BETA


2015/2341(INI) EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead DEVE CORRAO Ignazio (icon: EFDD EFDD) WENTA Bogdan Brunon (icon: PPE PPE), LIETZ Arne (icon: S&D S&D), DEVA Nirj (icon: ECR ECR), GOERENS Charles (icon: ALDE ALDE), HAUTALA Heidi (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion BUDG GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider (icon: S&D S&D) Reimer BÖGE (icon: PPE PPE), Gérard DEPREZ (icon: ALDE ALDE), Indrek TARAND (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), Anders Primdahl VISTISEN (icon: ECR ECR)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2016/12/21
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2016/09/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2016/09/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 511 votes to 129, with 69 abstentions, a resolution on the EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid.

Parliament recalled that the main goal of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is to help foster stability in the regions and contribute to better migration management. It aims to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development.

Financial allocation and budgetary aspects : Parliament regretted the fact that to date Member States' contributions have remained too low, amounting only to a small fraction of the Union contribution and are thus far from reaching the official commitment, totalling only EUR 81.71 million in April 2016 (or 4.5 % of the projected EUR 1.8 billion). It called for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds.

While welcoming the intention to disburse funds more quickly and flexibly in an emergency situation, Parliament criticised the fact that the Commission has diverted appropriations from the objectives and principles of the basic acts to channel them through the EUTF , as this is in breach of the financial rules, and furthermore jeopardises the success of long-term Union policies. It called, therefore, for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds.

It noted that in the field of external action, EUTFs are mainly designed to enable a swift response to a specific emergency or post-emergency crisis by leveraging the contribution of EU Member States and other donors while increasing the global visibility of European efforts. In an amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament stressed the volatility of voluntary contributions and urged the Member States to honour their pledges and to rapidly and effectively match the Union contribution, in order to allow the EUTF to develop its full potential.

Members also deplored the fact that the trust funds result in bypassing the budgetary authority and undermining the unity of the budget .

It recalled that Member State contributions make up 85 % of the Union budget. However, the setting up the EUTF is de facto tantamount to revising the ceilings for the current MFF by increasing Member State contributions.

It stressed, therefore, that the creation of funding instruments outside the EU budget must remain exceptional. In addition, Parliament is not represented on the Strategic Board, despite the fact that substantial funds come from the Union budget.

Members observed that Parliament has demonstrated responsibility by agreeing to release emergency funds. They deplored the fact, however, that, as a result of the proliferation of emergency instruments, the Community method is being abandoned.

EDF contribution : Parliament noted that the EU’s financial allocation for the EUTF for Africa currently comes mainly from the 11th EDF because the EU budget and the MFF lack the resources and the flexibility needed to address the different dimensions of such crises promptly and comprehensively. It called for the EU to agree to find a more holistic solution for emergency funding in the framework of this year’s revision of the 2014-2020 MFF.

It condemned any use of EDF and ODA funds for migration management and control of any other actions without development objectives.

Parliament stressed that the use of the EDF to finance the EUTF for Africa may have an impact on the aid recipient African countries which are not covered by the Trust Fund, and in particular the least developed countries (LDCs). However, despite the already low levels of development assistance to LDCs which have declined for the second year in a row in 2014, it called on the Commission and the Member States, accordingly, to make sure that aid is not diverted away from the poorest countries to cover the cost of the current crises.

Role of the civil society, NGOs and local authorities : according to Members, local government authorities must be consulted as full partners as long as there are full guarantees of efficiency and good governance.

Parliament called for respect for the principle of subsidiarity and ownership also in this field of action and that local government bodies, local civil society, NGOs and international organisations should be strongly involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation phases of the EUTF.

In this regard, Parliament called on the Commission to clarify and formalise the consultation procedures with these stakeholders so as to ensure their effective participation in the discussions.

Parliament strongly believes that the EUTF should focus not only on economic development but also on grassroots projects specifically aimed at improving quality, equity and universal accessibility of basic services.

