WRITTEN QUESTION P-2104/03 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission. Burmese Rohingya refugees.
Date: 2003-06-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bangladesh, EU relations, European Commission, Myanmar/Burma, UNHCR, aid policy, aid to refugees, interinstitutional relations

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/67

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.

(2004/C 88 E/0073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2104/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Burmese Rohingya refugees

In addition to the approximately 22 000 Rohingya refugees currently accommodated at the two official
refugee camps in Bangladesh, a further 4 000 illegal refugees are residing at the new, unrecognised Teknaf
Makeshift Camp, which will shortly be in danger of flooding as the monsoon season begins.

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the Rohingya refugees at Teknaf Makeshift Camp?

Has the Commission contacted the Government of Bangladesh to offer assistance (e.g. emergency aid) to
the Rohingyas? If not, will it do so?

Has the Commission had any contact with the UNHCR about the situation of these refugees and ways of
helping them?