on the due diligence guidance has been underway, a number of UN entities have already dived into the space and we’re going to hear from two of them right now, UNHCR and the World Bank, to share some of their experience. For this section, we’re very fortunate to have with us David Sotola, the Office of the Legal Counsel at the World Bank, Legal Vice Presidency, and I do need to note that David is joining us at a miserably early hour in Washington, D.C., so thank you so much for being here, David. From UNHCR, Nicholas Oakeshott, Senior Policy Officer for Digital Protection at UNHCR, who we’ve worked closely with in the course of our work on the human rights due diligence guidance, and he helped us organize or organized himself a workshop on applying HRDD to UNHCR’s use of technology and complex field settings, and he’s been spearheading those efforts across UNHCR. So I’m going to ask those two panelists a couple of questions to give us a sense of how this looks in practice. Turning to you, Nick, first, since UNHCR has been a real leader in applying human rights due diligence and its use of digital technology, we’ve really appreciated your collaboration. Could you please give us a sense of how you’re applying human rights due diligence, particularly in complex settings like those that UNHCR engage in, including the systems and mechanisms that are in place and how they’re being strengthened? Thanks.

Nicholas Oakeschott:
Thanks, Peggy. I mean, as you’d expect, UNHCR has a wide range of policies and guidance that can help to manage risks in its use of digital technology. They range from privacy and data protection through to procurement, partnership, due diligence and beyond. However, in terms of a formal policy framework on human rights due diligence, that’s less developed and very much in line with what Scott was saying earlier on. But in our digital transformation strategy, which runs from 2022 to 2026, we’ve set the goal that UNHCR’s own use of digital tech will align with international human rights and ethical standards and in line with what was said earlier on about walking the talk. But these standards will also be promoted with states and the private sector with a focus on high-risk technologies, uses and contexts. So our process of engagement with the guidance development has very much been around building UNHCR’s understanding and capacity to apply human rights diligence approaches to its use of digital technologies in order to meet this overall strategic objective. As you mentioned earlier on, in January, we brought together a multifunctional team to implement a simulation of the third draft of the guidance, looking at field-based case studies. This approach allowed us to engage with experts on human rights due diligence from within the UN system, but also to receive advice from an international law firm, DLA Piper, which has expertise in advising the private sector on these issues. And this was facilitated through a strategic partnership that we have with DLA, which gave us access to this advice on a pro bono basis, which has always helped. By looking at the case studies, we were able to identify more clearly the potential implementation challenges, but also where the guidance added value to our existing policies and processes. The second case study, which looked at the innovative use of social media platforms to deliver protection information to people on the move, such as avoiding how they could avoid risks of exploitation and trafficking in online ads related to accommodation or work. That was particularly positive and resulted in immediate follow-up. We’ve had a regional bureau bring together another multifunctional team to undertake a full risk assessment of this approach, and that resulted in some quite important adjustments and a decision to develop some more established guidance on this innovation. We’ve also got, I think, a reasonably clear and positive identification of the way forward. First of all, to meet an immediate priority of the UN Security Council. will consider the guidance, even though it’s still a draft, as part of a multifaceted assessment of UNHCR’s developing approaches to the use of artificial intelligence, including generative AI. This will include the application of UNHCR’s new and expanded general policy on data protection and privacy, as well as the principles on the ethical use of AI in the UN system, which were adopted in September last year. And secondly, we’re going to review our set of existing policies and guidance to see how we can best implement the guidance once it’s adopted. This will also include exploring whether a user-friendly digital tool could help the field and other internal stakeholders in implementation, as well as how best to engage with effective communities and civil society, which is an important but challenging part of the guidance. So UNHCR’s journey down this road has begun, and I think a quite clear and useful way forward has been identified. Back to you, Peggy.

Peggy Hicks:
Great, thanks very much, Nick. It’s really clear that you’ve gotten a head start on a lot of this, and then the rest of us in the UN system will really be able to draw on some of those good practices that you’ve been working on. I’m going to turn to David now and ask you for a perspective from the World Bank. In my experience, it’s not always that easy to talk about human rights in a World Bank setting, so I’m a bit curious to hear how it’s been for those of you within the bank that are working in the area of human rights due diligence, and maybe if you could say a bit about whether you faced any pushback and how you’ve addressed it.

