Session co-organized by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights with OHCHR SEARO, with support from UNDP Brief description of the session: After a decade of implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), national action plans on business and human rights (NAPs) have increasingly become a mainstay in efforts to promote business and human rights (BHR) in the Asia-Pacific region. Thus far, nine countries have adopted a NAP or similar document. But as civic spaces continue to recede in this region, are these NAPs truly enough to help ensure that business-related human rights abuses are being systematically addressed and prevented? How can NAPs be implemented in ‘hard’ places to ensure that ‘rights-washing’ – whereupon NAPs simply become a box-ticking exercise for States and businesses – does not happen? Will real implementation only happen once mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) measures are put in place? And how can the third pillar of the UNGPs – access to remedy – be better integrated into the design and execution of these plans?
This session brings together experts and practitioners of BHR to assess the effectiveness of NAPs in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as discuss the progress made and challenges that remain in terms of their implementation. Further, speakers will reflect on positive practices that should guide how NAPs are developed, implemented, and enforced. The session will be conducted in a ‘fireside chat’ format, such that speakers are asked to provide frank responses to a series of trigger questions and interactive engagement with the audience will be prioritized.
Key questions: - To what extent are the NAPs that have been developed or which are developing in the region aligned with the UNGPs and other key international instruments such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct and the ILO’s MNE Declaration and International Labour Standards?
- How can genuine multi-stakeholder dialogue and participation, including of stakeholders at the grassroots level, be effectively ensured in NAP development and implementation processes?
- When should NAPs be updated and revised? Are there good practices or lessons learned that can be drawn upon in the revision of the NAPs?
- How can ‘rights-washing’ be prevented in the development and implementation of NAPs in the Asia-Pacific region?
- How can we know if a NAP has succeeded or failed?
Additional background documents:
