Ref. Ares(2015)2551397 - 18/06/2015
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL MIGRATION AND HOME AFFAIRS
Directorate E – Migration and Security Funds
Unit E1 – Programming
Brussels,
Subject:
Observations on the second version of the multiannual national
programme under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund for
Greece
Dear
,
Thank you for the second version of the national programme under the Asylum,
Migration and Integration Fund for Greece
, submitted on 15 May 2015
, following the
official observations made by the Commission on 19 December 2014.
Following the re-examination of the national programme by the Commission, we would
like to provide you with additional observations on this amended version, and invite you
to present us with a modified programme as soon as possible.
The period of six months set for the approval of the multiannual national programme by
the Commission, referred to in Article 14(7) of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, is hereby
suspended until a revised version of the programme is submitted.
Yours sincerely,
Head of Unit
Encl.: Annex: Observations on the proposed national programme
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11.
ANNEX
Observations on Greece's draft NP for AMIF submitted on the 15 May 2015
General
Although considerably improved if compared to the first version, we note that substantial work
is still required before the programme can be considered ready for approval We regret to note
that in this 2nd version (formally submitted) you do not address many of the important issues
we have raised in our assessment of your last informal draft of 4 May 2015, which we sent on 8
May 2015. These issues include two crucial points, already raised in December 2014, concerning
the funding for (a) open accommodation centres for applicants for international protection and
(b) integration measures.
As regards Specific Objective (SO) 2 (Legal Migration/Integration), the draft does not provide yet
a sound justification that would allow the Commission to accept the deviation from the
minimum percentage of 20% established in article 15 of Regulation n°516/2014 (funding
foreseen for this SO amounts to approximately 12.5% of the programme’s total resources),
including a clear indication of how much money is expected to be mobilised from other sources
like for instance ESIF to cater for Greece’s integration needs, which are quite significant. The
justification provided remains the same as in the version informally sent on 4 May 2015, which
was considered insufficient.
We note also that the size of funding for SO1 (Asylum) has been increased to some 38.2%
(previous version was 33%) of the programme’s resources. However, we still fail to understand
your strategy for ensuring a minimum of 2500 places in open centres for applicants for
international protection which constitutes a firm and long-standing political commitment by
Greece. Considering that AMIF funding will not be sufficient to cover all the costs for the setting
up and running of those centres for the 7-year period, please provide an estimate of the overall
funding you plan to mobilise both from AMIF and from other sources. In particular, the
programme needs to specify the amount of funding secured under ESIF (Structural Funds),
whose substantial financial resources have been made available by the European Commission to
cater also for such pressing needs (reception of applicants for international protection).
Although, as explained in the videoconference held on the 5th May, a budgetary earmarking by
the regions of ESIF resources for the development of the 2500 places is not a prerequisite for
the approval of the national programme, we must have in the national programme a clear
commitment by the Responsible Authority (RA) that ESIF funds will be duly mobilised for this
purpose, with a clear breakdown of the planned allocation of funds between the different
funding sources.
Moreover, the terminology and acronyms used should be consistent throughout the text. In
addition, actions already included in the Greek Roadmap should be accompanied by a clear
timetable.
Identification of the designated authorities
1.
We are seriously concerned that no formal designation of the Responsible Authority
(RA) has taken place yet, neither provisionally nor fully. Although expenditure is eligible for
support under the Fund when it has been incurred as of 1 January 2014, please note that any
payments made to beneficiaries as of 1 January 2015 by a Responsible Authority which is not
yet formally designated (fully or provisionally) are not eligible for reimbursement under the
Fund. We would like to furthermore draw your attention to Article 35 of Regulation (EU)
N°514/2014 in which it is stipulated that the initial pre-financing payments by the Commission
following the approval of national programme can only be paid to the designated RA.
2.