David Satola:
Sure. Good morning and good afternoon. Just a quick sound check. Can you hear me okay in the room? It’s great, David. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Well, thank you all for inviting me here. Despite the early hour, I’m delighted to be here virtually with you and for including me in the panel. I’m sorry not to be in Kyoto in person. Before I get onto some of the specific challenges, I do want to take just a minute and applaud the effort that you all are doing in trying to synthesize these disparate evolving threads. I mean, I think in the past few years, all of us have taken on different approaches to human rights and technology, whether it be in cybersecurity and more recently with artificial intelligence. I think the synthetic approach that you all are doing here to have a broad approach to human rights due diligence is really to be applauded. I also think that, and Katie and others and Scott have mentioned this before, but there are some elements of the process that you’re going through that I think are extremely important and that will resonate with those who have history with the Internet Governance Forum. One is the consultation process that you’ve undertaken. A multi-stakeholder consultation process will only reinforce the strength of this guidance. I can’t underscore enough the issues of capacity building that are mentioned in the document itself. That’s extremely important for us as we are providing financing in these areas for different digital development activities. I’m also struck by the sort of principles-based approach. And I think this is a reflection of one of the main challenges, and it’s not just for us, but it’s for all institutions who are working and trying to involve human rights due diligence, is that it’s difficult to have a one-size-fits-all approach. But if you do it on the principles basis, then that I think is reflected in the document, I think that then that can be achieved. I’d like to echo what Nick said as well, that in the past few years, our organization like UNHCR and others has attacked different things in different ways from procurement to human resources to other things. And now this is an opportunity for us to kind of, again, bring those threads together. So the first challenge I think is that, and this is, I think, exactly what you’re trying to do in this document, is to recognize that there are standards out there that they are evolving in different ways. But this is, I think, a first attempt to try and synthesize that. So that in itself is a big challenge. The biggest challenge for the World Bank in this area is that the way that we do business, the way that our operations are conducted is I think fundamentally different than most other UN organizations. So, and I don’t mean to speak for UNHCR or any of the others, but correct me if I’m mischaracterizing how you do business. When UNHCR does an operational activity, UNHCR is in the field, its staff are doing the work. Whereas in the World Bank context, when we do operational work in the field, we are generally providing financing to our member states to undertake a project. That’s called a recipient-executed, what we refer to as a recipient-executed activity. So we’re one step removed from the kind of direct interaction that most of our other UN family organizations are doing. And that is a principal difference. So one of the challenges that we are facing is that our member states are confronted with the kind of lack of clarity or lack of synthesis and a set of rules to apply. So even if we have a guidance for the UN family, it’s not necessarily gonna translate directly to how our member states might undertake their own due diligence. And with our renewed emphasis on digital as a principal way of doing business and development, I think this will be increasingly a challenge for us. I think I’ll leave it at that for now, but I appreciate the opportunity and look forward to the discussion today. Thank you. Great, thanks very much, David.

Peggy Hicks:
I think it’s really interesting to hear the downstream effects and the way the guiding principles on business and human rights that Katie mentioned are, is that not coming in now? Sorry, microphone, yes, good. Sorry about that. I was just saying that David’s comments about the downstream effects and the engagement, the indirect way that some of the guidance would need to apply given the nature of the way the World Bank works in different settings is really interesting when you look at how it fits with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights framework. So we’ll probably come back to that. But I’ll flip back to Nick now and just to ask a bit from your side, about pushback in terms of human rights due diligence. I know we hear a lot of comments from those that are engaged about some of the challenges they face within their institutions. And it’d be great to hear a bit from your side about what sort of things have come up and how you’ve been able to address them.

