a guide to costing human rights - save the children's · 1.5 the role of costing within the...

A Guide to Costing Human Rights

Victor Steenbergen

2011

Author: Victor SteenbergenEdited by: S. J. ThomasTechnical editing: I. Bedi-ThomasGraphic design and layout: Martin Stuk [email protected]

Printed by: Printer.NL www.printer.nl/website/

First published in 2011 in The Netherlands byEqualinrightsLaan van Meerdervoort 702517 AN The HagueThe Netherlands

T: +31 (0)70 3644415F: +31 (0)70 3608982E: [email protected]: www.equalinrights.org

© Equalinrights 2011This work is published under the Creative Commons license and is available in digital format at www.equalinrights.org.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of ICCO, Bröt für die Welt, Norwegian Church Aid, Church of Sweden and DanChurchAid.

Table of Contents

AcknowledgementsIntroduction 9

Chapter1:FrontloadingHumanRightsintoGovernmentBudgets 11 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2 Frontloading human rights 11 1.3 Human Rights – A brief overview 12 1.4 The individual steps to frontloading human rights 15 1.5 The role of costing within the process of frontloading human rights 16 1.6 Conclusion 18

Chapter2:CostingHumanRights 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 Concepts and definitions 19 2.2.1 What are costs? 20 2.2.2 Perspectives 21 2.2.3 Costing purpose 22 2.2.4 Unit costs 22 2.3 Conducting a cost analysis 22 2.3.1 Methods of costing 24 2.3.2 The ingredients approach 24 2.3.3 Gross costing 27 2.4 Costing human rights policies 29 2.5 The individual steps in costing human rights policy 30 2.6 Two hypothetical examples of costing human rights interventions 33 2.6.1 Hypothetical Example 1: Costing improved access to essential health services 33 2.6.2 Hypothetical Example 2: Costing improved basic access to water 36 2.7 Capacity-building for Costing Human Rights 38

Chapter3:CaseStudiesinCostingHumanRights 39 3.1 Basic costing analysis 39 3.1.1 Fundar in Mexico: The Maternal Mortality Project 39 3.1.2 Right to Food India: Costing a comprehensive package of right to food entitlements 40 3.1.3 Women’s Dignity in Tanzania: Where is the Money for Delivery Kits? 41 3.2 Costing from a rights-holder’s perspective 41 3.2.1 The People’s Budget, Kenya: Calculating the daily living expenses 41 3.2.2 The Right to Food India: Costing adequate calories. 42 3.2.3 The Housing Rights and Land Network Loss Matrix 43 3.3 Costing human rights legislature 43 3.3.1 The Domestic Violence Act in South Africa 43 3.3.2 The Child Justice Bill in South Africa 44 3.4 Alternative Costing Exercises 46 3.4.1 Costing the right to education in Guatemala 46 3.4.2 Costing food security interventions in Mozambique 48

Conclusion 50Bibliography 52

Acknowledgements

Many people have made considerable contributions to this document, and I am very grateful for all their suggestions, time, input and efforts. As such, this document really has been the product of a long, incremental process that I only joined very recently.

Firstly, I would like to thank the entire Equalinrights staff for their expertise, their patience and their time. Zairah Khan, project-officer for the Budgeting Human Rights project, requires considerable praise for her input into the Conceptual Framework. If I know anything about human rights and the human rights-based approach, it is entirely down to the persistent efforts of Lucy Royal-Dawson, who was able to answer every phone-call, and explain the same point once again. Finally, to Indira Bedi-Thomas and Cornelieke Keizer, thank you for putting your trust in me during my entire time at Equalinrights, and for the freedom I experienced.

For their comments and support in the production of this publication, I thank Waruguru Kaguongo (Researcher for the Centre for Human Rights), Ann Blyberg (Executive Director of the International Human Rights Internship Programme), Eitan Felner (Former Executive-Director of the Centre for Economic and Social Rights) and Akanksha Marphatia (Acting Head of International Education, ActionAid).

Many thanks also go out to the members of the ‘Global Initiative for Frontloading and Costing Human Rights’ (GIF). Special thanks to our partners ShelterForum, Centre for Human Rights and the Community Law Centre for hosting both Zairah and myself during our field visits, which really showed us the daily realities of human rights advocacy. Lastly, many thanks to Women’s Dignity for their open and helpful interviews.

9AGUIDETOCOSTINGHUMANRIGHTS

Realising any human right (civil, political, economic, social or cultural) requires resources to adequately fund the necessary personnel, infrastructure and other prerequisites. Government budgets therefore have crucial implications for the realisation of human rights because human rights laws and policies can only have an impact on people’s lives when these are also supported by government budgets to finance them (FAO, 2009). Yet, too often have governments adopted laws and policies that failed to be implemented due to insufficient funding (UNICEF, 2010).

Adopting a law to protect the fundamental human rights of women who have been the victim of domestic abuse, for instance requires financial resourcing. To grant police-officers, lawyers and judges enough time to investigate the case and issue a protection order, their salaries need to be paid. In the South African ‘Domestic Violence Act’, although the law was adopted, insufficient resources were made available to implement the law. This meant that the criminal justice system could not take on the cases of vast numbers of women, who were left helpless and traumatised by family violence (Vetten, 2005).

It is in this context that ‘Costing Human Rights’ offers its contribution to the existing tools of human rights advocacy. When a civil society organisation can define a policy’s implementation cost, it can claim human rights not only through policy, but also through a government’s budget allocations to advance the necessary policies, plans and programmes to realise human rights. When we know the level of resources required, we can also assess when a government’s actions are inadequate, and so set out a strong evidence-based case in human rights advocacy.

AimThe primary aim of this paper is to give an overview of all the central concepts and definitions relevant for costing human rights policy. In addition, this paper also attempts to improve the ability of civil society organisations to perform costing exercises by outlining the steps that every human rights costing analysis should take to identify the financial implementation costs of a human policy or intervention. We can then offer some recommendations for improving future practice by looking at some examples in the form of case studies.

While this paper aims to be a guide to human rights costing studies, it is in some parts biased towards the conceptual and closer to a methodological review. Interventions across human rights, across countries and across districts (local, regional or national) are likely to differ in the key questions to be addressed and will therefore imply different measurement approaches. For this reason, a detailed step-by-step user guide reflecting all the details within a human right, a country and scale is beyond the scope of a single paper. In our view, the production of such practical manuals will follow from applying these general guidelines to particular human rights interventions.

IntendedAudienceThis paper is written as an introduction for civil society organisations interested in human rights budget work, with a particular focus on calculating the cost of a human rights policy or intervention. The guide is intended for people who may not have had any previous experience with costing and as such does not require any specialist background in economics or accounting.

Introduction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A GUIDE TO COSTING HUMAN RIGHTS 10

Introduction

OverviewThis paper consists of three chapters. In the first, ‘costing human rights’ is placed within a wider process of frontloading human rights, and is defined as a methodological process that translates (inter)national human rights standards and obligations into the budget proposals required for effective implementation in public policy and budget cycles. The chapter offers a brief summary of Equalinrights’ conceptual framework for frontloading human rights (Steenbergen, 2011). It also contains an overview of the main characteristics and obligations of human rights. Lastly, we note that to take sufficient account of human rights requirement such as participatory processes or the need to identify the structural causes relating to limited realisation of the rights of marginalised groups, human rights-based costing should take place within the broader process of frontloading human rights.

In chapter two, we give an initial overview of the central concepts and definitions of costing, before introducing two central methods to conduct a cost analysis. Following this, we identify four steps that can guide the costing process of a particular human rights policy or intervention, and to conclude, we offer two hypothetical rights-based costing exercises to further elaborate on the methods of costing human rights policies.

In chapter three, we look at a number of case-studies for costing human rights. Due to the differences across human rights, and across context- and scale-specific elements of a human rights policy, it is not possible to provide a simple checklist of all that needs to be in place to ensure an effective costing-strategy. Therefore, the chapter illustrates different methodologies for different causes through a series of case-studies where human rights organisations have (tentatively) applied costing.


1.1IntroductionHuman rights are the moral rights that every human being possesses and is entitled to by virtue of being human. They are the claims that all people have to fundamental freedoms, entitlements and human dignity. These rights are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), collectively known as the International Bill of Human Rights.Indeed, by becoming a signatory to human rights covenants, a State places itself under a direct obligation to allocate sufficient public resources to the fulfilment of human rights (OHCHR, 2006). However, there is an inherent difficulty in holding governments accountable for their obligations to realise economic, social and cultural human rights, as noted by Roberston:

“[L]ittle progress has been made in creating a set of workable standards which are detailed, systematic, and authoritative and, as of yet, there is no answer to the question: What resources must be devoted to realizing ICESCR rights?” (Roberston, quoted in Felner, 2008).

In order to move towards a process where budget allocations reflect a State’s human rights obligations, it is necessary to identify the level of resources a government should allocate to advance the necessary policies, plans and programmes to realise human rights. In this document, we will refer to this methodological process to offer budget recommendations on the basis of (inter)national human rights standards as frontloading human rights. We will begin this chapter by introducing frontloading human rights. Next, we will provide a brief overview of the main characteristics and

obligations of human rights and human rights-based development. Subsequently, we will briefly describe the five steps that make up the methodological process of frontloading human rights. Lastly, we will highlight the role of costing human rights policy within the broader process of frontloading.

1.2FrontloadingHumanRights“From a human rights perspective, budgets are the concrete means by which governments either fulfil or violate human rights requirements. Just as, for many years, citizens of the world have come together to defend and expand our basic human rights, so now there is a global effort underway to bring citizens to the table, to monitor and influence government budget making.” (Promises to Keep, Schultz, 2002)

Civil society organisations have always been active proponents of human rights laws and policies, but only very recently has this advocacy begun to focus on government budgets. Government budgets have important implications for the realisation of human rights because human rights laws and policies can only have an impact on people’s lives when these are supported by government budgets to finance them (FAO, 2009). Too often have governments adopted laws and policies that were simply not implemented due to insufficient funding (UNICEF, 2010).

For this reason, many of the current tools and methods for human rights budgeting involves holding governments accountable for pre-made commitments, either through monitoring, tracking or analysing past government budgets allocations (Blyberg, 2009). Yet, while analysing past budget allocations helps scrutinise government budgets, it comes with a severe limitation. As argued by ‘Dignity Counts’ (2002):

Chapter 1: Frontloading Human Rights into Government Budgets

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ChapterOne: Frontloading Human Rights into Government Budgets

“While an analysis of the budget can identify what has been spent or is being spent, it cannot ultimately determine what should be spent”

There is, therefore, a need for a methodology that can assist civil society organisations in claiming human rights not only through policy, but also to identify the resources a government should allocate to advance the necessary policies, plans and programmes to realise human rights. In contrast to other retrospective methods of human rights budgeting, the method of frontloadinghuman rights has therefore been developed by Equalinrights.1 This can be defined as a methodological process that translates (inter)national human rights standards and obligations into the budget proposals required for effective implementation in public policy and budget cycles (Steenbergen, 2011).

1.3HumanRights–ABriefOverviewBefore we discuss the individual steps for offering human rights-based budget recommendations, we will provide a brief overview of the main principles, characteristics and obligations of human rights. This section is a summary of the first chapter of Equalinrights’ conceptual framework for frontloading human rights (2011), which provides a more in-depth discussion of these concepts and obligations.

Human RightsHuman Rights, such as the right to health, education and adequate housing, are often misunderstood, or seen as mere indications of commitment to social policies covering health care, education policy or social housing. As a result, the implications a human right has on government action is also often misinterpreted (Diokno, 2008). The human right to the ‘highest attainable standard of health’, for instance, is not a right to be healthy, nor does it warrant

1 For more information, please see Victor Steenbergen (2011) ‘Frontloading Human Rights: A Conceptual Framework for Building Budgets and Realising Rights’, The Hague: Equalinrights.

maximising the total amount of healthy people in society. Instead, it encompasses a combination of ‘freedoms’ including the right to make decisions about one’s health and the right to non-discrimination, and ‘entitlements’, such as the right to culturally appropriate health services and a right to the underlying determinants of health, such as adequate sanitation, safe water, adequate food and shelter (Potts, 2009).

We can only understand what a human right means through its underlying principles. For instance, within the very concept of human rights lies the principle of universality; human rights can be claimed by every human being by virtue of being human. Related is their inalienability, which means that they cannot be taken away. Moreover, within the whole human rights framework, we see an interdependence and interrelatedness across human rights, so that the limited enjoyment of one human right affects the quality and enjoyment of another. Indeed, we cannot state that one right is more important than another because of their indivisibility; “they interact with each other, depend on each other and support each other to guarantee full human dignity” (Diokno, 2008).

Another underlying human rights principle is that all human beings are fundamentally equal, and entitled to their human rights without discrimination of any kind such as race, colour, sex, ethnicity, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status as explained by the human rights treaty bodies (UN Common Understanding, 2003).

The human right to “participate in the relevant decision-making processes” (CESCR, 2001) can also be seen as a fundamental human rights position, since such “active involvement in the determination of one’s own destiny is the essence of human dignity” (Robinson, in Potts 2009). A last key principle of human rights is that they are rights, so that States and other duty-bearers are accountable for

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



their observance and have a legalobligationto comply with the standards enshrined in human rights instruments. When duty-bearers fail to comply with their duties, a rights-holder is entitled to “institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance with the ruleoflaw” (UN, 2003).

However, while these principles contribute to our conceptual understanding of human rights as a whole, they still do not provide sufficient clarity for, say, a government intending to adopt all the appropriate measures to realise the right to health. However, neither does the ICESCR – embodying the right to health - provide a great level of detail to define the meaning of the right to health. For this reason, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has issued “General Comments” which further identify a number of interrelated and essential elements that reflect both the freedoms and entitlements of each human right (Fundar, IBP, IHRIP, 2004). In this instance, CESCR argued that the freedoms and entitlements of the right to health are best divided into four normative elements: the availability of health facilities, goods and services; the accessibility of health services, physically (in distance), economically (in cost) and in a non-discriminating manner; the acceptability of health services in terms of ethics, culture, and gender; the qualityof health services (Diokno, 2008).

Human Rights Obligations“The term ‘human right’ is more than just a moral declaration. It is a legal concept with very specific meanings and ramifications laid out by human rights [instruments]” (Schultz, 2002).

