The International Human Rights Law Outreach Program "IHRLOP" The American University in Cairo School of Continuing Education Project Evaluation Report November 2009 Evaluator: Hany Ibrahim Resources for Development Center http://www.rdc-consulting.org CONTENTS 0 Abbreviations 3 1 Executive Summary 4 2 Evaluator 8 3 Introduction, Background and Context 9 3.1 Project Overall Goal 11 3.2 Objective 1 11 3.3 Objective 2 11 3.4 Objective 3 11 3.5 Objective 4 11 4 Target Beneficiaries 12 5 Evaluation Scope and Objectives 12 5.1 Evaluation Objectives 12 5.2 Major Questions 13 5.2.1 Questions regarding implementation process 13 5.2.2 Questions regarding outcomes 13 5.2.3 Questions regarding impact 13 6 Methodology 14 6.1 Desk Review 14 6.2 Interviews with Project Staff 14 6.3 Focus Groups 15 6.4 Interviews with some of the Resource Persons 15 7 Findings 16 7.1 Training Methodology and Content 16 7.2 Training Programs 16 7.3 Target /Reached 17 7.4 Participants in each phase of the project 17 7.5 Basic Courses 18 7.5.1 Participants in Basic I and II trainings 18 7.5.2 Participants in Basic I and II trainings by Institution 18 7.5.3 University Representation in Basic I and II. 19 7.6 Resource Persons / Advanced trainings 20 7.6.1 Participants in Advanced 1 and 2 by Institution 20 7.6.2 University Representation Advanced 1 and 2 20 7.7 Human Rights Camps and Final Forum 22 7.8 Networking 22 7.9 Human Rights Teaching 24 7.10 Advocating Human Rights on the Ground 26 7.11 Project Management Scheme and Performance 26 8 Conclusion 27 9 Recommendations 29 10 List of Annexure 30 10-1 Annex I: Terms of Reference 31 10-2 Annex II: Program of Meetings and Interview 32 10-3 Annex III: IHRLOP Staff Interviewed 33 10-4 Annex IV: List of Participants in Interview "Academic Staff" Groups A & B 34 10-5 Annex V: Background and context 38 1 10-6 Annex VI. Training Content 44 10-7 Annex VII. List of Resource Persons 48 10.8 Annex VIII. IHRLOP Management Roles and Responsibilities 51 2 Abbreviations AUC American University in Cairo SCE School of Continuing Education VP Vice President NICRA Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement USAID United States of America Agency International Development IHRLOP International Human Rights Law Outreach Program NDP National Democratic Party UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICESCR International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child NHRI National Human Rights Institutions e.g. National Council for Human Rights Egypt. CSO Civil Society Organization NGO Non Government Organization UN United Nations TOT Training of the Trainer QAAP Quality Assurance and Accreditation process 3 Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an external evaluation of the three year International Human Rights Law Outreach Program "IHRLOP". The project, which ran from September 26, 2006 to September 2009, was located within the School of Continuing Education of the American University in Cairo, and funded by the United States International Development Agency USAID/ Egypt Mission, Democracy and Governance Office. The cost of the three year project was $1,005,356. The overall goal of the project was: “…to create an improved enabling environment for the protection of human rights within selected faculties of Egyptian universities. The means to achieve this goal is an extensive program of human rights training of faculties in selected Egyptian universities.” The project is a pioneering activity in teaching human rights within the universities through qualified academic staff. Over decades, human rights have been introduced only to students of schools of law. The decision made by the Supreme Council of Universities to teach human rights in all universities and to all faculties created an unprecedented opportunity to teach human rights to students and make a national trend towards respecting and protecting human rights. Unfortunately, Egyptian human rights organizations and many international organizations failed to access universities and provide awareness and advocacy skills due to security skepticism. IHRLOP benefited from the reputation of AUC and from a USAID fund to access up to 19 faculties and teach their staff many human rights topics in addition to skills required for designing human rights programs and transferring the concepts into action within their communities. The technical approach used by the project was to train academic staff ranging from a vice president to deans to demonstrators to receive trainings on human rights through different levels (basic course I, basic course II, advanced course 1, and advanced course 2) with a final level designing appropriate human rights curriculum materials. The first two levels were introduced to 447 participants in basic course 1 and to 319 participants in basic course II while the two advanced courses and the final curriculum training were provided to 88 participants who were selected according to their merits. One of the significant new training tools was the introduction of advanced internet searching in the first basic I course. While concentrating on searching human rights sites it also included sites with free access to academic materials and journals as well as a segment on blogging which academics found useful as a medium for their academic pursuits. Participants would thereafter often use these skills for research prior to IHRLOP trainings as "background readings" on the topics. Through this tool, two outcomes were achieved: (1) participants had increased their internet searching skills and (2) participants have increased their knowledge about human rights. This methodology led also to increased interaction between the trainees and their facilitators. 4 The group of 88 participants were titled "resource persons" because they received advanced skills and knowledge to empower them to be references/resources for their colleagues and human rights activities when they need supporting sources for human rights education or human rights protection. Resource persons became leaders for developing human rights curricula, and for leading community based actions for respecting and protecting human rights. Moreover, they are the leading force for creating an enabling environment for human rights protection "the overall goal of the project" within their faculties and their communities. The training methodology combines theoretical and practical chapters. The major human rights declarations and conventions were introduced. TOT skills, critical thinking, constituency building, institutional building, and designing human rights programs are some topics among many others that were delivered through the training programs. The training depends on a dynamic training approach where action learning, facilitation, coaching, participative techniques and case studies shaped the sessions delivered. The objectives of the evaluation were to identify outcomes of the project1 ; to examine the effectiveness of the interventions, management practice, and implementation in general; and to investigate the potential for sustaining the activities that were implemented. The latter is an especially important aspect of the evaluation given that there is a readiness from the IHRLOP leading staff for reaching out to more academic institutions. The evaluation is focused on appraising the results and outputs of the training programs and technical assistance provided to the academic staff of selected Egyptian universities over the three phases of the project. More focus is paid to the group named "resource persons" because they are identified as the core elements of the project sustainability. The resource persons are going to continue in delivering trainings on human rights and lead the process of developing and delivering human rights curricula on their campuses. The evaluation methodology contains several components: (1) review of existing projects documents (project appraisal, agreement with USAID, registration forms, training handouts and documents, training topics…etc), (2) consultations with project's staff, (3) interview with selected members of resource persons, (4) focus group discussions with the group of resource persons, and (5) quarterly reports review. The evaluation came to a conclusion that the project achieved its specific objectives. In phase one, 447 participants were trained comparing to the targeted number 400 participants in the proposal. The trainings ended up with 88 resource persons while it was 80 resource persons targeted in the proposal. The most significant outcome of IHRLOP is the networking created between and among faculties. The project motivated participants to advocate human rights by lobbying and leading joint actions instead of working separately and in a scattered manner. Some alumni established NGOs while others led joint projects to teach human rights in 1 In re-developing the Evaluation Terms of Reference during the discussions with the project staff, other objectives were set such as to what extent the trainers without a PhD could affect the behavior and knowledge of the trainees who hold PhD degrees. Another example how those professors perceive the training topics? Such specific objectives are included in the broader objectives of the evaluation. 5 campus or in community organizations. Regarding developing human rights curricula, some alumni from Port Said Branch of Suez University managed to develop their curriculum to teach it to students of educational faculties. Although developing human rights curricula is still a privilege to schools of law, participation of senior leaders of the academia and the support received from others paved the path to alumni to be included in the ad hoc committees assigned to the mission of developing human rights curricula according to the need of each faculty. Significantly, the level of behavioral change occurred to the participants. Many of the interviewees reported that their relations with colleagues and students have been changed in favor of respecting the others' rights. While this change commenced at a individual level it expanded into the university and community as topics were completed and skills increased, frequently becoming joint activities as networks developed. Networking was identified as a successful outcome of IHRLOP trainings. This networking apart from the efforts among participants themselves also broadened into ones encompassing the external trainers and human rights organizations. There was anecdotal evidence of more structured civil society activities, of increased trainings, consultancy work and publications. This reflects the willingness of the many and sometimes disparate parties, both government and nongovernment, to collaborate in protecting and spreading a human rights culture. Over the past five decades, the academia was totally isolated and excluded officially from being contacted by human rights groups. IHRLOP succeeded in bridging the gap in this sense. IHRLOP faced several challenges at different levels of its operations. While the training program necessarily had to cover key international instruments to allow structured discussion within a legal and international context, this sometimes suffered in comparison with the topics perceived as more immediately relevant general human rights areas or skills sessions. Some participants of the evaluation sessions held at the end of the project found that the basic courses I and II could have been pre-designed in a way where knowledge and skills aspects of the training took equal weights. These are matters that IHRLOP can reflect on and take action they desire. The second challenge was one of communication between the project and its beneficiaries. Some participants in evaluation sessions claimed a lack of clarity about project objectives and this when combined relationship of the project to American interventions and other false stories created an environment of skepticism and rumors. This had been fixed during the first trainings after the participants tested the topics and established more personal dialogue with project staff. Additionally some did not fully understand the staged progress through all trainings. This again is something IHRLOP needs to factor into its program delivery. Two further challenges in particular have faced the project during its implementation and will have implications for continuing IHRLOP operations. The third is the lack of an organized systematic national support of human rights education within Egypt. The Supreme Council of Universities issued a decree for teaching human rights to all faculties regardless of their specification and implementation it has largely been left to individual universities as to style 6 and content. Where IHRLOP conducted its trainings it found positive university administrations keen to establish a human rights culture within the university. Once training was commenced and further into the program which coincided with the universities’ individual and collective Quality Assurance and Accreditation Process, there was a more symbiotic relationship. In future, it is recommended that the project dedicate some of its resources and plans to continue to encourage teaching human rights as a mission for their academic institutions. The fourth challenge related to the structure of the project within AUC. The project existed solely due to its project funding and status, not being organizationally within a division or department. While use of the brand logo and name was advantages to both parties this affiliation was fragile leading to a feeling that the project was separated from the AUC structure. One of the strengths of any project is its affiliation to an organization with attendant support and collegiate benefits, and while organizationally located within the VP SCE whose support and nurturing was appreciated and necessary IHRLOP was found to be isolated and not integrated within the AUC portfolio as it was supposed to be. Moreover the financial hierarchy of AUC implemented 12 month backdated indirect cost burden (NICRA of 23% of salaries added to 58% of direct costs) on the project in its last three months of operations leading to a deficit budget although all activities were completed on time and within the original budget. Finally, the evaluator concluded with some recommendations for the future: (1) the project is very important for human rights education and it must be continued by targeting new faculties and new geographical areas; (2) the future project needs to have a component for building, strengthening, entrenching the capacity of human rights within universities or NGOs that are already established by alumni of current projects; (3) where such entrenched entities exist such as human rights centers or human rights coordinators, a formal network be created affiliated with the universities; (4) USAID and other international donors should cooperate with Egyptian active players to frame a long term strategy for human rights education and application in Egypt. The strategy should drive all funded programs in this regard. The strategy must have milestones and measurable indicators; (5) Coordination between donors and active NGOs and human rights organizations must be done to avoid duplication and waste of resources. This coordination will lead to maximization of current and future programs; (6) universities should establish watchdog units for violence against human rights; and (7) protective measures and policies for human rights must be engendered in education curricular and universities administrations. 