Amnesty International EU Association Operational plan 2004 – 2006 Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 maj 2004

draft
April 2004

Amnesty International EU Association Operational plan 2004 – 2006


1. Scope and character

2. The EU and human rights context

3. The AI organizational context

4. Objectives and priorities

5. Human rights in the EU – the EU as a target

6. Human rights in the world – the EU as an intermediary

7. The EU institutionally

8. Outreach

9. Internal cooperation and development

10. Resources


Glossary

Annex 1: EU long term strategic objectives for the ISP

Annex 2: Main thrust of the workplan 2003-2004































draft
April 2004

Amnesty International EU Association Operational plan 2004 – 2006

mission: to put human rights at the heart of EU policies

1. Scope and character

Until now the workplans of the EU Association have been one-year plans, on mid-year cycles. With closer integration of the EU work in the overall planning of the international movement, the EUA operational plan (EUOP) will now move to two-year cycles, the first covering the period mid-2004 to mid-2006, to coincide with ISOP1.

A plan with a longer cycle will have to be more strategic. In fact, the last strategic plan of the EU Association dates from 2002 and set out the strategic scope for 2002-2004 and beyond. It contained long term strategic objectives that were submitted for input into the ISP (annex 1). Essentially these orientations are still valid, and they will be reflected to give this operational plan the necessary strategic direction.

It is important to be aware of the nature of EU work. It is driven by the EU agenda, often moving and changing fast, which makes human rights work at the EU to a certain extent unpredictable and hard to plan. However, the main strategic lines as developed over previous years are clear and will be maintained:
a) The overall orientation is to marshal Europe’s human rights potential more effectively, internally as well as externally;
b) The essential orientation vis-à-vis the EU is to complete the process of broadening the scope of work (human rights in Europe, geographical coverage, thematic coverage), and to deepen engagement with the institutions;
c) The essential orientation vis-à-vis AI is to complete the process of integrating the EU dimension into AI strategies, planning and programs, and to enable the IS and sections to share in EU work more effectively and efficiently.

This first EUOP builds on this strategic frame and elaborates on the main areas of work for the next two years. It will be subject to consultation with the sections and with the IS before and during the May 2004 AGM, after which it will be approved by the board. More concrete and detailed operational plans will be prepared every 6 months by the EU Office in line with the IS action planning cycle and with the rotating EU presidency.


2. The EU and human rights context

The European Union is going through a phase of turbulence and change, marked in 2004 by enlargement to 25 member states, elections for a new European Parliament and the appointment of a new Commission. The whole system will be unsettled, and if anything be more unwieldy, for some time to come. The political context is no less significant: a crisis in international relations which divided the EU to the core, chronic economic malaise, and deepening popular discontent with the European project, all of which served to enhance the reflex of national interest and undermine the collective. With no clear political leadership this manifested itself in a number of ways: deadlock over the constitution, acrimonious skirmishes opening the battle over the next budget cycle 2006-2013, but also failure to draw up a common asylum system that complies with international law.

However, with the curious resilience that also characterizes the EU, the fiasco on the constitution and the horrific bombing attacks in Madrid combined to re-inject a sense of determination. It resulted in an opening which may make it possible to reach agreement on the constitution by the middle of 2004 after all, while the renewed drive against ‘terrorism’ led to intensified judicial cooperation and joint action in areas that until recently had been a national preserve. The overall picture for the next two years is likely to be one of cautious manoevering, adaptation to change, finding new alliances and regaining confidence.

In this context of relative insecurity and lack of leadership, the prospects for the EU to conduct effective human rights policies are not so good. External relations will remain subject to consensus also under the new constitution, which with 25 members will continue to restrict the Common Foreign and Security Policy to the lowest common denominator especially on the politically most sensitive issues and countries where so often we find human rights in crisis. At the same time the ‘war on terror’ is likely to compound the problem of getting the EU to address serious questions of human rights within the own borders.

Notwithstanding this less than favourable climate, as a ‘Union of values’ the EU remains expressly committed to promotion and protection of human rights at home and abroad. In its relations with third countries a growing range of policy instruments is wanting for (more effective) implementation, and this offers very considerable scope for advocacy and cooperation. Regarding human rights within the EU, AI is spearheading NGO efforts across a broad range of concerns and there is now growing recognition of the need for the EU to take these matters more seriously, as manifested by the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the draft constitution and by the discussion on an EU human rights agency.