By becoming a signatory of the international human rights covenants, a State places itself under a number of direct, legal obligations. These obligations are generally of three kinds: to respect, to protect and to fulfil (Maastricht guidelines, paragraph 6).

• Theobligationtorespect:a state should refrain from any action that would interfere with the enjoyment of rights of the people in its territory.

• Theobligationtoprotect: a state should prevent actions by others that might lead to a violation or a diminishing of the enjoyment of human rights.

• The obligation to fulfil: a state should take action to ensure the full realisation of rights. The duty to fulfil in turn has been divided into the obligations to facilitate, promote and provide. The State must facilitate people’s ability to secure their rights, that is to say the State must engage in activities to ensure that people have access to resources to ensure the full enjoyment of their rights. The State must also actively promote access to rights by, amongst other things, adhering to various procedural and administrative requirements. Finally, the State must provide that right directly where persons or groups are unable to enjoy the right, for reasons beyond their control.

A related principle of economic, social and cultural rights is the duty of “achieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant to the maximum of available resources” (CESCR, 1994). By ratifying an international treaty, Governments are not expected to guarantee the full enjoyment of all rights immediately. In recognition of the time it takes to raise revenue, implement laws and policies, train personnel, set up the appropriate bodies to monitor and hear complaints, roll out social programmes, and so on, States are expected to show that they are taking steps which are “deliberate, concrete, targeted and appropriate” (CESCR, 1994).

While ‘progressive realisation’ offers governments a measure to prevent them from being over-burdened financially, no criteria have yet been developed for defining ‘maximum availability of resources’. Therefore,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



the concept is often conceived as a ‘get out’ clause for States unwilling to fulfil their human rights obligations by invoking resource constraints (Felner, 2009). This has been addressed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by emphasizing that each human right has a set of minimumcoreobligations (CESCR, Gen. Com. 3). Even in the presence of limited resources, a government is required to give first priority to these minimum, essential levels of primary health care, food, housing, water and sanitation.

Contextualising Human Rights LawWe cannot define the ‘meaning’ of a human right only in relation to international human rights obligations. As explained in greater detail in Steenbergen (2011), because human rights content and obligations are only partly defined by international law, they are also partly defined by the contextual conditions within a country. For example, realising the right to water means something different for the most marginalised rights-holders in an Indian slum than it does for a rural Kenyan community, yet for both groups the right to water is an obligation that must be fulfilled. The meaning of a right is thus partly determined by the fundamental claims of marginalised rights-holders, and implies a human rights obligation. In order to offer human rights recommendations, therefore, there is a need to understand the position of the most marginalised groups in a society and to identify the structural causes for the limited realisation of their rights. Rather than deriving the meaning of a right entirely from human rights law, this also has to be determined in relation to the local conditions and fundamental claims of marginalised rights-holders.

Human Rights-Based Policy MakingIn sum, Steenbergen (2011) draws out a number of international human rights standards that human rights-based policy making is obliged to meet:

• The policies should prioritise minimum essential levels of service

• The policies should be non-discriminatory and prioritise the most marginalised groups

• The process in making the policies should be transparent and participatory

• The content of the policies should meet both the freedoms and entitlements, as identified by CESCR through a number of interrelated and essential elements of each human right. In addition, these elements should be contextualised by an understanding of the position of the most marginalised groups in society and the structural causes relating to their limited realisation of rights.

Human rights-based development thus requires services to be provided on the basis of human rights standards rather than, for instance, the standard of cost-effectiveness,2 or, on the basis of charity. Policy based on the latter standard may indeed be counter to human rights standards. For example, it might be more cost-effective to provide health care to urban communities, rather than marginalised but more expensive rural communities. This would actively discriminate against individuals who are already facing a greater lack of access to health care. Conversely, when a service is expressed as a right, it brings with it standards to which all rights-holders are entitled, and which trigger obligations. In this instance, an individual in the rural community should be able to hold the duty-bearer (most commonly, the government) accountable to make these services available to his or her community,

2 When human rights standards offer different conclusions than cost-effectiveness, the former takes precedence over the latter. Yet, cost-effectiveness can also prove an important expression of human rights standards as States should look for the most effective, equitable and sustainable method to realise human rights (see Steenbergen, 2011). For instance, a key issue for human rights budget groups is the inefficient spending of corrupt officials, who grant excessively costly contracts to friends or relatives and pocket the difference. Thanks to Ann Blyberg for this useful addition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and make them accessible, acceptable and of sufficient quality.

This example demonstrates that if we would move from other standards of service provision to rights-based services, common ground may already exist. In the case of the right to health, an existing service may already offer a high quality service that is physically and economically accessible, but which inadvertently discriminates against one community on the basis of its geographical location. In this case, making the service more human rights-compliant would require only countering the discriminatory basis of the health care centre, such as providing cheap forms of transportation to the centre, rather than requiring the development of a new right to health-policy entirely.

1.4 The Individual Steps to FrontloadingHumanRightsWe now move on to the individual steps required to offer human rights-based budget recommendations. The five steps that make up this methodological process have been described in Equalinrights’ Conceptual Framework for frontloading human rights (Steenbergen, 2011).

Starting from the basis of a particular human right

Human rights are made up of both freedoms and entitlements and their meaning partly determined by international law and partly contextually, by the local conditions of the most marginalised groups. This means that it is important to incorporate the following principles into the analysis:

• Rights-holders have a right to be protected from all forms of discrimination and the most marginalised rights-holders should be prioritised in realisation of human rights.

• Rights-holders have a right to have their views heard and to contribute to decision-

making processes when this affects their lives.

These guidelines, along with the other human rights principles, provide a point of reference to the realisation of human rights. For example, when analysing the most urgent human rights concerns, rights-holders in all categories (gender, age, class, caste, religion, region, etc.) should be enabled to participate in the data collection and analysis, and their opinions represented in the process. These human rights principles should thus be considered throughout the analysis.

Stage 1: The Human Rights-Based Situation Analysis

Analysing the situation of rights-holders is a necessary first step to identifying what needs to be done in order to improve their human rights realisation. Multi-dimensional analysis will also help to ensure that programmes and policies are better informed and more likely to achieve their intended objective (Save the Children, 2008). A human rights-based situation analysis begins by contextualising all elements of (inter)national human rights law and mapping any violations while outlining gaps in the fulfilment of the particular human right issue or marginalised group’s limited rights realisation. An understanding of the human rights-based approach connects this analysis with the institutional framework analysis of the legal system, the relevant policy frameworks and the budget process. This is then combined with an analysis of immediate and root causes of the limited realisation of the particular human rights issue under analysis. Lastly, this stage calls for an analysis of the power and gender concerns relating to the limited rights realisation, reflecting the political nature of human rights realisation.

Stage 2: The Analysis or Formulation of Human Rights Policy in relation to the Budget

In stage 2, we use the findings of the human rights-based situation analysis either to design a human rights policy or to analyse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



a pre-existing human rights policy for its design, budget allocation and budget implementation.3

While a government needs to develop effective policies, plans and programmes to realise human rights, it is not enough simply to pass a law or policy to advance human rights since there is no guarantee that this will translate directly into adequate budget allocations and spending. Therefore, it is important to determine first whether the existing human rights policy is designed in an appropriate way (i.e. it is not discriminatory, but addresses the structural causes of the limited rights), and subsequently, whether the current budget allocations are sufficient to ensure the policy’s implementation. Lastly, it is useful to assess whether any structural causes prevent that a policy’s budget allocations from being translated into spending.

Stage 3: Formulating Human Rights Recommendations

The third stage summarises the human rights recommendations made in relation to the human rights-based situation and policy analysis. At this stage, additional institutional recommendations can be formed to address the greatest obstructions to budgets reflecting human rights policies. Here, procedural concerns such as access to information, participation and the budget process can also be addressed.

Stage 4: Costing Human Rights PolicyThe fourth stage makes a crucial bridge between human rights policy and human rights budgeting by costing the policy

3 States enjoy “a marginofdiscretion in selecting the means for implementing their respective obligations” (Maastricht guidelines, paragraph 8). For civil society, this means human rights-based policy recommendations only carry a legal weight when the State has already adopted specific policies but failed to implement these (e.g. because of insufficient funds). Yet, civil society organisations are always free to offer their recommendations. Many thanks to Eitan Felner for this crucial addition.

recommendations. Within these policies are activities and services requiring purchasing or paying staff salaries for the government to implement. These costs summed up constitute a policy recommendation’s total required allocation for effective implementation: the price of the human rights policy.

Stage 5: Financing Human Rights PolicyHaving determined policy and budget recommendations and defined their implementation cost, this stage compares the required implementation costs with current budget allocations. This step addresses the financing of the human rights policy wherever a gap is identified by analysing where best to reallocate resources or tap into new funds. The cost elements combined constitute the human rights-based budget proposal.

These steps are schematically illustrated on the next page in Figure 1.1.

1.5TheroleofcostingwithintheprocessoffrontloadinghumanrightsWhen we talk about ‘costing human rights’ in this paper, we refer to the fourth stage within the wider process of frontloading human rights. This is important to note, because there have been several attempts to answer the previous question “what resources must be devoted to realising ICESCR rights?” (Felner, 2008) whether directly on the basis of indicators, benchmarks or with statistical analysis. However, the conceptual framework to frontloading human rights (Steenbergen, 2011), argues that such approaches cannot take sufficient account of a number of human rights principles, such as the requirement of a participatory and transparent process, or the need to understand the position of marginalised groups in society and identify the structural causes relating to their limited realisation of rights. We argue that this can only be achieved by undertaking a human rights-based situation analysis and analysing current policies on the basis of design and budget allocation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Therefore, it is true to say that the stage of costing human rights begins after recommendations are already formulated. The aim of the process of costing human rights policies is to identify the total implementation cost of human rights policy recommendations. These costs can then be compared with current budget allocations and the differences identified can be used as the basis for an alternative budget proposal.

1.6ConclusionThis chapter is a summary of Equalinrights’ conceptual framework for frontloading human rights (Steenbergen, 2011). We began by establishing the need for a methodology to assist civil society organisations in claiming human rights through budget allocations by identifying the resources a government should allocate to advance the necessary policies, plans and programmes to realise human rights. In contrast to other retrospective methods of human rights budget work, this method of frontloading human rights was defined as a methodological process to translate (inter)national human rights standards and obligations into the budget proposals required for effective implementation in public policy and budget cycles.

Next, we gave an overview of the main characteristics and obligations of human rights and human rights-based development, before describing the five steps that make up the process of frontloading human rights. In conclusion, we highlighted the role of costing human rights policy within the broader process of frontloading, beginning after human rights recommendations are formulated to devise a human rights-based budget proposal.


2.1IntroductionIn the previous chapter, we introduced the method of frontloading human rights as a methodological process to translate (inter)national human rights standards and obligations into budget proposals required for an effective implementation in public policy and budget cycles.

We argued that we can only ‘cost human rights’ after undertaking a human rights-based situation analysis and offering recommendations to current policies, plans and programmes on the basis of their design and budget allocations. In this chapter, we take such a human rights proposal as the starting point, and attempt to enrich the proposal through costing, that is, examining the financial requirements to ensure its implementation.

Costing offers an important contribution to the existing tools of human rights advocacy. As we have stated frequently above, too often have governments adopted laws and policies that were not implemented because insufficient funding was provided for their implementation (UNICEF, 2010). Yet, when an organisation has defined the implementation cost of a particular policy, it can hold the government to account to allocate the required resources to ensure its implementation. Thus, when we have defined the required resources for an implementation, this will highlight when a government’s actions are inadequate, and so offer a stronger basis for human rights-advocacy.

A second reason to reflect human rights obligations in a cost-figure is to emphasise the importance of particular elements. For instance, in the last chapter, we argued that the process of human rights-based policy making should be transparent and participatory. Yet, the institutionalisation of concepts such as

participatory policy-making or greater budget transparency can only be assured if the costs of rights-holders’ engagement, or the costs to create a platform through which budget information can be dispersed are earmarked separately.

In this chapter, we refer to costing a new ‘project’ or ‘intervention’, though, as mentioned earlier, it may not be necessary to develop an entirely new human rights-based policy. Instead, a service may already be provided that can be made more rights-compliant. In this respect, the ‘intervention costs’ can be seen as the adjustment costs to an existing service.

OverviewWe begin with an overview of the central concepts and definitions of costing, before introducing two central methods to conduct a cost analysis. Having examined the main theories and literature on ‘costing’, we outline four steps that can guide the costing of a particular human rights policy or intervention in a rights-compliant manner. We end with a call for more capacity-building in the area of costing for human rights.

2.2ConceptsanddefinitionsThere are a number of fundamental concepts that underlie costing. These offer several alternatives for the type and methods of costing that will be undertaken.

2.2.1 What are costs? A ‘cost’ is most often defined as the value of resources used to produce a good or service. However, there are different interpretations as to which costs to incorporate and which to exclude. Financial Accountants are primarily concerned with an intervention’s financial costs, that is, the actual expenditure on goods

Chapter 2: Costing Human Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ChapterTwo: Costing Human Rights

and services purchased, because these costs are used for financial planning and budgeting they only include the goods and services which are paid for in a project or intervention.

The emphasis of this paper will be on financial costs, since we intend to identify a government’s total financial requirements in ensuring a policy’s effective implementation. However, such a minimal perspective may not always be appropriate. As we will see in the case studies of Chapter 3, the Housing Rights and Land Network (HRLN) created a tool to identify the requisite level of compensation a government should pay to individuals who have been forcibly evicted. In such a situation, calculating only the direct costs of government expenditure on goods and services will be inadequate. For example, if someone stays home from work to prevent being evicted, it has a price not because of something the individual paid for, but what s/he could have made (foregone income) by going to work. This is to say that not everything with a cost-implication is necessarily a financial cost. In such a situation it is more appropriate to use economic costs, where costs are defined in terms of “the alternative uses that have been foregone by using a resource in a particular way” (UNAIDS, 2000). These are also known as opportunity costs.

The choice of whether to use financial or economic costs will depend on the objective of the analysis. If the purpose of the costing exercise is to compare expenditure against budget allocations, then only actual project expenditure should be recorded. Similarly, if we explore the affordability of the intervention, we should only be concerned with financialcosts. This means, for instance, that the foregone income of a volunteer (which has a price), can be left out of the analysis since it does not have to be paid.

