Comments from the Swedish Section on the draft for ISP 2000-04 Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 januari 1999

Comments from the Swedish Section on the draft for ISP 2000-04 (POL 50/07/98)

We welcome the new structure of the plan and especially the four columns in part II.

When reading the draft it is difficult to see which direction AIs work should take for the coming four years. You get the impression that we should do "everything" at the same time as we shall improve and develop our work in a series of fields. The question we put is if we really can manage that and if we have the resources to do it. There are very few areas which are suggested for deprioritization while many new working-fields are suggested.

Regarding the MTOs they seem to be a mixture between objectives, means and tools, which contributes to the undistinctness about the direction. We would like to see a better distinction between objectives and means. We also see some problems with the manner in which the objectives are formulated. They give us no possibility to evaluate to which extent we succeeded to reach them. We think that we should aim at formulating objectives which we can evaluate, even though we know that it is note easy.

We would like the plan to be more focused on a few areas, which are those we should concentrate on. The risk otherwise is that we spread out our insufficient resources in so many different areas that we cannot see any results of our work. One could say that we should aim at quality rather than quantity. A maindirection in the plan could for example be that AI should concentrate on the work to stop torture in as many countries as possible for the coming four years using all accessible methods and means instead of splitting the resources. At the same time we should continue our work in other fields through minor actions and research in accordance with MAC. We have seen a decrease in the number of POCs and a positive trend regarding the abolition of the DP while the use of torture continuos in an unreduced scale.

Some more detailed comments on the MTOs activities.
MTO 1:1 If the recommendations in the refugee review is to be implemented it will cost a lot as we cannot let external donors finance permanent posts at the IS.

MTO 1:2 We do not think that AI should give more resources on expanding the reporting on
"social and economic context of human rights violations".

MTO 1:3 The Swedish section does not think that a campaign to hold transnational
corporations and international financial institutions accountable should be carried
out.

MTO 2:1 - 2:4 The Swedish section supports these MTOs.

MTO 3:1, 3:2 and 4:1 Amnesty must not receive funds from governments for its HRE programs,
unless the benefit consists of printing material and similar expenses. In particular must government funds not be used for salaries and similar costs. The Swedish section is not in favour of governmental funding at all.
We are concerned that Amnesty may be building structures which in the future will consume too much of our expenses.

MTO 4.1: On national level it is said to improve strategic thinking. Yes but how. We do not think it fits in the plan.

MTO 4:2 As the Swedish section considers the democratic process for
decision-making very important, we do not think that spending for this purpose should be
decreased.

MTO 4:3 OK

MTO 5:1, 5:2 and 5:3
Increased quality will most certainly mean increased expenditure.

MTO 5.3: On the national level it is said "assign responsibility for information management at board level". We do not think that it fits in the plan but rather is a question for each section to decide on.

MTO 6:1 Government grants may not be accepted by any constituent body of Amnesty
International.

MTO 6:2 We question the suggestion to build international reserves of 1 million pound and think it is far to low.

Regarding proposed new directions one gets the impression that improvement of quality and change of method could be done in many areas without any costs, which we are not so sure about. For example we question the possibilities to open more deconcentrated offices due to unclear funding as suggested in MTO 3.2 and 4.1. We support the idea of deconcentration though. We believe that the plan is too optimistic and that there is a need to be more focused and chose fewer areas to develop an improve for the coming four years. In the draft everything seems to be important, which is probably true, but we lack the resources to work on everything all the time and therefore the question of priorities must be answered. The ICM must presented a plan designed in a manner which allows the meeting to decide on priorities.