Notwithstanding problems the EU is currently facing, its role on the global stage is likely to become stronger as it expands in size and scope, and as it matches economic power with political clout and, still in its infancy, military capability. As such, the EU has been marked in the ISOP as a cross-cutting issue requiring a coherent strategy both in the way it affects human rights within its territory and for its global power. The challenge in the forthcoming planning period will be to harness AI’s full potential to help put human rights at the heart of all EU policies.


3. The AI organizational context

EU Association and EU Office
The EU Association has been conceived as a vehicle for effective EU work, to be carried out in ever closer cooperation between EU office, sections and IS. EU work is perceived as complex and has so far largely been left to the EU Office and its team of section lobbyists/contact-persons/refugee coordinators. Integrating this into AI’s overall strategies and programs, and opening it up to the IS and to the larger AI membership requires reciprocal commitment to work together on strategy development, action planning and capacity building.

As the operative arm of the EU Association, the EU Office has a pivotal role in this process, with the following functions:
· responsible for AI’s strategy and agenda for EU work
· legal and policy analysis
· lobby, public relations, outreach
· coordination of section activities
· capacity building, service
· resource for institutions, AI, media, NGOs

Connection with international planning
The ISP and ISOP1 have incorporated the EU strategically and as a cross-cutting factor. In order to complement that commitment and allow for effective and integrated use of AI resources, the EU Office seeks alignment with Global Impact Goals, Country Action Programs and thematic projects through ‘EU profiles’ which should enable the IS to incorporate the EU component in country strategies and in research and project design.

A first survey of regional and country-related EU activities and objectives connected to the GIGs has already been made available to the IS. These illustrate how the EU connects and fits with AI’s new human rights strategies as formulated through the GIGs, and they should help the IS to factor in the EU. Insofar as they relate to countries outside the EU, this scheme as such does not constitute a planning tool for the actual work of the EU Office. For human rights within the EU , however, the planning format of the GIGs does appear suitable. This part of the EUOP should serve to complement the EU multi-CAP developed by the IS.

Work on EU profiles for the CAPs is in progress. By describing the background and formal basis of the EU’s relations with the countries in question, and the scope for influencing the EU with a view to advancing our human rights objectives, they aim to assist the IS in incorporating the EU dimension in designing and developing the CAPs. Similar profiles will be undertaken in due course with regard to thematic projects where it is agreed that there is significant EU relevance.

Continuity of EU planning
While it is important to connect AI’s EU work with the new international planning system and to facilitate the incorporation of the EU dimension into the IS planning of country and thematic work, the actual planning of EU work must continue to take its cues from the perspective of the EU itself, its human rights policies, its competences, its agenda, its priorities. Over the past years, through longer term strategic plans and one-year workplans the EU Association has evolved a clear pattern for such planning, which experience has shown to be workable for its users, relevant to the EU system, and realistic in terms of achieving our objectives.

Thus, rather than radically changing the format, this EUOP maintains the approach and thrust of previous plans (the outline of the workplan 2003-2004 is attached for reference, annex 2). It aims to provide the strategic scope for AI’s work directed at and through the EU, and to outline the main areas of activity within that framework in the next two years to be conducted through the EU Office and the EU sections in conjunction with the IS.

It is clear that the 2004-2006 period will have to be seen as transitional in terms of aligning and integrating EU work with AI’s shifting international planning.

Balancing organizational and operational needs
In balancing the substantive EU agenda with organizational demands, the EU Office has generally given priority to the former and so far this has not been fundamentally at the expense of the latter. However, integrating the EU dimension properly into AI’s broader strategies and programs as a crosscutting issue will require substantial organizational investment. There will be an increasing need for advice, liaison, training and capacity building generally, both at the IS and in the sections and structures (not least those in the accession countries). These needs can only be met by the EU office if the commitment to make that investment is reciprocal both from sections and the IS.

Creating European space
In this context it is appropriate to refer to the broader discussion generated at the level of directors of sections, IS and EU Office to develop a European collective capacity for strategy, research and activism, in order to become more effective as AI in Europe and with special emphasis of our work on Europe. While the EU has been a katalyst factor, the new regional orientation is broader that the EU, as it cuts across key challenges AI faces in how to organize research, campaigning and growth at a regional level to address inadequacies that cannot (only) be resolved nationally.