However, if we aim to consider a project’s sustainability, then economic costs become more important. The intervention may have positive economic implications, as for instance, domestic access to water and sanitation can

lead to improved health status of workers and a gain in time spent working, leading to higher incomes and higher tax-returns. These economic benefits, in turn, may even be income-generating from a government’s perspective. However, these indirect effects will not show up in the limited scope of a government’s direct expenditure on goods and services, and so for budgeting purposes require the broader scope of economic costs. The ‘opportunity cost’ of ‘time’, (i.e. not having to walk to a well, but having domestic access to water), is a clear example of an economic cost that cannot be valued directly through a market price. 2.2.2 PerspectivesThe example of forced evictions already introduces the vital question of whose cost we are talking about. Is the costing analysis taking the perspective of government, and therefore only focused on the direct expenses of providing the intervention, excluding costs incurred by the private sector or households? Or, are we costing from a rights-holder’s perspective, examining the burden of limited realisation of rights and assessing how much a household should be compensated to improve its situation? Alternatively, the costing analysis could adopt a societal perspective, which would encompass the costs incurred by all members of society, including the private sector, the public sector and households. Such a perspective may help determine whether the intervention is beneficial for society overall (Mogyoroso and Smith, 2005). These perspectives are illustrated in Figure 2.1, where we see the differences and overlap across perspectives.

For the purpose of costing human rights, all three approaches can be appropriate at different times, and may indeed overlap. However, the greatest focus will generally be on government, since budgeting requires we measure the actual financial costs that are expected to be incurred in the near future. Yet, it may also be the case that households are burdened with costs that are inappropriate from a human rights perspective, such as out-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



of-pocket costs of health care, or indirect costs of education such as uniforms. Therefore, a rights-holder’s perspective could enrich the initial analysis and help assess the ‘hidden costs’ of an intervention (i.e. costs that government should bear, but currently does not).

The societal perspective is more useful for advocacy purposes, rather than creating budget provisions (White, 2005), though it may demonstrate that there is an economic incentive for society as a whole to invest in a particular human right. This societal perspective will largely fall beyond the scope of this paper, but calculating the economic benefit of health care, water facility or food provision on a country as a whole can be found, for example, in:

• WHO (2001), Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for economic development. Geneva: WHO

• SIWI (2005), Making water a part of

economic development: the economic benefits of improved water management and services. Stokholm: SIWI.

• Dista, S. and Vicente, C. (2009), Estimating the Potential GDP Losses due to Hunger in Mozambique. Maputo:FAO

2.2.3 Costing PurposeIt is worthwhile to point out that there is no universally applicable costing methodology and that different methodologies can be applied depending on the purpose of the cost data. The appropriate ‘form’ of the cost analysis should be selected in relation to the question that it attempts to address. Table 2.1 below identifies four main purposes of costing for human rights and shows the appropriate method to address these purposes.

• Basic cost analysis seeks to describe the distributions of cost that are required to successfully implement a given program. The paper’s focus is primarily directed towards a basic-cost analysis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



• Cost-feasibility analysis is used to determine the extent to which a program can be successfully implemented, given the existing budgetary limitations.

• Cost-of-non-realisedrightsanalysis seeks to identify the long-term economic benefit of a particular intervention, known as ‘cost-of-illness’ in health economics. For an example see WHO, “Guide to identifying the economic consequences of disease and injury”, 2009.

• Cost-sustainability analysis aims to assess the long-term economic sustainability of an intervention, bringing together the cost-of-non-realised rights with cost-feasibility analysis.

2.2.4 Unit costsFor every policy, we can distinguish between its inputs, outputs and outcomes. For instance, a programme might aim to improve the enjoyment of the right to education by offering primary school children a nutritious meal every day. Here, the inputs refer to the various goods (such as meal ingredients) and personnel (such as a chef to prepare the meals) needed to set up the programme. The outputs then refer to the services produced through the use of inputs, for instance, the meals provided to children, or the number of school children fed. Lastly, a programme’s outcomes refer to the ultimate impact on the broader society, resulting from the programme, which in this case could be in the form of improving children’s nutrition and their ability to learn in school. (Streak, 2002).

A unit cost is a cost for a ‘unit’ of a pre-defined part of an intervention. While it can be possible to calculate the unit cost of outcomes (e.g. the cost to improve child nutrition), in practice, this is very difficult due to uncertainty that an intervention will actually lead to an impact. Therefore, unit costs are often concerned with the cost per outputs, such as the cost of a hospital bed per person per day, the cost

of a house connection to water provision per person per year, or the cost of primary education per person per year (UNAIDS, 2000).

In order to accurately calculate such unit costs, it is necessary to identify all the different inputs (goods and services) needed to produce a given output. Hence, the unit cost per person per day to stay in a hospital bed and receive treatment is made up of a number of inputs of goods (such as equipment needed for treatment and the use of furniture and bed linen) and manpower (such as the nurses, doctors and administrators) to provide the ultimate output of a hospital bed in which the patient is cared for.

The methods employed in this guide to costing human rights are aimed at quantifying the unit costs of the human rights-based policy recommendations under analysis. These are then used to identify the total financial resources required to implement a human rights policy by multiplying the unit cost per person per day/year by the number of targeted rights-holders and the intervention’s time-span.

2.3ConductingacostanalysisIn the previous section, we introduced a number of key concepts and definitions to support the ensuing discussion. Moving to an overview of methods for costing, this paper will not consider the methods of calculating a programme’s economic benefits, financial affordability or sustainability. Instead, our focus will only be on the basic cost-analysis that aims to determine the implementation cost of a particular policy or programme.

2.3.1 Methods of CostingConducting a cost analysis means gathering and organising information about the resources required to create a programme or implement a policy (Barnett and Escobar, 1990). The ways in which to approach this will vary widely from case to case, and may be

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



determined by the costing purpose and data availability. Our particular interest is in costing programmes or policies that result in both human rights outcomes and processes.

The two main costing methods described in this guide differ in their level of detail and complexity. On the one hand, there is the direct measurement of all the different elements within a programme, frequently called micro-costing or the ‘ingredients’approach, since it identifies all the goods and services required for the intervention as ‘ingredients’, costs these elements and aggregates them to reach a total intervention cost.

On the other, there is the estimation of costs using administrative databases, such as a Ministry’s budget, to identify the average cost of a service, known as the ‘gross-costing’method. In gross costing, an intervention is broken down into large components, and only large cost items are identified (Brouwer, 2001). Gross-costing can therefore be quite simple and opaque. Gross costing is also usually faster and requires less analysis than micro-costing, but may be less accurate because of the relatively large resource units (for example, the ‘unit’ will be the patient cost per hospital per day, rather than a single procedure or activity performed during a hospital stay).

Conversely, in micro-costing, a very detailed service delivery process (inventory) is established, where all relevant resource items are identified and measured separately. This approach is more reliable and precise, but

can be very time-consuming and technical and so may be impractical. However, it may be preferable to gross costing when there is uncertainty as to the accuracy or availability of data, or because the intervention has a small number of distinct elements that all have a considerable impact on the cost (Mogyorosy and Smith, 2005).

The decision to choose the ingredient or gross-costing approach depends on the objective of the exercise, and each method’s advantages and disadvantages are described below in Table 2.2. Often, there is a trade-off between (a) reliability and accuracy of cost information and (b) feasibility and costs of data collection (measurement). Due to its detail and accuracy, the ingredients approach is generally preferred, but this method can be impractical or too time-consuming to initiate (Mogyorosy and Smith, 2005). In practice, costing studies generally use a combination of the two approaches within one exercise, partly due to a lack of specific pre-existing data for certain key elements of the intervention. The level of detail and precision for an element within the cost analysis should depend largely on the influence it has on the overall cost-estimation.

Determining which method to choose for cost-assessment can be influenced by the following factors:(a) The type of intervention; small-scale

interventions are easier to analyse directly using the ingredients approach, but large-scale interventions may require gross costing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(b) The available and quality of existinginformation; when administrative data is unavailable, gross costing is impossible so that the ingredients-approach is needed.

(c) Thelevelofdetailandaccuracyrequired; the ingredients-approach is often more accurate and specific whilst gross costing offers a rougher estimation.

To show how these factors influence the choice of costing methods, we give the example of a programme aimed to widen a rural community’s access to medical services by introducing a small health care centre. The cost of providing such a health centre will be influenced by only a small number of elements such as salary costs, equipment and drugs which means that it would be fairly easy to directly identify the price and required quantity of all these different ‘ingredients’. However, it could be that the target community lives in an extremely mountainous region while the only available information on health centre-costs relate to urban areas. Lastly, this cost-analysis may be used directly by government officials to allocate resources, so that the level of detail and accuracy required is of great importance. In this instance, the ingredients approach would be most suitable: it is feasible because there are only a small number of elements to be costed; applicable pre-existing information is unavailable and the level of accuracy required is high.

Conversely, an intervention aimed to provide access to safe and clean water in a large city’s slum community would present the analyst with a large number of elements to address, such as the price of septic tanks, pipe network configuration and maintenance. This scenario would require a complex analysis, suggesting the ingredients approach would be unsuitable. Moreover, there might be information readily available by the ministry responsible for water which, in this case, would also be more accurate. Therefore, in this situation the gross-costing analysis may prove to be more appropriate.

In short, we can see that depending on the context, type and level of intervention and availability of information different methods can be appropriate. Applying one of these two costing methods to a human rights-based budgeting exercise depends on a thorough description of the intended intervention so that all of the associated elements can be incorporated into the analysis.

2.3.2 The Ingredients approachThe ingredients approach holds that the intervention cost is the sum of its parts, or ’ingredients’. Aggregating each element’s price and quantity will lead to the total intervention cost.

The first step of the ingredients approach is to translate a particular policy into a set of distinct activities (or outputs) and identify all the different inputs (goods and personnel) needed to produce these activities. In the second step, each input is divided into a sub-category and costed.

1. Translate the human rights intervention into a number of activities with inputs.To ensure that the final cost figure is comprehensive and precise, it is important to give a complete description of all the different activities within a human rights policy or intervention, and list all the required inputs for this programme to achieve its intended effects. Levin and McEwan (2001) argue that the level of accuracy and detail for listing each programme ingredient should be proportional to the ingredient’s overall contributions to the programme’s total costs. For instance, for the right to health or the right to education, personnel costs generally represent the most substantial programme cost and should therefore be analysed in more detail than other costs. If the distribution of programme costs is unclear at the outset, White, et al. (2005) argue that directly observing similar interventions might help, as well as conducting interviews with the individuals responsible for distributing programme resources of a similar intervention or consulting thematic experts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2. Cost all the inputs of the human rights intervention.After each element is identified, the ingredients are divided into sub-categories and can then be costed to establish the total intervention cost. While the division of programme-ingredients will vary largely across human rights, across different scales of intervention and across countries, Levin and McEwan (2001) offer a commonly made division into “(a) personnel costs, (b) facility costs, (c) equipment and materials costs, (d) required [rights-holder] inputs and (e) other program inputs”.

2a. Valuing personnel costAs personnel costs often represent one of the largest shares of the overall programme costs, it is important to represent these costs accurately. The ingredient approach often estimates the cost of personnel by determining the number of minutes each worker spends on activities to provide the service. In chapter three, we will see how a South African CSO used this method to price the time of police, judges and lawyers spent on cases of domestic violence, to determine the salary costs relating to the implementation of a particular law. Examining the time spent on a particular service and multiplying this by the salary costs per minute identifies the personnel cost of the intervention. This ‘time-per-activity’ study, as it is known in the literature, can be observed directly by staff members keeping track of the time spent on each activity throughout the day, it can done by asking employees to keep daily activity logs, or by surveying the programme manager (Smith, 2003, Box 2.1).

After a time-per-activity has been determined, the next step is to assign a cost to that time. While hourly or annual earnings might be obtainable through surveys, these are not necessarily accurate guides to total employment costs. When adopting a government perspective to costing, it is also important to include the cost incurred by employers such as benefits and taxes. Furthermore, time spent on non-work-related activities such as vacation, sick leave and administrative work offer additional costs that should be reflected in the hourly cost of personnel.

2b. Valuing facility costsHuman rights interventions often require infrastructure, even though the relative share of these ‘facility costs’ in relation to the programme’s total costs depends on the human right intervention in question. For instance, facility costs such as a school building makes up only a small part of the cost of primary education. In contrast, providing access to water and sanitation is largely infrastructural. Since these facility costs are often very complex ingredients to evaluate, the ingredients approach may be less useful when these costs make up a large proportion of the programme.

If an intervention uses rented or leased building facilities, the facility costs simply constitute the actual cost of the rent or lease, when the intervention requires a building to be purchased or constructed, one approach could be to estimate the cost of renting or leasing a similar space. An alternative approach could be to estimate the facility’s cost by assessing the price of a purchasing a local building of

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



similar proportions (White, 2005). The HRLN’s costing tool for forced eviction (discussed in chapter three) mentions that the best reference for determining market price of properties would be reliable real estate agents, banks, or other parties involved in the sale and exchange of such properties. The standard methodology involves collecting three quotes/estimates and selecting the average, or taking the middle quote as the fair price.

In the case of a newly constructed building, land deeds would also be a factor. Determining the value of a plot of land may be difficult if market prices are unavailable. In such an eventuality, the HRLN costing tool (2005) suggests using the current market value of a comparable site in another location.

2c. Valuing equipment and materials costsIt is important to include in the cost exercise all equipment and materials necessary for the effective functioning of the intervention or programme, such as furnishing, office supplies and other miscellaneous materials. The cost of supplies and equipment can usually be found in manager surveys of similar government services or by contacting manufactures (HLRN, 2005).

2d. Valuing the cost of required rights-holders inputs

An intervention’s targeted rights-holders may be faced with direct or indirect user-fees (e.g. transportation, books, uniforms). These costs should be included to the extent that government is expected to provide them. The permissibility and scale of user-fees differs across human rights, and might be incorporated into the design of the programme or intervention. If no decision has been made whether or not to include these costs pre-analysis, having a separate overview of the direct and indirect costs to access these services should feed into a discussion post-analysis.

2e. Valuing the costs of other programme inputs

Other inputs could include items such as internet access fees, telephone bills, trainings or professional development activities (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, & Gallagher, 2002). As this category of costs typically represents less than 5% of programme costs, some estimates use a rule of thumb of 5% to project these programme inputs (White, 2005).

