EU Home Affairs Agencies and the Construction of EU Internal Security. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 53/December 2012

Regulatory agencies such as Europol, Frontex, Eurojust, CEPOL as well as bodies such as OLAF, have over the past decade become increasingly active within the institutional architecture constituting the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and are now placed at the forefront of implementing and developing the EU’s internal security model. A prominent feature of agency activity is the large-scale proliferation of ‘knowledge’ on security threats via the production of policy tools such as threat assessments, risk analyses, periodic and situation reports. These instruments now play a critical role in providing the evidence-base that supports EU policymaking, with agency-generated ‘knowledge’ feeding political priority setting and decision-making within the EU’s new Internal Security Strategy (ISS). This paper examines the nature and purpose of knowledge generated by EU Home Affairs agencies. It asks where does this knowledge originate? How does it measure against criteria of objectivity, scientific rigour, reliability and accuracy? And how is it processed in order to frame threats, justify actions and set priorities under the ISS?

Justice and Home Affairs databases and a Smart Borders System at EU external borders. An evaluation of current and forthcoming proposals. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 52/December 2012

This study examines current and forthcoming measures related to the exchange of data and information in EU Justice and Home Affairs policies, with a focus on the ‘smart borders’ initiative. It argues that there is no reversibility in the growing reliance on such schemes and asks whether current and forthcoming proposals are necessary and original. It outlines the main challenges raised by the proposals, including issues related to the right to data protection, but also to privacy and non-discrimination.

Does the Stockholm Programme matter? The struggles over ownership of AFSJ multiannual programming. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 51/December 2012

Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post- Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015–20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?

Social interactions and resource ownership in two private protected areas of Paraguay

This paper describes the results of field research to dissect how social interactions differ between two reserves in Paraguay having very different styles of governance. The two reserves were Mbaracayu Natural Forest Reserve (Reserva Natural del Bosque de Mbaracayti, RNBM) and San Rafael Managed Resource Reserve (Reserva de Recursos Manejados San Rafael, RRMSR). RNBM is a private reserve owned by a non-governmental organisation. while RRNISR is a publicly-managed reserve, albeit with a substantial degree of private land ownership. Both reserves are intended to protect Atlantic Forest, one of the five world biodiversity 'hotspots', and also one of the most highly threatened. Each reserve and its buffer zone comprises a set of stakeholders, including indigenous communities and farmers, and the paper explores the interactions between these and the management regime. Indeed, while the management regimes of the two reserves are different, one being highly top-down (RNBM) and the other more socially inclusive (RRMSR), the issues that they have to deal with are much the same. However, while both management regimes will readily acknowledge the need to address poverty, inequality appears to be a far more sensitive issue. Whereas this may be expected for the privately-owned RNBM it is perhaps more surprising in RRNISR even when allowing for the fact that much of the land in the latter is in private hands. It is argued that the origins of this sensitivity rest within the broader features of Paraguayan society, and the prevalence of private land ownership. Yet ironically, it is the inequality in land ownership that is perhaps the most significant threat to conservation in both reserves. Therefore, while reserve-level analyses can provide some insight into the driving forces at play in the interaction between conservation and sustainable management, larger scales may be necessary to gain a fuller appreciation of the dynamics operating at site level. Even in a society with a history of centralised control these dynamics may be surprising. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.