While the EU Association and its Brussels office remain focused on their primary task, i.e. to work on the EU, it is understood that this broader development is of critical importance to achieve effective EU work that can draw on all the movement’s capacities. Indeed, one of the red lines in this plan is the need for sections to extend their EU work beyond the small circle of lobbyists, to invest in capacity building, and to provide back-up on national law and practice in key areas of AI’s work on human rights in Europe. The EU Association and the EU Office will therefore continue to stimulate this broader debate and development, building on the experience gained in more than a decade of collective work.


4. Objectives and priorities

The overall objectives for AI’s EU work derive from the picture of the EU as a major actor with a broad human rights ‘mandate’ that applies both internally and externally, and from its supranational character that places virtually all government lobbying in an EU context. AI’s EU goals have evolved over a period of years, developing from concrete actions on third countries to encompass also broader engagement on policy and institutional issues. From the primary functions of lobby, liaison and coordination, the scope of the EU Office has broadened into substantive legal and policy analysis in areas of asylum and now also fundamental rights in the EU.

Complementing our own planning and design, the scope and direction of our EU work has also been shaped by response and expectations from the institutions and member states, as well as from media, other NGOs and indeed AI itself. Through consistent lobby and public campaigning AI has become a relevant actor in the EU political context. That profile extends also to the member states and has helped strengthen the sections’ role in the relations with their governments.

Objectives
All of this means that AI is in a position to build constructively on previous work. Drawing from that, our overall objectives and can be summarized as follows from different angles at the levels of mission, EU human rights goals, AI’s overall objectives, and strategic framework.

à Mission
· to put human rights at the heart of EU policies.

à EU human rights goals
· to confront the world’s human rights crises;
· to uphold rights protection when countering “terrorism” and “illegal immigration”;
· to shape EU accountability for human rights observance within the own borders.

à Overall AI objectives
1. Maintain a minimum level of coverage on third countries, including sustained attention for priority countries and more incidental action on others.
2. Develop the EU dimension in AI’s work on human rights within the EU.
3. Maintain the high level of work on asylum, and develop a focus on the external dimension and on the larger complex of migration.
4. Develop the EU dimension in AI’s main campaigning programs (SVAW, arms control).
5. Contribute to EU thematic programs on death penalty, torture, children and armed conflict and human rights defenders, and to the broader goals of human rights mainstreaming.
6. Maintain a focus on EU institutional and policy development.
7. Maintain a strong public profile through media work and representation.
8. Maintain AI’s prominent role in human rights- and broader NGO alliances at EU level.
9. Provide advice and training for the IS and for sections/structures especially in accession countries.
10. Keep administration, infrastructure (notably ICT) and management at necessary levels.

à Strategic framework
1. Overall orientation: to marshal Europe’s human rights potential more effectively, internally as well as externally;
2. Regarding the EU: to complete the process of broadening the scope of work (human rights in Europe, geographical coverage, thematic coverage), and to deepen engagement with the institutions;
3. Regarding AI: to complete the process of integrating the EU dimension into AI strategies, planning and programs, and to enable the IS and sections to share in EU work more effectively and efficiently.

Priorities
To plan concrete activities and set more precise priorities, a flexible approach is used in which EU and AI agendas are meshed in such a way that the EU work reflects AI’s main priorities while exploiting the opportunities offered by the EU agenda to the fullest possible advantage. This is done through the concrete plans that are drawn up on 6-month cycles based on IS action plans, the presidency calendars and relevant EU policy and legislative processes.

Main priority criteria are:

· countries outside EU: CAPs, countries at risk, EU role/priority and potential for influence;
· themes: AI thematic priorities (mainly SVAW, arms control, war on terror), EU priorities;
· general: need to use ‘strategic opportunities’.

It is important to note that planning and priority setting must be weighed against the availability of relevant and up-to-date research needed for effective lobbying and media activities. In other words, sustained research back-up is needed on countries that are in focus in key EU policy areas and on certain thematic dossiers. With IS output and development of work on own country as yet unclear this remains an uncertain factor.


5. Human rights in the EU – the EU as a target

AI pressure over the past years has been instrumental in putting the question of EU-level accountability for observance of human rights within the own borders on the political agenda. With dedicated staff capacity since September 2003 the EU Office has developed substantive work enabling AI to act adequately in an area that is rapidly expanding in significance not least because of the pervasive impact of counter-terrorism. At the same time AI has been at the forefront in critically following the development of asylum policies at EU level in what has been an increasing adverse climate.