Moreover, should the RA be provisionally designated, we invite you to inform us about
the duration of the provisional designation and, in line with article 31 of Regulation (EU)
2
N°514/2014 and to allow the Commission to have a clear view on the reasons leading to the
provisional designation as well as the content of the action plan, to transmit also the respective
audit reports (including the conclusions i.e. non-compliances, the timeframes to address these
non-compliances, etc.).
3.
We also note that one of the Delegated Authorities (DA) is not yet clearly identified (no
name given, although e-mail address provided).
4.
The Management and Control System (MCS) is too summarily described. In accordance
with article 2 of Delegated Regulation (EU) N°1042/2014, Greece should transmit via SFC 2014
detailed information on the MCS covering the three points in Art. 2.4, notably the main division
of responsibilities between the organisational units of the Responsible Authority, its relationship
with the Delegated Authorities, the activities to be delegated and the main procedures for
supervising these delegated activities, as well as a summary of the main procedures for
processing financial claims from beneficiaries and for authorising and recording expenditure. It
would be useful if Greece could also provide an organogram of the institutional set up in these
policy areas.
Section 1: Executive summary
5.
The executive summary still needs further completion. The strategies for the three
Specific Objectives (SO) covered by the programme are summarily presented. Often the "main
goals" and "results to be obtained" are the same. Some of the bullet points are vague or
wrongly placed. No reference continues to be made to actions under National Objective (NO) 2
of SO1. Also, no explanation is given on the size of funding for each component of the
programme.
Section 2: Baseline situation in the Member State
6.
The baseline situation remains essentially the same as in the previous version informally
sent on 4 May and therefore the observations made to that version remain valid, notably:
a)
Information on institutional set up, with clear identification of ministries/departments
or services responsible for each policy area covered by AMIF.
b)
Data on financial resources, both national and EU funds, allocated to different policy
areas (asylum, legal migration/integration and return) and respective components (asylum
service, reception, backlog, unaccompanied minors, voluntary and forced returns, etc.) are still
not provided: in fact, even the few data provided in the previous version have been deleted
from this revised version.
c)
Although statistics have been updated, as requested, particular confusion persists as
regards total reception capacity, since places for applicants for international protection and
unaccompanied minors continue to be put together, with the draft sometimes referring to UASC
and sometimes to unaccompanied minors (UAM): the draft should clearly specify whether or
not those UAM are asylum seekers, and any reference to the strengthening of open
accommodation capacity and the establishment of a sustainable reception system should be
accompanied by a clear reference to applicants for international protection (in fact the term
“applicants for international protection” is not used in the text). If you want to include UAMs in
the number of open accommodation places, this figure
should be additional to the currently
agreed minimum number of places required for applicants for international protection.
d)
We would like to stress once again that the increase of open accommodation capacity
should be in accordance with the agreement reached in December 2013. From the information
provided in the draft, it seems that no reevaluation of the needs in open accommodation for
applicants for international protection has taken place.
e)
We also note that the draft continues to refer to December 2016 as target date for
clearance of the “backlog” asylum cases to be funded by AMIF: as agreed previously and in the
3
videoconference held last 5 May, the target date as regards funding from AMIF should be May
2016.
f)
With regards to the issue of Open Accommodation Centres for applicants of
international protection, we still fail to see a comprehensive strategy in your draft programme
since:
- There is still no reference to the new public body that will be responsible for these centres.
Our understanding following the videoconference of 5 May 2015 is that the competence now
lies with this new body which we understand it will be one of the Delegated Authorities to be
soon designated.
Please clarify this issue.
