Policy Responses on Education:  Affirmative action in various forms is an option for addressing discrimination in access to education. This may be in the form of reserved places in educational institutions for minorities, designated scholarships for minorities, or investment of additional resources into education in regions where minorities reside. Affirmative action policies have been in place since 2001 in Brazil to increase the enrollment of Afro-Brazilians in tertiary education.  The provision of minority culture education may take many forms. While long-established minorities with large populations may have a greater claim to public resources for minority education, there are benefits to providing similar services to new minority groups. In Sweden, children are legally entitled to tuition in their mother-tongue (Migration Policy Group (MPG) 2006, paragraph 437). Such courses are provided in over 60 languages and a little over half of the eligible students pursue this option. This helps to ease immigrant children into the Swedish education system and language, and builds a multi-lingual constituency in Sweden.  Financial assistance through inter-state cooperation for the provision of education is also encouraged by international standards (e.g. OSCE Lund Recommendations). In France, bilateral agreements with Algeria, Italy, Morocco, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia, and Turkey have been entered into in order to provide instruction in foreign languages and cultures; teachers are paid by the country of origin (MPG 2006, paragraph 439).  Overcoming inequality in access to education might require the provision of culturally-adapted education. For example, in Vietnam, some minority fishing communities have been provided with floating primary schools that enable their children to access regular education without compromising the ability of families to maintain their traditional livelihoods. 3.4.2 Limits on promotion of identity: The obligation on States to enable minorities to develop their culture is not absolute. There are two limitations: where specific practices are in “violation of national law” and where they are “contrary to international standards” (UNDM, article 4). Any prohibitions on cultural practices must be based on reasonable and objective grounds. ‘Contrary to international standards’ means that States are free to (and should) prohibit practices that violate international human rights standards. This clause responds to criticisms sometimes made against minorities when cultural traditions violate the human rights of individual members. This argument is often made in relation to the rights of women.10 States may not use this clause to prohibit whole cultures on the grounds that a specific practice violates human rights norms; the restrictions must concern the practice in question. Legislation in itself will not usually be sufficient to end these practices. At a minimum, education programmes will be needed. The most effective methods of eradicating harmful practices require the cooperation of all sections of the affected group. Sometimes a group that has experienced discrimination or marginalisation could perceive legitimate state concern over specific For example, the prohibition of practices of violence against women are identified in the Vienna Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, 1993, paragraph 38; and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995, paragraphs 113 and 118. 10 Chapter 3: Fundamental Rights and Principles 21