Work on human rights in Europe will be shaped substantially through the EU multi-CAP.

GIG 1 – Reform and strengthen the justice sector
The major focus remains on issues relating to judicial cooperation and the establishment of minimum standards in procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants. A proposal is due from the Commission on this topic in April 2004. There will also be ongoing work at the Commission on standards and admissibility of evidence. AI will continue to contribute to the development of this proposal and to ensuring that high standards are applied in the justice sector within the EU as the ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ is developed.

AI will continue to press for the establishment of effective mechanisms of accountability within the EU, and efficient monitoring systems. This will be done in tandem with developments at EU level such as the consultation on the human rights agency, the implementation of Article 7 TEU and the development of the network of independent experts on fundamental rights.

Other issues to be addressed are:
à Discrimination in the justice sector. One area of particular concern is that of the situation of the Roma and their difficulties in relation to access to justice.
à Protection of victims and the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. This will be addressed specifically in relation to particularly vulnerable victims such as those who are subjected to gender-based violence or the victims of racist and xenophobic crimes.
à Ethics in policing is likely to be an issue addressed by the Dutch presidency in the second semester of 2004, and this will give an opportunity to develop work on best practice and issues relating to impunity.

GIG 3 – Protect the rights of human rights defenders
The EU Office will continue to explore possibilities to support the protection of human rights defenders also through the refugee angle, and most importantly through the possible adoption of an EU-wide resettlement scheme which is currently discussed.

GIG 4 – Resist abuses in the ‘war on terror’
The EU Office will continue to monitor EU-led developments in the ‘war on terror’ and comment on their impact on the respect for human rights within the EU. In particular, we will endeavour to assess the impact of the framework decision on combating terrorism in member states and to monitor pending cases relating to the lack of transparency and recourse to justice on inclusion in the EU ‘terrorist lists’. We will also continue to monitor the impact of the European Arrest Warrant and highlight any problems encountered in this context.

GIG 5 – Uphold the rights of refugees and migrants
The process of European integration in the field of asylum towards a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) will continue to be monitored, analysed and commented on, with lobbying in Brussels and in capitals. The first phase of the legislative agenda aiming at adopting common minimum standards (according to the principles defined at the European Council held in Tampere in 1999) will come to an end in May 2004. However, the disappointing results of this first phase, in particular regarding the refugee definition (qualification) and asylum procedures directives, place a large question mark over the actual content of second phase of harmonisation.

Notwithstanding this difficult political climate, the EU Office will provide input into the consultations launched by the Commission on the second phase of harmonisation, and in particular the adoption of a single European asylum procedure. It will also develop work on economic, social and cultural rights by monitoring the future debates on a long-term residence status for refugees and persons in need of international protection. The Dutch presidency is expected to convene a European summit which is to define political guidelines for the next five years (‘Tampere II’). The EU Office will reiterate AI’s concerns and views in a comprehensive document which will contain an overall assessment of Tampere I and prospective inputs for the second phase.

The EU Office will monitor relevant developments on the external dimension of the CEAS, which is likely to be at the core of the second phase of harmonisation. Recommendations on resettlement schemes and burden-sharing principles will be actively promoted. Partnership with third countries will also be closely monitored: in this context, the EU Office will use the outcome of research missions such as those carried out in Afghanistan and Libya, two countries of particular interest to the EU. Follow-up actions on the problematic issue of ‘external processing’ of asylum claims will be carried out as necessary.

While the discussions on protection issues have reached a dead-end, the EU member states have adopted a significant number of instruments to combat ‘illegal immigration’ and to develop a common return policy. The EU Office will produce a comprehensive policy paper on return of rejected asylum-seekers, in close cooperation with the IS refugee team.

Greater attention will also be paid to the rights of migrants. There is scope for AI to actively promote the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their family members, an instrument which is supported by the Commission but has received very little attention from EU member states.

In the second phase of harmonisation, the decision-making process applicable to the CEAS will change and decisions will be adopted under qualified majority rule with the European Parliament to act as a co-legislator. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice will play an active role in interpreting the instruments which have been adopted under the first phase of harmonisation. This changing procedural framework will give new room for action and in particular to engage further in lobbying the European Parliament. Possible lobbying actions could be developed in order to ask the EP to seize the Court of Justice and check the legality of key instruments of the CEAS.