Data qualityWhen some data is unavailable, the costs of inputs may have to be measured directly from real world information. In order to retain the integrity of the costing exercise, it is vital to ensure the quality of data. Smith (2003) presents three standards that affect quality of data collection; precision, accuracy and reliability.

The level of precision required in data collection depends on the intervention and the size of the costing element in relation to total cost. For smaller cost elements it can be justified to use a ‘lump-sum’ or percentage of total cost, as is often the case for stationery. If the element is relatively large, it is important to pay closer attention to data collection and assure greater precision.

Accuracy is important because even small reporting errors can accumulate through repetition. If time-per-activity is underestimated by even 10 or 15 minutes per event, this means the activity’s labour cost is underestimated and when scaled-up to larger groups, the inaccuracy will build up. If such estimates are inaccurate, it may be necessary to change the method of data collection, for instance from asking employees to keep daily activity logs to direct observation of a third party (Smith, 2003).

Lastly, in order to guarantee the reliability of the information, it is important to train data collectors to ensure that they understand the collection forms used to obtain the information (Smith, 2003).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When to use: The ingredients-approach, which directly measures the cost of elements by observation or surveys, is most necessary when the available administrative data proves to be insufficient, as when estimating the cost of an innovative intervention that does not resemble previous programmes. Due to the labour intensity of data collection for the ingredients approach, however, its use may be limited to activities that are most likely to be affected by the intervention or for those elements where appropriate information is lacking (Barnett, 2009). However, sometimes an intervention has too many separate elements to use the ingredients approach, making the gross costing method more applicable.

2.3.3 Gross CostingWhenever reliable administrative data is available, a gross costing method can be used. Where the ingredients approach is a bottom up approach, this method is essentially a top down method. In gross costing, an intervention is broken down into large components and these large cost items are identified by scaling-down the pre-existing information from administrative databases, ministry budgets or development programmes, to ‘units’ such as the patient cost per hospital per day, or the cost of providing a household with a piped connection per year. The quantity of each service is then multiplied by the estimated unit cost to acquire the full intervention cost (Barnett, 2009).

Gross costing aims to generate estimates for the different elements of an intervention. Yet, the physical units on which these unit costs are based are relatively large. This makes the approach is easier and faster than the ingredients-approach, but also less detailed and accurate.

The first descriptive step of gross-costing is similar to that of the ingredients approach, to translate the human rights intervention into a number of activities with inputs. Yet, for

gross-costing, the ‘inputs’ can be less detailed, and bigger in size, so rather than costing the time required for a doctor to treat a particular illness, the cost-item would be the patient cost per hospital per day.

The second step to gross-costing is to collectcostingdata by using administrative databases, approaching the relevant government ministry or a thematic expert organisation to estimate the programme’s main cost components. In selecting the costing-data it is important to consider two main criteria. The first criterion is that of applicability; the information should be useable, functional and correspond to the programme’s main cost components. The second criterion is that of data reliability. In many countries, budgetary data from central government is the only available source for costing; however these come with well-known limitations. Tsang (1988) offers six cautionary notes in using national data for local costing: • Budgetary data describes planned

expenditure, rather than actual expenditure. There can be a large discrepancy in these two figures, and whenever information on the actual expenditure is available, it might be more difficult to obtain.

• Costing data from local or municipal government levels is often lacking, which means that decentralised costs such as, for example, education finance in India are quickly underestimated.

• Expenditure on a particular field may not always be classified entirely within one ministry. For example, education expenses are not entirely covered by the education ministry, as building costs come from the public works department, and pensions from the ministry of finance.

• Central-government data can be too aggregated to be useful. Furthermore, it might be unable to account for expenses on very particular inputs, such as textbooks or equipment at the school level. Government expenses can vary by school and across different regions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



• Budgetary information is concerned only with government expenditure and does not include the costs associated with direct and indirect private costs of schooling, health or water, thereby being insufficient to incorporate the hidden cost of access to service provision.

• Governmental budget data can be unreliable or inconsistent in defining cost categories over time, and different governmental sources may offer contradictory information.

After collecting the data from the budget line, the Ministry’s accounts or the thematic expert organisation, the aim is to ‘scale-down’ the total allocation to the appropriate unit cost (see Box 2.2).

Estimates / extrapolation based on (published) studies.A special case for gross-costing occurs when similar services or activities have already been valued. In such cases, information can be used from the intervention’s public study, report or analysis. It may also be helpful to contact the programme managers directly to discover more detail about the costing exercise in order to assess the quality and reliability of these estimates. However, it is important to assess the similarities of the two interventions as well, before using the information. Furthermore, the gross-costing approach aims to cost the intervention by identifying its unit costs. Yet, several cost studies do not report unit costs separately and/or their sources (Mogyorosy and Smith, 2005).

Data QualityFor the ingredients approach, we presented standards that affect quality of data collection. However, as gross costing is concerned with existing sources of information, we cannot rely on these same standards. Instead, Bailey (2009) presents the standards of completeness, no overlap and reliability.

When using pre-existing information to identify the costs of all the large components of an intervention, it is important to have completeness so that all the different elements are adequately represented in the data (Bailey, 2009).

When using data from different sources, it is especially important that no cost is double counted. This no overlapprinciple will prevent over-estimating the intervention cost. (Bailey, 2009)

Lastly, all sources of information used to value different elements of the intervention should be trust-worthy and up-to-date, only then is it suitable for budgeting purposes (Bailey, 2009).

When to use: The gross costing method is the most appropriate approach when an intervention has a large number of elements to address and where information is readily available from administrative databases, ministry budgets or development programmes. As gross-costing generally relies on large, aggregated datasets such as national statistics and national ministry budgets, it is based on

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



the assumption that there is only a minor variation between contexts. However, it should be noted that this assumption is not always justified. Indeed, providing services to remote communities in rural areas will most likely have a higher than average cost. For this reason, it is essential to identify which elements are representative of the actual costs and which are under- or over-estimated. In the absence of disaggregated figures for the cost of service provision in rural communities, it might still be appropriate to rely on the national average but include a margin of difference to account for location (e.g. an additional 10%), rather than reject the national figures altogether and having to provide new figures entirely using the ingredients approach. Margin variables could then be estimated by asking experts or the initial source of data, such as the ministry.

Using Mixed Methods Lastly, in the face of missing data or difficulties in collecting data, a mixedmethod may prove easier to use than only adopting an ingredients-approach, while being more accurate than using only a gross-costing assessment. A mixed model also allows analysts to tailor the cost measurement to the study objective and decide for which elements to identify the unit cost using an ingredients-approach, and for which they can use a gross-costing method. When cost items are representative, a gross-costing method can be used, whereas the ingredients approach could be adopted where accuracy is paramount and data collection is feasible but not too time-consuming (Mogyorosy and Smith, 2005).

2.4CostingHumanRightsPoliciesNow that we have given an overview of the central concepts and definitions of costing, and introduced two different methods, we will return to our initial aim to identify the total financial requirements to implement a human rights policy. Here we can identify two ways in which a human rights-based costing study differs from a conventional costing study.

1. Costing human rights-based policiesHuman rights-based policy-making goes

beyond service provision and gives primacy to the rights-holder. For the right to health, for instance, the focus is on improving the availability, accessibility and quality of health, as expressed in the international legal framework. Rights-based policy-making also gives particular attention to the most vulnerable and marginalised groups. Yet, while costing human rights policy should be seen within the broader process of frontloading and begins only after human rights recommendations are already formulated, this principle is still important. The reason for defining a policy’s resource requirements is so that we can hold government accountable and allocate sufficient resources to it. However, providing essential services to marginalised groups will have a higher than average cost, either because of location or some other special requirements. We should adequately reflect the higher costs of their service-provision in the cost calculations, therefore, to ensure that policies affecting the most marginalised groups are properly implemented.

This is less of an issue for the ingredients-approach, as measuring itemised costs directly means that comparing groups or using average cost values does not occur. Costing at the level of detailed elements will more likely reflect the higher cost of requirements of the most vulnerable community, since it is based on actual financial data. However, the gross costing-approach relies on the underlying assumption that there is only a small variation between settings and their associated costs and this cannot always be justified. The distinction between actual and (national) average unit-costs is partly dealt with in the section ‘when to use gross-costing’. It is very important to identify which elements are representative of the actual costs and which are under- or over-estimated. In the absence of disaggregated figures, however, one approach would be to use national averages and include an additional location margin to the figures to account for regional variations of cost (e.g., an additional 10%), rather than not use the national figures at all or use the ingredients approach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2. Emphasising the importance of procedural human rights elements

In the introduction we argued that one reason to reflect human rights obligations in a cost-figure is to emphasise the importance of particular elements. For instance, in the last chapter, we argued that the process of human rights-based policy making should be transparent and participatory. Yet, institutionalising concepts such as participatory policy-making, or greater budget transparency can only be achieved if sufficient funds are allocated to finance the costs of rights-holders’ engagement, or the costs to create a platform through which budget information can be dispersed. Subsequently, while procedural costs may not always be substantial in relation to intervention cost, it can still be important to earmark these separately to ensure sufficient funds are allocated to institutionalise these procedures. Procedural recommendations will differ from case to case, and for different human rights, as illustrated by the hypothetical examples in section 2.6.

2.5 The Individual Steps in Costing HumanRightsPolicyWe will now present the four stages needed to calculate the financial requirements of a human rights policy. While each step will have different components depending on the particular human right intervention and its context, every human rights costing analysis will undertake these four stages (White, 2005):

• Stage 1: Translate the human rights intervention into a number of activities with inputs.

• Stage 2: Define the parameters of the costing-study.

• Stage 3: Collect the data on the various inputs needed to produce these activities.

• Stage 4: Analyse data, acquire unit costs and identify the total implementation cost of an intervention.

Stage 1: Translate the human rights intervention into a number of activities with inputs.Before we begin costing an intervention, it is important to have clarified some fundamental questions: what is the main aim of the programme and how does it intend to achieve it? Phillips and Huff-Rouselle (2001) offer a number of points that can be included at this stage: (1) A brief history of the situation that makes

the intervention necessary. This can be accompanied by a brief background of the country, the sector and human right of the programme.

(2) The main activities and methods of the programme: how will it achieve its objectives?

(3) Organisational issues of the programme: once implemented, how will the programme be structured and managed (geographically, hierarchically, functionality, etc.)?

(4) How should the programme be financed: entirely government funded, or through a cost-sharing exercise with the community, or through public-private partnerships?

(5) List all the elements required for the programme to achieve its intended objectives.

To identify all the intervention elements, it can be helpful to develop a flowchart or taxonomy, such as in Figure 2.1, an example of an intervention aimed to improve access to the right to education. However, this is a simplification of the recommendations that a frontloading-exercise would offer. As noted in the previous chapter, a costing-study can only be done by going through a human rights-based situation analysis. This analysis will identify the most urgent concerns related to a particular human rights issue or a marginalised group’s limited rights realisation, and explain the structural causes, and enable a comparison with existing policies on the basis of design and budget allocation. We offer this simplified taxonomy to illustrate the key costing methods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We made the distinction between institutional costs and the current household costs because the right to primary education provides for free education, free from user-fees, direct and indirect costs. Institutional costs which are generally paid for by government are those relating to teacher salaries, buildings and equipment, etc. The household costs (which should be provided by government) are outlined in direct costs such as tuition fees, uniforms and transportation, as well as in the indirect costs, in the form of a cost associated to the family missing a working member. Lastly, in reflection of the human rights requirement for participation and transparency, ‘process’ costs are outlined separately and should be considered as recurrent costs. In this example, the costs of a participatory process are defined as a town hall meeting, a capacity-building training for meaningful engagement and a monitoring committee with different stakeholders to oversee the policy to improve access to primary education. To improve decision-making transparency, the recommendation is to develop a website with all the budget details, provide a non-specialist version of the local government budget (a so-called people’s budget) and make available to the public paper versions of the programme documents.

Stage 2: Define the parameters of the costing-studyHaving defined the intervention in detail, it is important to outline the parameters of the costing study, giving consideration to (a) the time and expertise available to conduct the study (b) the information required to answer the costing-question, and (c) to ensure that the evaluation is done in a prudent and realistic manner. The following steps are advised by Levin and McEwan (2001):1. Developing the evaluation question:

what do I aim to achieve with the costing exercise? In section 2.2.3, different costing purposesare offered. For instance, if the aim is to identify the total implementation cost of a human rights intervention, then basic cost-analysis is used. Before developing a costing plan, it is important to resolve this evaluation question to allow the analyst to plan the data collection phase more carefully and focus efforts on collecting only the data relevant to the exercise.

2. Determining the scope of the costingexercise:The intervention will have a specific aim for a specific group of rights-holders. Therefore, a clear set of boundaries should be included that define where the intervention begins and ends.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In defining the scope, a number of elements should be included (Bailey, 2009): • Who are the targeted group of rights-

holders? • How many people are in the group of

rights-holders?• What is the geographic scope of the

study? Is it a village, a city, a country or a region?

• From what perspective are costs measured?

• For what time period will costs be measured?

Stage 3: Collect the data on the various inputs needed to assist these activities.It is in step 3 that we begin conducting the cost-analysis. Here, to collect all the costs of the identified elements of the first stage, we make use of the ingredients-approach, the gross-costing method or a combination of the two.

In determining which costing method to use, we should consider the three factors noted earlier: • The type of intervention: small-scale

interventions are easier to analyse directly using the ingredients approach, but large-scale interventions may require gross costing.

• The available and quality of existinginformation: when administrative data is unavailable, gross costing is impossible so that an ingredients approach is needed.

• Thelevelofdetailandaccuracyrequired: the ingredients-approach is often more accurate and detailed while gross-costing offers a rougher estimation.

Depending on the context, type and level of the intervention and the availability of financial information, different methods will be required. Choosing the most effective costing method for a human rights-based budgeting exercise depends on a thorough understanding of the intended intervention to ensure that all of the necessary elements can

be incorporated into the analysis.