Transparency and clarity for better achievement of goals : Parliament warned against the serious risk of misuse of EU development aid, in particular in conflict-affected countries where security, migration and development issues are closely interconnected. It emphasised strongly that the ultimate purpose of EU development policy must be the reduction and eradication of poverty. It also stressed that a clear, transparent, and communicable distinction must be made within the EUTF between the funding envelopes for development activities on the one hand, and those for activities related to migration management, border controls and all other activities on the other.

EU policy coherence and commitment on human rights : Parliament called for the EU to show greater coherence when acting in the field of international cooperation for development in the African region. It stated that the funds should reflect the principles of policy coherence for sustainable development and complementarity between all development stakeholders, and should avoid any contradiction between development aims and security, humanitarian and migration policies. The trust funds should contribute to achieving the long-term objectives of ensuring peace and strengthening governance in recipient countries.

Objectives and follow-up : Parliament called on the Commission to systematically monitor how the EUTF funds are employed and how they are allocated, and to increase Parliament's scrutiny powers over the EUTF. It deplored the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding criteria and the volume of funds available for civil society under the EUTF. It recalled the need for better communication between the Commission, the Member States and Parliament in programming and implementing actions of the EUTF in general, in the interests of the further planning of potential additional Trust Funds. It insisted on the need to guarantee, through detailed and regular reporting by the Commission, Parliament’s scrutiny as to how the Fund is being implemented. Transparency, communication and visibility are of the utmost importance with a view to disseminating the results and involving and sensitising European private actors, local and regional authorities, NGOs and civil society.

Funds and migration : Members recalled that EU migration policies should address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development by working more closely with third countries to improve cooperation on incentives for return to and reintegration in the countries of origin of migrants.

Parliament s tressed that instability and physical insecurity are prominent causes of forced displacement, and therefore supported a conflict-sensitive approach to implementation of the Fund that would prioritise conflict prevention , state-building, good governance and the promotion of the rule of law. It stated that the EUTF is a great opportunity for the EU, enabling it to reinforce its cooperation and political dialogue with its African partners, in particular concerning the effective implementation of return and readmission agreements.

Documents
2016/09/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2016/09/12
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2016/06/29
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Development adopted the own-initiative report by Ignazio CORRAO (EFDD, IT) on the EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid.

The Committee on Budgets, exercising its prerogative as associated committees in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure, also gave its opinion on the report.

Members recalled that the main goal of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is to help foster stability in the regions and contribute to better migration management. It aims to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development.

Financial allocation and budgetary aspects : Members regretted the fact that to date Member States' contributions have remained too low, amounting only to a small fraction of the Union contribution and are thus far from reaching the official commitment , totalling only EUR 81.71 million in April 2016 (or 4.5 % of the projected EUR 1.8 billion). They called for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds.

Members encouraged the Member States to honour their pledges and to rapidly and effectively match the Union contribution in order to allow the trust fund to develop its full potential.

Deploring the fact that the trust funds result in bypassing the budgetary authority and undermining the unity of the budget, Members consider that setting up the EUTF is de facto tantamount to revising the ceilings for the current MFF by increasing Member State contributions . They stressed that the creation of funding instruments outside the EU budget must remain exceptional as it bypasses the budgetary authority and undermines budget unity.

Members noted that the EU’s financial allocation for the EUTF for Africa currently comes mainly from the 11th EDF because the EU budget and the MFF lack the resources and the flexibility needed to address the different dimensions of such crises. They called on the EU to agree to find a more holistic solution for emergency funding in the framework of this year’s revision of the 2014-2020 MFF.

Members also observed that Parliament has demonstrated responsibility, as one arm of the budgetary authority, by agreeing to release emergency funds. They deplored the fact, however, that, as a result of the proliferation of emergency instruments, the Community method is being abandoned.

Role of the civil society, ONGs and local authorities : according to Members, civil society, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations and diaspora communities should play a complementary and pivotal role. Open and participative consultation processes prior to the definition of projects is called for as a key contribution to development needs assessment.

