EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/48

(2004/C 88 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors

The increased EU emphasis on the prevention of torture worldwide implemented from 2002, though very much to be welcomed, has resulted in an effective cut of 45 % in EU support for the rehabilitation of torture survivors. The Dublin-based Centre for the Care of Survivors of Torture (CCST) points out that 30 rehabilitation centres in Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America are now without EU support and face the threat of closure.

Will the Commission ensure that funds are reallocated from the 2003 budget to guarantee that these centres remain open and will it ensure that funding for the rehabilitation of torture victims is restored to, at the very minimum, 2002 levels (not, naturally at the expense of the new torture prevention efforts) in the 2004 EU budget?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 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 fight against torture. 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, as opposed to support for rehabilitation centres. 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, one of whom was experienced in project management and the other in the psychiatric/psychological field. 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 thresholds), 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.

It is not possible to reallocate funds from the 2003 budget to rehabilitation centres. This would result in other important human rights' priorities under the EIDHR facing cuts, would fail to respect EIDHR programming and could not be executed within the rules set down by the revised Financial Regulation (2). A further call for EUR 5,5 million for centres inside the Union is, however, planned for 2003. The Commission is in the process of elaborating the approach which will be taken towards this issue for the 2004 budget.

(1) COM(2001) 252 final.

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.