GIG 6 – Promote ESC rights of marginalized communities
Within the EU, the one group that has been identified by the EU network of independent experts on fundamental rights as suffering from institutionalised marginalisation to a degree which requires an EU level response is the Roma. AI will lobby for full implementation of instruments such as the EU race directive to eradicate discrimination against the Roma in Europe in relation to access to education, employment, social protection and social advantages, access to housing. This issue is likely to become more visible with enlargement as the Roma population within the EU will be significantly increased – this is not, however, a problem confined to the accession states.

One question which needs to be addressed in relation to marginalised communities in the EU is the situation with regard to communities in outlying territories such as the Dutch Antilles and French DOMTOM. Serious issues relating to respect of the rights of the child in the Dutch Antilles were raised by the Network of Independent Experts in their report on 2002. We may consider work on this point.

The EU Office will also monitor the developments at EU level relating to the harmonisation of criminal law on racism and xenophobia.

GIG 7 – Campaign to stop violence against women
The problem of violence against women in the EU is, to some degree, an unknown quantity due to the lack of comprehensive data on the subject, in particular regarding domestic violence. The EU Office will lobby for a comprehensive, comparative report on the situation of violence against women within the EU based on concrete data to be collected by governments.

The EU Office will also look at the possibilities of furthering work to stop violence against women through legislation designed to protect victims at EU level. We will also look at the possibility of pushing for legislation on protection of the victims of trafficking in human beings.

Where possible the EU Office will raise concerns relating to reproductive health rights (in conjunction with issues raised under GIG 6 re. Roma) and push for compliance with international standards within the EU.

There will be very limited scope to work on violence against women regarding refugee-related issues. While gender-specific persecution is expressly included in the qualification directive, there are no specific guidelines in the directive on asylum procedures for status determination authorities on how to handle this question. The EU office will explore possibilities to raise this again in discussions on a single European procedure during the second phase of the harmonisation process.

Practical Issues
The development of work on human rights in Europe will be dependent to some extent on a number of internal and external factors. First and foremost, the outcome of the negotiations on the constitution may affect the direction of some of our work. Other issues, such as procedural safeguards, the human rights agency, and the second phase of asylum harmonization will be monitored but the nature and degree of concrete work that will be possible within the next two years will depend on the advancement of these proposals in the institutions.

Internally, a number of the themes described above can only be developed credibly if the EU Office has access to information and research on the actual situation in member states. To monitor the impact of EU legislation on human rights in Europe and on refugee protection we will need data and analysis on legislation and cases in countries. In order to raise issues on monitoring and the problems of human rights abuses in Europe we will have to be in a position to give examples of the problems in all areas that we address. Indications are that capacities in sections are at best minimal, and this poses a major challenge for the forthcoming period.


6. Human rights in the world – the EU as an intermediary

External relations/CFSP
Bilateral political dialogue with third countries, including specific dialogue formats with a human rights focus, and EU activity in multilateral for a, in particular the United Nations, will remain the key channels to inject AI concerns and recommendations into the EU’s external relations and Common Foreign and Security Policy. Priority, format of activities, applied techniques (including public profiling) and level of section involvement will be subject to bi-annual programming.

The work programs to be issued in July 2004, January 2005, July 2005 and January 2006 will be drawn up on the basis of consultations with the IS regional programs on strategic focus of content and scheduling of their output, and after review of priorities of the forthcoming presidencies. At the same time, the EU office will seek to ensure a rolling integration of the EU dimension into the medium- and short-term IS and section planning, i.e. by posting regular updates on emerging opportunities in the international action planning database., and issuing weekly media planning updates

Prioritywill be given to activities
a) on countries at risk/in crisis;
b) on countries selected for CAPs;
c) on countries where the EU
à can be identified as the key external agent for change; and/or
à has assumed special responsibility for a country situation, e.g. in relation to UN CHR; and/or
à pursues pronounced policies in the JHA area such as re-admission agreements, refugee return plans and ‘anti-terrorist’ cooperation;
d) on themes that constitute stated priority areas for the EU’s human rights policy.

The criteria above are to be weighed against the availability of relevant and up-to-date research needed for effective lobbying and media activities.

