European Parliament
2019-2024
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
2020/2045(INI)
11.5.2021
OPINION
of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development and the
Committee on Budgets
on the implementation report on the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for
Refugees in Turkey
(2020/2045(INI))
Rapporteur for opinion: Sira Rego
(*)
Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure
AD\1231264EN.docx
PE680.984v02-00
EN
United in diversity
EN
PA_NonLeg
PE680.984v02-00
2/10
AD\1231264EN.docx
EN
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budgets, as the
committees responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into their motion for a
resolution:
A.
Whereas the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT) was created in 2016 in the
framework of the EU-Turkey statement and manages EUR 6 billion mobilised in two
tranches, the first tranche funding projects that run until mid-2021 latest and the second
tranche funding projects, which run until mid-2025 latest; whereas the FRT is a joint
coordination mechanism and not a funding instrument in itself;
B.
Whereas the FRT has contributed to supporting the lives of more than 1,8 million
refugees and host communities in Turkey and thus constitutes a key pillar of
humanitarian aid and support; whereas the FRT has been threatened by political
pressure exerted by the Turkish government on the European Union in disputes over the
EU-Turkey Statement, which ultimately harms the refugees and host communities
dependent on this support; whereas cases of (AM1 Oetjen) human rights violations have
taken place under this statement which are incompatible with the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights;
C.
Whereas the EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis (Madad Trust
Fund) has mobilised €2.3 billion, including voluntary contributions from 21 EU
Member States, Turkey and the United Kingdom; whereas its programmes focus on
education, livelihoods, health, protection, and the water sector – benefitting refugees,
IDPs and local communities, supporting more than 7 million beneficiaries; whereas, as
the Syrian civil war became protracted, the Madad Trust Fund response evolved further
along the humanitarian development nexus, by increasing its focus on systems
strengthening to support the host countries efforts and capacities to respond to such
protracted crisis, particularly as regards public service delivery in Iraq, Jordan and
Lebanon ;
D.
Whereas the evaluation of the Madad Trust Fund points out that this fund is
comparatively faster to launch projects than normal ENI or IPA procedures; whereas it
has also managed to reach economy of scale, with large scale projects of an average
volume of EUR 20 million and with an average implementation period of around 30
months;
E.
Whereas the EU Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root
causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa (EUTF for Africa) was
established in 2015, and was presented as a key instrument to implement the Valletta
action plan ; whereas it became the main financial instrument for the EU’s political
engagement with African partners in the field of migration; whereas the EUTF for
Africa has funded over 500 projects in 26 countries in Africa across three geographical
regions: the Sahel and Lake Chad, the Horn of Africa and North Africa, for a total of
over EUR 5 billion committed since 2016, out of which 4.4 billion come from the EU
budget; whereas these countries face growing challenges ranging from demographic
pressure, extreme poverty, weak social and economic infrastructure, internal tensions
AD\1231264EN.docx
3/10
PE680.984v02-00
EN
and institutional weaknesses to insufficient resilience to food crises and environmental
stress;
F.
Whereas the mid-term review of the EUTF for Africa pointed out the added value of the
fund as a flexible instrument addressing rapidly evolving situations and targeting
specific local issues; whereas a 2018 report by the European Court of Auditors1 pointed
out, however, various shortcomings, including legal challenges such as the failure to
apply EU public procurement lawand opaque management; whereas the Commission
has stated that it has taken these concerns into account and provided for improvements;
whereas civil society2 raised concerns about the quality of projects approved, and more
worryingly, about alleged contributions to inhumane and degrading treatment and/or
financing of actors that have committed human rights violations, such as in Libya,
Eritrea and Sudan;
G.
Whereas Article 208 TFEU clearly states that development cooperation shall be
conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the Union's external
action and that the primary objective of Union development cooperation policy shall be
the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty ; whereas the EUTF for
Africa makes predominant use of Official Development Assistance (ODA), mostly from
the European Development Fund (EDF), and as such, its implementation should be
guided by the key principles of development effectiveness;
H.
Whereas intra-regional mobility has played an important role in Africa throughout its
history; whereas local populations, in response to droughts, have traditionally been able
to make changes to their livelihood strategies and have shown a capacity for adaptation,
often through migration as a way of diversifying livelihoods; whereas since the early
2000s, and particularly since 2016, this system of livelihood diversification has come
under pressure mainly due to the limitation of intra- regional freedom of movement as a
result of the support provided by EU Member states to some African countries to fight
irregular migration to Europe;
I.