7 Evaluator: Hany Ibrahim is an Egyptian professional in the areas of community development, good governance, project management and evaluation, capacity building, and institutionalization. He holds a Master Degree in Public Policy and Administration from the American University in Cairo. He has more than ten years of experience, working with national and international organizations such as CARE International, Catholic Relief Services, and the International Republican Institute. He is the Award Winner of 2009 Award of the Ten Top People Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics given by Politicsonline and World E￾Democracy Forum due to his online creative activities in the areas of voters' education, peace building, and anticorruption. He speaks Arabic, English, and German. He is the co-founder of El-Mashreq Foundation for Development and Population an Egyptian NGO and the founder of the Development Resource Center a think tank consultancy organization. Contact details: hibrahim@aucegypt.edu and hibrahim@rdc-consulting.org To get a soft copy of this report visit: http://www.rdc-consulting.org The evaluator places on record his appreciation of the following persons who have contributed to this report, Anthon Thabet and Hisham Abdel Aziz from RDC Resource and Development Centre who provided much needed effort with the large volume of materials under examination; the contributions of time their observations of training activities by Dr Enid Hill and Heather Gillies of IHRLOP was of real assistance to the evaluator. 8 Introduction, Background and Context: It is important to understand the context in which the International Human Rights Law Outreach Program (IHRLOP) had been planned and implemented. There was a movement by the government of Egypt to mainstream the creation of human rights with the establishment of the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR) in 2003 and on the 19 April 2004, the Supreme Council for Universities mandated all Egyptian universities to teach three prescribed sections of a compulsory course on human rights with a fourth section left to the discretion of each faculty according to their respective areas of specialization. This summary to the background and context of IHRLOP highlights three major areas affecting the project during its implementation: (1) the political changes and developments occurred to the constitution; (2) the rise of the internal human rights groups and pro democracy activists; and (3) the increasing of capacity building programs targeting Egyptian universities and the higher academic institutions. For a more detailed analysis of the context refer to Appendix V. 1. The political changes and developments occurred to the constitution; 1) For the first time in Egypt's history, a newly-established Parliamentary Elections Committee presided over by the Minister of Justice, not the Interior, was to supervise the election process through all stages. 2) The Parliamentary Elections Committee permitted election observation by civil society following an initial reluctance. 3) The elections witnessed the largest gain for independents since the establishment of the multi-party system in 1976. 4) The most pronounced outcome of the elections was the retreat of the left. 2. The rise of the internal human rights groups and pro democracy activists; Three factors lie behind the social tensions that erupted in late 2007 and early 2008. Primary amongst them was the global food crisis at that time. 1) The unprecedented inflation rates resulting from the 2007/8 crisis, along with rising oil prices, had pushed many families below subsistence and into debt. 2) The absence of a feeling of "ownership" over policy-making. 3) The regular reporting on human rights abuses conducted by state officers. The aforementioned factors lead to a rise in social strife that culminated in a general strike on the 6th of April, 2008. Political analysts have identified some common characteristics that differentiate these events from earlier uprisings known to the regime from the 70s and 80s. Among these are: 9 • The new uprisings took everyone in the political scene, by surprise. They represented a rebellion against the decision-making process and the relegation of labor to a minor role and a disconnection between labor and their “elected” representatives following failure to contain the discontent. • The compartmentalization of the incidents. Previously, uprisings used to be instigated by central actors such as political parties or opposition groups. The events of 2007- 2008 were discrete and disconnected save for an inspirational/moral effect where the government’s response to one group’s demands incentivizes others to peruse similar action in hope of making similar gains. • The uprisings were led and organized by inexperienced individuals, yet they were quickly able to develop their organization and negotiation skills to extract favorable terms from the government. • These uprisings witnessed the empowerment of previously disenfranchised strata of the community. Youth and women took the center stage in the process. • The most successful of protests were those that developed gradually instead of sporadically. • The demands of this new generation of protests were partial, reasonable, achievable, and apolitical. They never went beyond calls appropriate actions such the payment of late remunerations, better work conditions, proper healthcare and transport, and the removal of corrupt or inept administrations. The apolitical nature of the protests showed they were not directed against the regime per se. 3. The increasing of capacity building programs targeting Egyptian universities and the higher academic institutions. Unrest was common among educators too. Instructors of the Islamic parallel educational system run by al-Azhar Mosque abstained from all work till they were incorporated in the Instructors Cadre. Lecturers at Cairo University also held sit-ins calling for the rolling-back the educational reforms implemented in 2003 that cap instructor remunerations and mandate early retirement for untenured faculty. One government response was the establishment of the Quality Assurance and Accreditation process (QAAP) within the Egyptian higher education institutes in 2007. This process was being incorporated into university activities as the HRLOP training program was underway. Two further projects were evident at the time; the Higher Education Enhancement Project fund (HEEPF) which was a mechanism within the national Higher Education Enhancement Strategic Plan (HEEP) an active strategy for the implementation of the strategic plan of continuous higher education enhancement through competitive mechanisms to achieve distinction on Egyptian education institutions and upgrade them to reach the international standards. The second was the National centre for Faculty and Leadership Development (NCFLD) established in the Ministry of Higher Education as one of the Higher Education Enhancement projects. Aimed at professionally developing human resources both academic and administrative it focuses on the fields of teaching, research, leadership and societal services. 10 3.1 Project Goal and Objectives 3.1 Project Overall Goal To create an improved enabling environment for the protection of human rights within selected faculties and universities of Egypt. 3.2 Objective 1 To provide basic human rights training for 20 Egyptian faculties to enable construction of the human rights curriculum. At least 400 persons are projected to be trained in these sessions. 3.3 Objective 2 To intensify training for potential members of ‘focal groups’ in each faculty chosen from those participating in the basic training, to prepare them to undertake leadership roles, and to equip them to be ‘resource’ persons in their respective faculties transferable to the larger civil society. 3.4 Objective 3 To stimulate networking between and among faculties by those trained within the respective faculties with further training designed to assist them with the formation of inter-faculty, cross-faculty, and cross-university human rights promotion and protection groups. 3.5 Objective 4 To motivate and encourage civil society volunteerism and further promotion of human rights natural leadership and advocacy within the university and civil society organizations. 11 4 Target Beneficiaries University faculty and staff were identified as the target beneficiaries with the focus on those who taught the mandatory human rights courses at the universities. In practice it was the universities who identified people for the trainings and IHRLOP had little control over the participant base in most universities. Consequently the participant bases varied from university to university but included one vice president, several deans and vice deans, and a mix of junior and senior faculty and one administrator. One faculty underrepresented was law which is the faculty which generally teaches the mandatory human rights courses. This had a varied result, one campus Port Said had no law school but IHRLOP had among the participants the four persons who taught the courses on that university campus. On Ismailia campus the teaching of the courses were contracted out to another university and after the IHRLOP training the alumni were to take over this role and teach on that campus. Four hundred participants was the target number but 447 were trained in basic I and 319 in the basic II trainings. From this cohort 80 were to be identified as having the potential leadership skills, the time, commitment and energy to participate in advanced and skills trainings with a final training on curriculum building. In all 88 such participants, named resource persons, were identified and undertook the trainings. These resource persons completed 142 hour of trainings overall and comprised a mix of faculties, ages and gender. 5 Evaluation Scope and Objectives The ultimate objective of this evaluation is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the project implementation and the impact and replicability of its deliverables. The replicability and sustainability issue of this project is especially important given that Egyptian academia is willing to have its human rights curricula according to the decree of the Supreme Council of Universities. In addition to the above objective, the evaluation assesses the structure of the project and its validity to other Egyptian pro democracy and human rights organizations. 5.1 Objectives of the evaluation: The main objectives of this evaluation, according to the TOR between the IHRLOP and the evaluator, are: 1. To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project planning, implementation, and follow-up. 2. To examine the extent to which the alumni of the training programs could apply knowledge and skills, they gained from the training, in their academic institutions. 3. To draw conclusions regarding project's strengthens and weaknesses, and to recommend methodologies and tools that will help the academic in strengthening practices of human rights within campuses and to ensure the sustainability of human rights education in various schools. 12 5.2 Major Questions: The ToR of the evaluation developed three groups of questions. Each group investigated one main aspect of the evaluation. The first group of questions examined the quality of the implementation process, the project's objectives, and the sequences of the activities. The second group of questions investigated project's outcomes, their relevance to objectives, and the unexpected results. The third group of questions goes deeper to investigate the impact, replicability, and sustainability of the project. 