‘Wider Europe’
With the development of a major EU policy framework for ‘Wider Europe’ to enhance relations with countries in the neighbouring regions to the East and South, important new space has been created for human rights advocacy. With a focus on fostering political and economic stability, the Wider Europe policy evidently has the potential to strengthen democracy and promote human rights in a number of countries where serious problems of systematic and gross abuse persist. To create such opportunities will require building constructive links between economic and trade benefits and real progress in advancing human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Experience with the Mediterranean association agreements in the context of Euromed has shown that in the absence of such conditions the human rights clause easily remains a dead letter.

AI will actively explore the scope for action in this context, including through several CAPs that have been established on countries in the region: Balkans, Russia, Turkey (with its candidacy for EU membership as key leverage), and the North Africa Project.

Thematic priorities
The EU Office has marked as thematic priorities the development of AI’s work in EU context in two cluster areas:
à ESC rights, encompassing development, trade, corporate social responsibility; and
à armed conflict, encompassing conflict prevention and conflict resolution, crisis management, children and armed conflict, arms control, EU security strategy.
In these areas AI is participating more or less passively (trade, development, conflict prevention) or actively (CSR, children and armed conflict, arms control) in NGO networks or partnerships. In order to make progress in these critical but complex areas, we will need more back-up from and interaction with AI’s experts both at the IS and in the sections.

EU human rights guidelines
In 2004 the Council is set under the Irish presidency to adopt yet another set of human rights guidelines for EU policy in external relations, on human rights defenders, adding to those on death penalty, torture, human rights dialogues and children and armed conflict. The general picture is one of utter lack of capacity to putting these policy instruments in practice, and AI will push for greater priority to be given to implementation including allocation of adequate resources.


7. The EU institutionally

Constitutional reform
The single most important development is the process of drawing up a constitutional treaty for the EU, at the time of writing subject of renewed debate in the Inter-Governmental Conference with a prospect of adoption by mid-2004. AI will continue to monitor developments and respond in conjunction with NGO partners. Once the constitution is adopted, such monitoring will continue in relation to implementation of relevant aspects, both in terms of competences and policies and with regard to structural change such as the introduction of a foreign minister.

Enlargement
With accession of ten new member states a fact, the complexion of the EU will change dramatically in many respects. As regards work on human rights, the new members will fall under the regime we criticize for its negligence regarding member states’ own human rights performance. This constitutes an added reason for stepping up our work in that area. At a different level, our lobby to influence EU decision-making by the Council extends to ten more countries. Only two of the new member states, Poland and Slovenia, are ‘serviced’ by AI sections, and three more by AI structures.

This requires an additional effort by the EU office to lobby a number of the new member states directly through their permanent representations in Brussels. Work will continue as before with regard to the remaining three candidate countries, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, the latter heading for a crucial decision end 2004 whether actual negotiations can start. Croatia and Macedonia are in line for possible candidate status.

Effectiveness of EU human rights policies
Through a range of actions and communications including the biannual presidency memoranda AI continues to press for a more effective EU human rights policy that reflects the very high ambition the EU sets for itself. Putting human rights into practice, through political dialogue, through specific policy instruments such as the various guidelines and the human rights clause in agreements with third countries, and through the 100m annual human rights program ‘European Initiative on Democracy and Human Rights’, remains a challenge. A big challenge for an EU that for the time being is not likely to regain the collective strength of purpose that is required to pursue human rights goals effectively and coherently. And the stated objective of ‘mainstreaming’ human rights into other areas of EU activity has so far largely failed to take hold.

While AI continues to be critical of the overall performance of the EU at ‘macro’ level, it also acknowledges good intentions, great efforts and often also concrete results at ‘micro’ level. Moving beyond the big agenda and the headline countries, AI’s role is often one of cooperation and partnership with institutions, especially the Commission and the European Parliament, that have very wide engagements and channels of influence with third countries and that are generally receptive to AI information and advice.

Extending AI’s reach
This offers great scope for constructive lobbying which the EU Office will extend gradually over the planning period now that its capacity has doubled to two executive officers for CFSP and with the more active participation that is envisaged from the IS. It is broadening its contact networks in the Commission and in the member states’ Permanent Representations in Brussels, and will extend its reach in the Commission to include the delegations (EC ‘embassies’) in third countries in view of their increasingly important role in shaping the EU’s external relations.

