Activities of Sira REGO related to 2020/2045(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation report on the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (continuation of debate)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the implementation report on the EU Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey
Amendments (20)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
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; whereas this facility is a joint coordination mechanism and not a funding instrument in itself; whereas human rights violations have taken place under this agree EU-Turkey statement which are incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. 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;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EU Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa (EUTF) was established in 2015; whereas the EUTF makes predominant use (90 %) of Official Development Assistance, presented as a key instrument to implement the Valleta 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 has funded over 500 projects in more than 25 countries in Africa for a total of over EUR 4.85 billion; whereas the EUTF has raised concerns about contributing to inhumane and degrading treatment and/or financing actors that have committed human rights violations, such as in Libya, Eritrea and Sudan committed since 2016, out of which 4.4 come from the EU budget;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. 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; whereas there have been concerns by development CSOs that the EUTF for Africa is being used as a political tool focusing on quick-fix projects with the aim to stem migratory flows to Europe, which is not the purpose of ODA; whereas there have also been concerns that the EUTF has contributed to inhumane and degrading treatment and/or financed actors that have committed human rights violations, as in Libya, Eritrea and Sudan;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. 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"; whereas, according to IOM data, more than 20,000 people have been intercepted in 2019 and 2020 by the "Libyan Coast Guards" supported by the EU; 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 to the Libyan Coast Guard impacting on interceptions and returns;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas some civil society organisations (CSOs) have launched legal proceedings against the EU and its Member States for human rights violations linked directly or indirectly to some EUTF for Africa projects; whereas a complaint has been filed with the European Court of Auditors regarding EU funding in Libya, requesting the suspension of the programme supporting the Libyan coast guards in light of its violation of EU financing law regulations and international regulations on human rights1a ; whereas a complaint has also been submitted to the International Criminal Court against some EU and Member State officials for causing the deaths of thousands of human beings per year, the refoulement (forcible return) of tens of thousands of migrants attempting to flee Libya, and the subsequent commission of murder, deportation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts against them1b; whereas a Dutch Foundation of Eritrean refugees, Foundation Human Rights for Eritreans has filed a lawsuit in the Amsterdam court against EU for its role in financing a road building EUTF project in Eritrea that uses forced labour; _________________ 1aGlobal Legal Action Network (GLAN),‘EU financial complicity in Libyan migrant abuses' 1bStudents of the Capstone on Counter- Terrorism and International Crimes, communication to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court entitled ‘EU Migration Policies in the Central Mediterranean and Libya (2014-2019)’
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
B d. Whereas it has been reported that the EUTF for Africa ROCK and BMM programmes were suspended by the EU in 2019 in Sudan; whereas an official EU document dated December 2015 noted the risk that the provision of equipment and training to Sudanese security services and border guards could be "diverted for repressive aims" or subject to "criticism by NGOs and civil society for engaging with repressive governments on migration (particularly in Eritrea and Sudan)."
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital B e (new)
Recital B e (new)
B e. 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 has come under pressure as increasing collaboration with EU Member States whose agendas are aimed at curbing irregular migration from Africa to Europe, has limited intra-regional freedom of movement and reduced the options available for income generation;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Recital B f (new)
Recital B f (new)
B f. 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;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the fact that both the EUTF and the FRTEU Trust Funds are ad hoc instruments that were set up outside the EU budget, raising concerns over their lack of transparency and democratic accountability; points out that their governance structures deviate from ordinary decision-making and bypass parliament scrutiny;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Acknowledges that some EUTF for Africa projects have provided vital support to vulnerable and marginalised population groups; notes however the disproportionate focus on the EU side to address irregular migration via the EUTF for Africa and the 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;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned about the governance of the EUTF: the composition of its board and regional operational committeesNotes that the mid-term review pointed that the EUTF 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 this has been at the expense of transparency, accountability and scrutiny; 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 approving projects, the lack of dialogue with local and human rights CSOs, and; points out the lack of ex ante and ongoing impact assessments on fundamental rights; and the absence of any fundamental rights conditionality on the use of funding ;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Expresses concerns regarding ongoing Council discussions aiming at building Team Europe funding initiatives on migration to propose migration management related actions in Africa, which would once again bypass the scrutiny of the European Parliament and decide on the allocation of ODA based on Member States political priorities and informal agreements; recalls that the 10% earmarked for migration and forced displacement in the NDICI fund aimed at replacing ad-hoc funding instruments;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the EUTF isdisproportionate focus of the EUTF for Africa on the fight to counter irregular migration and the objectives 3 and 4 of the EUTF for Africa are part of a trend of the securitisation and externalisation of EU border management aimed at reducing irregular migration to the EUnd move away from a holistic approach to migration; stresses the risks to development objectives and fundamental rights associated with this approach.; points to the risk of indirectly supporting armed groups that often control borders in unstable countries as it has been the case in Sudan and Libya; highlights that that increased interceptions by northern African coast guards as a result of EUTF support have led to the development of more dangerous migration routes such as the one to the Canary islands; recalls that a more effective migration policy relies on support to improve partner countries reception and asylum capacities and ensuring channels for human mobility, including legal and circular channels for migration; notes that less than 1.5% of the EUTF for Africa was allocated to regular migration channels;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recalls 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 stemming both from the UN Convention of 1951 Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights, have not ratified these conventions, or fail to comply with the SOLAS and SAR Conventions; stresses that the EU’s external migration policy should not support interceptions at sea that would return people to an unsafe port; 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 control mechanisms and clear protocols to act in the event of fundamental rights violations;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Recalls 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 Libyan coast guard and to suspend them until clear guarantees of human rights compliance are in place;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Calls on the Commission to conduct an 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;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3 d. Calls on the Commission to use the NDICI and its international partnerships to promote 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;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3 e. Recalls its call on the Commission to regularly and publicly report on the funding of migration-related cooperation programmes in third countries and their human rights impact; calls on the Commission to guarantee the scrutiny and budgetary control role of the European Parliament in relation to all EU funding;