When an ingredients-approach is found to be more suitable, the data collection starts with measuring the actual prices and required quantities of all the different inputs, building a cost estimate from a combination of these detailed elements. A gross-costing method in contrast collects pre-existing data from administrative databases, ministry budgets or previous development programmes. If there is financial data missing or difficulty in collecting it, a mixed method would allow analysts to tailor the cost measurement to the study objective and decide on those elements from which to determine the unit cost using the ingredients-approach, and those for which they can use a gross-costing method. When cost items are representative of actual costs, a gross-costing method can be used, whereas the ingredients approach could be adopted where more accuracy is necessary and data collection is possible while being not too time-consuming.

Accurate documentation is also an important element of data collection. Cost figures and cost-information should be well documented using a consistent set of data collection instruments, and the data sources should be carefully recorded. The main sources of data will be existing records, such as accounting statements, invoices, budgets and interviews with programme staff (Bailey, 2009).Three important ‘ground rules’ are given by UNAIDS (2000) for the process of data collection. 1. To minimise study time and expense,

information should be collected at the highest organisational level at which it is available (and of sufficient quality).

2. When obtaining data from more than one level, be careful to avoid double counting the cost element (e.g. using salary figures from the health ministry and the health care facility).

3. Attention should be paid to finding information on the largest input categories, rather than on categories with less impact

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



on the total intervention cost. Small costs can be estimated through rough calculations and rules of thumb, such as, assuming that a building’s maintenance cost equals a certain percentage of its annual capital costs.

Stage 4: Analyse data, acquire unit costs and identify intervention’s total implementation cost. After the data has been collected, it can be analysed and depending on the method of costing opted for, the figures scaled-up or scaled-down to acquire the unit costs, and, by multiplying the unit cost by the group of beneficiaries and intervention the time-scale, the total cost of the intervention. The costing study should result in tables, ratios and other information to support the study objective. When the data has been analysed, it should be grouped and reformatted into a budget. Classifying the costs into standard categories will help capture all relevant costs and facilitate effective comparison between groups of cost items (Bailey, 2009).

2.6 Two hypothetical examples of costinghumanrightsinterventionsTo further elaborate the methods of costing human rights policies, we offer below two hypothetical rights-based costing exercises. These illustrate a number of points. Firstly, we see how differences across human rights influence the costing method: for instance, the first example is best suited to an ingredients-approach, the second to gross-costing. Secondly, there are also similarities between the two examples, as both cases adhere to the four general stages of a costing study and visualise the intervention-elements. Thirdly, in both examples the process of identifying the intervention and measuring the costs is done in a participatory and transparent manner, offering accountability to citizens and paying close attention to the concerns of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of the community. However, as we stated in the previous chapter, a costing-study can only be done by carrying out a human rights-based

situation analysis that identifies the most urgent concerns related to a particular human rights issue or the limited rights realisation of a marginalised group, explains its structural causes, and then analyses current policies on the basis of design and budget allocation. These two hypothetical examples greatly simplify the recommendations that a frontloading-exercise would offer and should be considered as indicative only.

2.6.1 Hypothetical Example 1: Costing improved access to essential health services

Stage 1: Translate the human rights intervention into a number of activities with inputs.A particular neighbourhood has historically been faced with poor access to essential health care. Analysing the underlying causes, the community establishes that the greatest problem lies in the lack of a nearby health care facility. Collectively, they write a right to health proposal aiming to buy a plot of land on which to build a new health care facility. The new location is chosen specifically to be to easily accessible for the most marginalised and vulnerable group of the community; in a zone with a large group of young parents and pregnant women, i.e., those most affected by the absence of the facility. In a participatory research exercise, the community identified the detailed treatment requirements of the healthcare facility. Out of the 2,500 people in community, on average 200 are ill per year, and the treatment ratios and conditions were defined as follows:

1. 30% required a general check-up2. 25% needed treatment for malaria3. 20% needed treatment for common flu4. 15% were diagnosed with broken limbs5. 10% required emergency obstetric care6. 5% of conditions were miscellaneous4

4 This description of concerns is highly simplified to serve the purpose of illustration. In reality, these concerns would be far less homogenous and more ambiguous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In its consultations, the community investigates if there are any people whose access to the health care centre might be obstructed, or might require additional assistance. They decide that a wheelchair ramp for visitors with disabilities, and a transport service for pregnant women are required.

As a final step of the description of the programme, they offered a taxonomy of expected cost-items for the intervention to improve access to essential health care, as shown in Figure 2.2.

Stage 2: Defining the parameters of thecosting-studyThe purpose of the costing-study is to identify the total cost of the health care facility, so that a budget proposal can be drafted for the government to implement the plan. In the initial analysis the targeted group of rights-holders was narrowed down to local villagers living in the area around the future health care centre, a total of about 2,500 people. The time-frame of the costing assessment is set at one year, and the study distinguishes between the initial investment cost of setting up a health facility and subsequent recurring costs.

This categorization will assist budgeting for the health facility in future years, as recurring costs are unlikely to change significantly.

Stage 3: Collect the data on the various inputs needed to produce these activities.As there are only a small number of cost categories and variables, the community decide to adopt an ingredients-approach to costing the health care facility. They interview 10 different medical health centres and ask staff-members a number of questions, including:

• Their annual salaries• The average time spent in minutes on

basic procedures per patient (registering the client, undergoing the examination, etc.)

• The average time spent in minutes on each of the six identified most common concerns

• The volume of supplies used for basic procedures per case (stationery, gloves, etc.)

• The volume of supplies used for most required identified activities (e.g. medicine)

• The price per unit of all the supplies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Using these figures, they first calculate the salary time per minute and use this figure to calculate:

o Time spent x salary per minute + cost of supplies = The price of basic procedures per person

o Time spent on malaria treatment x salary per minute + cost of malaria tablets = average price per person per case of malaria.Knowing the per-capita cost of basic procedures and malaria-treatment, they then assessed:

o 30% of the 200 people who required medical assistance had malaria, so 60 people would make use of the treatment every year.

o The total community price of malaria is 60 people x cost of a malaria treatment. Furthermore, as it takes on average 20 minutes of the doctor’s time, 45 minutes of the nurse’s time and 10 minutes of administration, they calculated that, for malaria treatment alone, there is a requirement for:

o 60 x 20 minutes = 20 hours’ worth of doctor’s time.

o 60 x 45 minutes = 45 hours’ worth of nurse’s time.

o 60 x 10 minutes = 10 hours’ worth of the administrator’s time.

Using this estimation for all common concerns and basic procedures, they were able to examine the total doctor’s time required. Estimating that a doctor works 48 weeks a year and 40 hours a week, this constitutes 1920 hours of doctor’s time every year. If the estimated time required exceeds this, they conclude that more than one doctor would be employed. Similar calculations are made for nurses and administrators.

It was envisaged that the transport service would be expenses based, requiring pregnant women to reclaim their costs from a local source of transportation, such as a taxi-driver, using receipts. These costs were estimated by calculating an average distance from the village

to the health care centre and multiplying this by the average taxi-driver mileage rate:

o These transport costs for pregnant women are estimated to occur 20 times every year (10% of the 200 people who required medical assistance), so the cost would constitute:

o 20 x average cost of taxi-fare

Facility costs: Now that the number of staff required has been defined, they decide to assess the cost of constructing a health care centre by using a similar-size building in the neighbourhood as a proxy. They contact three real estate agents to identify the price of a local plot of land and take the average sum as their estimated land-cost.The costs of the ramp are estimated by contacting three construction-companies and taking the average value of the three quotes.

Process rightsThroughout the process, the community has been meeting regularly in the town hall, and while the associated costs were low, they have calculated procedural costs of participation using their financial records and aim to claim these with the government. In addition, start-up training in human rights-based policy making and the budgeting process was given by a community member whose expenses were calculated and written down. Lastly, the community intends to set-up a participatory monitoring committee and assigns a number of community leaders to organise these meetings. Their expenses are calculated and included in the overall cost-estimations.

To provide all community members with a clear overview of the activities of the health care centre, they argue that it should have a website with all its financial data, as well as a printed copy of the programme documents. They also believe that printed flyers are essential to draw attention to the new facilities and to engage the younger members of the community in the accountability-process. The cost of these items is estimated in discussion with a local web designer and a local printing organisation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stage 4: Analyse data, acquire unit costs and identify total implementation cost. For the sake of illustration, we have shown a large number of the calculations likely to appear under stage 3, though these will usually be made after the data collection. The community-members write up a clear budget proposal for improving access to the right to health and present this to the government with the aim of adopting this means of human rights-based participatory policy- and budget-making.

2.6.2 Hypothetical Example 2: Costing an intervention aimed to improve basic access to waterTo illustrate the costing distinctions across human rights, we will present a second hypothetical human rights-based costing study on the subject of the right to water and sanitation.

Stage 1: Translate the human rights intervention into a number of activities with inputs.An urban community in the outskirts of South Africa does not have access to water or sanitary facilities nearby, so they initiate a participatory research process to assess the requirements to improve their access to the right to water, and the financial implications of such a plan. As this country recently had a court case defining the core entitlement of each individual to constitute a daily allowance of 25 litres, they already have an idea of how the initiative should be financed. The basic infrastructure to provide water will be financed by the government, yet any further water use will be paid for by the citizens themselves. The urban community consists of approximately 3,000 people living in close proximity to one another. The community has occasional meetings, but most of the analysis will be done by a group of representatives, in cooperation with a small NGO. Decisions, however, will only be taken with the approval of the community.

The community was initially only concerned with domestic access to water. However, they

discovered that access to the legally entitled 25 litres of water would still not be available for the most marginalised and vulnerable people, the 43 members of the homeless community. Representatives of the homeless community then called for the provision of three drinking fountains in the village, allowing for free access to water.

As the last step of the programme description, the community draws up a taxonomy of the intervention on the right to water (Figure 2.3). As the focus is entirely on what government should earmark to the right to water programme, there are only two main headings: the institutional and process costs.

Stage 2: Define the parameters of the costing-studyThe costing-study objective is the identification of the total cost of the water supply, and a draft budget proposal for the government to implement the plan. In previous analyses, they identified the beneficiaries as the entire community, but discovered that 25% already have domestic access to water, which adjusts the estimate to 75%, or that 2250 people are targeted, with a total of 532 houses. Subsequently, the analysis found the proposal to be too focused on home-owners (or renters). There were also 43 homeless people who required access to water but would not be benefited by domestic water connections. The time-frame of the costing assessment was defined as one year, and the study distinguished between the initial investment cost of the water infrastructure and the recurring costs beyond that time.

Stage 3: Collect the data on the various inputs needed to produce these activitiesGiven that the community had no previous information on the infrastructure required to provide domestic access to water, they adopt a gross-costing approach. Contacting the ministry of water which oversees water-supply and the private company providing the water, they receive an average figure for the infrastructural costs per house. In addition, it turns out that the private company has a great

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


deal of market-power in setting the price for water supply, and costs differ largely across neighbourhoods. As the community still has to pay for water beyond 25 litres, they organise demonstrations and events to pressurise the private company to provide the water at a lower cost. After two weeks the company gives in and provides water at their lowest rate.

To ensure that the first 25 litres every day are free of charge, they look into the option of installing water meters. The total costs of the meters are a combination of the hardware purchase and the cost to install them. They take the average meter-cost per house of three neighbourhoods, to identify the total cost of providing meters to each house.

The initial building costs of the fountains were estimated by three different construction companies, from which they took the average value. They then negotiated with the water company and were able to provide the fountains with clean drinking water at a low price, as all the necessary plumbing would already be available from the domestic access to water exercise. ProcessrightsDuring the process, the community participated by meeting periodically in the town hall, there was an initial training in human rights-based policy making and a participatory monitoring committee set up,

to make decisions in the light of any changing requirements.

In order for all the members of the community to have a clear overview of the activities of the local government and the water supply company, they propose an open-door policy to encourage communication with the local community. A weekly recurring meeting is scheduled with the water supply company with an open forum in which everyone may share their concerns. To ensure that adequate attention is given to following up the requirements of the local community, an ombudsman is assigned to liaise with the local government and water supply company on the community’s behalf.

The labour costs of assigning a part-time ombudsman are calculated, and to safeguard his or her economic independence, it is decided these costs should be financed through a national democracy fund, rather than directly overseen by the local government.

Stage 4: Analyse data, acquire unit costs and identify the total implementation cost. The community-members calculate the total cost of the water provision, using the estimated cost per person. They include this in the right to water budget proposal and present it to the government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2.7 Capacity-Building for Costing HumanRightsIn this chapter, we have given an overview of the methods needed for civil society to undertake a costing exercise for a human rights policy. In the next chapter, we will consider a number of case studies in costing human rights. Yet, as all the case-studies show the importance of more capacity-building on costing, the issue was important enough to address separately. Indeed, despite its potential, few organisations use costing as a tool for human rights-advocacy, largely because it is seen as a specialist activity outside the traditional scope of human rights advocacy. In the words of the ICRW (2003):

“Most [human rights] campaigns for a law or policy focused on the content of laws and overlooked details of implementation, including an estimate of the resources required. This is likely due, in part, to NGOs’ inadequate time, resources, and skills needed for budget advocacy.” (emphasis added)

It requires considerable skill, information and resources to undertake a costing exercise. Many of the studies that succeeded in building a detailed and reliable costing exercise worked with experienced researchers and practitioners. Apart from costing experts, these included nutritionists, medical experts and academics. Due to the variety of skills needed, human rights budget work often calls for strategic alliances and coalition-building for civil society organisations to best demonstrate their technical or human rights capacities.

Perhaps the most important lesson from all these case-studies is illustrated by Women’s Dignity. This Tanzanian organisation hadnever carried out a costing-exercise, and unfortunately, made a number of basic errors. They costed the provision of free delivery kits to all Tanzanian women, yet the contents of the delivery kits were determined too narrowly. They also used WHO international estimates to determine the price of the health goods rather than the local prices for goods. This

meant that they under estimated the price of delivery kits (an estimate of $1.78 with an actual cost of $15).5 As a result of these errors, Women’s Dignity decided not to pursue any new cost-exercises but to rely on data directly provided by the Ministry, in order to guarantee data reliability. Yet, the initial report was ground-breaking and attracted a lot of media attention. With only minor additional technical support, they would have been able to continue their innovative and otherwise successful methods of human rights budget advocacy.