Whereas since 2017, the EU is providing support to increase the operational capacity of
the Libyan Coast Guard (LCGPS) and Navy and the General Administration for Coastal
Security (GACS) to intercept people at sea with 57.2 million euros through the North of
Africa window of the EUTF Africa "Support to Integrated Border and Migration
Management Project" while at the same time providing support to the International
Organisation for Migration (IOM) to assist the most vulnerable migrants stranded in
Libya and host countries; whereas, according to IOM data, more than 20,000 people
have been intercepted in 2019 and 2020 by the "Libyan Coast Guards"; whereas
numerous reports have confirmed that Libya is still not a place of safety for
disembarkation, owing to the serious human rights violations committed against
refugees and migrants, and the ongoing conflict in the country; whereas on 8 May 2020,
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called for a moratorium on all
interceptions and returns to Libya; whereas in her March 2021 report, the Council of
Europe Commissioner reiterated her call, already expressed in 2019, to suspend support
1 European Court of Auditors, "European Union Trust Fund for Africa: flexible but lacking focus", 2018, pp. 17-
25.
2 DAVIS Laura (Dr), EU external expenditure on asylum, forced displacement and migration 2014-2019, European
Council on Refugees and Exiles, 2021.
PE680.984v02-00
4/10
AD\1231264EN.docx
EN
to the Libyan Coast Guard impacting on interceptions and returns;
J.
Whereas there are several lawsuits, legal proceedings and complaints that have been
filed by CSOs against the EU and Member States for human rights violations, violation
of EU financing law regulations and international regulations on human rights3,
refoulement, and other inhumane acts perpetrated against migrants4 linked directly or
indirectly to some EUTF for Africa projects ; whereas it has been reported that the
EUTF for Africa ROCK and BMM programmes were suspended by the EU in 2019 in
Sudan;
K.
Whereas the EUTF for Africa and other EU Trust Funds will terminate at the end of
2021; whereas the next multi-year funding instrument, known as the NDICI, is currently
expected to dedicate 10% to migration-related activities, outside the process of
identifying mutually-agreed National Indicative priorities and in a flexible incitative
approach;
L.
Whereas it would be useful for the Commission and Member states to establish a
complete and clear overview of the funds used to finance cooperation with third
countries in the field of migration management across all financial instruments and their
implementation, including information on the amount, objectives, purpose, eligible
actions and source of funding;
1.
Regrets the fact that EU Trust Funds are ad hoc instruments that deviate from the
ordinary decision-making procedure and bypass parliamentary scrutiny and democratic
oversight, therefore lacking transparency and democratic accountability; stresses that
detailed data on funding allocations are not available or hardly accessible.; urges the
Commission to take immediate steps to improve transparency as well as regular
information-sharing with the European Parliament and ensure better scrutiny and
parliamentary oversight of the definition, implementation and follow-up of the EUTF
and the FRT, including any future measures to be adopted under Article 8(10) of the
Neighbourhood, Development, International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI); insists
on scaling up the accountability of the authorities directly entrusted with the managing
of the funds ; calls on the Commission to formalise the observer status of the European
Parliament in board meetings of the Trust Funds without delay and to provide the
European Parliament with a yearly financial and human rights report of the
implementation of current and future projects;
2.
Notes that EU funds have been used to pressure partner governments to comply with the
EU
’s internal migration objectives and the increasing recourse since 2016 to enhanced
conditionality between development cooperation and migration management; deplores
the use of development assistance for the implementation of informal agreements
lacking parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight, including the EU-Turkey
Statement of 18 March 2016, the EU-African Union Memorandum of Understanding on
Peace, Security and Governance of 23 May 2018 and the EU-Nigeria Memorandum of
Understanding of 29 August 2019;
3.
Notes with concern that there are shortcomings in the application of EU public
AD\1231264EN.docx
5/10
PE680.984v02-00
EN
procurement law with regard to the EU
’s external migration policy3; considers that
provisions in Article 3 of the Decision C(2015) 7293 establishing the EUTF and
humanitarian aid projects funded via the Madad Fund and the FRT are incompatible
with or exempted from EU public procurement law; stresses the lack of transparency
regarding the application and scope of public procurement law procedures in the
selection of implementing partners4; regrets that procedures and criteria for selecting
projects are not sufficiently clear or documented5;
4.
Points out that projects currently covered by EUTFs could be funded under any of the
Neighbourhood, Development and international Cooperation Instrument
’s components:
geographic, thematic or rapid response within the limit of the 10% spending target
defined by the regulation ; expresses concerns regarding ongoing Council discussions
aiming at building Team Europe funding initiatives on migration with the purpose of
proposing migration management related actions in Africa, which risk bypassing the
scrutiny of the European Parliament;
5.
