A/HRC/15/39 possibility of drafting legislation for their establishment. The NHRIs represented at the meeting reported on some of their important activities as well as the regional networking which had developed among them, particularly through the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and the South East Asia National Human Rights Institutions Forum. It was noted that a first meeting of NHRIs of the South Asian region had taken place last year, and that in April 2010, the national human rights institutions of the Gulf Cooperation Council States had held a regional meeting, which was attended by the High Commissioner for Human Rights during her official visit to the region. 9. Many Member States reported on the value of national human rights action plans in giving momentum and coherence to their national efforts. Several Member States are now in the process of developing and implementing their second - even third - national human rights action plans. Two significant trends were highlighted in that discussion. First, some of the more recent plans, such as those in Indonesia and in the Philippines, were being increasingly localized, i.e. there was decentralization of implementation from the national to the local government level. The recent review of the National Human Rights Commission legislation of India was also noted in that respect, as it provided a greater role for state-level human rights commissions. 10. A second element that emerged was the linkage between the universal periodic review process and the development of national human rights action plans. It was noted that there was a lot of potential synergy between the preparation and follow-up to the universal periodic review, and the development and implementation of a national human rights action plan, and there was a lot of interest in the sharing of further experiences and best practices in that respect. While most representatives welcomed the universal periodic review mechanism, many delegations noted the strain that Governments were under in both reporting to that mechanism and following up on the recommendations together with the treaty body recommendations. In that context, more assistance and capacity-building from OHCHR was needed. Examples were given of OHCHR trainings in New Zealand, Viet Nam, Thailand and Malaysia that had served to assist Member States with these additional obligations. 11. States reported various new initiatives in the field of human rights education and economic, social and cultural rights. The current context of the global economic crisis was highlighted in that respect. Mr. Muntarbhorn emphasized that those agendas engaged different actors, particularly the various line ministries involved in education, social policy and protection issues. 12. The meeting also heard from civil society representatives their interest in supporting those different dimensions of the Asia-Pacific Regional Framework on an ongoing basis. The representatives stressed the importance of involving them in intersessional activities and on ensuring more comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of the progress made in each of those areas. 13. In summary, the three main observations that emerged from the first day of discussions were that: (a) developments at the international level, such as the universal periodic review, had reinvigorated national processes, including those specified under the Tehran Framework; (b) involvement of civil society had increased in both international and regional intergovernmental processes, while at the same time there was a call for more systematic consultation and cooperation between key actors, including national human rights institutions; and (c) increased capacity-building was needed to help support Member States fulfil their national commitments made through new mechanisms at the international and regional level, including the universal periodic review. 5