In order to realize the full benefits of technical tools such as costing in the field of human rights advocacy, there is an urgent need for partnerships and capacity-building to offer organisations the expertise to undertake an effective costing exercise and avoid the errors that organisations such as Women’s Dignity have made. Hopefully this chapter has also shown that using some guidance and following a number of simple principles, a detailed and reliable costing exercise can be undertaken by civil society organisations with great potential benefits for human rights advocacy.

5 Reference: interview with Women’s Dignity


Due to the differences across human rights, and across context- and scale-specific elements of a human rights policy, it is not possible to provide a simple checklist of the elements that need to be in place to ensure an effective costing-analysis in all instances. Therefore, this chapter illustrates different methodologies for different contexts through a series of case-studies where civil society organisations have (tentatively) applied costing human rights. To illustrate their methodological differences, we have ‘grouped’ them, starting with three organisations employing a basic costinganalysis, where governments provided additional goods or services. Then we consider costing studies from a private perspective, before studying the cost of human rightslegislature. Lastly, we consider two alternativecostingexercises using a range of methods to calculate human rights costs.

3.1BasicCostingAnalysisBasic costing analysis aims to answer the question “How much will implementing this programme or intervention cost?”, and focuses primarily on the government providing additional goods or services.

3.1.1 Fundar in Mexico: The Maternal MortalityProjectFundar is an independent organisation playing a central role in applied budget work in Mexico. Since 2000, Fundar has been monitoring Mexico’s spending on maternal health and documenting the government’s changing strategies, programmes, and budgets (Hofbauer and Garza, 2009). Drawing on many years of applied budget analysis, Fundar noted that many women in the country die from pregnancy-related causes as a result of inadequate health service care. Maternal mortality rates were found to be

highest among poor and indigenous women. Fundar decided to carry out a costing-analysis assessment to determine the requirements for emergency obstetric care (EmOC).

MethodologyFundar’s costing-exercise aimed at determining the cost of drugs and medical supplies needed to deal with the five main causes of maternal death. Using the National Manual of Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC), they described the official procedures described to treat these five causes. Then they specified the exact requirements for drugs, blood packets and other medical supplies related to each treatment. Subsequently, they quantified the price of these supplies by identifying the acquisition cost for hospitals, and the sale price at a discount pharmacy. After identifying each procedure’s price, they estimated the total cost by multiplying the unit cost with the number of expected pregnancies, birth rates and estimated obstetric complications. Fundar’s research concluded that providing EmOC to all women requiring it was affordable even with different price estimates.

Lessons learnedFundar’s costing exercise greatly influenced Mexico’s health care programme6. This was partly because they used the official procedures for dealing with the maternal health conditions for assessing the medical requirements, which, in turn offered an overview of the elements to be included

6 For more information on Fundar’s costing-exercise, see “Muerte Materna Y Presupuesto Público, (2006), Daniela Díaz Echeverría, Graciela Freyermuth Enciso, David M. Meléndez Navarro, Martha Aída Castañeda Pérez, Hilda Reyes Zapata, Carlos Neri Méndez

Chapter 3: Case studies in Costing Human Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ChapterThree: Case studies in Costing Human Rights

or excluded from the costing analysis. The analysis also took account of differences in unit-costs across Mexico, giving additional attention to data reliability. This fed into a 2005 forum, where the health ministry announced it would designate emergency obstetric care as a priority in all maternal health programs, as a result of Fundar’s analysis of the financial viability of providing EmOC (Keith-Brown, 2005).

3.1.2 Right to Food India, costing a comprehensive package of right to food entitlements

A right to food civil society coalition in India filed a lawsuit forcing the Indian government to use food stocks to prevent hunger during widespread droughts. In response, India´s Supreme Court turned various government programmes into legally binding entitlements for poor and vulnerable people. Every state territory had the duty to prevent starvation and malnutrition, either through direct food aid or access to gainful employment. For the 11th Five-Year Government Plan for Food and Nutrition Security, civil society groups insisted on providing a cost calculation of right to food entitlements for children under the age of six years, such as maternity benefits, crèches and supplementary food.

MethodologyThe coalition presented a comprehensive document, specifying financial allocations for specific age groups. As children under the age of six months should be breastfed, the commission identified which elements would

be most conducive to increase breastfeeding. These proposals included building crèches, providing worksite facilities for women in the national employment guarantee programme, maternity benefits and legislation strengthening the prevention of promotion of breast milk substitutes. Each scheme was then worked out in detail.

The unit-price of each element was identified, for example, a pre-school education kit within each of the after-work centres, cost about 1000 rupees, and providing children with the supplementary nutrition of 70 grams of rice and wheat per child per day cost about 0.80 rupees.

The level of coverage for the proposed intervention was also defined. Using figures from the National Bureau of Statistics, they identified 80 million children under 6 that are to be covered under the intervention, with 8 million covered by Crèches. The number of pregnant, lactating women was estimated at 10 million, requiring a total number of 1.4 million maternal health centres. After identifying all input unit-costs, these were scaled up to reflect the number of beneficiaries.

Lessons LearnedThe right to food coalition was able to provide a very detailed report partly because of its wide partnership with nutritionists, medical experts, academics and rights-holders. This resulted in a process of meaningful engagement on the part of the rights-holders, making appropriate decisions on a policy that was closely tailored to the local right to food

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



requirements, as well as providing a high-quality costing report that was accurate and comprehensive. The case´s most impressive result is shown in its impact on the expenditure patterns of the Indian Government. Figure 3.1 below illustrates the growth in expenditures for the ICDS programme during the period of the Right to Food Case (2001–2008). Figure 3.2 demonstrates the impact of civil society on allocations in the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2011).

3.1.3 Women’s Dignity in Tanzania: Where is the Money for Delivery Kits?

Women’s Dignity is a Tanzanian organisation that advocates for health issues from a right to health perspective for marginalised women. They developed a basic costing exercise to assess how much their government would have to invest to provide free delivery kits to all women in vulnerable situations.

MethodologyStarting with a desk review, they analysed documents from the health ministry and WHO for the price of particular health goods such as iodine, gloves and additional drugs. Taking these figures at face value, they determined the price of a basic safe delivery kit to be “a little over Tsh 2,000 or US 1.78” (Women’s Dignity, 2007). Using figures from the National Bureau of Statistics, they identified 1.7 million Tanzanian women delivered a child in 2007. Combining both figures, they estimated that providing health kits costs Tsh 3.6 billion or 0.55% of Tanzania’s health budget for 2007/2008. They supplemented this analysis by comparing this spending with that of other priorities, to show that the limited funds available were due to the lack of political will rather than an inability to pay (Women’s Dignity, 2008).

Lessons learnedThe Tanzanian costing-example is notable for its simplicity. In essence, it follows the same method described in this guide. After describing the programme (financing delivery kits), they acquired a unit cost per person (US 1.78) and multiplied this by the annual amount of women

delivering a child. However, this example also illustrates the dangers of over-simplification. Firstly, the price of distributing delivery kits to maternal health centres is likely to be above the purchasing cost, taking into consideration transportation as well as administrative costs, therefore, the costing analysis does not cover the total intervention cost. The level of precision required in data collection depends on the size of the costing element in relation to the total cost. As costing delivery kits only had one element, the accuracy of this cost estimate was essential, as even a small error would result in large divergences from actual intervention costs. Yet, rather than relying on local prices for goods, Women’s Dignity used WHO international data which largely under estimated the price of delivery kits. Indeed, a recent study by the Tanzanian health ministry shows delivery kit-costs to be closer to US$15 than $1.78.7 As a result of these difficulties, Women’s Dignity decided not to pursue any new cost-exercises, preferring to rely on data provided by the government ministry to avoid the risk of their estimates being regarded as unreliable. This illustrates the importance for precision and data reliability in costing-studies.

3.2Costingfromarights-holder’sperspectiveCosting from a private perspective offers some important additions to the basic costing model. By incorporating the rights-holder’s financial position, it helps determine an appropriate level of user-fees, the necessity for government to provide goods or services, or to assist in cost-recovery in order to finance basic goods or services.

3.2.1 The People’s Budget, Kenya: Calculating the daily living expensesThe ‘People’s Budget’ is a network organisation that identifies specific development priorities for the allocation of financial resources through community consultation,

7 Reference: interview with Women’s Dignity. For more information on Women’s Dignity’s costing exercise, please see: “Women’s Dignity, Investing for Impact, Maternal Health Matters: Where is the Money for Delivery Kits?, Women’s Dignity Policy Brief, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



assisting a community in the definition of its development needs and challenges. Through this process, participants are encouraged to look at their development needs as rights. The needs identified are subsequently budgeted for using a practical calculation of daily living expenses.

MethodologyUsing a survey, the People’s Budget analysed the daily average expenses faced by members of informal settlements, categorised under breakfast, lunch, supper and other outstanding items. For example, the average household breakfast required 1 pack of milk, a 400 gram loaf of bread, 15 grams of tea leaves, ½ kilo of sugar and 45 grams of margarine. Combining the price and quantity they came to a daily total costing of 147 Kenyan shillings per household. Using the same method for lunch, supper and other items such as soap and firewood, they estimated total daily expenditure to be 844 Kenyan shillings.

Lessons learnedThe People’s Budget offers a way to calculate the economic accessibility to a basic level of nutrition, by comparing the cost of basic requirements to the average informal sector wage of 150 Kenyan shillings.8 They concluded

8 For more information, please see “The People’s Budget: Priorities for Action in Nairobi and Kisumu People’s Settlements, 2009, Hakijamii”. Other examples of costing living expenses and methods used can be found in the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, 2006: The JCTR Basic Needs Basket, and the California Budget Project, 2005, Making Ends Meet: How Much Does It Cost to Raise a Family in California?

that underpayment results in people from informal settlements to have empty stomachs or to eat bad quality food. To improve the rights orientation of the costing-method, this analysis could be used with other right to food costing methods, addressing accessibility, availability or food quality.

3.2.2 The Right to Food India, costing adequate caloriesAs part of its costing-analysis, the Right to Food coalition also assessed the requirements of food provision and nutritional security, exemplifying a household’s cost-assessment for the right to food in India.

MethodologyThe Coalition assessed nutritionalsupplementrequirements of children under six, using figures from the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau and consulted nutritionists to compare their expected intake to their required daily intake. Subsequently, they established a number of ways of providing a varied, tasty and energy-rich meal that met the defined nutritional requirements, as shown in Table 3.1. They then surveyed the prices of the basic items, offering a cost per person of supplementary nutrition.

DAY- 1 egg, rice, oil and vegetables, DAY-2 pulse, rice, vegetable, and oil DAY-3 wheat, groundnut, sugar and oil, DAY-4 egg, rice, oil and milk DAY-5 groundnut, sugar and pulse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The study demonstrated that the provision of a varied, energy-rich mid-day meal would cost at least Rs. 3 per child per day, rather than the previously allocated Rs. 2 per child per day. These costing results were adopted in the Supreme Court ruling, ordering government’s full implementation by:

1. Allocating at least Rs. 2 (=0.02 US$) per child per day for supplementary nutrition.

2. Allocating at least Rs. 2.70 for every severely malnourished child per day for supplementary nutrition.

3. Allocating at least Rs. 2.30 for every pregnant woman and nursing mother per day for nutrition.

Costing from a private perspective thus proved of utmost importance for the Supreme Court ruling.

3.2.3 The Housing Rights and Land Network Loss MatrixWhile strictly speaking not a case study, the ‘loss matrix’ provided by the Housing Rights and Land Network is a tool that quantifies the cost and losses that victims incur as a consequence of the violation of their housing rights, due to demolitions, confiscations or forced evictions. These findings help “substantiate the assertion that housing rights violations actually widen and deepen poverty, having a de-development effect on the community and country” (HRLN, 2005). MethodologyThe loss matrix aims to calculate the cost of all material and immaterial damage resulting from housing rights violations. This is carried out by itemising all possible losses in four sections:

• Victim’s material losses • Victim’s non-material losses • Other than victim’s material losses (public

costs) • Other than victim’s non-material losses

(including social costs)

The categories are then divided into several quantifiable elements. Hence, the victim’s material losses make up the losses to the structure, plot, content of the house, collateral damage, infrastructural damage, foregone business income, lost/decreased wages/income and even bureaucratic and legal fees relating to the forced evictions.

The tool explains how to calculate the household’s induced losses for each of these ingredients before aggregating them to quantify the household’s total loss relating to violations of housing rights. In case of multiple affected households, they use a representative sample to determine the average values, which are then to be multiplied by actual numbers of units affected.

To the best of our knowledge, this toolkit has not yet been used for advocacy purposes, though requests have been made to use it to calculate the losses of Iraqi housing rights victims (see HIC-HLRN, 2005, Restoring Values). Given its limited use, it is difficult to offer lessons learned at this point in time. This toolkit is one of the first of its kind, offering a methodology to calculate the private costs of human rights violations. This same methodology may also be useful to assess the affordability of other human rights policies.

3.3CostinghumanrightslegislatureCosting human rights legislature is distinct from other human rights interventions because it focuses on the legal system, often with a national scope, and because the number of ‘targeted’ people coming in contact with the law is often difficult to accurately quantify. Given below are two examples relating to costing legal human rights interventions.

3.3.1 The Domestic Violence Act in South Africa In 1998, South Africa adopted a ‘Domestic Violence Act’ (DVA) to offer “victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from domestic abuse that the law can provide”. However, no specific budget was

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



dedicated to its implementation and the Justice Department representatives stated that the DVA placed “severe pressure” on its offices, and that the budget for personnel appears to be less than that required for the number of approved posts; fewer persons can therefore be employed (Vetten, 2005). The ´Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation´ (CSVR) attempted to quantify the price of implementing the DVA, to propose a fully earmarked ´DVA Budget´.

MethodologyThe CSVR conducted 60 interviews with criminal justice system employees to profile a standard or ´typical´ case of domestic violence, the activities undertaken by clerks, magistrates, prosecutors and police officers and the length of time taken for each activity. Beginning when someone pressed charges, they identified, for example, that a police officer’s usual activities include calming applicants, explaining their rights, assisting in making the statement, phoning courts, etc. This set of activities took an average time of 37.4 minutes.

The DVA’s implementing costs were calculated by multiplying the time taken for each step by the cost per minute of staff involved (dividing the annual salary by 12 months, 22 working days, 8 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour). As annual police salary is R77.829, for instance, per minute cost is R0.61. The set of activities thus required a police salary cost of R0.61 x 37.4 minutes = R22.81, per ‘typical’ case of domestic violence. Applying this to all the processes involved, and using the salary profiles of the criminal justice system employees, they identified the total cost of providing a single protection order to be R245.03.