Transparency and clarity for better achievement of goals : Members warned against the serious risk of misuse of EU development aid, in particular in conflict-affected countries where security, migration and development issues are closely interconnected. They e mphasised strongly that the ultimate purpose of EU development policy must be the reduction and eradication of poverty. They also stressed that a clear, transparent, and communicable distinction must be made within the EUTF between the funding envelopes for development activities on the one hand, and those for activities related to migration management, border controls and all other activities on the other.

EU policy coherence and commitment on human rights : Members called for the EU to show greater coherence when acting in the field of international cooperation for development in the African region. They stated that the funds should reflect the principles of policy coherence for sustainable development and complementarity between all development stakeholders, and should avoid any contradiction between development aims and security, humanitarian and migration policies. The trust funds should contribute to achieving the long-term objectives of ensuring peace and strengthening governance in recipient countries.

Objectives and follow-up : the report called on the Commission to systematically monitor how the EUTF funds are employed and how they are allocated, and to increase Parliament's scrutiny powers over the EUTF. Members deplored the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding criteria and the volume of funds available for civil society under the EUTF. They recalled the need for better communication between the Commission, the Member States and Parliament in programming and implementing actions of the EUTF in general, in the interests of the further planning of potential additional Trust Funds. They insisted on the need to guarantee, through detailed and regular reporting by the Commission, Parliament’s scrutiny as to how the Fund is being implemented. Transparency, communication and visibility are of the utmost importance with a view to disseminating the results and involving and sensitising European private actors, local and regional authorities, NGOs and civil society.

Lastly, Members recalled that EU migration policies should address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development.

Documents
2016/06/21
   EP - Vote in committee
2016/04/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2016/04/07
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2016/02/26
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/01/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2016/01/21
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2015/12/03
   EP - GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
2015/10/13
   EP - CORRAO Ignazio (EFDD) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0221/2016 - Ignazio Corrao - Résolution #

2016/09/13 Outcome: +: 511, -: 129, 0: 61
DE IT FR ES RO PL SE HU CZ BG PT AT NL BE LT SI SK LV FI HR EE DK LU IE EL CY MT GB
Total
89
68
71
51
32
48
19
15
21
16
20
18
25
20
10
8
13
8
12
8
5
13
5
10
20
5
6
64
icon: PPE PPE
203

Finland PPE

2

Croatia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
176

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

Romania ALDE

3

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: NI NI
11

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

France NI

Against (1)

3

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
42

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
37

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Romania ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Poland ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Austria ENF

Abstain (1)

4

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
68

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

Against (1)

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

Abstain (1)

3

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
51

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
4

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
150 2015/2341(INI)
2016/04/05 BUDG 13 amendments...
source: 580.566
2016/04/07 DEVE 137 amendments...
source: 580.561