- Regarding the adoption of standard operational procedures (SOPs),
an estimated date is
needed, as well as
information about their content. In particular, please clarify whether theses
SOPS include only standards with regards to the infrastructure of the centres or also regarding
their operation.
g) We also note that no specific reference continues to be made in this section to actual use of
ESIF (Structural Funds), both in the past and in the future, although under the respective SO the
draft refers to such complementary funding as important to cater for asylum and integration
needs. As noted before, this information is fundamental not only to understand Greece’s
funding plan to address its weaknesses in terms of reception places and enable it to reach the
agreed target of 2500 places by the end of 2015, but also to assess the justification for
allocating just 12.5% of AMIF NP resources to integration and legal migration (instead of the
normally required 20 %).
h)
When referring to the Pilot Project for Syrians and manifestly unfounded applications,
reference should be made to the Emergency Assistances under AMIF which have been granted
to Greece.
i)
We note that whilst the closure of the Komotini Pre-Removal Centre is mentioned in
this section, in the Return section of the document Greece states that it is going to maintain the
existing Pre-Removal Centres and will convert part of them into open centres for returnees.
Clarifications on this subject will be appreciated.
Section 3: Programme objectives
SO1 – Asylum
7.
Although improvements have been made, the presentation of the national strategy for
this SO1 is broadly the same of the previous informal version, so the previous observations
remain valid, notably:
a)
The general context and strategy are presented very summarily and should be better
explained.
b)
The main actions are presented but no clear distinction is made between those to be
funded through the programme (funding priorities) and the others; even if the ones listed in the
draft are those to be funded by the EU, it would still be important to know about other main
actions to be funded through other sources.
c)
We note that one of the objectives foreseen in previous version “Develop a centralized
management information system for the effective and efficient management of illegal
immigrants and asylum seekers flows” has been withdrawn. Clarifications on this subject will be
appreciated.
8.
On National Objective 1 (
Reception / Asylum), we still fail to see a comprehensive
strategy in your draft programme. More specifically:
a)
We note that any reference to the funding of open reception/accommodation centres
through other sources like ESIF has been withdrawn from the text. As the availability of a
minimum of 2500 places by the end of 2015 constitutes a firm and long-standing political
4
commitment by Greece and considering that AMIF funding will not be sufficient to cover all the
cost for the setting up and running of those centres, in line with the comments made above we
please provide a clear indication of the size of the overall funding for such centres to be
mobilised both from AMIF and from other sources, in particular ESIF, while specifying the share
of each funding source. In addition, it should be noted that in light of the number of applicants
for international protection in 2014 and the trend for 2015, 2.500 reception places might not be
enough, taking into account that applicants for international protection are accommodated on
average from four to six months as per the information provided in the document. Please clarify
this in relation to the indicator C2 on asylum as well.
b)
Regarding the references to alternative ways for the development of open
accommodation capacities (e.g. living allowances ant rent subsidies), please note that
the
Commission does not agree with this option in case these alternatives are being considered for
the implementation of the agreement of the 2500 minimum capacity required for applicants for
international protection. Please note that the provision of reception conditions to applicants for
international protection does not consist only of financial compensation for accommodation
(e.g. allowance) but also includes the provision of certain services in line with the EU Reception
Conditions' Directive.
c)
As regards asylum procedures, the draft refers both to “additional legal aid for asylum
seekers” and “provision of free legal aid and representation at second instance/appeal’s
procedure”: clarifications should be provided on these actions.
d)
It is also noted that reference to the deployment of Mobile Units as a contingency
measure has been deleted from the document. Clarifications on this aspect would be
appreciated, as in principle such contingency measures should cover both areas (asylum
procedures and reception).
e)
On the clearance of the pending appeals, we note that, as in the baseline section, the
draft continues to refer to December 2016 as target date for clearance of the “backlog” asylum
cases to be funded by AMIF: as agreed previously and in the videoconference of 5 May 2015,
target date as regards funding from AMIF should be May 2016.
f)
As noted before, there is no mention of the need to have additional Eurodac equipment
to complement the new Asylum Regional Offices and Mobile Units that will be established in
the Dodecanese and Attica area. This has not been requested under the ISF Borders National
Programme either. It will be important to include this if further equipment is needed to
fingerprint applicants and migrants on the islands.
g)
We note that one of the desired outcomes is “ensure accommodation capacity for the
maximum possible number of unaccompanied minors and guarantee efficient guardianship”.