Using data from the Justice Ministry, CSVR found that 157.391 women had applied for protection orders in 2004. Multiplying the cost of a ´typical´ domestic violence case with the number of targeted individuals, (R245.03 x 157.391) the CSVR was able to calculate that

at least R38.565.517 should be earmarked to the DVA by the state in that year.

Lessons learnedThe DVA-costing offers a good example of ‘ingredients-approach’ as it directly quantifies the average salary cost per minute through a representative sample of nine courts and nine police-stations. 9 However, some cost categories were excluded from the study, such as buildings or stationery because even without the DVA - the buildings, for instance, would still be used and therefore would not be considered to constitute a direct cost to the DVA. The analysis was undertaken to define a ‘floor’, to establish a minimum level of spend, rather than being a comprehensive costing of the total financial impact of domestic violence. This illustrates that the level of completeness and detail is conditional on the objective of the study.

3.3.2 The Child Justice Bill in South AfricaThe Child Justice Alliance (CJA) is a network organisation which ensured that, on 25 June 2008, the Child Justice Bill (CJB) was passed by the South African parliament. This bill provided significant changes to the way children are treated within the criminal justice system, supporting a wider use of diversion and alternative sentencing methods. In order to achieve an effective implementation due to implementation costs not being factored into the budgets of responsible departments, the CJA commissioned an economic research group, AFReC, to provide a full costing analysis of the CJB. This was the first time in South Africa that a bill was costed prior to it being tabled in Parliament (Barberton and Stuart, 2001).

9 For more information, please see the Lisa Vetten, Debbie Budlender and Vera Schneider, 2005, The Price of Protection - Costing the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act, CSVR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MethodologyTo estimate the CJB’s costs, AFReC built a spreadsheet model in a number of steps. First, they analysed the CJB and made an overview of the different stages of the judicial process the children would go through, from police arrest to inquiry to serving sentences, and so providing a clearly demarcated set of activities to be costed.

The second step aimed to identify the total number of children involved at each stage of the legal system. However, as there was no national data on children coming into conflict with the law, AFReC had to develop their own estimates on the basis of their own collection data and assumptions. They began estimating the total number of reported cases in each magisterial district and Safety Department reports to identify the percentage of untraced or unfounded cases, to determine the total number of reported cases pursued by the penitentiary system. Subsequently, on the basis of interviews with the Ministry, expert-consultation and international comparisons, they estimated the percentage of total reported cases attributed to children, leaving them with a total number of children coming into conflict with the law. Using this total number of alleged child offences, it estimated the number of children in each stage of the legal system, such as the number of children being arrested, referred to assessment, diverted, brought to trial, sentenced and so forth.

The third step involved creating a large database with the unit costs relating to each activity in each stage. They estimated the transport costs, personnel costs, detention costs and costs associated with monitoring and assessment. At the outset, they explained that office space, courts, printing of forms and so forth were not costed as they had been provided already and were not dependent on the Child Justice bill. Other items that were excluded from the analysis, such as the use of forms, were left out because the method of estimating the associated costs would become highly

complex and, being low value cost drivers, would add little to the overall analysis. They adopted different methods to identify the unit-costs. To assess the activity-labour costs, they used an ingredients-approach, assessing time taken for a particular activity multiplied by the average cost per hour for different personnel groups. While for the daily per-capita cost of detaining children, they used figures provided by the ministry. The cost of legal representation was estimated using the figures from a legal aid organisation.

In the fourth step, the flow of children through the system was combined with the unit-cost of each activity in the Child Justice Bill to construct the ‘CJ-model’, to calculate the total cost of different legal scenarios. As the new bill called for alternative sentences to detention, the number of children in each stage of the child justice system would also differ. Fewer children would go to the ‘serving sentences’ stage, for instance. Using the CJ-model, three scenarios were generated. The ‘baseline’ scenario replicated the old criminal justice system as closely as possible, providing an estimate of previous levels of government’s child justice spending. The ‘full’ scenario modelled the flow of children through the new child justice system as described in the Child Justice Bill, estimating future government spending on child justice. Lastly, the ‘rollout’ scenario modelled the new child justice system on the assumption of its becoming operational about halfway through the process of implementation.

The baseline scenario estimated government spending at R787 million per year on children in conflict with the law. The full scenario’s estimation suggested that the CJB implementation could reduce this to about R607 million per year. Figure 3.3 overleaf shows that the bill could deliver savings of R180 million per year based on current levels of volume, an annual saving of over 20 per cent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Using these scenarios, the report not only estimated the total required level of financial allocation, it also supported the view that for the CJB’s effective implementation, substantial reallocation of resources from existing activities of detention to the provision of diversion and alternative sentencing options were required. AFReC’s report thus calls for the reallocation of resources across a number of Ministries and Departments.

Lessons learnedThe costing of the Child Justice Bill provides a good example of the steps required for effective budgeting.10 It also shows that in the absence of some data, cost estimations can be justified. An important rule in this instance is that all assumptions and proxy data should be made explicit so that they can be scrutinised and adjusted when better information is made available. Another lesson offered is the use of scenarios. As the number of children that were detained, for example, was conditional on the bill itself,

10 For more information, please see the Conrad Barberton and John Stuart, (2001), Re-Costing the Child Justice Bill: Updating the original costing taking into consideration changes made to the bill, AFReC

it was helpful to present different possible outcomes if the underlying assumptions or the legal system were changed. In this case, the scenarios also showed the cost-effectiveness of the Child Justice Bill, and so provided further support to human rights advocacy.

3.4AlternativeCostingExercisesNext, we will consider two miscellaneous methods to costing human rights.

3.4.1 Costing the right to education in GuatemalaThe Central American Institute for Fiscal studies (ICEFI) is an economic research organisation which has analysed Guatemala’s compliance with the obligation of the progressive realisation of economic and social rights without discrimination. They focus in particular on the role of fiscal policy as an important tool to comply with this obligation. ICEFI estimated the total resources necessary for realising the right to education between 2008 and 2021 (ICEFI, 2007).

MethodologyBy using the variable of ‘primary school completion’ as a proxy for the right to

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


education, ICEFI used econometric analysis to examine which variables explain the probability that a child will attend school. These variables include both supply and demand factors, help to determine how much to increase spending and distribute public resources in order to increase the primary school completion rate.

On the supply side, the statistical data shows how a 1% increase in spending on new schools (access to education), or a 1% salary increase for teachers (educational quality) would improve primary school enrolment. Yet, the data also shows that primary school dropout and repetition rates are only partly explained through educational access and quality. Instead, a family’s socio-economic condition, including poverty and the level of parental education, are both critical determinants of educational enrolment rates. To stimulate household demand for education, the statistics show the impact on primary school enrolment of a 1% increase in funding.

Using this statistical data, they project education coverage, dropout rates and demographic trends to estimate future enrolment rates. They predict that with the current education policies, nurseries’ net enrolment will be 74.4% instead of government’s goal of 89.2%. Similarly, primary school enrolment will reach only 53.6% by 2021, contrasted with the goal of 100%. This shows that government spending is ineffective and too limited to reach its educational targets. To calculate costs to ‘maintain the trend’ between 2008 and 2021, the statistical data is also used.

To determine the financial resources required to reach the government target, ICEFI uses a combination of econometric analysis and expertise. From the econometric analysis they estimate the required funds to provide all eligible children with complete access to primary education, extrapolating from historical figures. However, to establish the cost of improving educational quality, they move away from econometrics. Instead,

they pose a number of quality goals and estimate each programme’s implementation cost. They identify the six largest obstacles to child enrolment, including malnutrition, teacher quality, ethnic discrimination, and gender inequality. They then provide targeted solutions to tackle each issue. For instance, to tackle malnutrition, ICEFI assessed the cost of providing a comprehensive nutritional education programme to pregnant women and children from 0 to 4 years, as well as costing a programme of universal school snacks in kindergartens and primary schools. ICEFI made estimations of all these programme costs by extrapolating the cost of previously completed smaller-scale programmes. Combining the access cost (schools and teachers) with the quality assessments, ICEFI estimated that the education budget should increase from 2% of GDP to about 3.9% in 2010, reaching 4.5% in 2015.

Lessons learnedEconometric costing can be useful for providing estimates of the supply of as well as the demand for services. However, statistical analysis should always be supplemented with contextual knowledge and policy recommendation. Hence, ICEFI provided a balance by using the econometric data, without prioritising it as the basis on which decisions were made. Apart from the practical concern that the historical estimates on which econometrics is based can be misleading, using econometrics within human rights-costing may not always be appropriate.

Econometrics is helpful in this instance because a concept such as ‘primary-school enrolment’ is clearly determined, objective and numerical. Analysts can predict the impact particular policies have on such numerical rates without any interference from other variables. This is less applicable to other human rights, such as the expansion of freedoms and entitlements.

For econometrics, rights-holders are simple ‘variables’ towards an end determinant, such as primary-school enrolment. So, although


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



enjoyment of the right to education might be improved by expanding physical access to education (building schools), it is only a by-product of the ultimate end of improving child enrolment rates. There is a subtle but important distinction here. If we take the attainment of a ‘target’ to be the end of a policy, it becomes a technical problem susceptible to statistical analysis. In contrast, if we emphasise the rights-holder’s access to health care, the issue becomes personal and the individual’s participation in expanding freedoms and entitlements also becomes important. Likewise, if we consider the right to education and the accessibility of culturally appropriate primary education, one would be even less likely to ‘predict’ the optimal public policy. What is deemed ‘culturally appropriate’ is a deeply personal judgement, and can only be determined by asking that person. Traditional statistical tools of policy-making become less valuable in such qualitative spheres of policy and ‘predictions’ would quickly deteriorate to ‘stereotyping’ if made on the basis of purely statistical methods.11

In summary, while econometrics can be a useful tool to provide statistical estimates, it is important to use these methods with other approaches to identify human rights interventions. The participatory prerequisite to human rights-based budgeting means that econometric methods can only play a partial role.

3.4.2 Costing Food Security Interventions inMozambiqueTo improve the programming and funding of its national food security strategy, Mozambique’s Ministry of Development and Planning (MPD) asked FAO to offer an overview of the cost of its entire national food security strategy.

11 For more information on ICEFI’s costing of the Right to Education, please see ‘ICEFI, 2007, ”Más y Mejor educación en Guatemala (2008-2021) ¿Cuánto nos cuesta?”

MethodologyFAO began by assessing Mozambique’s food security strategy, as expressed in its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). However, as this did not result in any concrete actions, or numbers of targeted beneficiaries, it proved difficult to identify all the relevant programmes ensuring food security. Indeed, large shares of the PRSP had implications for Mozambique’s hunger situation. For instance, investment in tourism or deactivating mines would enable individuals to participate in the labour market, thereby earning a living and feeding their families and consequently improving food security. The costing exercise was further complicated by the inability to properly ‘demarcate’ all the right to food interventions. In the end, FAO identified 40 main food security interventions and costed each of these.

FAO had to identify the number of beneficiaries targeted by each programme. Using the programme documents, they reached some estimates of anticipated coverage. These numbers were then complemented with the following three ‘overall food security goals’ stated in the PRSPs:

1. “The percentage of underweight children under five years of age would drop from 24 per cent in 2003 to 18 per cent by 2009;

2. The percentage of children below five with low weight for height would stabilise at a rate of between 0 per cent and 5 per cent;

3. The percentage of the population in a situation of chronic hunger would be reduced by 35 per cent from 1990 to 2009.”

For each of these goals to be viable, a particular percentage of Mozambican children would need to be targeted.

Subsequently, FAO divided all programmatic elements into one of three sub-categories:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. The per-capita cost of the service (the unit

cost)2. The human resources (staff needed

to implement a programme, including community workers, extension service providers and health-care workers)

3. Logistical items (transport, fuel, stationery, etc.)

The relative size of these elements differed largely across programmes, as some involved mainly the transfer of money or goods (such as mosquito bed nets), while other programmes consisted primarily of salary costs of the ministerial personnel providing advisory services (e.g. nutrition education). They adopted a ‘gross-costing’ method to calculate the cost of these elements, and where the relevant data was not available, responsible ministries were consulted to provide historical data. In the absence of reliable government data, FAO resorted to estimates of similar programmes in other countries – a limitation to the effectiveness of the analysis, due to the differences in the programme implementation between countries and over years.

LessonslearnedFAO identified a number of examples of the more common challenges faced by Mozambique’s costing-exercises.• It was unclear from the start which

interventions had to be included in the costing and the existing strategies were often insufficiently detailed in terms of clear interventions, coverage, number of beneficiaries and costs.

• Where target groups were specified in a descriptive manner (e.g. ‘ultra-poor households’), it was difficult to identify the total number of beneficiaries due to unclear definitions and limited government data.

• It was difficult to make long-term estimations, as the number of beneficiaries could change from year to year, thereby influencing the total intervention costs.

• Long-term estimations of unit-costs were also problematic. For example, rising international food prices would make school feeding programmes more expensive over time.

FAO also wanted to separate overhead costs (administration, etc.) from service-related unit costs, however, these distinctions were not always clear and occasionally overlapped. Ministries were also sometimes reluctant to reveal high overhead costs and so were likely to understate the percentage going to personnel and administration in their data (FAO, 2009).

Aside from these practical concerns, the FAO costing of food security shows how a national costing exercise is at least of limited use for providing the cost of a human right as a whole. The top-down method used to provide a national estimate compromised the human rights aims of food security and food availability by limiting all forms of participation. As such, the data collection of national programmes designed to impact food security was not really comparable to the national right to food budget. An alternative method to national human rights-based budgeting is advocated in chapter one of this guide, where local and national forums offer comprehensive, representative and rights-compliant ‘strategies’, which could be costed to provide the true cost of the right to food (or health, education, water, housing, etc.).12

12 For more information about costing the right to food in Mozambique, please see “Costing Poverty Reduction Strategies: The Case of Food Security and Nutrition Interventions in Mozambique”, Santiago Goicoechea, in Alejandro Acosta, (2009), “Food Security Policy: Insights from Mozambique”, FAO. And FAO, 2009, Budget Work to Advance the Right to Food: Many a slip, FAO.