European Parliament
In response to pressure from AI and partner NGOs the EP has recently begun to develop a clearer focus on its role as the body that should hold the Council and the Commission to account for the way in which they conduct the EU’s human rights policies. During the next legislature following the June 2004 elections, with a new composition including the new member states, AI will pursue that as its overarching objective and continue to advocate more structured cooperation between the relevant committees, as well as better staff resourcing. It will engage more closely with the EP both through the re-established human rights subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee and in connection with the increased power in the JHA area.

EU human rights agency
A surprise decision by the December 2003 European Council introduced the prospect of an EU human rights agency, raising more questions than answers in the first instance (including the lack of clarity whether it should have a European or a global remit), but also offering a potentially interesting innovation to the EU’s human rights complex. AI will participate actively in the process of consultations starting in the Spring of 2004, based on a vision that would see the agency focused on human rights within the EU, with functions of monitoring and analysis of the respect of human rights within the EU to generate corrective action and policy development as necessary.


8. Outreach

Media
The EU office runs a highly effective media operation which enables it to strengthen the lobby effort with targeted publicity and to open channels for general human rights commentary and opinion pieces. At the same time it provides a recognized and valued resource for journalists, especially on asylum and other JHA issues but also on general questions of EU human rights policy. Sections clearly appear to benefit in terms of targeting their national media more effectively on issues of EU policy which are often seen as complex. A consistent effort is made to prepare materials in advance, but due to the nature of the EU system that is often not possible. Efforts will also continue to align the EU press operation with the IS, with a view to enabling the IS to profit from the fact that Brussels is the international media center of Europe, and that the EU can often provide an important strategic angle to help effective news coverage.

The high media profile that has been generated has a potential downside in that it will be increasingly difficult to satisfy the level of demand and expectation with the available capacity. It will be necessary during the planning period to strengthen the capacity, at present a half-time press officer.

NGOs
Cooperation with the two closest partners in Brussels, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) is expected to remain at its constant and reliable level. AI continues to play a prominent role both in the NGO network on asylum and migration and in the larger human rights and democracy network that is now meeting regularly. The director represents the latter in the inter-sectoral Civil Society Contact Group, a body formed at the start of the Convention on the Future of Europe that has generated a strong sense of collective interest and mutual confidence between key organizations and actors. A similar development is now reflected in the area of CSR, while expectations are that the work on human rights in Europe will generate further alliance building around particular themes, be they migrants, racism and other aspects of discrimination, women’s rights, or civil liberties generally.

AI clearly is seen as a valued component in these various networks, and it will remain an important part of the work of the EU office to invest in them.


9. Internal cooperation and development

Planning and communication
The planning system will continue to be operated on a more flexible basis as outlined before to should allow for an optimal mesh between the EU and AI agendas. Servicing generally will have to be improved, in particular by adjusting information and reporting systems to match the evolving integration between EU Office, IS and sections.

The position of the EU contactpersons will change with the new EUA governance system and with greater involvement of section directors in EU operational planning. However, the contactpersons will remain the core operational EU team and the intention is to continue to bring them together twice a year.

The EU office website will be upgraded. Efforts will be continued to post relevant texts (in particular news releases) also in French.

Training
EU work is often complex, not because all of it is intrinsically difficult but because of lack of knowledge about how the EU actually functions. Enlargement and the new constitution will add to that complexity in that there will be major changes to the system. While the need for training (for sections and IS) thus remains high, the capacity of the EU Office will remain limited, requiring strict planning and systematic investment from the other partners (especially the IS given the numbers involved). Priority will always be given to the forthcoming presidency sections.

There is an obvious need for clear and accessible materials, judging from the positive response to fact sheets, occasional feature articles and the like. The EU office will continue to look for ways of meeting that need, and will develop the series of fact sheets.

The Handbook is in the process of being updated. Given the fast pace of development and change, it will involve, yet again, a more fundamental look at the best way to shape an effective guide to the EU.

