Inter-Sectional Relief Review Meeting in Stockholm October 25-26 2003 Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 december 2003

Till: Styrelsen
Från: Lisa Moraeus
Datum: 5 december 2003


Inter-Sectional Relief Review Meeting in Stockholm October 25-26 2003

Draft Minutes

The meeting was initiated and organized by the Swedish Amnesty Fund and representatives from the IEC, IS and seven AI sections participated. A list of participants in the meeting is given in Appendix 1.

Opening of the Meeting:
Rose-Marie Asker, board member of Swedish Amnesty Fund, welcomed the participants.

Albert Gans, chair of the meeting, presented the agenda which the meeting agreed on, see Appendix 2.

The participants introduced themselves and gave a brief outline of the relief work in their sections.

Presentation of the Relief Review Report
Elisabeth Löfgren was commissioned in October 2002 by the IS to undertake a review of the relief guidelines and at this meeting she presented her report, "Report of the Relief Review 2002-2003", (AI Index FIN 50/001/2003).

The participants expressed their appreciation for the work carried out byElisabeth Lööfgren.

IEC: AI Vision and Mission, ISP and the relation to relief:
Hanna Roberts, new member on the IEC, explained that the IEC has not really discussed the relief issues coming up at this meeting and therefore her own view on relief matters is not necessarily the official IEC view.

At the ICM in Senegal in 2001 the concept vision, mission and core values were articulated and affirmed, which opened for a greater flexibility concerning the work areas of AI. The Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) sets the boundaries of what AI can do and that relief work should be within this broader frame and could play an essential role in many new areas. The best way to strengthen relief work is to integrate it with the overall research, campaigning and growth work of AI. Relief could be integrated in the IS operational plan. An international relief committee could be set up and have an overall responsibility for relief at the international level.

IS: Relief Work in Sections and at the IS
Lynel Long, Regional Director Regions, IS, talked about the current situation as to relief work at the IS. There is a lack of knowledge that could be addressed through training. The importance of communication was stressed, as well as the need to make sure that only strategic projects are approved and to avoid overlaps with other sections. The need for transparency, to explain where the money goes, but more importantly why is being spent the way it is, was emphasized. The input from the sections from this meeting could be brought back to the IS and then be the basis for future guidelines as well as training for researchers. If the sections were to decide onintegration it would be necessary to tie the relief work to the ISP.

Questions as to who is authorized to change the guidelines were brought up. It was made clear that the decision to change the guidelines is an IEC decision.

At this stage of the meeting Albert Gans, raised some specific issues. Firstly, what is the status of the present guidelines? Could the guidelines still be partially relevant? There is a need to take a decision on their future status. Secondly, could a framework be preferable to guidelines? Aframework could consist of a set of basic principles to be applied on relief. This would require an extensive amount of communication and a need for a common jurisprudence to be built up. Thirdly, do we rather want a clear set of rules or something in between a framework and guidelines? A set of precise guidelines would demand less communication but take time to develop. Such a choice would need to address the question of what to do until those guidelines are presented and what to do with the projects that are controversial, such as the Pakistan project.
Group discussions.Group participants were split into two groups, one to discuss the framework principles and the other to discuss possible future relief areas in a broader framework limited by the vision and mission.

DAY TWO:

Based on the group discussions day one new General Principles for AI Relief Policy were proposed, see Appendix 3.

Agreements among the participants:
· Proposal for a Human Rights Relief Policy Framework to replace the present guidelines.
· Proposal to change the terminology from "Relief" to "Human Rights Relief" to mark the proposed shift in policy. It was also agreed that fresh proposals are still welcome.

Action requested:
· To inform all relevant colleagues and lobby about the proposed Human Rights Relief Policy Framework. IS to draft an Explanatory Notes.
· IS to draft a Policy Briefing before Dec. 10, 2003.
· Cover letter to be written by the Swedish Amnesty Fund.
· Cover letter, minutes, proposed policy and procedure, explanatory notes to be sent out to IS, IEC and sections by the Swedish Amnesty Fund Nov. 9, 2003.


Some present problems as to relief work were discussed:

The approval system : The IS is currently undertaking an internal review on the present approval system, expected to be completed by April 2004.

The 600 pounds rule : It was emphasized that this is an IS principle, not an ICM decision, thus not appearing in the present relief guidelines. There is therefore no need for sections to pay any attention to this rule, perceived by most people as irrelevant and not applicable in most cases.

Relief officer at the IS:. There was a strong request for a full time relief officer at IS. Only having a part time staff at the IS was seen as very hindering to the effectiveness of the relief work as well as discouraging. However, it was pointed out by those from the IEC and the IS that due to
budget constraints the need for a full time staff may be difficult to accomplish within the near future.

Closure:
The meeting was closed by Albert Gans and Rose-Marie Asker.

Appendix 1.

List of participants:

Chair:
Albert Gans, AI Belgium

IS:
Lynel Long, Senior Director Regional
Mariluz Rognetta, Relief Coordinator

IEC:
Hanna Roberts

Sections:
Margaret Morgan, AI Canada
Marta Fotsch, AI Switzerland
Barbara Sproul, AI US -
Farshid Talaghani, AI UK
Otto Veule, AI Norge
Ruth Juettner, AI Germany
Rose-Marie Asker, Swedish Amnesty Fund
Katarina Bergehed, Swedish Amnesty Fund
Gunilla Odin, Swedish Amnesty Fund

Appendix 2.

2. The IS is responsible for the overall coordination of the global Human Rights Relief Program, as carried out by the IS itself, sections, coordination groups, local groups, networks and other membership structures. In order to do so, sections active in relief work shall consult the relevant IS teams.

3. Sections are encouraged to raise and provide funds to finance the Human Rights Relief program.

4. Sections which undertake relief activities are responsible for all work done by their own membership and for raising their own relief funds. Such sections shall appoint a Human Rights Relief officer to ensure proper implementation, coordination and monitoring of all the relief work in the section. The Human Rights Relief officer shall act as the section's contact on relief matters with the IS. Section Human Rights Relief officers are also responsible for providing advice on relief matters to all who do Human Rights Relief in the sections and for liasing on those matters with the IS.

5. All international networks and/or other membership structures doing Human Rights Relief work may appoint coordinators who work in close coordination with the relevant section Human Rights Relief officers involved, gaining their approval for activities in their countries, and reporting directly to them and the IS.