5.2.1 Questions regarding implementation process: • Were project objectives met through the different phases? Were they met on time as scheduled? What were the main project-management problems faced during each phase? • What were the criteria for faculties and university administrators to become selected for the training programs? How many faculty members were selected in each phase? How many university administrators were selected in each phase? How many universities were represented in the trainings? How many schools were represented? To what extent the participants represent a diversity of educational backgrounds? • How efficient was the management of the project? Is it participatory, flexible and adaptable to the changing environment? What approaches and techniques are used to monitor the projects’ implementation - progress and constraints? Which of them proved to be successful and which failed over the projects’ duration? Does the management system lack of some standard tools for monitoring (e.g. record for each activity with details about participants, cost, feedback about the effect of provided services, etc.)? 5.2.2 Questions regarding outcomes: • How smooth was the process of moving from basic I to basic II to the advanced courses and to what extent do these phases reflect project's objectives? To what extent were the objectives, set in each phase, achieved? Which expectations were not met? Why? • What types of actions were taken by alumni to improve education of human rights in their universities? What are the deliverables of those actions? How effective were those actions? To what extent the administrations of universities accepted or rejected such actions? How did students of the academic institutions receive those actions? To what extent did the students get involved? • Is there any kind of coalitions or networks developed among the alumni/ universities/ faculties? How effective are they in regard to the respect and education of human rights in academia? Did they lead to joint actions or projects? • Did any of the alumni develop a human rights curriculum? Did that curriculum benefit from the training content of IHRLOP? To what extent that curriculum is used and adopted by his or her academic institution? 5.2.3 Questions regarding impact: • What are issues of human rights adopted by the participants? Why those issues in particular? What are the reflections on the ground? To what extent those issues make real improvements in the current status of human rights in the Egyptian universities? • What is the overall impact of the project? Does it make a real difference for academia? In 13 what sense? Did any effects not originally envisaged, both positive and negative, occur? • How can sustainability of the project at large be ensured after IHRLOP/AUC's and donor’s withdrawal? Is the academia capacity developed enough to administer it after the donor’s and IHRLOP/AUC's withdrawal? What were the weakest points in the course of the project’s implementation that might hamper the continuation? Can the project be replicated with other academic institutions or NGOs? To what extent? What are the examples already exit which give indicators for such replicability? 6 Methodology To evaluate the activities, outputs and organizations of the project the evaluator performed a number of tasks, including: 6.1 Desk Review The evaluator acquired a large amount of the important documents that were generated along the three year lifespan of the project. Some documents related to the previous phases were also obtained. Studying these documents helped in formulating a picture of how the project was conducted, albeit a partial one of course, as it does not indicate some of the important qualities that are not reflected in documentary evidence. The documents surveyed included: • The Project Proposal; • The agreement with USAID; • Progress quarterly reports; • Annual reports; • Training handouts and manuals; • Various training evaluation forms; • Project files kept in IHRLOP/ AUC 6.2 Interviews with project staff: The evaluator held several meetings with key staff members to investigate their impressions and their contributions to the fulfillment of the project's overall objective. In addition to the meeting with all the staff members, several individual discussions had been held between the evaluator and the staff: •Heather Gilles, project director •Islam Lotfy, executive manager •Mohamed Elwi, trainer •Tarek Beltagy, part time trainer An interview also had been conducted with Hisham Marei the senior clerk who was in charge of the logistics. Hisham is considered as a case for behavioral change. He was empowered through listening to lectures and training discussions. In his residential area, ordinary citizens deal with him as a master of knowledge. Hisham reported that it was thanks to the project, he enjoyed such a good position within his community. 14 After submitting the first draft, an interview was conducted with Dr. Enid Hill the program's principal investigator on November 16, 2009. Dr. Enid gave valuable contributions regarding the impact of the project. She discussed the NICRA issue and sequences of findings for this evaluation report. 6.3 Focus Groups: Four focus group discussions had been conducted with resource persons participating in the Alexandria Human Rights Camps between July 18 and July 27, 2009. The participants were divided into four groups. Two groups represented the faculties of humanities while the other two groups represented the faculties of sciences. The focus group discussions are the main source of information excerpted from the beneficiaries regarding the projects' outcomes and impacts. The participants, named resource persons, gave responses to a pre-designed questionnaire. Questions and discussions focused mainly on the objectives of the project; the training content; the training methodologies; the reflections of the trainings on academic life; the extent of behavioral change; and the planning for the future. Responses were collected and documented by the evaluator. For the list of participants in those focus group discussions, please see Annex IV. 6.4 Interviews with some of the Resource Persons: Individual interviews were conducted with some select resource persons who participated in Alexandria Human Rights Camps between July 18 and July 27, 2009. Interviews filled the gap of some personal impressions and reflections for the project sequences and flow of activities. Much appreciation is given to Dr. Tulip Abdel Hamid Assistant Professor of Veterinaries and Environment at Banha University for her valuable written contribution in the evaluation of the project. In her evaluation, she stated she believes that junior professors and assistants to professors are in need of such programs more than professors because assistants are in direct contact with students who are the ultimate target audience of human rights education within Egyptian universities. 15 7 Findings 7.1 Training Methodology and Content Training on Human Rights is the core activity of the project. Over the four phases, the training represents the daily life activity of the management and the recipient. Training content has been developed gradually over the lifetime of IHRLOP and adapted again for this group, while the selection of the participants for each phase has been developed according to many factors. In first phase, universities played the major role in nominating participants to basic I and basic II courses while the advanced courses, IHRLOP staff identified the participants according to preset criteria such as participants' performance during the trainings and the responses given to IHRLOP questionnaires. 7.2 Training Programs The training program in human rights contained several skills units to allow those who undertook the workshops to be well placed to use the same techniques when they themselves undertook trainings. PowerPoint presentations used by IHRLOP were also made available to all participants on CD which also included the workshop papers, additional readings and internet sites for further research. This was provided to all participants in all courses both basic and advanced. The topic areas were chosen for initial basic understanding as well as topical areas within the human rights framework but avoiding areas which were already being addressed by others. A full outline of all topics offered in the training is at Annex VI. For those resource persons who undertook all sessions it was 142 training hours. The following diagram lists the numbers of all participants in 5 of the workshops and the Final Forum and their university. Participants University Basic II Basic I Advanced Course-1 Advanced Course-2 Human Rights Camps Final Forum 12 14 56 81 Asyut 17 17 77 94 Tanta Suez Canal 37 37 107 145 3 3 11 19 Helwan 8 8 41 49 Zagazig 10 10 27 37 Banha 0 0 0 22 Alexandria 85 82 87 89 319 447 Total 16 7.3 Target / Reached The target group was an estimated 400 persons but 447 persons were trained in the basic trainings. There was unmet demand in several universities but the objective was to identify the resource persons in the basic trainings to continue the trainings in their universities following the advanced skills workshops. 7.4 Participants in each Phase of the Project 17 7.5 Basic Courses: 7.5.1 Participants in Basic I and Basic II Courses: Seven universities comprising 9 campuses completed the trainings. The numbers proceeding from basic I to basic II showed a dropout rate which was expected and is also indicative of the numbers training in each university. For example there were two groups training in Banha university while Asyut and Tanta had three groups raining and the numbers were higher in these, with groups averaging 25 while in Banha the average was closer to 18. With the Suez Canal University, given the specializations within the university in the three campuses, two groups were trained in each campus. The overall total for that university is correspondingly higher. In the case of Zagazig only the Physical Education faculties took part and with Helwan on the female faculty of the Physical Education took part. 7.5.2 Participants of Basic I and Basic II according to their academic institutions 18 7.5.3 Universities' representation in Basic I and Basic II Courses: 19 7.6 Resource Persons "Advanced trainings": 7.6.1 Participants of Advanced 1 and Advanced 2 trainings according to their academic institutions. Refer to the above comments on the break-up of trainings within universities. Suez Canal university show larger numbers as there were two groups on each campus trained (total 6 groups) compared with two groups in Banha University or three groups in Tanta University. Alexandria only completed one group in Basic I and could not be rescheduled within the time of the grant period. The resource persons advanced skills trainings were held over two months with 4 groups in each training. The resource persons were divided into groups that mixed them between universities in the March trainings and into another mix which was regional in focus for the April training. This gave participants an opportunity to mix across universities in March and regroup into a regional university grouping in April. 7.6.2 Universities' representation in advanced trainings 1 and 2: Basics versus Advanced Courses As mentioned above the chart reflects representation but it needs to be understood that the numbers of trainings in universities reflect greater numbers for example in the Suez Canal university there was two trainings on each campus (3) and in Tanta and Asyut universities three trainings in one university -while Alexandria could not rescheduled after the completion of Basic I and with Zagazig and Helwan only one faculty, Physical Education, receiving the IHRLOP training. 20 21 7.7 Human Rights Camps & Final Forum: The human rights camps were attended by resource persons and the emphasis was on curriculum building within the scientific and humanities faculties. Six of the resource persons were out of Egypt on academic duties and could not attend. The Final Forum attracted 198 persons representing civil society, embassies, international organizations as well as 85 resource persons. Resource persons presented success stories arising out of the IHRLOP project. 