Enlargement support
With actual enlargement now a reality it has been judged necessary to step up organizational support and training for sections and structures in the new member states and remaining candidate countries. A decision has been taken, and resources in principle provided separately by the sections, to establish a post of ‘ambassador’ by way of a project to assist the sections/structures in the countries concerned with their lobby work and with capacity building. Poland as the large country among the new member states would have relative priority in the scheme, and the post would therefore be based in Warsaw. It is expected that the project will be implemented around the summer of 2004, for a two-year period. Depending on evaluation it may then become a regular part of the EU Office and budget


10. Resources

With the addition in 2003 and 2004 of a second executive officer for JHA and for CFSP respectively the EU Office has reached a more balanced and less vulnerable composition of operational staff on both sides, supported by a good complement of invariably excellent interns. Levels of coverage and output reflect that, but we must be careful to consolidate those gains, also in areas of activity that feel the knock-on effect. Having provided for necessary strengthening and expansion of the scope of our work, it will be essential to ensure that its impact on the rest of the office can be properly absorbed. Expectation is that the impact will be felt (indeed already is being felt) in the areas of media work and the organization of our public campaigning, and of administrative support including ICT.

Hence the proposal in the 2005 budget to provide for additional staff capacity in these areas, at executive and administrative level respectively, for a total of one full time equivalent. This is in line with expectations of the increase in volume of work both as a result of the increased pressures on the office due to the enlargement and also due to the extended work in both the JHA and CFSP areas and AI’s increasing public profile at the EU.



Glossary


CAP country action program

CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy

CSR corporate social responsibility

EP European Parliament

ESC economic, social and cultural (rights)

EUA EU Association

EUOP EU operational plan

Euromed Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

GIG global impact goal

ICT information and communication technology

IGC Inter-Governmental Conference

ISOP International Secretariat operational plan

ISP integrated strategic plan

JHA Justice and Home Affairs

UN CHR United Nations Commission on Human Rights


Annex 1


From: Strategic Plan for Amnesty International’s EU work (April 2002)

The ISP: long term strategic objectives

The following orientations are offered as input into the ISP process.

a. Overall: to marshal Europe's human rights potential more effectively, internally as well as externally.
b. There is an overriding need generally for AI to develop a more regional strategic approach;
c. with a logic for a priority focus on Europe which has the most advanced intergovernmental architecture encompassing political, economic, social and human rights dimensions;
d. and on the EU as the world's most significant and rapidly evolving regional entity, shortly comprising 25 member countries and up to 30 within the next decade, and with a strong human rights mandate that
- infers accountability for the human rights performance within its own borders
- enables it to exert its increasing political and economic influence for human rights globally, through a focus on countries and capacity building as well a broader rights-based approach;
- can be monitored and assessed on its actions and results, in turn effecting policy and institutional development.
e. Effective human rights work in Europe requires a comprehensive strategy integrating the EU, Council of Europe and OSCE and including both the internal (EU countries) and larger European context.
f. The Council of Europe and the EU in particular should be regarded jointly in terms of developing a framework for research and action drawing together the standards with the action and accountability mechanisms.
g. The EU's negative vanguard role regarding refugee protection must be taken into account in drawing up AI strategies in this area.
h. The EU is increasingly a determining factor for work by the European sections.
i. However, the EU as a target with regard to human rights in Europe (or indeed with regard to its global role) cannot be the exclusive domain for the AI membership in Europe.
j. It is important to acknowledge the EU's civil society/NGO potential, not just in terms of specific human rights objectives but also with regard to broader policy and institutional development; the media are a powerful tool as well;
k. Summarizing, EU work must be an integral element of AI strategies, and the EU office and the EU sections must be joined into a strategic partnership.


Annex 2


Main thrust EUA workplan 2003-2004:


1. Extend JHA (EU as target)
à asylum: maintain work on common asylum system and evolve on external dimension
à develop work on ‘human rights within the EU’
NB human rights & ‘terrorism’; ‘illegal immigration’

2. ‘Consolidate’ CFSP (EU as intermediary)
à maintain work on priority countries
à crisis work
à develop methodology to enable work on other countries
NB ‘Wider Europe’

3. Broaden thematic/policy scope
à maintain work on death penalty/torture/hrd/impunity/msp/csr
à develop relevant perspectives and action on discrimination, VAW
à monitor ESC rights in context debates on trade/development & human rights, asylum
à maintain focus on EU policy/institutional development
NB IGC; EP elections

4. Build capacity for EU work
à in sections and IS, through consistent outreach and training
à with civil society, building alliances
à through media, extending to sections and IS
NB enlargement

Overall approach/method:
à EU office for lobby Brussels +; public campaigning; and as resource for AI, media, NGOs
à sections for complementary lobby and activism