Nicholas Oakeschott:
Thanks, Peggy. I think that part of the process of engaging closely with the team at UN Human Rights has been really helpful in helping us to address and think through what the potential pushbacks. It’s important to recognize that UNHCR, as David was saying, is a field-focused organization. And the protection of the forcibly displaced and stateless is a key part, perhaps the key part of its institutional DNA. It’s integral both to the agency but also to its identity. So in this context, new processes could be seen as unnecessary steps to potentially getting in the way of the immediate delivery of protection and humanitarian assistance in challenging emergency contexts, something which is a duplication rather than an atom. However, as the guidance has strengthened from draft to draft, it’s been seen as being increasingly implementable at the field level. And the value add has become clearer, particularly in relation to existing risk management processes. And I’d flag up that in many ways, over the years, we’ve focused on similar questions, but through the use of the UNHCR, over the years, we’ve focused on similar questions, but through the lens of privacy and data protection rather than through a broader human rights due diligence perspective, which I think has obvious pluses in some contexts, but in other contexts is perhaps too narrow in scope. So overall, I’d say that UNHCR sees the guidance as an opportunity to realize the key digital protection strategic goal that I flagged up earlier on, and provides us through experience with a stronger basis for increased engagements with states and the private sector, including technologies on promoting the protection and forcibly of the forcibly displaced and stateless in digital contexts. I think that there are enormous advantages from applying the guidance, even in its draft form to existing field contexts, because it means that we’re more relevant in our approaches and the advice that we can provide to states and the private sector. Back to you, Peggy.

Peggy Hicks:
Great, thanks very much, Nick. And I’m quickly gonna turn back to David just to check in with you to see if you wanted to add on to your comments. I found your notes about the principle-based approaches as being very interesting. And in particular, I know that, especially given the amount of time that we spent on this human rights due diligence guidance, one of our hopes is that it will be a document that does have application beyond the UN system as well. And obviously, when you’re looking at recipient countries and how they engage, perhaps that’s one of the ways in which we could see that happen. But I’d love to get your thoughts on that point, David.

David Satola:
Yeah, thanks, Peggy. And just following up on that very point, and I think that the principles-based approach will enable this. I think one does need to recognize that our members and our member states are the same as your member states. They’re at different levels of development. And so one could call it a maturity levels. There are some big middle-income countries who borrow from the World Bank who are gonna be more sophisticated and have higher capacity to deal with some of these issues. If you take a big middle-income country versus say a small island country with a smaller population, less development, maybe even lower income levels, it’s hard to impose the same model on both. And so I think that the fact that it is a principles-based approach allows for recognition of those different levels of maturity to deal with the thing. I’m not suggesting at all a subjective approach to human rights or a relative approach to human rights. No, I think it’s the due diligence part and the capacity to integrate how one approaches technology and technology issues that would need to be recognized in those contexts. And I think that we find this in our normal lending operations as well. There are some things that are universal that apply across the board. We expect our borrowers to observe the same kind of procurement principles and things like that. So likewise, I think we can hope to achieve a universal approach to human rights due diligence. But in the process, I think we do need to recognize that different countries have different levels of development and economic maturity and that would need to be taken into account. Over.

Peggy Hicks:
Great, thanks very much, David. I think we’ll leave it with Nick and David at that point. And Marwa has been very patient. We’re very fortunate to have Marwa Fattah from Access Now with us. Access Now has been involved, as Scott noted, along this process. And we’d really like to hear from you, you know, Access Now’s views on how the UN’s doing in this area. Why do you think this guides could be important and what you’d like to see as we go forward. Thank you very much, Vicky.