7.8 Networking The extent of networking among participants and between schools of the same universities is a remarkable outcome of the IHRLOP project. Training sessions and avenues provided those identified as resource persons with opportunities to be linked in the advanced courses. In early courses basic I and II, networking was less important. However, some participants from the resource persons group reported during the evaluation sessions that they knew some of their colleagues better and they were connected by some new colleagues who are working in the same university but whom they did not know prior to the trainings. In reviewing IHRLOP reports, some specific activities were found to enable participants to network and expand their resources: IHRLOP mixed faculties and universities in the groups that were formed as a built-in feature of the advanced training. This meant people mixed across the faculties of their universities and between and among the faculties of different universities, and again by discipline in the human rights camps. Basic I and II training groups interacted only with the people from the same university and often from the same or a sister 22 faculty. In the Advanced training, the Resource persons were taken in small groups of four to meet with a similar group from other universities (up to 20 people), then in the second Advanced training, groups were remixed across university faculties as well as regionally. In the Human Rights Camps, another remixing took place into science and humanities faculties. In the Final Forum, the Resource persons all came together for the first time and most gave presentations, divided as simultaneous sessions of sciences and humanities. A description of some examples of the type of networking that evolved is as follows: A professor from school of education in Asyut University reported that she met with some participants who are affiliated to school of law in the same university. During the training workshops held in Ain Sukhna, she could strengthen her ties with those professors. When she started to develop a handout about basic human rights for women, she received a great help in developing the content. She believes that the content of her handout would never be in such quality without the contributions of their new colleagues. Another group of professors from Suez University reported that they first met in the training workshops although they spent more the ten years in the same campus. They agreed to help each other in holding seminars and workshops on human rights at large. In Ismailia, some already members in one of the NGOs, found that it is valuable for their NGO to invite their new colleagues to participate and get involved in community events in which they use to foster the culture of human rights. In Port Said, a professor in Kindergarten Education reported that she reviewed and edited her children's rights curriculum through collaborating with her new colleagues who provided her with comments and new ideas for additional chapters. Without networking and cooperation, I would never get that curriculum full and complete she emphasized. On the other hand, some of the interviewees criticized the level of efforts given by the participants to be linked and communicated. They found that during the training, communications between and among different groups became strong and constructive and very promising, but it doesn't continue once they return back to their schools and universities. Two reasons were found for the lack of sustainability of networking. The first one, some of the participants are missing the goal of being networking. One of them said that if we have a common goal, we would keep in contact. Trainees, found to belong to the same community, have the potential to keep in contact and exchange information and experiences. The second reason is that there are insufficient funds allocated to networking events. Contact lists with information were circulated by IHRLOP team after each training workshop. Follow-up meetings and joint projects were recommended by the participants. That was beyond the scope and available resources of IHRLOP. However, the evaluator finds that joint projects should be developed and funded by universities through requests from the participants. From the knowledge of the evaluator, there are available funds for cooperation and joint activities between schools and universities, but such funds need to be earmarked and well-directed to be successful. 23 New technologies and new social media provide a solution for the lack of networking and continuing communication. Some participants with IHRLOP created their own Facebook group. Others exchanged email lists and keep in contact via emails. The evaluator recommends that in designing future programs like this one under the evaluation, that activities and funds must be allocated for networking and sustainability issues. Trainees should receive one or more chapters in using the new social media tools like Facebook, blogs, MySpace, Dig, twitter…etc to increase networking and communication between and among different groups of trainees. 7.9 Human Rights Teaching Improving human rights teaching and creating participant-friendly human rights curricula are the ultimate end of the project. Activities delivered to building the capacity of selected faculties of some of Egyptian universities were designed to fulfill this ultimate end. The review of activities and structure of the project show that capacity building focused on the individual level not the institutional level. Although this leads to a direct quick impact on the process of human rights teaching, it doesn't help in sustaining the impact after the end of the grant. Mechanisms to enhance institutional human rights teaching and ownership were not part of the project design from the beginning and not a failure in implementation phase. IHRLOP exerted efforts in creating an environment where participants can gain new skills and enhance their already existing ones in teaching and designing human rights curricula. Supportive skills such as critical thinking, institutional and constituency building in addition to a wide range of human rights topics such as torture, human trafficking, CEDAW, and academic freedoms and responsibilities were part of the training skills and knowledge building activities. Technically, the training covered five types/ levels of human rights training conducted over a period of three years. Resource persons identified for advanced trainings completed 142 training hours altogether. Annex VI gives details of all topics covered. Basic I human rights training: Thirty hours of training, with a target of up to 400 plus individuals from the university faculties. This training provided an understanding of the international human rights system and of the international covenants and other instruments, and also included national and regional provisions and institutions that define and specify how such rights are to be implemented and can be protected. Advanced internet searching was introduced as a skill. Basic 11 training: Twenty-eight hours follow-up training centered on human rights advocacy and covered an extended spread of issues and international mechanisms that set standards for human rights protection. Skills units were also introduced at this time which included team building and group participation. The persons participating in these two trainings were invited to identify themselves as being interested in becoming resource persons who would then continue the training with additional advanced sessions and skills training. 24 Resource persons: This terminology was used for those persons identified as having the interest, enthusiasm and leadership potential to continue offering IHRLOP human rights training within their universities for whom IHRLOP would provide further training. The term was coined by Nader Tadros from Peoples Advocacy who was a guest trainer with the preceding IHRLOP civil society project. The rationale is that to expect all persons trained to become trainers is unrealistic, but they can be effective in other roles and a ‘resource’ for human rights advocacy in other ways. Resource person’s trainings I and II (hereinafter called Advanced training): Resource persons selected from the Basic training groups were trained in the context of what is needed for them to form effective focal/resource groups within the universities and their communities. This ranged from topics such as the Egyptian political system, budgetary analysis, constituency building, critical thinking and further skills units such as, notably, the culture of volunteerism, group work, and managing discussions. Human Rights Camp: Resource persons were brought together in two groups where they learned to analyze potential curricula materials and establish methods that would be productive for human rights training within their universities; also to organize themselves for working in the future to continue to sustain a protective environment for human rights. One-day Forum: This was the capstone event that provided the opportunity for all participants to meet together and participate in a general ‘forum’ conference, where resource persons in particular could showcase their work over the training period as well as hear from other experts on human rights education in universities and from others with whom IHRLOP had worked in the course of the Project. One of the remarkable findings of this evaluation that training programs linked all training topics to the Egyptian context. This strengthened the project's effectiveness in regard to building the capacity of the individual participants. A professor from Tanta University reported that interactive methodologies and techniques she learned during the training sessions helped her to improve her teaching skills with her students. She now depends more on the interactive techniques more than lecturing. Dr. Tulip Abdel Hamid from Veterinary School in Banha University in her contribution, she reported many activities she undertook regarding teaching and spreading the culture of human rights. She and some other junior professors discussed violations against academic freedoms committed by senior academic leaders. She came up with practical solutions and submitted them to those senior leaders. Although the submitted solutions were not taken, they represented a step forward from the faculty to open discussions and seek resolution on academic freedoms and responsibilities. Another example is that she formed a students' society for freedom of expression. The society produces a periodical newsletter where students can express their views on all debatable issues. Professors reached out to active NGOs and human rights institutions to spread the word and contribute in teaching human rights. This is a result of being encouraged and empowered by 25 IHRLOP. Dr. Amr Mohamed Mostafa from the School of Education in Suez University Ismailia Campus reported that he delivered a series of training sessions on women's rights at the premises of the National Council of Women in Ismailia. 7.10 Advocating Human Rights on the Ground The overall goal of IHRLOP is to create an improved enabling environment for the protection of human rights within selected faculties of Egyptian universities. To measure the success in fulfilling this goal, intensive interviews and case studies were conducted with four groups of resource persons. The evaluator found that community based activities are tangible more than university based activities regarding protecting and advocating human rights. Within the academic institutions, IHRLOP alumni developed human rights curricula, holding awareness sessions, providing training workshops, or advocating the academic freedoms via the internal code of conducts controlling the academic career. On the other hand, those alumni found that their local communities are in need of well-educated human rights activists who can advocate the rights of the poor and marginalized through systematic approaches and well-defined techniques. Three of professors formed a committee for conflict resolution which is going to be registered in near future as an independent NGO. Another professor joined a community based organization where he leads a team of field researchers and social workers to monitor violations against children's rights in orphanages and foster families. Another example is given by Dr. Aliae Ahmed Farghaly, the professor in School of Commerce in Asyut University, who used the stakeholder analysis skill to find out who is responsible for getting rid of a dump located behind her child's school. She contacted all the people in charge and insisted that this dump is against children's rights of having a clean environment surrounding their educational institutions. Calls, petitions, and media campaigns were part of her tools that succeeded in getting rid of that dump. Protecting human rights at large face challenges. Communities may sympacize with children's rights and may accept women's rights. However, rights of detainees and prisoners, rights of women in inheritance, rights to vote in fair and transparent elections, rights to run in elections to represent one's constituency are among of many other issues that were found to be faced by hesitation and fear from some of IHRLOP alumni. The evaluator believes that protecting human rights and fostering a culture of respecting those rights is a long-term process and goes beyond the capacity of IHRLOP. It is a mission of the whole community and should be coordinated at individual and institutional levels by governmental and nongovernmental actors. 