Considering that it is placed under SO1 (Asylum), it should refer just to UAM having applied for
asylum, as other types of unaccompanied minors should be covered under SO2.
9.
On National Objective 3 (
Resettlement), we take note that Greece does not propose any
resettlement measures in the framework of its national programme.
SO2 – Integration / Legal Migration
10.
Although the presentation of the strategy for this SO has been improved, there is still no
clear distinction between the main actions to be funded by the programme and the others
(funding priorities). Please also note that the draft should systematically refer to “third country
nationals” instead of "migrants".
11.
As mentioned above, the draft still does not give an adequate and sound justification,
neither in this section nor in section 6, for the non-compliance with the minimum percentage of
20% foreseen in Article 15 of AMIF Regulation (Regulation (EU) N°516/2014) to be allocated to
integration measures. Such non-compliance is rather exceptional and, to be accepted, it must
5
be well justified. This revised draft proposes to allocate to SO2 12.5% of the programme’s
resources (€32.3 million).Considering that 20% amounts to approximately €51.8 million, there is
a gap of some €20 million that needs to be properly justified, namely by showing that at least
the same size of funding will be mobilised from ESIF to cater for Greece’s important needs in
this area. Without such minimum guarantee, the Commission will surely not be in a position to
accept the non-compliance with the 20% rule. Currently the draft just gives some information
(in section 6) on the share of funding coming from ESIF to support Migrant Support Centres and
the guardianship pilot project (which according to our calculations would amount to just some
€6-7 million, thus very far from the above-mentioned €20 million gap), but it remains unclear
how much funding will be made available for other Integration measures. It would also be
useful to have more information on the planned Migrant Support Centres.
12.
Please clarify what is meant by "housing of vulnerable groups of migrants including
beneficiaries of international protection”, since no reference is made to such action in the
baseline (please also clarify the target group for this action).
13.
As regards Specific Action 8 (
Legal Migration), reference is made to a proposal lead by
Belgium on which Greece intends to participate. Greece should further explain its role in the
action and if it will contribute financially for its implementation.
SO3 – Return
14.
We note that almost half of the programme’s resources (47.2%) are allocated to return
policy. Even though we acknowledge Greece’s considerable needs also in this area, we would
like to point out that this share of funding might need to be substantially reduced in favour of
SO1 and SO2, should Greece fail to secure substantial complementary funding from ESIF
(Structural Funds) to meet the legal requirements (20% minimum threshold) and to cater for the
country’s needs in the areas of asylum, legal migration and integration.
15.
We would suggest that Greece’s commitment to respect the
acquis of the Return
Directive, both on a legislative and practical level, is clearly mentioned when referring to the
country’s strategy in this policy area. We also note that the draft states that the overall strategic
aim as to the numbers of returns is “to maintain the numbers”: given the serious increase of
irregular migrants at Greece’s borders, the efforts put into the return efforts (also with the help
of other Member States) and the amount of funding available, we suggest to slightly
reformulate the text to identify as objective "to increase or to have at least the same number of
returns as in previous years”.
16.
We note also that when referring to the main pillars of its Return Policy, reference is
made to the establishment of “a reliable and credible evaluation and monitoring mechanism for
forced returns”: we would suggest aligning the text with the wording of the Return Directive,
which refers to "an effective forced return monitoring system".
17.
Also in this SO, there is no clear distinction between the main actions to be funded by
the programme and the others (funding priorities).
18.