Marwa Fatafta:
Okay, this works. I’m very happy to be here and I hope our colleagues who follow us online can hear me clearly. We, I mean, as a starting point, I think this is a very important step that OHCHR has taken over and to ensure that human rights due diligence is mainstreamed across all UN entities. And we think it’s a step that is, frankly, a bit overdue where we’ve seen the rollout of technologies or the deployment of technologies on a mass scale without sufficient assessment of potential negative human rights risks, which some of them have materialized. And I think that’s important, especially in contexts where there are not necessarily strong rule of law or a human, strong human rights records in countries where vulnerable communities, individuals and communities who may be impacted by the use of digital technologies by UN agencies can have access to effective remedy. So I think it’s a very important step and I really look forward to seeing it, to see the implementation of it and the final draft as well. We are, of course, we have been engaging on business and human rights on a number of fronts, especially with the private sector. And of course, engaging with human rights due diligence has given us a number of lessons learned that I would like to share and I think is important for this conversation. The first one of which is we’ve seen in the guide that the aim of this guide is basically to build the capacity of different UN agencies in headquarters and field offices to be able to conduct human rights impact assessments and use this guide. However, we think that it’s very important to add an element of independent assessment. This is important for a number of reasons, the first of which is oversight and accountability. When those assessments are made internally and especially when they’re not published or the findings of those are not published, it becomes hard for civil society to scrutinize the decision made. We’ve had situations and especially with the private sector where there is a decision to expand in a certain market or use a specific technology where we see clearly in red letters that this technology will lead to negative human rights impact. However, we’re told that it’s fine, you can relax because we’ve done our due diligence, we’ve done our human rights impact assessments and you can trust us that we’ll take care of this matter. Therefore, I think independent assessments are very important. It’s also, and truth be said, I mean, we’re all subject to bias and having an independent third party that can assess the rollout of technologies or specific programs that rely on tech or digital solutions, especially when they’re already being implemented is key in order to avoid a situation where the technology is being used and there is an assessment, but having someone from the outside that conduct this is important. And the second point and it ties to the first one and I’d already alluded to it and that is transparency. Transparency on the process, on the practice, engagement with civil society that allows affected communities to evaluate from their own perspective the extent which these decisions taken by the agency are actually serving their needs and protecting their rights. And this transparency for us is not an option, which I think the guide suggests. We think it’s important and key for the success of this tool. The third point is around enforcement and I mean, human rights due diligence tools are as good as their enforcement. And again, from experience engaging with the private sector and also with some UN agencies, including UNHCR, we have seen that those tools, whereas they are explicitly written or sometimes mandated by internal policy handbooks or internal policies, they’re not necessarily implemented. And it’s especially so in challenging situations such as in humanitarian context where UN agencies have to rush to get refugees registered or to get people across the border. And we are at the end of the day operating in an ecosystem where private companies are also aggressively selling solutions to solve very complex problems. And here we see that again, in such situations, the technology is used or rolled out and the assessments are either not made or made later. And when they are made later or not made at all, we have a situation where these technologies are implemented on a mass scale. So we have a kind of a de facto situation such as the biometric registration of refugees conducted by the UN Refugee Agency. When you have millions of people already registered with their biometric information, which is extremely sensitive personal data being used and processed, it of course exposes individuals and vulnerable communities to a number of risks. But it becomes hard to challenge these systems when it’s already been out. And then the question for us as civil society is, how can we work with UN agencies to mitigate these risks when the more data you collect, the harder it becomes to protect them? So that’s just one example for when there is no human rights due diligence done, what’s the long-term cost of that? And one point also to raise here, and I think David mentioned it, and that is sometimes also we’ve seen that when headquarters are very diligent about enforcing and implementing and doing human rights impact assessments, data protection impact assessments, when it trickles down to the field level where field office operates, sometimes those rules are not necessarily followed. It could be because of lack of capacity or lack of resources or the sector in which they’re operating or the context in which they’re operating. But here it’s key also to ensure that those tools are being implemented at the lowest level where there is direct interaction with affected communities. And so that’s one point to highlight on the enforcement bit. And then last key point to raise here is around public-private partnership. I think that’s very important to help strengthen the Human Rights Due Diligence Guide. When private companies are being procured, We don’t see any information from a number of UN agencies about why they have selected specific countries. There were also examples where companies with shady human rights records have been partnering with UN agencies, like Palantir is one classical example that comes to mind. And when civil society asks for more information or transparency on how company X has been selected, we don’t receive answers. So I think adding or strengthening transparency on public-private partnership due diligence for the companies that are procured are just as important as assessing the negative or potential or foreseen negative human rights impacts of the programs or the technologies themselves.

Peggy Hicks:
Thanks very much, Mayra. It’s really great to get your reflections on it. And your second point related to the transparency in the process involvement of civil society, which you said was key to making this process work. And I think your comments gave us a good example of that. And we need that sort of input about where we’ve gotten and how much further we have to go. That doesn’t mean we’ll necessarily get there all in one step. But it’s very important to have that spotlight and to understand what needs to be done and how we need to move not just from the guidance and not just from the implementation, but to look at some of these key issues about how to make sure that it’s as deep and meaningful and that these questions around transparency and independent auditing and other things are addressed. So thanks for that. With that, I think it’s time for us to move quickly to the question and answer. As I said, we’re very grateful to those of you that have joined us for this session. We’re happy to ‑‑ we have people online, I think, that may come in with questions as well, but we’d be very happy to prioritize questions in the room first. If people want to just ‑‑ or a small enough group, I think you can just flag me, and I’d be happy for ‑‑ I think you need to go to the mic just so the people online will be able to hear it, I’m being told. Anybody have any questions or comments on what they’ve heard? I’m seeing none. Sorry? There you go. Oh, thank you. And if you can introduce yourself as well, please.

