----

Draft opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010’

(2004/C 318/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Commission Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 (COM(2004) 102 final; 2004/0032 (CNS));

Having regard to the Council's decision of 23 February 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to its President's decision of 6 November 2003 to instruct the CoR Commission for External Relations to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 63(2)(b) thereof;

Having regard to its Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision creating a European Refugee Fund (COM(1999) 686 final — 1999/0274 CNS, CdR 80/2000 fin (1)));

Having regard to its Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employment (COM(2003) 336 final, CdR 223/2003 fin (2));

Having regard to its other Opinions dealing specifically with refugee policy (CdR 90/2001 fin (3); CdR 214/2001 fin (4); CdR 93/2002 fin (5); CdR 249/2003 fin (6));

Having regard to the draft opinion adopted on 4 May 2004 by the Commission for External Relations (CdR 80/2004 rev. 1) (rapporteur: Mr Gustav Skuthälla, Leader of Närpes Town Council, (FI/ELDR));

adopted the following opinion at its 55th Plenary Session, held on 16 and 17 June 2004 (meeting of 17 June 2004).

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Recommendation 1

Recital 4

Reason

It is important to improve reception facilities if they are not yet at an appropriate level. Particularly where the number of asylum-seekers is high, the people who are the most vulnerable are not always identified and as a result the essential needs specific to these groups are overlooked. Identification of the people most at risk is made easier by a definition which indicates which groups of people belong to this category. Through appropriate support, care and other special arrangements, the plight of these people can be relieved and the way opened for their subsequent integration or possible return to their country of origin.

Recommendation 2

Recital 8

Reason

Under no circumstances must the European Refugee Fund support returns if it cannot be guaranteed that people can return to their home country safely and with respect for their human rights.

Recommendation 3

Recital 15

Reason

Implementation must be transparent under all circumstances.

Recommendation 4

Article 4(1)(d) (new)

Reason

It is justified to use Fund resources to also support the voluntary return of people whose applications for support have been rejected, and not only those whose applications are still being considered.

Recommendation 5

Article 4(3)

Reason

The best interests of children complies with the wording established in international agreements, and consequently it is proposed that it be stated specifically in the proposal. Identification of the most vulnerable people is made easier by a definition which indicates which groups belong to this category. The proposed list corresponds to that used by, for example, the UNHCR.

Recommendation 6

Article 6

Reason

Since there is no uniform definition of integration indicators and no consensus about them, it must be emphasised that the actions specified here are only examples of ways of promoting integration.

Recommendation 7

Article 6, indent 3 (new)

Reason

It must be emphasised that language is the key to active membership of the host community and society. There are many ways of learning a language and learning is closely bound up with culture. For this reason eligible actions should not be limited solely to, for example, education and training.

Recommendation 8

Article 6, indent 6

Reason

The means available to local and regional authorities for promoting integration are mainly related to the organisation of social services. In organising these services it is necessary to take into account availability, non-discrimination and other special requirements promoting the integration of refugees. In view of the crucial role of these actions they should be distinguished from other actions at local level. It is therefore proposed that the original text be amended and divided into two parts (recommendations 8 and 9).

Recommendation 9

Article 6, indent 7 (new)

Reason

The purpose of this amendment is to highlight the fact that the concept of integration includes two-way dialogue and interaction between, on the one hand, the community and civil society more widely and, on other hand, the persons to be integrated. In addition, it should be stressed that refugees also bear a responsibility for the integration of new members into the community.

Recommendation 10

Article 8(2) (new paragraph 2; present paragraph 2 becomes paragraph 3)

Reason

The eligible Community actions identified in the proposal seem to imply that support should be given mainly to central government agencies and operators at European level. However, it is often the case that best practices and innovative pilot projects are established and, above all, tested on the ground at projects involving local and regional players. Therefore it is important to ensure the implementation of cross-border projects involving local and regional players.

Recommendation 11

Article 9(2)(d)

Reason

The present wording does not make it clear that eligible emergency measures include decision-making relating to the right of residence. Decision-making is, however, an integral part of the implementation of emergency measures and the costs linked to it can be considerable.

Recommendation 12

Article 12(4)

Reason

Implementation must be transparent under all conditions and at all levels.

Recommendation 13

Article 12(4)(a)

Reason

Local and regional authorities play a key role in the activities of the European Refugee Fund as service providers and bearers of overall responsibility. Particularly policy related to the reception and integration of refugees cannot be planned or implemented in Member States without coordinating with these authorities. Therefore the decision must stipulate that the responsible authorities cooperate with local and regional authorities in programme planning.

Recommendation 14

Article 12(4)(c)

Reason

Article 9(3) of the Council Decision of 28 September 2000 establishing the European Refugee Fund (see OJ L 252 of 6.10.2000, page 12 et seq.) [ERF I] has proved its worth and should therefore be incorporated into ERF II. In particular, the responsible authorities should continue to select projects according to the criterion of the situation of the region or the local organising body and the criterion of need. These appraisals can be carried out by regional and local coordination bodies in the individual Member States. External experts are not in a position to make such appraisals.

Recommendation 15

Article 22(2)

Reason

Less strict requirements should be imposed in respect of pre-financing payments to Member States in order to avoid placing an excessive burden on national budgets and the resources of the partners in the projects which are responsible for implementing the actions (NGOs etc.).

Brussels, 17 June 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 317 of 6.11.2000, p. 4.

(2)OJ C 109 of 30.4.2004, p. 46.

(3)OJ C 19 of 22.1.2002, p. 20.

(4)OJ C 107 of 3.5.2002, p. 85.

(5)OJ C 278 of 14.11.2002, p. 44.

(6)OJ C 23 of 27.1.2004, p. 30.

----