----

(2004/C 88 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/03

by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Clarification concerning the budget line for non-governmental organisations involved in combating torture

The European Parliament has supported victims of torture all over the world since 1993. Two budget headings were created for this purpose — one for third countries (B7-70) and another for the European Union (B5-813). Thanks to aid from the European Union, programmes of assistance have been maintained and developed in most countries of the world, both for victims of torture in those countries themselves and for refugees and asylum-seekers.

The Commission has decided to step up its efforts in this area and we in the European Parliament back its decision, but we are aware that the initiative is having an immediate effect on the situation of existing victims, since no new funding has been allocated for them, resulting in the closure of many centres which were dependent on such funding.

What is the actual impact of this change in policy? Are assistance and prevention two separate strategies? What is the scope of the decision? Is European Union funding sufficient for prevention and assistance or should the present figure be increased? What is envisaged with regard to this funding?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Commission's Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation of May 2001 (1) identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support, including the prevention of torturer and the rehabilitation of torture victims. In line with the need to focus limited funds more effectively, the Communication also underlined that the Union should seek to focus as much as possible on the prevention of torture. The subsequent programming document for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002-2004 noted that funding would be re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union. These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. The degree of importance afforded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is also an important factor. Moreover, ‘Institutional strengthening’, which includes the development of fund-raising capabilities, was explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate 1/3 and 2/3 of the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were evaluated by two experts, which both had experience in torture issues. The projects were ranked according to score and were selected with a view to ensuring a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union (budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum required), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the envisaged 2/3 to 1/3 balance. Around EUR 4,5 million was allocated to centres outside the Union (for the period 2002-2003), with around EUR 8 million being provided for torture prevention projects. Approximately EUR 4 million was allocated for rehabilitation centres inside the Union, with an additional EUR 2 million for projects including aspects in support of victims of torture.

As regards the likelihood of centres closing as a result of failure to secure Community support, this must be considered in light of the expressed policy to move away from rehabilitation and towards prevention and the measures outlined above which have accompanied that change in policy. Support to centres can only be given in accordance with competitive rules designed to ensure that the Union taxpayer gets value for money by only funding the best proposals, which meet minimum quality requirements.

A further call for EUR 11,5 million will be launched in 2003 for rehabilitation centres inside the Union under budget line B5-813 (covering the 2003 and 2004 budget, with the reservation that the use of 2004 credits is also approved).

The Commission is currently reflecting on the programming of the EIDHR for 2004 and beyond and held a special non-governmental organisations seminar on 14 July 2003 in order to canvass views on thematic priorities, including torture.

----

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

----