7.11 Project Management Scheme and Performance Organizationally the office was located within AUC under the School of Continuing Education and responsible to the Office of the Vice President of the School of Continuing 26 Education. The office was, however, physically located off campus in Bustan Street allowing easy access for both staff and visitors. The program had some change of staff initially, but the core who substantially ran the program comprised Dr Enid Hill as the program’s principal investigator, Heather Gilles as director, and Islam Lotfy as executive manager. Yara Fathy and Mohamed Elwi as trainers were with the project for a large part of its life, also Tarek Beltagy as part time trainer, Khaled Niazee as accountant and Fatma Kamal as secretary. Hisham Marei as senior clerk in charge of the logistics of organizing transport for people, equipment and materials was with the project from the beginning. Maha Esmat, office assistant and Ahmed Mansour, junior clerk came on board later in the project as workloads increased. The logistics of compiling materials in the office and their relocation along with staff and equipment was enormous and required careful planning and commitment by the responsible staff. Field work often comprised up to three weeks out of the office in diverse locations, relatively close to Cairo (Zagazig) and distant (Alexandria and Asyut). Detailed description for the roles and responsibilities is attached in Annex VIII 8 Conclusion To conclude, the project was completed on target within time and within the initially approved budget. All numerical targets were met and feedback indicated that project objectives had been achieved. In phase one, 447 participants were trained comparing to the targeted number 400 participants in the proposal. The trainings ended up with 88 resource persons while it was 80 resource persons targeted in the proposal. The most significant outcome of IHRLOP is the networking created between and among faculties. The project motivated participants to advocate human rights by lobbying and leading joint actions instead of working separately and in a scattered manner. Some alumni established NGOs while others led joint projects to teach human rights in campus or in community organizations. Regarding developing human rights curricula, some alumni from Port Said Branch of Suez University managed to develop their curriculum to teach it to students of educational faculties. Although, developing human rights curricula is still a privilege to schools of law, participation of senior leaders of the academia and the support received from others paved the path to alumni to be included if not in the teaching then in the ad hoc committees assigned to the mission of developing human rights curricula according to the need of each faculty. The project was a successful combination of IHRLOP’s purpose-built materials and participatory-training methodologies, dedicated and flexible trainers, together with perceptive and willing university faculty participants within supportive universities. Guest trainers and NGO leaders who participated also acknowledged that now considerable resources exist within the universities where IHRLOP trained. Papers are being written about human rights education within universities and civil society groups are seeking funding to undertake further trainings within those participating universities. UNDP BENAA are now using the resource persons for further human rights training in universities. Resource persons at Ismailia campus of the Suez Canal University report that one of them has completed human rights trainings to police officers at Police Headquarters using modified 27 IHRLOP materials and received very good feedback. At Tanta University following the UNDP BENAA trainings the resource persons are planning more trainings over the next six months for students, faculty, and officers of the government departments. Banha University reports that the proposed trainings for students was postponed due to flu concerns but they have prepared brochures on human rights for distribution. Significantly, the level of behavioral change occurred to the participants. Many of the interviewees reported that their relations with colleagues and students have been changed in favor of respecting the others' rights. One of the professors from the faculty of sport reported that she stopped her tough criticism and blaming students when they make a mistake. Instead she runs dialogue and encourages students to find out solutions through using their critical and creative thinking. One of the unplanned outcomes is the networking among the participants, the external trainers and human rights organizations. Some of the alumni are found to be members of Human Rights NGOs that they just knew during the training programs. Others are found to be consultants and trainers for some others. On the other hand some external trainers, who delivered some sessions in the training programs, are found to be consultants or supporters to human rights centers or groups established within the universities. This kind of networking was not planned. It reflects the willingness of the two sides to collaborate in protecting and spreading human rights. Over the past five decades, the academia was totally isolated and excluded officially from being contacted by human rights groups. IHRLOP succeeded in bridging the gap in this sense. IHRLOP faced challenges either at the level of training structures or at the level of communication with the targeted beneficiaries. The training program necessarily had to cover key international instruments to allow structured discussion within a legal and international context. When such academic type sessions are compared with the more interactive and perceived as more immediately relevant general human rights areas or skills sessions then they suffered in the comparison. Additionally topic areas such as rights of disabled, constituency building, and sectoral areas such as trafficking and ADR were described as being better dealt with in more or less time depending on individual preferences. The participants of the evaluation sessions held at the end of the project found that the basic courses I and II could have been better if they were pre-designed in a way where knowledge and skills aspects of the training took equal weights. These are matters that IHRLOP can reflect on and take action they desire. The second challenge was one of communication between the project and its beneficiaries. Participants in evaluation sessions claimed a lack of clarity about project objectives and this created an environment of skepticism and rumors about the relationship of the project to American interventions and other false stories. This had been fixed during the first trainings after the participants tested the topics and established more personal dialogue with project staff. On the other hand participants claimed many of them did not know that there was a staged series of five trainings altogether, the last three available to identified resource persons. It was claimed that professors and academic staff left the project after basic 1 course 28 because they didn't take it seriously as it should be. If those participants knew the structure from the beginning, they might have participated. This again is something IHRLOP needs to factor into its program delivery. Two further challenges in particular have faced the project during its implementation and will have implications for continuing IHRLOP operations. The third is the lack of an organized systematic national support of human rights education. Although the Supreme Council of Universities issued a decree for teaching human rights to all faculties regardless of their specification, implementation has largely been left to individual universities as to style and content. Where IHRLOP conducted its trainings it found positive university administrations keen to establish a human rights culture within the university. However, some initial approaches to universities were met with skepticism of outcome and being unwilling to get involved in widening the basis of teaching human rights and move from the theoretical part to the practical exercise. Some of those official executives are looking to the question of human rights teaching as an area for creating trouble or unrest. The issue was perceived as a political matter which may lead to dividing students and the academic staff and creating intolerance among them as a result of their political affiliations and ideologies. The interest of the security apparatuses throughout all trainings was considered a normal one for this environment and one in which IHRLOP endeavored to deal with through dialogue and provision of materials. In future, it is recommended that the project dedicate some of its resources and plans to continue to mobilize and motivate senior leadership to adopt teaching human rights as a mission for their academic institutions. The fourth challenge related to the structure of the project within AUC. The project existed solely due to its project funding and status, not being organizationally within a division or department. While use of the brand logo and name was advantages to both parties this affiliation was fragile leading to a feeling that the project was separated from the AUC structure. One of the strengths of any project is its affiliation to an organization with attendant support and collegiate benefits, and while organizationally located within the VP SCE whose support and nurturing was appreciated and necessary IHRLOP was found to be isolated and not integrated within the AUC portfolio as it was supposed to be. Moreover the financial hierarchy of AUC implemented 12 month backdated indirect cost burden (NICRA of 23% of salaries added to 58% of direct costs) on the project in its last three months of operations leading to a deficit budget although all activities were completed on time and within the original budget. 9 Recommendations The project marks a significant opportunity for enhancing teaching human rights in Egypt and to change positively the behavior from oppression to respecting others' human rights. To continue and sustain this task, the evaluator recommends: (1) The project is very important for human rights education and it must be continued by targeting new faculties and new geographical areas; 29 (2) The future project needs to have a component for building, strengthening, entrenching the capacity of human rights centers within universities or NGOs that are already established by alumni of current projects; (3) Where such entrenched entities exist such as human rights centers or human rights coordinators, a formal network be created affiliated with the universities; (4) USAID and other international donors should cooperate with Egyptian active players to frame a long term strategy for human rights education and application in Egypt. The strategy should drive all funded programs in this regard. The strategy must have milestones and measurable indicators; (5) Coordination between donors and active NGOs and human rights organizations must be done in order to avoid duplication and the waste of resources. This coordination will lead to maximization of current and future programs. (6) Universities should establish a watchdog units for violence against human rights; and (7) Protective measures and policies for human rights must be engendered in educational curricula and universities administrations. 10 List of Annexure 10.1 Terms of reference 10.2 Program of Meetings and Interview 10.3 IHRLOP Staff Interviewed 10.4 List of Participants in Interview “Academic Staff” Groups A & B 10.5 Background and Context 10.6 Training Content 10.7 List of resource Persons 10.8 IHRLOP Management Roles and responsibilities. 30 Annex I The American University in Cairo School of Continuing Education The International Human Rights Law Outreach Program "IHRLOP" Terms of Reference Background: Over three years, the project "International Human Rights Law Outreach Program – IHRLOP" has been implemented through a dedicated staff within the school of continuing education at the American University in Cairo. The project is designed to create an improved environment for the protection of human rights within the Egyptian universities through providing human rights training within selected university faculties. Seven universities on 9 campuses participated, with 19 different faculties involved and an initial intake of 447 trainees in Basic I with the most committed 319 continuing into Basic II. Whereas 80 resource persons were scheduled for advanced training, 88 were actually included. Between 85 and 88 participated in the several advanced training sessions and completed 142 hours or training as human rights ‘resource persons’. IHRLOP is willing to conduct an evaluation to measure and track records of success and envisage potential future aspects for such kinds of programs. Evaluation Objectives: The ultimate objective of this evaluation is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the project implementation and the impact and replicability of its deliverables. The specific objectives are: 1. To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project planning, implementation, and follow-up. 2. To examine the extent to which the alumni of the training programs could apply knowledge and skills, they gained from the training, in their academic institutions. 3. To draw conclusions regarding project's strengthens and weaknesses, and to recommend methodologies and tools that will help the academic in strengthening practices of human rights within campuses and to ensure the sustainability of human rights education in various schools. Evaluation Methodology: The evaluator has to combine between desk and field methods in collecting and investigating data that will be used to fulfill the objectives of the evaluation. 