WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors.
Date: 2003-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing arrangements, aid policy, implementation of the budget, medical centre, torture

C 88 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

As a EU Candidate Country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria which include the need
to implement reforms in the areas of the judiciary, the freedom of expression and the freedom of
association. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation with respect to these and other areas
related to the democratisation process in Turkey. The Commission will give its assessment of the situation
in Turkey regarding human rights in its forthcoming Regular Report.

(1) OJ L 145, 12.6.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors

(3 June 2003)

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

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/49

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.

(2004/C 88 E/0052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Food aid for Zimbabwe

Paragraph 5 of Parliament’s resolution of 13 February 2003 (1) on human rights in Zimbabwe states the
following:

Condemns the utilisation of food aid as a political weapon against opposition supporters; asks the
government of Zimbabwe to guarantee food distribution to the population regardless of political
affiliation; calls on the international community, including the UN, to take a more interventionist
approach to food distribution, to provide protection for safe and fair delivery of food to those who
need it, and to work with Zimbabwe’s neighbours who are confronted with refugee problems.

However, reports are still reaching us concerning shipments of European food aid which are not being
delivered. Further evidence of this emerged, for example, during an exchange of views held last week in
Strasbourg with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, Pius Ncube.

What practical steps is the Commission taking to deal with this problem?

(1) P5-TA (2003)0066.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission’s EuropeAid Cooperation Office (AIDCO) is responsible for the management of food aid
budget allocations in favour of Zimbabwe. In response to the United Nations (UN) emergency appeals for
2002/2003 a total of EUR 63,8 million was committed from the Commission’s food security budget line.
This enabled the conclusion of contracts with implementing partners (World Food Program (WFP) and
EuronAid) to procure, deliver, and distribute over 130,000 tonnes of food to targeted beneficiaries.
Distribution is and will continue to be organised through the WFP and the non-governmental organisation
(NGO) sector and does not involve Government or any Government agencies. All of this food aid has been