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/shadows/4
name
ALBIOL GUZMÁN Marina
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE578.554
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-PR-578554_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE580.561
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-AM-580561_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE578.514&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/BUDG-AD-578514_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/2/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/3
date
2016-06-29T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0221_EN.html title: A8-0221/2016
summary
events/3
date
2016-06-29T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0221_EN.html title: A8-0221/2016
summary
events/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160912&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/6
date
2016-09-13T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0337_EN.html title: T8-0337/2016
summary
events/6
date
2016-09-13T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0337_EN.html title: T8-0337/2016
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
rapporteur
name: CORRAO Ignazio date: 2015-10-13T00:00:00 group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2015-10-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CORRAO Ignazio group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider date: 2015-12-03T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2015-12-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
docs/3/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0221&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0221_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0337
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0337_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2015-10-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CORRAO Ignazio group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2015-10-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CORRAO Ignazio group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
shadows
activities
  • date: 2016-01-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2015-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: WENTA Bogdan Brunon group: S&D name: LIETZ Arne group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles group: GUE/NGL name: ALBIOL GUZMÁN Marina group: Verts/ALE name: HAUTALA Heidi responsible: True committee: DEVE date: 2015-10-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio
  • date: 2016-06-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2015-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: WENTA Bogdan Brunon group: S&D name: LIETZ Arne group: ECR name: DEVA Nirj group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles group: GUE/NGL name: ALBIOL GUZMÁN Marina group: Verts/ALE name: HAUTALA Heidi responsible: True committee: DEVE date: 2015-10-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio
  • date: 2016-06-29T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0221&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0221/2016 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2016-09-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160912&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2016-09-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0337 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0337/2016 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: International Cooperation and Development commissioner: MIMICA Neven
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
date
2015-10-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CORRAO Ignazio group: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr: EFDD
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
BUDG
date
2015-12-03T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgets (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: S&D name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
2015-12-03T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
DEVE
date
2015-10-13T00:00:00
committee_full
Development (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio
docs
  • date: 2016-02-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE578.554 title: PE578.554 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2016-04-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE580.561 title: PE580.561 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2016-04-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE578.514&secondRef=02 title: PE578.514 committee: BUDG type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2016-12-21T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=27432&j=0&l=en title: SP(2016)876 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2016-01-21T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2016-01-21T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2016-06-21T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2016-06-29T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0221&language=EN title: A8-0221/2016 summary: The Committee on Development adopted the own-initiative report by Ignazio CORRAO (EFDD, IT) on the EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid. The Committee on Budgets, exercising its prerogative as associated committees in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure, also gave its opinion on the report. Members recalled that the main goal of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is to help foster stability in the regions and contribute to better migration management. It aims to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development. Financial allocation and budgetary aspects : Members regretted the fact that to date Member States' contributions have remained too low, amounting only to a small fraction of the Union contribution and are thus far from reaching the official commitment , totalling only EUR 81.71 million in April 2016 (or 4.5 % of the projected EUR 1.8 billion). They called for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds. Members encouraged the Member States to honour their pledges and to rapidly and effectively match the Union contribution in order to allow the trust fund to develop its full potential. Deploring the fact that the trust funds result in bypassing the budgetary authority and undermining the unity of the budget, Members consider that setting up the EUTF is de facto tantamount to revising the ceilings for the current MFF by increasing Member State contributions . They stressed that the creation