BETA

Activities of Damien CARÊME related to 2020/2045(INI)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION on the implementation report on the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey
2021/05/17
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2020/2045(INI)
Documents: PDF(165 KB) DOC(82 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Sira REGO', 'mepid': 197681}]

Amendments (13)

Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
B a. Whereas Article 208 TFEU clearly states that the primary objective of Union development cooperation policy shall be the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
B b. Whereas recent reports by both the European Court of Auditors1a and civil society1b point out various shortcomings, including legal challenges, in the EU Trust Funds and the FRT, such as the failure to apply EU public procurement law, risks of conflicts of interests and opaque management; _________________ 1a European Court of Auditors, "European Union Trust Fund for Africa: flexible but lacking focus", 2018, pp. 17- 25. 1bDAVIS Laura (Dr), EU external expenditure on asylum, forced displacement and migration 2014-2019, European Council on Refugees and Exiles, 2021.
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the fact that both the EUTF and the FRT are ad hoc instruments that were set up outside the EU budget, raising concerns over theirdeviate from the ordinary decision- making procedure and bypass parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight, therefore lack ofing transparency and democratic accountability; points out that their governance structures deviate from ordinary decision-making and bypass parliament scrutinystresses that detailed data on funding allocations are not available or hardly accessible;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Is concerned that EU funds have been used as leverage to pressure partner governments to comply with the EU’s internal migration objectives including on return and readmission, in contradiction of Articles 208, 209 and 212 TFEU; 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 May2018 and the EU- Nigeria Memorandum of Understanding of 29 August 2019;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes with concern that there are shortcomings in the application of EU public procurement law with regard to the EU’s external migration policy2a; 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 partners2b; deplores that procedures and criteria for selecting projects are not sufficiently clear or documented2c; _________________ 2aThomas Spijkerboer and Elies Steyger ‘European External Migration Funds and Public Procurement Law’ European Papers, Vol. 4, 2019, No 2, pp. 493-521. p.520 2b ibid 2cEuropean 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
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned in particular about the governance of the EUTF: the composition of its board and regional operational committees, the opacity of the process for defining and approving projects, the lack of dialogue with local and human rights CSOs, and the lack of ex ante and ongoing impact assessments onregarding targeted populations and countries, notably concerning fundamental rights;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the EUTF is part of a trend of the securitisation and externalisation of EU border management aimed at reducing irregular migration to the EU; stresses the risks to development objectives and fundamental rights associated with this approach.; deplores the fact that 37% of the EUTF 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;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Urges the Commission to take immediate steps to improve transparency and ensure 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;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Calls on 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, as well as detailed information on any other potential support measures provided by EU agencies such as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, in order to ensure that the European Parliament can efficiently perform its institutional role of scrutiny of the implementation of the EU budget;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. 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 and FRT contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives of such funds and are not used for any other purposes;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Highlights with concern the increasing recourse since 2016 to enhanced conditionality between development cooperation and migration management; stresses that the use of development cooperation as an incentive for migration management undermines meaningful action to address the needs of people in developing countries, the rights of refugees and migrants as well as their potential impact on regional migration patterns and contribution to local economies, and thus also undermines a wide range of rights stemming from the Sustainable Development Goals;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3 e. 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 Multiannual Financial Framework is accompanied by a robust human rights framework for the identification, implementation and monitoring of future migration cooperation programmes;
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3 f. Stresses the importance of ensuring that a significant part of EU funding is earmarked for the implementation of human rights and international protection; calls in this regard for the allocation of a substantial share of future EU funding in the field of migration to civil society groups in third countries with the aim of providing assistance to migrants and for the protection and monitoring of their rights.
2021/03/25
Committee: LIBE