31 Annex II Program of meetings and interviews June - August 2009 • Preparation of evaluation scope and questions • Project's documents review • Interviews with key staff members July 19, 2009 • Focus group discussion with group 1 (Science Group) July 20, 2009 • Focus group discussion with group 2 (Science Group) July 24, 2009 • Focus group discussion with group 1 (Humanities Group) July 25, 2009 • Focus group discussion with group 2 (Humanities Group) November 16, 2009 • Interview / meeting with Dr. Enid Hill the IHRLOP Principal Investigator 32 Annex III IHRLOP Staff Interviewed Principal Investigator - Dr Enid Hill Director – Heather Gillies Executive Manager - Islam Lotfy Trainers Yara Fathy Tarek Beltagy Mohamed Elwi Clerk - Hisham Marie 33 Annex IV The participants of the evaluation sessions Group A Group Faculty Name University 1 Suez Canal University Ismailia Campus Dr Abdelhamid Kamel Othman Veterinary medicine - Cell and tissue Science 2 Medicine - Forensic & Dr Said Kamal Moursi Science clinical toxicology 3 Dr Mohamed Mosaad Ibrahim Science - Marine Science Sciences 4 Dr Ibrahim Moahmed Fares Veterinary medicine - Health & common diseases & behaviors of Science the animal 5 Pharmacy Dr Ahmed Rafaat Science 6 Science - Zoology Dr Ismail Abdel nabi Science 7 Suez Campus Dr Suzan Magdy Meina Science Science 8 Science - organic Dr Sahar Said Ahmed Science chemistry 9 Dr Ahmed Bahaa El Din Science - Zoology Science 10 Dr Wessam Nader El Sayed Science - Inorganic & Science analytical chemistry 11 Port Said Campus Dr Hamed Abdel Hameed Science Science 12 Dr Mohamed Ismael Ali Ismael Engineering - Civil Science engineering 13 Dr Nader M. M. Shalaby PE - Biology of Sport Science 14 Banha University Dr Hamdy Abd El￾Samee M. Veterinary Medicine - Food Health Science 15 Dr Tulip Abd El￾Hameed Veterinary Medicine - Health,behaviors & animal welfare Science 16 Dr Aziza Abd El Samaad M. Science Science - Physiology 17 Dr Ahmed Yousef Ahmed Medicine - Obstetrics and Gynecology Science 18 Dr Howeida Sadek Abdelhamid Nursing - Community health nursing Science 19 Dr Ahmed Reda Aggour Agriculture - Quality Assurance Science 20 Dr Nabil Ashry Ibrahim Engineering - Architecture Science 34 21 Tanta University Science - Physics Dr Talaat Mohamed Science 22 Dr Nagwa Abdel El Shady Dentist Science 23 Medicine Dr Nagla Abrahim Science 24 Dr Rabab Said Ahmed Medicine - Forensic & Science clinical toxicology 25 Dr Asaad Abdel Kader Agriculture - Orchards Science 26 Dr Yasser Sobhy Ahmed Agriculture - Botany￾Science Plant Pathology 27 PE Dr Ahmed Ali El Attar Humanities 28 PE - Sport Health Dr Masoud Kamal Humanities Science 29 PE Dr Fathi Mohamed Humanities 30 Helwan University Dr ElZahraa Rania Mohamed PE - Curriculum & methods of teaching Humanities physical education 31 Asyut University Dr Hisham Ahmed El sayed Medicine - Obstetrics Science and Gynecology 32 Dr Ola Ali Abd El Fatah Nursing - Psychiatric nursing & Psychological Science health Group B Group Faculty Name University 1 Suez Canal University Ismailia Campus Dr Mohamed El Said Mohamed Education - Home Economics Humanities 2 Dr Amr Mohamed Mostafa Education Humanities 3 Dr Aly Hassan Hassen Eid Tourism - Tourist Humanities guides 4 Dr Mohamed Rashad El Doski Arts - Geography Humanities 5 Dr Adel Abdel Momein Ahmed Arts - History Humanities 6 Dr Mohamed Mohamadi Soliman Education - Philosophy Humanities 7 Dr Shorouk Ali Ibrahim El￾Zayat Commerce Humanities 8 Arts - Islamic history Dr Osama Sayed Ali Humanities 9 Suez Campus Dr Mohamed Ahmed Ismail Education Humanities 35 10 Dr Bassant Fathy Mahmoud Education - Fundamentals of Humanities Education 11 Education - Qouran Dr Sami Refaat Elashkar Humanities 12 Education - French Dr Mona Edward Saba Humanities Language 13 Dr Heba ElSayed El Badawy Commerce - Business Humanities Administration 14 Port Said Campus Dr TaherHassan Mohamed PE - Water Sports Humanities 15 Dr Mohamed Mostafa Bakr PE Humanities 16 Dr Haitham Adel Abdelbasser PE - Sport Training Humanities 17 Dr Hany Abdelaziz Ibrahim PE Humanities 18 Dr Zeinab Mohamed Mousa Kindergarten - Child Humanities Psychology 19 Dr Abdel Salam El Shabrawy Education - Comparative Education and Educational Humanities Administration 20 Kindergarden Dr Hoda Enawy Humanities 21 Dr Salah Samir El Bendary Specific Education - Humanities Political Science 22 Specific Education - Dr Ahmed el Roby Educational & Humanities psychological sciences 23 Kindergarden - Child Dr. Amal Hassouna Humanities Psychology 24 Dr Mohamed Abdelnaeem Commerce - Public Law Humanities 25 Banha University Education Dr Sanaa Abo El Fotoh Humanities 26 Specific Education - Dr Hani Shehata Ibrahim Humanities Music Education Humanities 27 Helwan University Dr Kawthar Mahmoud Mohamed PE - Sports Psychology Humanities 28 Dr Wafaa Mefreg Mohamed Abou Ammar PE - Curriculum & methods of teaching Humanities physical education 29 Zagazig University Dr Yasser Moahmed Abolfotoh PE - Gymnastics, exercises and sports Humanities presentations 30 Dr Ehab Mohamed Elsadq PE Humanities 31 PE - Football Dr Mahmoud Metwally Humanities 32 PE - Hockey Dr Ayman Ahmed Albasty Humanities 36 33 PE - Entertainment & Dr Mervat Abdelghaffer Humanities Management 34 PE - Water Sports Dr Abeer Abdel Rahman Humanities 35 PE - Combat Sports Dr Gihan Yusuf Elsawy Humanities 36 PE - Water Sports Dr Safaa Saleh Hussein Humanities 37 Tanta University PE Dr Zain El Abdeen Humanities 38 PE - Sports Training Dr Ahmed Mohamed Zaki Humanities 39 PE - Curriculum & Dr Ehab Mohamed methods of teaching Humanities physical education 40 Education - Dr Mounier Abdel Allah Fundamentals of Humanities Education 41 Specific education - Dr Rana Abas Humanities Tissues and fabrics 42 Education - Dr Manal Mohamed Kindergarden-Child Humanities Psychology 43 Arts - English Language Dr Mahasen Mahmoud Humanities 44 Dr Omar Mohamed Ahmed Commerce - Humanities Accounting 45 Asyut University Dr Mariam Abdel malak el Komos Law Humanities 46 Dr Moustafa Abdel El mohsen Education - Psychology Humanities 47 Dr Safae Safwat Mohammed education Humanities 48 Dr Youmna Mohammed Atef Art - media Humanities 49 Dr Abdel Razek Said Humanities law Metwaly 50 Dr Mohamed Mohamed Soliman Mahmoud Social service - Humanities Working with groups Dr Aliae Ahmed Fargaly 51 commerce - Political Humanities Science Dr Ahmed Sabet 52 Social service - Humanities Individual service Dean's of law Dr Essam El Zanatty 53 54 Art - Media Dr Dina Mahmoud Humanities 37 Annex V IHRLOP Training -Background and Context: It is important to understand the context in which The International Human Rights Law Outreach Project "IHRLOP" had been planned and implemented. This short introduction to background and context of IHRLOP highlights three major areas affecting the project during its implementation: (1) the political changes and developments occurred to the constitution; (2) the rise of the internal human rights groups and pro democracy activists; and (3) the increasing of capacity building programs targeting Egyptian universities and the higher academic institutions. There was a movement by the government to mainstream the creation of human rights of NCHR and the introduction of mandatory human rights in university curricular in 2004. The growth in Egyptian civil society's interest in human rights and transparency can be traced back to President Mubarak's call for amending the constitution in 2005. As the first amendment to the constitution in almost fifteen years, it was bound to be surrounded by controversy. The proposed amendment to article 76 substituted multi-candidate elections for a referendum on a single candidate nominated by parliament. Despite the apparent weakening of the ruling party's grip on power, the amended article imposed draconian conditions on nomination. Only registered parties that hold at least one seat in either house of parliament were to nominate candidates for presidential elections. Further, the nominee had to be a member of the party's senior leadership for at least a year – a provision intended to prevent a party from nominating a Muslim Brotherhood member or some other popular figure to run as a candidate in the presidential elections. Ten candidates were eligible for the elections to be held on September 7th, but only three had the necessary capacity to campaign in Egypt's 27 governorates. The elections themselves were marred with allegations of irregularities and low voter turnout estimated at 23% of registered voters. The incumbent, President Mubarak, won a land-slide victory with 88% of the vote. Runner-up Aynman Nour of the Ghad Party surprised everyone with his performance, winning 7.5% of the votes while beating political veteran No'man Gom'aa, Chairman of the New Wafd Party, who won a mere 2.9% of the vote. The results were nothing far from expected; yet there are a number of noteworthy developments that took place over the course of the process. • The proliferation of public demonstrations, spearheaded by the Kifaya "Enough" movement. Their quick rise to prominence and broad popular support shook the whole political system. Kifaya and the other movements highlighted the inadequacy of Egyptian political parties and their lack of constituencies. • The participation of the judiciary in public debate. Citizens were previously unacquainted with judicial figures. However, promptly following the proposal to amend article 76, the judiciary engaged the public sphere in debate on its role in supervising the electoral process in particular, and on political reform in general. • The growing role of civil society organizations in political affairs. State authorities had long maintained that civil society's role was restricted to communitarian social 38 deeds. This was challenged vigorously by activists and reformists, both on the streets and in courts of law, culminating in a judicial ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court granting them electoral observation rights on the eve of the election. Parliamentary elections took place shortly thereafter. As with every such election Egypt has known, allegations of voter list manipulation and gerrymandering substituted for actual campaigning activities. What little campaigning there was comprised efforts by the candidates to bribe their way into parliament. Contrary to the relative calm under which the presidential elections were held, reports of violent thugs impeding access to polling stations were common on election day. Irregularities in some official behavior contributed to perceptions that officials were not on top of the violence in the second and third phases of polling. Voter turnout was expectedly low, hardly 23% of the registered voters showed up to cast their ballots although voting is compulsory. The end result of the election saw the NDP winning 319 seats, 71.9% of parliament, while 112 independents, 88 of whom belong to the officially banned but tolerated Muslim Brotherhood, entered parliament. Political parties had no noticeable impact in the process, with the New Wafd, Taga'mu', and Ghad Parties winning 6, 2, and 1 seats respectively. The highlights of the election could be summarized as follows: 5) For the first time in Egypt's history, a newly-established Parliamentary Elections Committee presided over by the Minister of Justice, not the Interior, was to supervise the election process through all stages. 6) The Parliamentary Elections Committee permitted election observation by civil society following an initial reluctance. Yet, these elections were impervious to civil society because of the larger number of polling stations and their geographical distribution. 7) The elections witnessed the largest gain for independents since the establishment of the multi-party system in 1976. A majority of these independents were NDP defects. The preliminary results saw the success of 171 independents, as opposed to 140 NDP candidates, and the latter was quick to restore its ties with the winners, offering them adequate monetary compensation and membership in the party's Parliamentary Committee conditional on their return to the party base. 8) The most pronounced outcome of the elections was the retreat of the left. Only 9 of the 444 seats of parliament belong to the center-left. This decline in left-appeal signifies the hegemony enjoyed by the NDP and the Muslim Brotherhood over public discourse. In 2007, the president proposed a number of amendments and modifications to the constitution, 34 in total, in response to popular calls for constitutional reform. He detailed his proposal in a letter to parliament and offered the following rationale for the changes: 1. Several articles written in the socialist era were outmoded and in need of revision to keep up with recent political and economic developments. 2. Similarly, socialist ideals on equality embedded in the constitution were to be replaced by "citizenship" as the basis for equality. 39 3. The legislature needed latitude to amend the electoral rules and introduce a women's quota; this would not have been possible without a constitutional modification. 4. Article 74 granting the president exceptional powers in states of public emergency needed further guarantees to guard against abuse (sic). 5. The eligibility requirements for presidential candidature were too restrictive and in need of reformation. Article 76(2) and (3) is temporarily suspended the operation of the most restrictive of requirements for a decade of time, and loosened the terms of others. 6. In keeping with prevailing international practice, article 88 providing for judicial supervision of the electoral process is to be abrogated, transferring the responsibility of electoral supervision to an electoral commission. 