of funding instruments outside the EU budget must remain exceptional as it bypasses the budgetary authority and undermines budget unity. Members noted that the EU’s financial allocation for the EUTF for Africa currently comes mainly from the 11th EDF because the EU budget and the MFF lack the resources and the flexibility needed to address the different dimensions of such crises. They called on the EU to agree to find a more holistic solution for emergency funding in the framework of this year’s revision of the 2014-2020 MFF. Members also observed that Parliament has demonstrated responsibility, as one arm of the budgetary authority, by agreeing to release emergency funds. They deplored the fact, however, that, as a result of the proliferation of emergency instruments, the Community method is being abandoned. Role of the civil society, ONGs and local authorities : according to Members, civil society, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations and diaspora communities should play a complementary and pivotal role. Open and participative consultation processes prior to the definition of projects is called for as a key contribution to development needs assessment. Transparency and clarity for better achievement of goals : Members warned against the serious risk of misuse of EU development aid, in particular in conflict-affected countries where security, migration and development issues are closely interconnected. They e mphasised strongly that the ultimate purpose of EU development policy must be the reduction and eradication of poverty. They also stressed that a clear, transparent, and communicable distinction must be made within the EUTF between the funding envelopes for development activities on the one hand, and those for activities related to migration management, border controls and all other activities on the other. EU policy coherence and commitment on human rights : Members called for the EU to show greater coherence when acting in the field of international cooperation for development in the African region. They stated that the funds should reflect the principles of policy coherence for sustainable development and complementarity between all development stakeholders, and should avoid any contradiction between development aims and security, humanitarian and migration policies. The trust funds should contribute to achieving the long-term objectives of ensuring peace and strengthening governance in recipient countries. Objectives and follow-up : the report called on the Commission to systematically monitor how the EUTF funds are employed and how they are allocated, and to increase Parliament's scrutiny powers over the EUTF. Members deplored the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding criteria and the volume of funds available for civil society under the EUTF. They recalled the need for better communication between the Commission, the Member States and Parliament in programming and implementing actions of the EUTF in general, in the interests of the further planning of potential additional Trust Funds. They insisted on the need to guarantee, through detailed and regular reporting by the Commission, Parliament’s scrutiny as to how the Fund is being implemented. Transparency, communication and visibility are of the utmost importance with a view to disseminating the results and involving and sensitising European private actors, local and regional authorities, NGOs and civil society. Lastly, Members recalled that EU migration policies should address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development.
  • date: 2016-09-12T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160912&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2016-09-13T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=27432&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2016-09-13T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0337 title: T8-0337/2016 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 511 votes to 129, with 69 abstentions, a resolution on the EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid. Parliament recalled that the main goal of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is to help foster stability in the regions and contribute to better migration management. It aims to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development. Financial allocation and budgetary aspects : Parliament regretted the fact that to date Member States' contributions have remained too low, amounting only to a small fraction of the Union contribution and are thus far from reaching the official commitment, totalling only EUR 81.71 million in April 2016 (or 4.5 % of the projected EUR 1.8 billion). It called for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds. While welcoming the intention to disburse funds more quickly and flexibly in an emergency situation, Parliament criticised the fact that the Commission has diverted appropriations from the objectives and principles of the basic acts to channel them through the EUTF , as this is in breach of the financial rules, and furthermore jeopardises the success of long-term Union policies. It called, therefore, for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds. It noted that in the field of external action, EUTFs are mainly designed to enable a swift response to a specific emergency or post-emergency crisis by leveraging the contribution of EU Member States and other donors while increasing the global visibility of European efforts. In an amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament stressed the volatility of voluntary contributions and urged the Member States to honour their pledges and to rapidly and effectively match the Union contribution, in order to allow the EUTF to develop its full potential. Members also deplored the fact that the trust funds result in bypassing the budgetary authority and undermining the unity of the budget . It recalled that Member State contributions make up 85 % of the Union budget. However, the setting up the EUTF is de facto tantamount to revising the ceilings for the current MFF by increasing Member State contributions. It stressed, therefore, that the creation of funding instruments outside the EU budget must remain exceptional. In addition, Parliament is not represented on the Strategic Board, despite the fact that substantial funds come from the Union budget. Members observed that Parliament has demonstrated responsibility by agreeing to release emergency funds. They deplored the fact, however, that, as a result of the proliferation of emergency instruments, the Community method is being