Audience:
Sure. My name is Boshree Badi. My question is around, like, these guidelines that are being created. I’m wondering how much of a space there is to actually talk about what’s influencing, again, the decision‑making process around procuring certain technologies within the UN system and thinking about, like, I mean, there’s funding that goes into the system from certain actors that, like, have their priorities and agendas that are clearly set out, but that’s not necessarily something that could be made transparent, I think, within the parameters of how the UN system currently functions. But for, like, an internal mechanism within the UN system, there’s also a lack of clarity within it. So, like, is there anything that’s being developed maybe to make that more transparent internally, even if it’s not something that can be publicly shared? Because I think that’s an important part of understanding the decision‑making process of why certain technologies are being pushed and, like, the underlying narrative around those technologies because there’s, like, the understanding that maybe they’ll improve efficiency, for example, with UNHCR’s use of biometric technology. There was a lot that was discussed about it decreasing fraud instances, but those were seen to be so negligible that it didn’t merit the risks that those populations were being exposed to as a result of the use of those technologies. So I’m wondering if there’s any mechanism that’s being considered there as well. I’m sorry.

Peggy Hicks:
Great. Thanks. No, it’s a good follow‑up question to the comments that Marwa made as well. I’ll just see if there are any others that wanted to come in with questions, and then we can go back to the panel and others for response on that point. Anybody else want to come in? Do we have any questions online, Eugene, that we should bring in? Oh, sorry, please.

Audience:
Hello. I’m Ana Cristina Ruelas from UNESCO, and I have a question about the independence of assessments. How to identify who is going to do the independent assessment when you have, like, different bodies? Like, what is your experience of who will be the independent body that will perform assessments when it comes to UN agencies which have many member states with different views? Should the member states decide different names to perform the assessments? Should civil society decide? Which civil society should decide? What would be your recommendation on that? Because it’s very, like, that will be, like, how to develop that independency. Please. We’ll take this one last question, then I’ll go back to the panel with all three. Hi, my name is Oliver. I can’t name my organization because of security risks. My question is, because UNESCO just stood up, would the human rights due diligence that you’re developing, would it apply to the UNESCO guidelines that are currently also in development? Because a lot of civil society have been asking why the UNESCO guidelines have no due diligence process. Thanks.

Peggy Hicks:
So we have three questions on the table. I think, Nick, if you’re there, maybe it makes sense to go to you first as UNHCR has been coming to the conversation at several occasions. But I think, you know, to potentially broaden it out and just have a sense from you about, you know, how you’re dealing with some of the challenges that have been raised around public-private partnerships and transparency around them and, you know, the different factors that are in play when UNHCR is looking at some of these issues, including the use of independent assessments and other things. Thank you.

Nicholas Oakeschott:
Thanks, Peggy. I think that, you know, it’s a good question, the question about the purposes for which certain technologies are chosen. And I think one good reference point that civil society and other stakeholders now have is UNHCR’s digital transformation strategy, which I’m just going to drop a link into the chat so that you can see there what our objectives are on digital. And you can see in that strategy that it’s very much focused on the people that we serve. Three goals of the five are, you know, digital protection, digital inclusion, and providing more digital services for the people we serve. And so there I think that there’s more of a clear idea on the business side, if you like, of what we want to use digital technology for. And it’s the first strategy that we’ve had, so I think it’s an important reference point. On transparency questions, I think that one of the key opportunities, but also fundamental challenges that we’ve identified in the work we’ve done around the human rights due diligence guidance is how can we effectively engage with civil society stakeholders in the implementation of that guidance. I think that, you know, from talking to experts in the private sector, that’s also a challenge that businesses have faced, and I would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss with Access Now and other stakeholders ideas on how we can make that work. On the one hand, you know, respecting that there may be some confidentiality questions that arise, but also how important it will be to include civil society in those due diligence processes. On the question of independent assessments, I think that that’s a particular challenge within the UN system. There is an independent auditing function that does look at the work of UN agencies, and once the policy that Scott refers to is adopted, that policy will become auditable, if you like. And on the other hand, we have, say, in the context of data protection, established agreements with expert suppliers to help bring both expertise but also some independent rigor to data protection impact assessments that have been undertaken both at the global and the field level. But I think the jury is still out from UNHCR’s perspective about whether independent entities undertaking audits of the implementation of the guidance beyond the existing system would be something that we could work well with. But overall, I think that we’re on a learning process, as I said in my earlier comments, and would very much welcome greater dialogue and discussions with civil society about how we can best make this guidance work. Back to you.

