scope in the plan. An important corollary of the breadth of human rights principles is that they apply to most areas of human activity and hence government programmes. Attracting attention to the importance of economic, social and cultural rights has proved difficult. Much government activity focuses on the economic, social and cultural sectors but the extent to which activity in these areas has a human rights dimension is not well understood by many practitioners. The key point is that recognition of rights in the economic, social and cultural area requires policy-makers and service providers to move away from the traditional welfare approach. The framework in which they work should no longer be based on what a government is prepared to provide within existing budgets and policy settings but on the entitlements of rights-holders. This should provide a stimulus to intensified action. If, for example, a government seeks to eliminate inequalities between ethnic groups in, say, the rate of infant mortality, it will start with the recognition that the disadvantaged group has the right to outcomes no worse than for the community as a whole. The reduction of the infant mortality rate to a certain level will then become one of the benchmarks for the observance of human rights in this area. This Handbook earlier discussed the important practical question of how far a national action plan should go in specifying actions aimed at promoting economic, social and cultural rights. One option would be for a national human rights action plan to provide for detailed activities across the whole range of economic, social and cultural issues. This Handbook takes the view that such a broad approach could present difficulties. It will not be possible for the national human rights action plan to take on the full functions of social planning in all relevant areas. Most of those involved in the national plan process will have neither the expertise nor the mandate to undertake such a task, which would inevitably lead to duplication and possible inefficiency. If the plan consists of no more than a recitation of existing programmes, it will devalue the national action plan process by failing to provide any value additional to that already existing in the various programmes. It is suggested that the plan should focus on promoting legislation, redress, benchmarks, monitoring and greater awareness and understanding of economic, social and cultural rights. It should also focus on synergistic linkages with programmes of agencies with responsibilities in the economic, social and cultural areas. The plan should involve such agencies in the planning process so that their programme targets promote observance of economic, social and cultural rights. Awareness-raising programmes should aim at alerting officials, parliamentarians, community workers, academics, the media and the general public to the fact that action in these areas is part of the effort to improve observance of human rights. Such programmes should both be specific to this area and form part of general human rights education activities. The awareness-raising effort should also encompass research. Work that has taken place within the framework of the United Nations, including the contributions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, will be invaluable in promoting this better understanding. 79