abandoned. EDF contribution : Parliament noted that the EU’s financial allocation for the EUTF for Africa currently comes mainly from the 11th EDF because the EU budget and the MFF lack the resources and the flexibility needed to address the different dimensions of such crises promptly and comprehensively. It called for the EU to agree to find a more holistic solution for emergency funding in the framework of this year’s revision of the 2014-2020 MFF. It condemned any use of EDF and ODA funds for migration management and control of any other actions without development objectives. Parliament stressed that the use of the EDF to finance the EUTF for Africa may have an impact on the aid recipient African countries which are not covered by the Trust Fund, and in particular the least developed countries (LDCs). However, despite the already low levels of development assistance to LDCs which have declined for the second year in a row in 2014, it called on the Commission and the Member States, accordingly, to make sure that aid is not diverted away from the poorest countries to cover the cost of the current crises. Role of the civil society, NGOs and local authorities : according to Members, local government authorities must be consulted as full partners as long as there are full guarantees of efficiency and good governance. Parliament called for respect for the principle of subsidiarity and ownership also in this field of action and that local government bodies, local civil society, NGOs and international organisations should be strongly involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation phases of the EUTF. In this regard, Parliament called on the Commission to clarify and formalise the consultation procedures with these stakeholders so as to ensure their effective participation in the discussions. Parliament strongly believes that the EUTF should focus not only on economic development but also on grassroots projects specifically aimed at improving quality, equity and universal accessibility of basic services. Transparency and clarity for better achievement of goals : Parliament warned against the serious risk of misuse of EU development aid, in particular in conflict-affected countries where security, migration and development issues are closely interconnected. It emphasised strongly that the ultimate purpose of EU development policy must be the reduction and eradication of poverty. It also stressed that a clear, transparent, and communicable distinction must be made within the EUTF between the funding envelopes for development activities on the one hand, and those for activities related to migration management, border controls and all other activities on the other. EU policy coherence and commitment on human rights : Parliament called for the EU to show greater coherence when acting in the field of international cooperation for development in the African region. It stated that the funds should reflect the principles of policy coherence for sustainable development and complementarity between all development stakeholders, and should avoid any contradiction between development aims and security, humanitarian and migration policies. The trust funds should contribute to achieving the long-term objectives of ensuring peace and strengthening governance in recipient countries. Objectives and follow-up : Parliament called on the Commission to systematically monitor how the EUTF funds are employed and how they are allocated, and to increase Parliament's scrutiny powers over the EUTF. It deplored the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding criteria and the volume of funds available for civil society under the EUTF. It recalled the need for better communication between the Commission, the Member States and Parliament in programming and implementing actions of the EUTF in general, in the interests of the further planning of potential additional Trust Funds. It insisted on the need to guarantee, through detailed and regular reporting by the Commission, Parliament’s scrutiny as to how the Fund is being implemented. Transparency, communication and visibility are of the utmost importance with a view to disseminating the results and involving and sensitising European private actors, local and regional authorities, NGOs and civil society. Funds and migration : Members recalled that EU migration policies should address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development by working more closely with third countries to improve cooperation on incentives for return to and reintegration in the countries of origin of migrants. Parliament s tressed that instability and physical insecurity are prominent causes of forced displacement, and therefore supported a conflict-sensitive approach to implementation of the Fund that would prioritise conflict prevention , state-building, good governance and the promotion of the rule of law. It stated that the EUTF is a great opportunity for the EU, enabling it to reinforce its cooperation and political dialogue with its African partners, in particular concerning the effective implementation of return and readmission agreements.
  • date: 2016-09-13T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/ title: International Cooperation and Development commissioner: MIMICA Neven
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
DEVE/8/05358
New
  • DEVE/8/05358
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 6.30.02 Financial and technical cooperation and assistance
  • 6.50 Emergency, food, humanitarian aid, aid to refugees, Emergency Aid Reserve
New
6.30.02
Financial and technical cooperation and assistance
6.50
Emergency, food, humanitarian aid, aid to refugees, Emergency Aid Reserve
activities/4
date
2016-09-13T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0337 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0337/2016
body
EP
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/4
date
2016-09-13T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote scheduled
activities/3/date
Old
2016-09-13T00:00:00
New
2016-09-12T00:00:00
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20160912&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/3/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/4/date
Old
2016-09-12T00:00:00
New
2016-09-13T00:00:00
activities/4/type
Old
Debate scheduled
New
Vote scheduled
activities/3/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate scheduled
activities/2/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Development adopted the own-initiative report by Ignazio CORRAO (EFDD, IT) on the EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid.