Peggy Hicks:
Great. Thanks very much, Nick. And I’ll turn to David to see if you have any comments on that, and then to the panelists here.

David Satola:
Yeah, sure. Thank you. And just wanted to follow up very quickly on Marwa’s comment and the ensuing discussion on enforcement and related issues. I agree. I think that that lends itself towards accountability, which is definitely required. And while we don’t have anything specific on human rights at the moment, we do have a variety of other tools that are available both to our borrowers and to civil society and the beneficiaries of our work. And some of those are the following. One of them is we have a grievance redress mechanism in our projects. And so every project will have this, so that if there is a negative impact on someone, an individual, for example, they can then appeal to the World Bank to seek redress for whatever harm they’ve encountered. We also have, in terms of the – and I think this might address in part the PPP question or working with the private sector – a lot of the financing that we provide to governments goes to vendors or consultants or contractors. So if it’s a roads project, we’re not going to build the road. The government’s not going to build the road. They’re going to hire someone to build the road. But in that context, we have our fraud and corruption guidelines, which, to borrow the phrase, sort of follows the money and all the way down the chain to the most local subcontractors. So to make sure that they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing with the money. We also have, in the broadest sense, an organization called the Inspection Panel, which is independent and which can be invoked if there are issues that arise in one of our projects that there was some serious breach or something like that. And we also have internally a group called the Independent Evaluation Department, which retrospectively looks at projects in terms of lessons learned and what worked, what didn’t work. And so collectively, there’s a lot of accountability mechanisms that are there. They’re not specifically designed right now necessarily to address human rights, but there’s no reason that they couldn’t be adapted to include human rights issues. And as Nick said, over the past few years since the entry into force of GDPR, personal data protection is a huge issue for us. We provided billions of dollars of financing in the COVID pandemic, and maybe some of you remember that from a couple of years ago. But the amount of personal data that was being collected by our recipients at that time, we realized, was going to be huge. And we wanted to put in place mechanisms in our lending instruments that would ensure that our borrowers had in place the right kind of legal and technical measures to protect personal data. Some of our borrowers had laws in place, and we could rely on those. In other cases, there weren’t legal frameworks in place, and so we worked with our borrowers to make sure that for those projects, the projects themselves had a framework in place. Now, let me just digress for a moment there. Our members are sovereigns. The World Bank is a sovereign. When we have a lending instrument, when we do a financing agreement, a sovereign-to-sovereign agreement is a treaty. It’s a very powerful instrument. And when we did those COVID projects with countries that didn’t necessarily have a data protection regime in place, we built it into our agreement. And so we were pretty comfortable with the fact that that sovereign-to-sovereign agreement, that treaty, for the purpose of the data that was collected in that context of COVID, was going to be protected. So not perfect, but certainly a tool that we had that we used to make sure that, to the extent that we could, those issues were being addressed. Over.

Peggy Hicks:
Great. Thank you very much, David. Great to get that insight. We only have a couple minutes left. We’re starting to hear noises outside of our room here in Kyoto. Marwa, I’ll turn to you quickly.