Points out that the FRT differs from the EUTFs, mainly because it remains embedded
within the budget of the EU ; acknowledges the support provided by the FRT in
supporting refugees and host communities in Turkey, in relation to health, humanitarian
assistance, education, and socio-economic support; notes however that this support only
reaches registered refugees, leaving many without assistance; highlights in this regard
that, since 2016, access to registration was made difficult in some provinces and cities
in Turkey, as reported by some NGOs such as Amnesty International;
6
Regrets that this vital support was allocated in the framework of the EU-Turkey
statement; expresses concerns regarding the two projects supporting migration
management that amount to 80 million euros in light of the absence of access and
monitoring by national and international observers, including to sites of detention6 ;
underlines the need to make sure strict monitoring exercises and audits are carried out to
ensure compliance with the Financial Regulation; invites the Commission to scale up
reporting on the FRT and asks it to ensure that these funds specifically target refugee
projects and are not used for any other purposes; calls on the Commission to ensure that
the objectives of the FRT are consistent with the EU
’s general principles, policies and
objectives including democracy, the rule of law and human rights;
7
Highlights the important contribution of the 'Madad Trust Fund', in supporting access to
basic services such as health and education for Syrian refugees, internally displaced
persons and host communities in neighbouring countries; in light of the continuing
humanitarian crisis due to the ongoing conflict in Syria, welcomes the recent adoption
of €130 million assistance package to support Syrian refugees and local communities in
Jordan and Lebanon; calls on the transition of the Madad Trust Fund into the new MFF
to be smooth, allowing for an efficient contracting and use of the funds already
3 Thomas Spijkerboer and Elies Steyger ‘European External Migration Funds and Public Procurement Law’
European Papers, Vol. 4, 2019, No 2, pp. 493-521. p.520
4 ibid
5 European Court of Auditors (2017) Special report no 11/2017: The Bêkou EU trust fund for the Central African
Republic: a hopeful beginning despite some shortcomings, 2017, pp.36-39
6https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ONLINE-191024-Immigration-Detention-
in-Turkey.pdf
PE680.984v02-00
6/10
AD\1231264EN.docx
EN
committed;
8
Acknowledges that some EUTF for Africa projects have provided vital support, notably
by investing in health and education, economic development, job creation and
integration into labour markets, for both local communities and refugees, especially
vulnerable groups such as women and youth; regretsthe little impact of this fund on
increased economic opportunities and employment, as pointed out in its mid-term
review, despite this being one of the four main objectives of the fund;
9.
Notes that the mid-term review pointed out that the EUTF for Africa governance and
management structure was "flexible and efficient" and "delivered fast decisions based
on a strategic overview of the issues and knowledgeable and committed staff"; notes
that there is a lack of accountability and scrutiny and remains concerned about the
governance of the EUTF for Africa, the pulling together of EU resources that have all
different objectives, the composition of its board and regional operational committees
that enabled some Member States to make direct decisions about the spending of EU
money based on a 3 million contribution to this fund, the opacity of the process for
defining and approving projects, the lack of dialogue with local and human rights
CSOs; points out the lack of ex ante and ongoing impact assessments regarding targeted
populations and countries, notably concerning fundamental rights and the absence of
any fundamental rights conditionality on the use of funding;
10
Highlights that the EUTFs have focused mostly on supporting countries in developing
national and regional strategies on migration management, improving capacities to
prevent irregular migration and fight against trafficking in human beings and migrant
smuggling, and facilitating sustainable and dignified return and reintegration ;
highlights that the strong focus on the objectives 3 and 4 of the EUTF for Africa move
away from a holistic approach to migration; regrets the fact that 37% of the EUTF for
Africa is allocated to measures intended to restrict and reduce migration while less than
9% is allocated to addressing the drivers of migration and forced displacement ; notes
that less than 1.5% of the EUTF for Africa was allocated to regular migration channels
stresses that reducing mobility to deter migration mostly runs counter to development
objectives by increasing poverty and threatening to put fundamental rights at risk;
11
Reiterates its call on the Commission, and EU agencies to withhold or review their
cooperation with third countries, including suspending specific funding and projects,
which endanger the human rights of those affected, including where third countries do
not fully respect the fundamental rights; reiterates in this regard its call on the
Commission and Member States, in view of the serious human rights violations against
refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in Libya, including those intercepted at sea, to
urgently review all cooperation activities with the competent Libyan authorities in
maritime and border surveillance and management funded under the EUTF for Africa
and suspend the second phase of the EUTF project “Support to Integrated border and
migration management” until clear guarantees of human rights compliance are in place,
including the abolishing of the law that criminalises irregular migrants ; asks the
Commission to ensure transparent risk assessment, performed by independent EU-
bodies and experts on the impact of EU-funded projects on the human rights of migrants
and refugees, as well as on the wider population in the country affected by it; calls for
the creation of an independent human rights monitoring mechanism and clear protocols
AD\1231264EN.docx
7/10
PE680.984v02-00
EN
to act in the event of fundamental rights violations;
12.
