A/HRC/21/51 human rights field presences to promote dissemination and bring together relevant stakeholders. Proposals aimed at creating more institutionalized and systematic follow-up included the establishment of a dedicated unit in the Special Procedures Branch to document follow-up efforts in order to create an institutional memory of best practices. It was observed that dialogue between States and mandate holders should be enhanced and that the preparation of follow-up reports was currently hampered by a lack of responsiveness from States. The point was made that follow-up was not the exclusive preserve of mandate holders and that national mechanisms for follow-up and assessment of the implementation rate of recommendations should be established. Non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions and United Nations agencies were invited to contribute to such processes. 33. Noting that follow-up in the United Nations system was generally weak, mandate holders discussed the lack of time and resources in that area. It was noted that mandate holders could strengthen their cooperation with human rights treaty bodies and the universal periodic review, and build on each other’s recommendations, observations and conclusions. Better coordination across mechanisms would facilitate engagement with United Nations country teams and enhance their ability to follow up on recommendations. Several mandate holders referred to the importance of communications and the need to have a more systematic approach to this crucial area of work. Ways to make these a more powerful tool, including through follow-up, were also discussed. 34. The mandate holders were briefed on the outcome of a study on the protection impact of United Nations human rights field presences, Influence on the Ground,3 prepared over a two-year period, highlighting country-specific case studies and based on inputs from nearly 400 respondents, including State actors, human rights staff and civil society organizations. The study indicated that protection is best advanced through a multifaceted strategy, including monitoring through presence, advocacy, diplomacy and technical cooperation. Maintaining a dialogue with the State is crucial, as is the capacity-building of local civil society. The cooperation of human rights monitors with authorities has a significant dissuasive effect and prevents violations, particularly where the presence on the ground was considered credible and legitimate. Examples of strategic collaboration between special procedures and field presences were identified. The visits and communications of special procedures provide a “louder voice” when highlighting concerns, which is particularly valuable for smaller field presences. It is important for special procedures to visit rural areas and communities, engage with local civil society actors and thoroughly consider how mission reports may be of use for a variety of stakeholders. 35. The mandate holders welcomed the study and noted that the protection of witnesses and sources must always be a priority concern. The national staff members of United Nations human rights field presences may be at more risk than international staff. Some mandate holders observed that there was a need for capacity-building with regard to human rights mechanisms, including special procedures, among field staff. The mandate holders recognized the crucial role that field presences play in promoting follow-up, and that the special procedures and field presences had distinct independent roles. Maintaining this distinction and the independence of mandate holders was essential and would help to avoid politically delicate situations for United Nations personnel in the field. They also pointed to the complementary roles of OHCHR field presences, other parts of the United Nations on the ground and local civil society in addressing human rights issues. 3 Liam Mahoney and Roger Nash, Influence on the Ground (Brewster, Fieldview Solutions, 2012). 11