7. Parliamentary oversight of the executive, and especially the budget, should be expanded. While the proposed amendments appeared to be progressive, at least nominally, many doubted the NDP's intent to fully pursue in good faith the reforms mandated by the amendments. To the opponents of the amendments, article 179 represented the true intents of the regime. It dictates the enactment of an Anti-Terrorism Law to substitute for the perpetual state of emergency implemented in Egypt since 1981. The article's detractors viewed it as an attempt by the regime to entrench in the Egyptian legal system emergency powers allowing for the bypassing of constitutional guarantees against arbitrary arrest or detention, warrantless search, and violation of privacy. Three years following the amendments, the government is yet to formulate an Anti-Terrorism law or lift the state of emergency. Two low profile elections were held following the amendments. The Shura Council elections of 2007 featured 88 seats up for reelection. Eleven of those were won uncontested by the NDP. Of the 71 seats determined in the first round of voting, an independent won a seat, and the Tagammu Party won another; the rest were secured by the NDP. Further, another 14 seats were won by the NDP in the second round of voting; the two remaining seats went to independents. Turnout was reportedly low, at an estimated 23%. Municipal elections were held on the 8th of April, 2008. Turnout was put between 3-7% despite a fatwa by the Grand Imam of al-Azhar Mosque that voting was a duty upon proper practitioners of the faith. The later was criticized by some as religious interference in civil affairs, but the low turnout figures prevented the situation from developing any further. The NDP was unopposed in 70% of the seats. It went on to gain a landslide victory, wining 51,500 seats out of the 52,000 seats up for election. Political parties performed reasonably well vis-à-vis the independents and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. This was largely attributed to a secret deal struck between the NDP and opposition parties to keep the Brotherhood on the outside. Three factors lie behind the social tensions that erupted in late 2007 and early 2008. Primary amongst them was the global food crisis at that time. January 1977 was the last time Egypt had witnessed food riots, and it has been government policy since then to guarantee subsistence for middle- and low-income families. But the unprecedented inflation rates resulting from the 2007/8 crisis, along with rising oil prices, had pushed many families below subsistence and into debt. The second factor identified is the absence of a feeling of 40 "ownership" over policy-making. The pro-reform Nazif government has been pursuing economic reform too vigorously in the public's perception while holding little public debate over the pace and possible courses of action. The selling-off of state assets, privatization of state enterprises, entry into market of foreign investors, and the liberalization and deregulation of trade that have created a new class of robber barons left many disillusioned with the government's discourse on economic liberalization. The third factor that accentuated the situation was the regular reporting on human rights abuses conducted by state security officers. The most shocking of the incidents was caught in video with a cell phone camera. The video portrayed a mini-bus driver, later identified as Imad el-Kabir, screaming in pain and begging for mercy as police officers repeatedly sodomized him. Compounding the shock, it turned out that it was the police that shot the video and later distributed it among the victim's acquaintances in order to humiliate him. While the officers in the video were later identified and prosecuted, the video reasserted the public's conception that human rights abuses were prevalent in the police force. The aforementioned factors lead to a rise in social strife that culminated in a general strike on the 6th of April, 2008. The unrest began with small strikes in peripheral governorates. In May 2007, for example, doctors at the Sahel Educational Hospital sat-down in disobedience of a hospital administrator they perceived as unjust and incompetent. Doctors at Bany-Soueif General found themselves in a similar position and took their protest to the Ministry of Health in Cairo. In October 2007, property tax collection employees held a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Finance, and later at the Seat of Government. Their sole demand was equal treatment with their peers in the income and sales tax divisions at the Ministry of Finance. Unrest was common among educators too. Instructors of the Islamic parallel educational system run by al-Azhar Mosque abstained from all work till they were incorporated in the Instructors Cadre, an income reform program to raise the salaries and remunerations of educators in public institutions. Lecturers at Cairo University too held sit-ins and called for rolling-back the educational reforms implemented in 2003 that cap instructor remunerations and mandate early retirement for untenured faculty. Among the other notable protests are those of the 500 lawyers in Giza calling for better maintenance of public courts, and those of the freshly graduated journalists who had been refused membership in their Syndicate. The aforementioned events culminated in a general strike on the 6th of April, 2008. The call for the strike started online, on the popular social networking website Facebook. The message was then transmitted online, by phone, SMS, and word-of-mouth. By the time April the 6th came, everyone knew of the big event. In the preceding days the government through its editorial mouthpieces and national media networks repeatedly warned citizens from participation in the strike and reassured everyone that life was to continue as normal. Of particular significance are its efforts to preempt any unrest in the industrial complexes of the Delta region. Labor and union leaderships were made to sign a contract providing for their abstention from the strike in return for improved working conditions. The effort was a success initially. Nothing seemed abnormal at the el-Mahala el-Kobra Spinning & Weaving Complex save for the security forces surrounding the complex. By 4 o’clock noon, when the second work shift was supposed to start, workers were moved by the chants of a nearby 41 protest and wanted to join in. The security forces responded heavily with tear gas, beatings, and rubber bullets. The workers reported that plain-clothed security forces had infiltrated the complex and attempted to curb the unrest. The government for its part claimed that the heavy-handed tactics were directed at thugs and troublemakers instigating the riot. The riot spread out all over el-Mahal on that day with an estimated 20,000 protesters clashing with sate security forces. Over 70,000 protesters surrounded the police station demanding the release of those arrested for the events of the previous day. Eventually, security forces managed to disperse the protestors and restore peace and calm to the city after three days of bloody crashes. Political analysts have identified a few common characteristics that differentiate these events from earlier uprisings known to the regime from the 70s and 80s. Among these are: • The new uprisings took everyone in the political scene, both government and opposition, by surprise. They represented a rebellion against the former’s domination over the decision-making process and the relegation of labor to a minor role. They have also signified the disconnection between labor and their “elected” representatives following the latter's failure to contain the discontent. • The compartmentalization of the incidents. Previously, uprisings used to be instigated by central actors such as political parties or the Muslim Brotherhood. The events of 2007-2008 on the contrary were discrete and disconnected save for an inspirational/moral effect where the government’s response to one group’s demands incentivizes others to peruse similar action in hope of making similar gains. • The uprisings were led and organized by inexperienced individuals, yet they were quickly able to develop their organization and negotiation skills to extract favorable terms from the government. • These uprisings witnessed the empowerment of previously disenfranchised strata of the community. Youth and women took the center stage in the process. • The most successful of protests were those that developed gradually instead of sporadically. • The demands of this new generation of protests were partial, reasonable, achievable, and apolitical. They never went beyond calls for the payment of late remunerations, better work conditions, proper healthcare and transport, and the removal of corrupt or inept administrations. The apolitical nature of the protests was exemplified in the repeated calls on President Mubarak to direct his cabinet to resolve the problems. They were not directed against the regime per se. Prominent among the actors in these new generation uprisings were internet activists. Bloggers, or the “Facebook Youth” as they have been dubbed by the media, who played a central role in the dissemination of information on these uprisings and reporting on the government’s response. While a number of them have been arrested and put to trial on trumped up charges such as instigation of violence and attacking state authorities, the government’s crack-down on internet activism has been a complete failure. What sets these internet activists apart from their predecessors is their reliance on high-profile social 42 networking web sites, as opposed to locally hosted web servers and proxies, to which access cannot easily be blocked without causing uproar. Internet activists are not only a continuation of the emergence of new actors challenging the dominance of the political elites; they are also a formidable organizational force to reckon with. The “We Are All Leila” campaign launched online in response to the ubiquity of sexual harassment incidents on the streets garnered more attention than the media’s disorganized efforts to spread awareness of the issue. The establishment of the National Council for Human Rights in 2003 may have been the government’s response to the international discourse on human rights, but it is the development of this civil tide in response to the Egyptian public’s discourse on human rights that will deliver on the promise of reform in Egypt. 43 Annex VI Training Content: • Basic I: Human Rights historical background + UDHR Start with the trainees by asking them to write positive and negative impressions towards “Human Rights” word, then discussing their opinions. After this the training staff start a quick historical tour about human rights roots in the old and existing civilizations and cultures. Finally we overview the UDHR and the 2 categories of the rights “civil and political rights” and “economic, social, and cultural rights”. o ICCPR Overview of the Convention and its application in the domestic context and show to the trainees the Egyptian periodic report to the human rights committee. o ICESCR Overview of the Convention and its application in the domestic context. o CAT Overview of the Convention and its application in the domestic context, its one of only two possible avenues of individual submissions for Egypt. Case studies of torture examined. o CEDAW Overview of the Convention and analysis on how discrimination operates in respect to women. o CRC An overview of the Convention on the Rights of the Child its main articles, its thrust and a brief look on case studies in the Egyptian context. o NHRIs Overview of the role of national institutions the international norms (Paris Principles) and the Egyptian NCHR - its legislation and mandates. o Civil Society and NGOs Clarifying the meaning of civil society and the different elements of it and a brief about the Egyptian NGOs law number 84/2002. o Internet advanced search skills Skills unit in front of computers, practicing search skills from advanced search through to human rights sites with Arabic language functions and onto academic sites with free access to academic journals. Blogging was looked at in its various forms. o Right To Development Examination of rights, needs and entitlements and the relationship of development within the human rights context. Links to constituency building, budget analysis, Egyptian political system, ICESCR, universality of rights. o Human Rights Education Discussing with the trainees the meaning of HR Education and the benefits the university and larger society will gain. 44 • Basic II: o Universality of Human Rights and Cultural and tradition Overview of the international implications for human rights of culture and tradition and examination of the terminology and its implications for limiting rights or the universality of rights specifically for Egypt and the region. Overview of the same arguments used outside the region. o Violence Based on Gender Overview of issues of violence and the role of gender and processes of advocacy. o Academic Freedoms and social responsibility Overview of the four international declarations on academic freedoms including social responsibility. Overview of national universities legislation and case studies. o Anti terror laws and National Security Laws – International view to put emergency laws and anti terror laws in context and examine limitations to rights under international and national laws. o NGOs (Establishment and Fund rising) Further focusing on the NGOs issues and teaching the trainees the fundraising ways domestically and internationally. o Team Building Overview of mechanisms of team building, its focus and benefits, with practical exercises. o Culture of Volunteerism To encourage volunteerism as a tool. Included statistical information and reasons for volunteering as well as the benefits that flow to the organizations. o African Charter on Human’s and People’s Rights Overview of the system and its relevance to Egypt. It is the only individual complaints stem available to Egyptians. • Advanced I: o UN System Background and overview of how the UN works as it’s the basis of country reporting and complaints mechanisms as well as special rapporteurs and other human rights advocacy mechanisms. Links to Basic I and II, advocacy, environmental rights. o Egyptian Political System An overview of the political processes (not regime) available to advocates and how they can be used effectively. If advocates and NGOs are going to approach government and politicians they need to know how the system works. – Link to constituency building and advocacy and budget analysis. o Alternative Dispute Resolutions to give an overview of different dispute resolution techniques (mediation, negotiation, arbitration) with examples of where they can be used. Links to constituency building, Egyptian political system, UN system and other international and regional treaties. o Transparency issues of corruption and benefits of transparency. Links to Egyptian political system, budget analysis. 