More specifically as regards National Objective 1 (Accompanying Measures), we would
like to note the following:
a)
Concerning pre-removal centers, although this revised version mentions that ”part of
them will be modified into open centers for the same target group”, more detailed indications
are needed regarding in particular timing, capacities and locations as well as the costs that will
be charged under AMIF. Such information will allow the Commission to assess whether a
concrete funding strategy is established on behalf of the Greek authorities to cater for the
needs of the country for the 7-year period.
b)Regarding alternatives to detention for returnees, we understand that the pilot IOM
programme of an open center for returnees will continue under the support of AMIF. We would
6
appreciate to have more details on this subject. In particular we would like to know whether
you intend to continue the operation of that specific center of 100-120 capacity or whether
there will be other buildings used. There is also reference about creating other open centers for
returnees. Please make reference to estimated additional capacities and what will be charged
under AMIF i.e. whether funding will be allocated only for operational costs or infrastructural
works as well.
c)
As per comments on the previous informal version, in its request for revision of the
2013 Return Fund annual programme Greece envisages the establishment of a centre which
shall coordinate the operation of the pre-removal centres. If this coordination centre is indeed
established or planned, please provide the necessary references in the relevant parts of the
draft AMIF programme. Additionally, and as requested in the Commission’s letter of 18 May
2015, please explain the link between the “Aliens Division” and the “Prosecution of Illegal
Migration Directorate” where the new coordination centre will belong to.
d)
Regarding training of judicial bodies, and since the Commission was recently informed
that it will not be implemented under the Return Fund (2013 AP), please clarify if the relevant
action will be implemented under AMIF. If not, please explain how Greece will ensure adequate
capacity of these bodies in view of an efficient processing of appeals.
19.
On National Objective 2 (Return Measures), regarding the reference to NADRA (“
cost of
issuing travel documents directly from embassies or by using intermediary providers’ services,
such as Nadra”), we would like to note that NADRA is not a service provider but a national
authority of Pakistan. Please correct this part accordingly.
20.
As regards Greece’s participation in the Specific Actions, we would appreciate if Greece
could indicate whether it intends to contribute financially to such actions or not.
SO4 – Solidarity
21.
We take note of the fact that Greece does not present any national strategy nor
propose any actions under this specific objective.
Section 3: Indicative timetable
22.
We note that some actions are foreseen to start in 2015. As no formal designation
(provisionally or fully) of the RA authority has taken place yet, we alert once again Greece for
the urgent need to formalise such designation, as without such designation no initial pre-
financing payments can be made by the Commission, and any payments made by a non-
designated authority in 2015 to cover costs to be charged to the Fund are not eligible.
Section 5: Common Indicators and Programme Specific Indicators
23.
It would be useful to have further information on the target for C2 of SO2, which seems
rather low, for a 7-year period.
Section 6: Framework for preparation and implementation of the programme by the Member
State
24.
The draft continues to present a succinct description of the Common Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework: we invite Greece to provide more details on such framework.
25.
Draft mentions coordination and complementarity with ESIF and EEA grants.
Complementarity with ESIF is extremely important, as ERDF and ESF should cover very
important needs in terms of open accommodation centres and integration measures. Although
the revised draft provides further information on the share of funding from different sources
7
(AMIF, EEA grants, national budget), it still does not give a clear picture of how much funding
will be mobilised from ESIF. As noted above, a clearer picture on the size of funding from such
Funds is absolutely necessary, also because Greece proposes to not comply with the minimum
percentage of 20% from AMIF for measures under SO2.
26.
As regards beneficiaries and direct award, it is still not clear what is meant by MAs. We
would also like to draw your attention to the fact that when the RA acts as an awarding body
(including direct awards) neither the RA nor a DA may be a beneficiary of the grant.
Section 7: The financing plan of the programme
27.
The draft programme proposes to derogate from the minimum percentage(s)
established in AMIF Regulation. As noted above, although we appreciate the efforts made by
Greece to provide further information on complementary funding from other sources, the
justification provided for such derogation is still not sufficient. More clarity/guarantees are
needed as regards funding for legal migration & integration measures to be provided through
other resources, and in particular ESIF.
28.
Please note that the allocations for the Specific/National Objectives will be re-assessed,
to ascertain if they are reasonable and correspond to the actions under the funding priorities
and the targets set for them, once Greece has submitted a revised version of the programme, in
the light of the comments made above.
8