Marwa Fatafta:
I don’t want to hold people. Quickly, I couldn’t agree more with the first comment, and that’s an issue we also face. Often, technologies are deployed or used without evidence. And I think it’s evidence-based solutions are very important in a context where, again, private companies are happy to sell you, and I use this term, snake oil, or solutions that could have serious ramifications or negative impact on human rights. And therefore, for us as civil society organizations, we sometimes struggle to understand the rationale why certain solutions that are disproportionate, given their human rights impacts, are being used and justified. So having an evidence to show, for instance, with biometric registration, that there is no other solution but biometric registration that justify the collection and processing of sensitive data, and therefore, based on this evidence and this research. Research, of course, is resource-intensive, time-intensive, and I understand, again, that in challenging contexts, that’s hard to achieve all the time, but nevertheless, it is important to scrutinize the narratives behind certain technologies, such as AI. The point on independent assessment, I mean, I’m not in the business of promoting certain entities, but there are, of course, companies or civil society organizations that are specialized in doing exactly that, doing human rights due diligence. And as someone who had participated in a number of consultations, my job as a civil society organization to ensure that those, you know, as auditors or, you know, companies are speaking to the right people. So they’re not just speaking to Access Now as a global organization, but can actually speak to grassroots organizations, so the people who belong to the communities that might be affected. That’s, I think, something that civil society should continue doing in building bridges, and I understand the difficulty in reaching out to the stakeholders, which I believe Nick had mentioned, and that’s something that civil society can help with. An organization like Access Now, we have partners across the world, and we’re more than happy to connect whenever a consultation needed, and the same, of course, applies to other partners. Great. Thanks, Marwa.

Peggy Hicks:
Quinton, a closing word from Quinton?

Quintin Chou-Lambert:
Yep, sure. Thanks very much. And just bringing it back to the overall role of this non-binding guidance, and it kind of helps to reconcile these two challenges. One is how we have horizontal alignment across the different UN agencies and entities, and then making it principles-based such that it can be translated into those local contexts. It’s not a surefire outcome-guaranteeing kind of thing. To get to that, probably to hard-code it into the operational procedures like procurement, one would need to have it baked into the entity-specific procedures, including the tendering process, the kind of checklists and auditing that goes on those procurement processes. And this guidance can be a beacon for each entity to do that kind of hard-coding. It has to be done entity by entity because each entity has its own governing bodies. For example, in the Secretariat, the General Assembly prescribes housekeeping rules, we call it, but basically the way in which the UN does its procurement and has the criteria for procurement handed down by the GA, whereas UNHCR, other agencies, have more flexibility in some cases. But it can act as this kind of beacon, this guidance, for each entity to hard-code these kinds of principles into its own local procedures. And also, just in closing, as a kind of beacon just for individual people, staff members who are working in the organizations. I recall, for example, during the COVID days when the Secretariat itself was considering how to deal with the pandemic and whether to introduce its own contact tracing, proximity tracking system. In the end, it was a judgment. It was an emergency and it was a judgment. In my opinion, the correct judgment went out, which was that we were not going to do it and that the partner who was offering to do it was not going to be able to meet the privacy and requirements that were appropriate for the case. But it was a judgment call. This kind of human rights due diligence framework offers this kind of load star for the system to both translate the principles into its own kind of regular procedures, but also for individuals who are taking judgment calls on a day-to-day basis.

Peggy Hicks:
Great. Thanks very much, Quinton. We’ve run over time, so just to conclude by saying that we’ve had a good conversation here. Some important questions have been raised around transparency and assessments and enforcement. Those are issues that we will look very seriously at and the interagency working group will take them on board as we’re looking to implement and move forward in this process. And I think it’s coming at it from a previously civil society perspective, I have to say I think from my interaction with the UN agencies involved, there’s a real commitment to trying to move this forward in a positive way. But some of the issues raised are difficult ones for us to solve. The issues of the public-private partnerships and the corporate engagement, I’m in charge of digital transformation from a champion standpoint at my organization. And one of the things in reaching out to other UN agencies to have a sense of how they’ve been able to do what they wanted to do within digital transformation is the real recognition that the funding is not there for it to happen, except in the context of some of these important partnerships. And we’re grateful for that because the UN has to be an entity that functions with all of the tools necessary to protect human rights in my regard, to protect refugees in UNHCR’s regard. So these are challenging things for us to implement, but we really appreciate the input and commit to continuing the conversation as we go forward. Thank you all for staying so late and missing the reception outdoors. I hope you’ll get a chance to enjoy the evening here in Kyoto, and thanks again for all your time. And thanks to our panelists for all their efforts.