45 o Human Rights Council Simulation Using modified rules of the UN Human Rights Committee itself and a case study comprising Israel and Palestine issues - the participants using the rules of debate asked questions and raised human rights sues in a simulation. o TOT skills Its aim was to practice on how to use TOT skills like facilitation skills, discussions, case studies and presentation skills in the context of human rights. All exercises were based on human rights related issues. o Budget advocacy and analysis looked at role of the government and the budget how to analyze the budget and use budget advocacy. o Right to Environment Presentation by local NGO Habi director Mohamed Nagi and included examples of his campaigns and case study exercise. Links to Egyptian political system and budget advocacy o Advocacy Campaigns Using your abilities and the organizations in supporting the cases you adopt, the different ways and means and the benefits of advocacy campaigns even if it doesn’t reach its main goal. Link to constituency building. o Constituency Building Benefits of a constituency compared with coalitions, role of beneficiaries and members, benefits of a constituency base, scanning the environment tools such as “friends and allies” and “triangle analysis”. Links to budget advocacy, advocacy, Egyptian political system, ADR. • Advanced II: o Right to Housing ESC Right where the principles learned can be applied to other rights civil and political as well as ESC. Developed and presented by Habit personnel Joseph Schekla and Rabia Wabia. This NGO has an international as well as national reach so participants can see first hand how such a NGO operates. o Dealing with groups After gaining the skill of building a team in Basic II it was necessary to concentrate on the mechanisms of dealing with different groups and its dynamics. The session covered the various points required to know how to deal with different groups. o Culture of Participation This session concentrated on participation, why do we need it, why it’s necessary and different forms of participation. o Critical thinking Training in critical thinking techniques including fallacies, reasoning and logic. While science faculties have experience in reasoning most faculties will not have experience in the human rights context. Builds on sessions like universality of rights. o Open Space Forum A form of breakout sessions for participants to chose a range of topics to be discussed involved selecting chairpersons and recorder and has a report back session; participants are encouraged to move from group to group. 46 o Institutional Building After the further study of NGOs and civil society it was necessary to learn how to build institutions which are the prerogative of NGOs and civil society the main core of working in the field of human rights. o Designing a Human Rights Program As the main goal is to have university faculties trained and able to teach human rights at the Egyptian universities it was imperative for them to be trained on how to design a human rights program for different categories based on the triangle of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Human Rights Camps • Groups reassemble in discipline areas • Participants work on examination of existing human rights syllabi in the universities and put together discipline specific curriculum. • Lectures on Convention on disabilities and access issues for the disabled. • Lectures on roles of academics on establishing and enhancing concepts of human rights in universities and the wider society. 47 Annex VII List of Participants - Academic Faculty Groups - Resource Persons Faculty Name University 1 Suez Canal Univeristy Ismailia Campus Veterinary Dr Abdelhamid Kamel Othman medicine Medicine Dr Said Kamal Moursi 2 Science Dr Mohamed Mosaad Ibrahim 3 Arts Dr Mohamed Rashad El Doski 4 Arts Dr Adel Abdel Momein Ahmed 5 Education Dr Mohamed El Said Mohamed 6 Arts Dr Mohamed Mohamadi Soliman 7 Education Dr Amr Mohamed Mostafa 8 Pharmacy Dr Ahmed Rafaat 9 Science Dr Abdel Ra'ouf Abdelrahman 0 10 Tourism Dr Aly Hassan Hassen Eid 11 Arts Dr Osama Samir Ali 12 13 Veterinary Dr Ibrahim Moahmed Fares medicine Science Dr Ismail Abdel nabi 14 Education Dr Mohamed Ahmed Ismail Suez Campus 15 Science Dr Suzan Magdy Meina 16 Education Dr Bassant Fathy Mahmoud 17 Science Dr Sahar Said Ahmed 18 Science Dr Ahmed Bahaa El Din 19 Specific Education Dr Salah Samir El Bendary Port Said 20 PE Dr Nader M. M. Shalaby 21 PE Dr TaherHassan Mohamed 22 23 Education Dr Zeinab Mohamed Mousa Kindergarten Science Dr Hamed Abdel Hameed 24 Engineering Dr Mohamed Ismael Ali Ismael 25 Faculty Name University Education Dr Sami Refaat Elashkar Suez Campus 1 Education Dr Mona Edward Saba 2 3 Commerce Dr Heba ElSayed El Badawy Business Science Dr Wessam Nader El Sayed 4 Education Dr Abdel Salam El Shabrawy Port Said 5 6 Commerce Pol Dr Mohamed Abdelnaeem Sci PE Dr Mohamed Mostafa Bakr 7 PE Dr Amgad Abdel-Latif Ibrahim 8 Dr Ahmed el Roby 9 PE Dr Haitham Adel Abdelbasser 10 48 PE Dr Hany Abdelaziz Ibrahim 11 Kindergarden Dr Hoda Enawy 12 Kindergarden Dr. Amal Hassouna 13 PE Dr Yasser Moahmed Abolfotoh Zagazig University 14 PE Dr Ehab Mohamed Elsadq 15 PE Dr Mahmoud Metwally 16 PE Dr Ayman Ahmed Albasty 17 PE Dr Mervat Abdelghaffer 18 PE Dr Abeer Abdel Rahman 19 PE Dr Gihan Yusuf Elsawy 20 PE Dr Safaa Saleh Hussein 21 Faculty Name University Arts Dr Mahasen Mahmoud Tanta University 1 2 Commerce Dr Omar Mohamed Ahmed Accounting Science Dr Talaat Mohamed 3 Agriculture Dr Asaad Abdel Kader 4 PE Dr Fathi Mohamed 5 PE Dr Ahmed Ali El Attar 6 Medicine Dr Nagla Abrahim 7 Medicine Dr Rabab Said Ahmed 8 Agriculture Dr Yasser Sobhy Ahmed 9 Education Sports Dr Masoud Kamal 10 Education Dr Mounier Abdel Allah 11 Education Dr Rana Abas 12 Education Dr Manal Mohamed 13 PE Dr Ahmed Mohamed Zaki 14 PE Dr Ehab Mohamed 15 PE Dr Kawthar Mahmoud Mohamed Helwan University 16 17 Dr Wafaa Mefreg Mohamed Abou Ammar PE PE Dr ElZaraa Rania Mohamed 18 Law Dr Mariam Abdel malak el Komos Assuit 19 Specific Education Dr Hani Shehata Ibrahim Banha University 20 Faculty Name University Veterinary Medicine Dr Hamdy Abd El- Samee M. Banha University 1 Veterinary Medicine Dr Tulip Abd El-Hameed 2 Engineering Dr Nabil Ashry Ibrahim 3 Medicine Dr Ahmed Yousef Ahmed 4 Agriculture Dr Ahmed Reda Aggour 5 Nursing Dr Howeida Sadek Abdelhamid 6 Education Dr Sanaa Abo El Fotoh 7 49 Dentist Dr Nagwa Abdel El Shady Tanta University 8 PE Dr Zain El Abdeen 9 Art Dr Dina Mahmoud Assuit 10 Medicine Dr Hisham Ahmed El sayed 11 art - media Dr Youmna Mohammed Atef 12 Education Dr Ali Abdul Mohsen 13 Education Dr Moustafa Abdel El mohsen 14 Nursing Dr Ola Ali Abd El Fatah 15 16 Dr Mohamed Mohamed Soliman Social service Mahmoud Social service Dr Ahmed Sabet 17 commerce Aliae Ahmed Fargaly 18 education Safae Safwat Mohammed 19 law Dr Abdel Razek Said Metwaly 20 50 Annex VIII IHRLOP Project Management Roles and Responsibilities Job title Roles & Responsibilities Q'ty Director 1 1 Manage the day to day operations of the Office and report to the Principal Investigator, normally on a daily basis. 2 Create and supervise the creation of human rights advocacy training materials for use in training sessions, give training sessions and supervise other trainers and ensure materials are suitable for program purposes. 3 Ensure supervision on a day to day basis of the financial recording and reconciliation to within Project guidelines. Ensure monthly reconciliation with AUC accounts is undertaken. Supervise the ongoing Project expenditure and report to the Principal Investigator as needed. 4 Undertake visits to coordinate with Universities to ensure participants are identified for training sessions and to establish training needs. Report to USAID (the funders) quarterly and with annual reports in line with the Project Grant requirements. 5 Meet Project targets for the numbers of trainings, and numbers of participants attending the training modules. 6 Supervise the recording of participation in Project courses for quarterly reporting and day to day management purposes. 7 In accordance with the project outcomes, provide an overview and increased knowledge on ways to support and promote human rights, increased capacity for human rights promotion and report as per Project guidelines. Executive Manager 1 1. Represent the director when the director is not present within the scope of the training activities of the project. 2. With the director undertake visits to coordinate with Universities to ensure participants are identified for training sessions and to establish training needs. 3. Within the parameters of the USAID proposal create and manage the training program and coordinate provision of training materials by trainers and assistant trainers. 4. Arrange for and attend exploratory visits and training missions to identified universities and schedule training missions and other required dates. 5. Ensure USAID training program is implemented and trailing packages are in final form one week before working in the field; 6. Identify, create and deliver training materials specific to the project, coordinating and supervising trainer's creation and delivery. 7. Provide in-house training for trainers and assistant trainers 8. Provide Egyptian civil society input into project activities. 9. Undertake other tasks as required. 51 Job Roles & Responsibilities Q'ty title Accountant 1 1. Ensure all guidelines and procedures and standards of the Project are followed. 2. Management of Project expenditure within Donor guidelines. 3. Reconciliation of Project expenditure with AUC accounting and Donor guidelines. 4. Preparation of monthly accounting statements and supporting documentation. 5. Analysis of expenditure (including new project expenditure) in consultation with the Director and the Principal Investigator. 6. Manage petty cash float of 2,000EP. 7. Ensure effective monitoring mechanisms and procedures are in place and applied to the Project. 8. Maintain financial data bases for the Project 9. Other duties as directed Admin Assistant 1 1. a smooth operation of all scheduling associated with the second and final trainings as well as duties and tasks associated with the identification of the focal resource people and arrangements required for the two human rights camps and the final forum: 2. Using existing records of the database of project participants, undertake arrangements under the guidance of the executive manager to ensure participants meet their obligations for the second stage basic trainings. 3. Prepare faculty affiliation and gender data for reporting and other purposes. 4. Maintain course-related data concerning participant lists, resource people lists and arrange scheduling of the final skills trainings. 5. Keep the individual files current for associated tasks of resource people, the human rights camps and the final forum. 6. Monitor expenditures in cooperation with the director, executive manager and accountant. 7. Reserve hotel rooms, meeting halls, similar to ensure smooth running of the project trainings. 8. Professional level ability to type in English and Arabic and translation, particularly English to Arabic. 9. Other duties as required. Assistant Trainer 2 1. Delivery of training materials under the supervision of the Coordinator of the Training 2. Act as facilitator in working group activities during trainings. 3. Other duties as directed. 52 Job Roles & Responsibilities Q'ty title Secretary 1 1. a smooth operation of all office activities, keeping records and coordination among project staff, including: 2. Typing in English and Arabic and translation, particularly English-Arabic. 3. IHRLOP website updating and inserting new material and internet searching. 4. Fax and mail communication 5. Answering phones and relaying messages 6. Responding to enquiries about the project 7. Building and maintaining database of project participants, including contact information 8. Maintain course-related data concerning class lists, attendance records, testing scores and the like. 9. Coordinating with the director and assistant director on orderly keeping of records of the administrative activities, including setting up and keeping the files current. 10. Coordinating with the director on monitoring expenditures 11. Reserving hotel rooms, meeting halls, similar to ensure smooth running of the project 12. Ordering any multimedia equipment from Media Services and making sure they are returned within the time frame. 13. Other duties as required. 14. Coordinating and distributing work for the two clerks for administrative and training purposes while located within the office. Senior Trainer 1 1. Undertake research and write up training materials using specialist expertise and within the context of all training materials and project goals. 2. Prepare and deliver training materials 3. Using research abilities, check Egyptian legal practice for inclusion in case studies for units within all trainings 4. Act as facilitator in working group activities. 5. Undertake other tasks as directed. Trainer 1 1. Undertake research and write up training materials using specialist expertise and within the context of all training materials and project goals. 2. Prepare and deliver training materials 3. Using research abilities, check Egyptian legal practice for inclusion in case studies for units within all trainings 4. Act as facilitator in working group activities. 5. Undertake other tasks as directed. 53 Job Roles & Responsibilities Q'ty title Clerks 2 Office related 1. Open and close the office and all start up and close down activities 2. Clean and organize the office areas for daily operations. 3. Catering for local workshop activities. 4. Follow-up and organize kitchen supplies 5. Delivery of mail and documents for signing and delivery around all AUC premises. 6. Clerical work associated with training activities – photocopying duplex, reduction functions, punch holes and assemble into training folders. 7. Handle and organize all maintenance requests. Tasks related to training mission outside Cairo 1. Preparation of all materials and equipment to travel. 2. Book transportation and organize timing 3. Purchase goods and arrange catering for training sessions in the field 4. Attend to other clerical tasks required during training in the field. 5. Follow-up trainers' daily needs. 54