Stresses the need to clearly define the framework of the EUTF and the FRT, as well as
their potential successors, including project definition, reporting, monitoring and
evaluation, in order to ensure that actions funded under the EUTF for Africa and FRT
contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives of such funds and are not used
for any other purposes ; calls on the Commission to conduct an ex-post evaluation at
least one year after all activities of the EUTF for Africa have been completed and to
inform the European Parliament ; calls on the Commission to involve CSOs in this
evaluation and to pay particular attention to the impact of the fund on development and
fundamental rights, with a particular attention to the projects under objectives 3 and 4;
13
Notes with concern that through the
‘rapid response
’component of the NDICI,
cooperation with third countries on migration management can be funded without the
need for the Commission to publish any programming documents or consult civil
society actors, and without the involvement of Parliament; insists in this regard on the
need to ensure that the 2021-2027 MFF is accompanied by a robust human rights
framework for the identification, implementation and monitoring of future migration
cooperation programmes; calls on the Commission and Member States to use the
NDICI and its international partnerships to promote programmes for the protection of
refugees and migrants, in line with European and international law, and to ensure that
ODA is used to support and maintain sustainable human development, democracy, and
human rights, in protection of all people;
14
Calls on the EU to review the EU-Turkey Statement to guarantee compliance with
human rights standards, as well as to ensure that the humanitarian aid and support
provided by the FRT is not threatened by political volatility.
PE680.984v02-00
8/10
AD\1231264EN.docx
EN
INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Date adopted
11.5.2021
Result of final vote
+:
52
–:
15
0:
0
Members present for the final vote
Magdalena Adamowicz, Katarina Barley, Pernando Barrena Arza,
Pietro Bartolo, Nicolas Bay, Vladimír Bilčík, Vasile Blaga, Ioan-Rareş
Bogdan, Patrick Breyer, Saskia Bricmont, Joachim Stanisław
Brudziński, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Damien Carême, Clare Daly,
Marcel de Graaff, Anna Júlia Donáth, Lena Düpont, Cornelia Ernst,
Laura Ferrara, Nicolaus Fest, Jean-Paul Garraud, Maria Grapini, Sylvie
Guillaume, Andrzej Halicki, Evin Incir, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Patryk Jaki,
Marina Kaljurand, Assita Kanko, Fabienne Keller, Peter Kofod, Łukasz
Kohut, Moritz Körner, Alice Kuhnke, Jeroen Lenaers, Juan Fernando
López Aguilar, Lukas Mandl, Nuno Melo, Roberta Metsola, Nadine
Morano, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Nicola
Procaccini, Emil Radev, Paulo Rangel, Diana Riba i Giner, Michal
Šimečka, Birgit Sippel, Sara Skyttedal, Martin Sonneborn, Tineke Strik,
Ramona Strugariu, Annalisa Tardino, Tomas Tobé, Dragoş Tudorache,
Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Bettina Vollath, Elissavet
Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Elena Yoncheva, Javier Zarzalejos
Substitutes present for the final vote
Abir Al-Sahlani, Damian Boeselager, Sira Rego, Rob Rooken,
Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Isabel Santos
AD\1231264EN.docx
9/10
PE680.984v02-00
EN
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
52
+
NI
Laura Ferrara, Martin Sonneborn
PPE
Magdalena Adamowicz, Vladimír Bilčík, Vasile Blaga, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Lena Düpont, Andrzej Halicki,
Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Nuno Melo, Roberta Metsola, Emil Radev, Paulo Rangel, Sara Skyttedal,
Tomas Tobé, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Javier Zarzalejos
Renew
Abir Al-Sahlani, Anna Júlia Donáth, Sophia in 't Veld, Fabienne Keller, Moritz Körner, Maite
Pagazaurtundúa, Michal Šimečka, Ramona Strugariu, Dragoş Tudorache
S&D
Katarina Barley, Pietro Bartolo, Maria Grapini, Sylvie Guillaume, Evin Incir, Marina Kaljurand, Łukasz
Kohut, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Isabel Santos, Birgit
Sippel, Bettina Vollath, Elena Yoncheva
The Left
Pernando Barrena Arza, Clare Daly, Cornelia Ernst, Sira Rego
Verts/ALE
Damian Boeselager, Patrick Breyer, Saskia Bricmont, Damien Carême, Alice Kuhnke, Diana Riba i Giner,
Tineke Strik
15
-
ECR
Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Patryk Jaki, Assita Kanko, Nicola Procaccini, Rob
Rooken
ID
Nicolas Bay, Nicolaus Fest, Jean-Paul Garraud, Marcel de Graaff, Peter Kofod, Annalisa Tardino, Tom
Vandendriessche
NI
Milan Uhrík
PPE
Nadine Morano
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention
PE680.984v02-00
10/10
AD\1231264EN.docx
EN