Realising any human right - civil, political, economic, social or cultural - requires resourcing to fund the necessary personnel, infrastructure and other prerequisites. Therefore, human rights enjoyment is greatly affected by government spending. While many civil society groups have been involved in human rights budgeting through monitoring, tracking or analysing budgets, not many organisations have actively assessed how much money should be spent to guarantee rights. In this paper, we have shown how organisations can use a diverse set of methods to measure the financial requirements of human rights policy, and to offer recommendations for future practice.

In chapter one, we placed ‘costing human rights’ within the wider context of frontloading human rights, defined as a methodological process that translates (inter)national human rights standards and obligations into the budget proposals required for effective implementation in public policy and budget cycles. This chapter offered a brief summary of Equalinrights’ conceptual framework to frontloading human rights (Steenbergen, 2011)., We also gave an overview of the main characteristics and obligations of human rights and we noted that to take sufficient account of human rights requirements, such as the participatory process and a need to identify the structural causes relating to limited realisation of marginalised groups, human rights-based costing should take place within the broader process of frontloading human rights.

In the chapter two, we began with an overview of key concepts and definitions in costing. Then we introduced two methods to conduct a cost analysis. The ‘ingredientsapproach’ identifies all goods and services required for an intervention as ‘ingredients’, and directly measures each element’s costs

before aggregating these to determine the total intervention cost. In ‘gross costing’, an intervention is divided into large components and these cost items are identified by scaling-down pre-existing information using administrative datasets. Next, we identified four steps that can guide the costing of a particular human rights policy or intervention. In conclusion, we offered two hypothetical rights-based costing exercises, to further elaborate the methods of costing human rights policies.

In chapter three, we illustrated how a number of organisations in a number of contexts have used different methodologies to undertake a rights-based costing exercise. Accounting for their methodological differences, we ‘grouped’ them, starting with three organisations employing a basic costing analysis, focusing on government providing additional goods or services. Subsequently, we considered costing studies from a private perspective, before studying the cost ofhumanrightslegislature. Lastly, we looked at two alternative costingexercises using miscellaneous methods to calculate human rights costs. This chapter showed how different methods are appropriate across human rights, and across context- and scale-specific elements of a human rights policy.

NextstepsIn the introduction, we noted how that this paper is, in some parts, closer to a methodological review than a step-by-step user guide to implement a human rights costing study. This is because there are large differences across human rights, across countries and across scales (local, district or national) that all deserve to be reflected in a truly comprehensive guide to the key questions to be addressed We noted how the production of context specific practical manuals could

Conclusion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


follow from applying the general guidelines found in this paper to particular human rights interventions. In the development of future rights-based costing manuals, a number of topics could be explicitly addressed.

Firstly, future costing guides could give a more detailed account of the unique characteristics of a particular human right. This paper offered only a brief introduction to core content and human rights-based process rights. Yet, there are different interpretations of these concepts for different human rights. Each human right has its own large field of literature with interpretations by experts, and suggestions to improve each human rights obligation. All of these will have implications for a rights-based costing process, the method of costing, and the elements to be costed within each human right. A guide to costing a particular human right would make a more in-depth analysis of these elements.

Similarly, the methods described in this guide to costing are drawn largely from the academic literature on costing studies not explicitly developed for the purpose of human rights. The extent to which this is a limitation is not immediately apparent. To what extent do process rights alter the calculations of intervention-costs? Some suggestions have been made in this guide to account for their costs and explicit inclusion, but these would greatly benefit from real-life examples. Do process costs make up a large share of the total intervention cost, or are they a relatively small component? What other methods can be devised to make conventional costing-studies more focused on the inclusion of human rights?

We finish by noting that the implementation of human rights standards guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and other international treaties are proving difficult to implement, not simply because of a lack of political will. It requires specifically targeted work to ‘translate’ these human rights into the language, tools and processes required for

their effective implementation in public policy, and national budget cycles (IHRIP, 2010).

In the first instance, there seems to be a fundamental distinction between the moral entitlements and aspirations articulated in human rights covenants, and the technical exercise of ‘costing’ personnel, infrastructure and other goods and services. In this paper, we hope to have shown that these two points are in fact closely related and have stressed the importance for civil society organisations to assist governments in providing human rights budget provisions that reflect the financial requirements of human rights policies. We express the hope that this Guide to Costing Human Rights offers at least some minor insights that will assist individuals, organisations and governments alike in realising the international human rights guarantees to human dignity for all.

Conclusion


• Alderman, H., Konde-Lule, J., Sebuliba, I., Bundy, D., Hall, A. (2006), Effect on weight gain of routinely giving albendazole to preschool children during child health days in Uganda: cluster randomised controlled trial’ New York: World Bank.

• Anderson, E. (2008), Using quantitative methods to monitor government obligations in terms of the rights to health and education’ New York: CESR.

• B.R. Luce, B.R., Manning, W.G., Siegel J.E., Lipscomb J. (1996), ‘Estimating Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis’ in Gold, M.R., Joanna E. and Siegel, J.E. (1996), Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Bailey, H., Foucade, A.D., Laptiste, C, Scott, E. Theodore, K., Beharry, V. (2009), Costing of Health programs in small island states: issues and challenges. St. Augustine: University of West Indies.

• Barberton, C. and Stuart, J. (2001), Re-Costing the Child Justice Bill: Updating the original costing taking into consideration changes made to the bill. Cape Town: AFReC,

• Barnett, P.G. (2009), Conducting the Cost Analysis: An Improved Set of Standards for Finding Cost for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Philadelphia: Medical Care, Volume 47, Number 7 Suppl. 1.

• Barnett, W. S., and Escobar, C. M. (1990), ‘Economic costs and benefits of early intervention’, In S. J. Meisels & J. P. Shonkoff, Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 560–582). New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Blyberg, A. (2009), The Case of the Mislaid Allocation: Allocation: Economic and Social Rights and Budget Work. São Paulo: International Journal on Human Rights, v. 6, n. 11, Dec. 2009.

• Brouwer W, Rutten F, Koopmanschap M (2001), ‘Costing in economic evaluations’. In Drummond M, McGuire A, Economic evaluation in health care. Merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p: 68-93.

• California Budget Project (2005), Making Ends Meet: How Much Does It Cost to Raise a Family in California? Sacramento: California Budget Project.

• CESCR, (1990), General Comment No. 3: The nature of states parties obligations.

• CESCR, (1991), General Comment No. 4: The right to adequate housing (Art. 11 of the Covenant).

• CESCR, (1999), General comment No. 12: The right to adequate food (Art. 11 of the Covenant).

• CESCR, (1999), General comment No. 13: The right to education (Art. 13 of the Covenant).

• CESCR, (2000), General comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health (Art. 12 of the Covenant).

• CESCR, (2002), General comment No. 15: The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant).

• Díaz, D. and Hofbauer, H. (2004), The Public Budget and Maternal Mortality in Mexico: An overview of the experience. Washington: Fundar.

• Dista, S. and Vicente, C. (2009), ‘Estimating the Potential GDP Losses due to Hunger in Mozambique’ in Acosta, A. Food Security Policy: Insights from Mozambique. Maputo: FAO.

• Ekwall, B. and Rosales, M. (2009), A Human Right: Obligations and Responsibilities. Geneva: FAO.

• FAO (2009), ‘Costing Poverty Reduction Strategies: The Case of Food Security and Nutrition Interventions in Mozambique’, in Acosta, A. (2009), Food Security Policy: Insights from Mozambique. Maputo: FAO.

• FAO (2009), Budget Work to Advance the Right to Food: Many a slip. Geneva: FAO.

• Fukuda-Parr, S., Lawson-Remer, T., and Randolph, S. (2008). Measuring the Progressive Realization of Human Rights Obligations: An Index of Economic and Social Rights Fulfilment. Storrs: University of Connecticut.

Bibliography

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


• Díaz Echeverría, D., Freyermuth Enciso, G., Meléndez Navarro, D.M., Castañeda Pérez, M.A., Reyes Zapata, H and Neri Méndez, C. (2006), Muerte Materna Y Presupuesto Público. Mexico City: Fundar

• Fundar, IBP, IHRIP, (2004), ‘Dignity Counts: A Guide to Using Budget Analysis to Advance Human Rights’. Washington: Fundar, IBP, IHRIP.

• Garza M. (2009), Civil Society Budget Analysis and Advocacy as a Tool for Maternal Health Accountability. Washington: International Budget Partnership.

• Garza, M. (2007), Combating Maternal Mortality from the Budget Frontline: civil society brings public budget accountability to the table at Women Deliver’. Washington: International Budget Partnership.

• Gender Responsive Budgeting Initiative (2005), Gender Responsive Budgeting: Opportunities for Civil Society. New York: UNIFEM.

• Habitat International Coalition, (2005), Housing and Land Rights Network Toolkit: Loss Matrix.

• Hakijamii, (2009), The People’s Budget: Priorities for Action in Nairobi and Kisumu People's Settlements. Nairobi: Hakijamii.

• Halabi, S.F (2009), Participation and the Right to Health: Lessons from Indonesia, Health and Human Rights, Vol. 11, no. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University.

• Hofbauer, H. and Garza, M. (2009), The missing link: Applied budget work as a tool to hold governments accountable for maternal mortality reduction commitments. Washington: International Budget Partnership.

• Hummel-Rossi, B., and Ashdown, J. (2002), The state of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses in education, Review of Educational Research, 72, 1–30. New York: New York University.

• ICEFI (2007), Más y Mejor educación en Guatemala (2008-2021) ¿Cuánto nos cuesta?Guatemala City: ICEFI.

• ICEFI (2009), Rights or Privileges: Fiscal commitment to the Rights to health, education

and Food in Guatemala. Guatemala City: ICEFI.

• IHRIP and IBP, (2010), Reading the books: Governments’ budgets and the right to education. Washington DC: IHRIP and IBP.

• Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, (2006), The JCTR Basic Needs Basket. Lusaka: Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection.

• Keith-Brown, K. (2004), Investing for life: making the link between public spending and the reduction of maternal mortality. Washington: Fundar and International Budget Partnership.

• Levin, H. M. (1981), Cost analysis’ In Smith N. ‘New techniques for evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

• Levin, H. M. (1983), ‘Cost-effectiveness: A primer’. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

• Levin, H. M. and McEwan, P. J. (2001), Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

• Luce B, Manning W, Siegel J, Lipscomb J (1996), Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis in Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M, cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, p.176-213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Maastricht, January 22-26, 1997. Maastricht: United Nations.

• Mogyorosy, Z. and Smith, P, (2005), The main methodological issues in costing health care services: A literature review. York: University of York.

• Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002), ‘How to figure the costs of professional development’. Journal of Staff Development, 23, 53–58, Dallas: National Staff Development Council.

• Oxford Advanced Learning Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Phillips M. and Huff-Rouselle M. (2001), ‘A Step-by-step Methodological Guide for Costing HIV/AIDS Activities’, Partnerships for Health Reform Project. Cambridge: ABT Associates Inc.

Bibliography

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


• Pogge, T. (2006), World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Porter, B. (2005), Toward a Comprehensive Framework for ESC Rights Practice, revised and updated version of 'The Crisis in ESC Rights and Strategies for Addressing It " in Bret Thiele and Malcolm Langford, eds., Litigation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The State of Play. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

• Potts, H. (2005), A Right to Participation in Public Health Strategy Development. Australia: Monash University.

• Potts, H. (2009), Participation and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Chelmsford: University of Essex.

• Schultz, J. (2002), Promises to Keep: Using Public Budgets as a Tool to Advance Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. IBP.

• SIWI. (2005), Making water a part of economic development: the economic benefits of improved water management and services. Stockholm: SIWI.

• Smith, M.W., Barnett, P.G. (2003), Direct Measurement of Health Care Costs, Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 60 No. 3, p.74-91. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• Tsang, M.C. (1988), Cost analysis for educational policymaking: a review of cost studies in education in developing countries. Review of Educational Research, Summer 1988, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 181-230. Michigan: Michigan State University.

• UNAIDS. (2000), Costing Guidelines for HIV Prevention Strategies. Geneva: UNAIDS.

• Vetten, L., Budlender, D. and Schneider, V. (2005), The Price of Protection: Costing the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act. Cape Town: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

• White, J.L, Elliott, S.N, Albers, C.A, Kratochwill, T.R. DiPerna, J.C., Roach A.T. (2005), Cost Analysis in Educational Decision Making: Approaches, Procedures, and Case Examples. WCER Working Paper No. 2005-1, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

• WHO (2001), Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for economic development. Geneva: World Health Organization

• WHO (2009), WHO guide to identifying the economic consequences of disease and injury’ Geneva: World Health Organization.

• Women’s Dignity (2008), Investing for Impact, Maternal Health Matters: Where is the Money for Delivery Kits? Women’s Dignity Policy Brief. Dar-es-Salaam: Women’s Dignity.

• Working group for children under six, (2007), Strategies for children under six. Mumbai: Economic & Political Weekly, December 29, 2007.

• Young, K. (2009), The minimum core content of economic and social rights: a concept in search of content. New Haven: The Yale Journal of International Law.

Bibliography

Costing is an important contribution to the existing tools of human rights advocacy. When a civil society organi-sation knows the implementation cost of a policy, it can claim human rights not only through policy, but also through a government’s budget allocations to advance the necessary policies, plans and programmes to realize human rights. When we know what resources are required, we also know when a government’s actions are in-adequate, thereby offering a strong basis for evidence-based human rights advocacy.

This paper aims to improve the ability of civil society organisations to perform costing exercises for human rights policy by:

• Giving an overview of key concepts and definitions relevant to costing human rights policy• Outlining steps that every human rights costing analysis should undertake• Using case-studies of human rights organisations applying costing in their advocacy

The paper places ‘costing’ within the wider process of ‘frontloading’ human rights, defined as the methodology to translate human rights into budget proposals required for implementation in public policy and budget cycles. As such, its underlying methods and assumptions are based on Equalinrights’ ‘Frontloading Human Rights: a Con-ceptual Framework’ (Steenbergen, 2011), published along with this document. Written as an introduction for civil society organisations interested in human rights budget work, with particular focus on calculating the cost of a human rights policy or intervention, it is intended for people who may not have any experience of costing and does not require a background in economics or accounting.

a guide to costing human rights - save the children's · 1.5 the role of costing within the...

Documents