    The Committee on Budgets, exercising its prerogative as associated committees in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure, also gave its opinion on the report.

    Members recalled that the main goal of the EU Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) is to help foster stability in the regions and contribute to better migration management. It aims to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development.

    Financial allocation and budgetary aspects: Members regretted the fact that to date Member States' contributions have remained too low, amounting only to a small fraction of the Union contribution and are thus far from reaching the official commitment, totalling only EUR 81.71 million in April 2016 (or 4.5 % of the projected  EUR 1.8 billion). They called for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency to be ensured as to the origin and destination of funds.

    Members encouraged the Member States to honour their pledges and to rapidly and effectively match the Union contribution in order to allow the trust fund to develop its full potential.

    Deploring the fact that the trust funds result in bypassing the budgetary authority and undermining the unity of the budget, Members consider that setting up the EUTF is de facto tantamount to revising the ceilings for the current MFF by increasing Member State contributions. They stressed that the creation of funding instruments outside the EU budget must remain exceptional as it bypasses the budgetary authority and undermines budget unity.

    Members noted that the EU’s financial allocation for the EUTF for Africa currently comes mainly from the 11th EDF because the EU budget and the MFF lack the resources and the flexibility needed to address the different dimensions of such crises. They called on the EU to agree to find a more holistic solution for emergency funding in the framework of this year’s revision of the 2014-2020 MFF.

    Members also observed that Parliament has demonstrated responsibility, as one arm of the budgetary authority, by agreeing to release emergency funds. They deplored the fact, however, that, as a result of the proliferation of emergency instruments, the Community method is being abandoned.

    Role of the civil society, ONGs and local authorities: according to Members, civil society, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations and diaspora communities should play a complementary and pivotal role. Open and participative consultation processes prior to the definition of projects is called for as a key contribution to development needs assessment.

    Transparency and clarity for better achievement of goals: Members warned against the serious risk of misuse of EU development aid, in particular in conflict-affected countries where security, migration and development issues are closely interconnected. They emphasised strongly that the ultimate purpose of EU development policy must be the reduction and eradication of poverty. They also stressed that a clear, transparent, and communicable distinction must be made within the EUTF between the funding envelopes for development activities on the one hand, and those for activities related to migration management, border controls and all other activities on the other.

    EU policy coherence and commitment on human rights: Members called for the EU to show greater coherence when acting in the field of international cooperation for development in the African region. They stated that the funds should reflect the principles of policy coherence for sustainable development and complementarity between all development stakeholders, and should avoid any contradiction between development aims and security, humanitarian and migration policies. The trust funds should contribute to achieving the long-term objectives of ensuring peace and strengthening governance in recipient countries.

    Objectives and follow-up: the report called on the Commission to systematically monitor how the EUTF funds are employed and how they are allocated, and to increase Parliament's scrutiny powers over the EUTF. Members deplored the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding criteria and the volume of funds available for civil society under the EUTF. They recalled the need for better communication between the Commission, the Member States and Parliament in programming and implementing actions of the EUTF in general, in the interests of the further planning of potential additional Trust Funds. They insisted on the need to guarantee, through detailed and regular reporting by the Commission, Parliament’s scrutiny as to how the Fund is being implemented. Transparency, communication and visibility are of the utmost importance with a view to disseminating the results and involving and sensitising European private actors, local and regional authorities, NGOs and civil society.

    Lastly, Members recalled that EU migration policies should address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting resilience, economic opportunities, equal opportunities, security and development.

activities/2/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0221&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0221/2016
activities/3/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/4
date
2016-09-13T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in plenary scheduled
activities/2
date
2016-06-29T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/1
date
2016-06-21T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
activities/1/date
Old
2016-07-04T00:00:00
New
2016-09-12T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/0
group
EPP
name
WENTA Bogdan Brunon
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/2
group
ECR
name
DEVA Nirj
committees/1/shadows/0
group
EPP
name
WENTA Bogdan Brunon
committees/1/shadows/2
group
ECR
name
DEVA Nirj
activities/1
date
2016-07-04T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/0
date
2016-01-21T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
DEVE/8/05358
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting committee decision
activities
    committees
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 2015-12-03T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL Eider
    • body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: LIETZ Arne group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles group: GUE/NGL name: ALBIOL GUZMÁN Marina group: Verts/ALE name: HAUTALA Heidi responsible: True committee: DEVE date: 2015-10-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Development (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio
    links
    other
    • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/ title: International Cooperation and Development commissioner: MIMICA Neven
    procedure
    reference
    2015/2341(INI)
    title
    EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    stage_reached
    Preparatory phase in Parliament
    subtype
    Initiative
    type
    INI - Own-initiative procedure
    subject