Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 (COM(2004) 102 final – 2004/0032 (CNS))
Date: 2004-06-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financing, admission of aliens, aid to refugees, integration of migrants

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/27

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010’

(COM(2004) 102 final – 2004/0032 (CNS))

(2004/C 241/10)

On 23 February 2004 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision estab-
lishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010’.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 May 2004. The rapporteur was Ms Cassina.

At its 409th plenary session (meeting of 2 June 2004), the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 184 votes to three with 12 abstentions.

1. Introduction

2. Content of the Commission proposal

1.1
On 28 September 2000, the Council adopted Decision
No 2000/596 establishing a European Refugee Fund for the
2000-2005 period (ERF I). It was allocated a budget of EUR 36
million over the five-year period. The programme represented
the first step in the necessary rationalisation and structuring for
actions which had been successively based on annual budget
headings since 1997, principally at the behest of the European
Parliament (1). The EESC welcomed the proposal for a decision
at the time (2).

2.1
The Commission proposes the establishment of a fund
(ERF II) with a budget of EUR 687 million over a six-year
period to support Member State action for the reception, inte-
gration and voluntary repatriation of third-country nationals or
stateless persons having refugee status (6), requiring interna-
tional protection (within the framework of a resettlement
scheme), enjoying a form of subsidiary protection, having
applied for one of the abovementioned forms of protection or
enjoying temporary protection (7).

Little more than a year from the 31 December 2004
1.2
deadline (the end of the period covered by ERF I), the Commis-
sion has analysed the experience gained by the Member States
and the Community under ERF I, organised a review confer-
ence (3), and has had an impact assessment (4) drawn up in
preparation for the proposal for a new stage in the programme.
The review also took account of the effects of, and synergies
with, other Community actions and programmes (5).

In the

light of

1.3
accumulated experience, on
12 February 2004 the Commission published a Proposal for a
Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for
the period 2005-2010, the subject of the present opinion.

the

2.2
Eligible actions. Actions eligible for ERF II co-financing
in the Member States cover a broad spectrum relating to recep-
tion, integration and voluntary repatriation schemes. Co-finan-
cing may more specifically be available for: reception infra-
structure; material aid and medical and psychological care;
social and administrative assistance; language assistance, educa-
tion and training as well as help with finding work; improve-
ments to reception procedures; sharing of the values enshrined
in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights; promoting informa-
tion for the local host population and participation of benefici-
life; promoting self-sufficiency of
aries in civil and cultural
local
beneficiaries; actions to promote the involvement of
authorities, NGOs and the general public;
information and
advice on repatriation and help with reintegration in the
country of origin.

(1) Rapporteur: Mr Gérard Deprez.
(2) OJ C 168 of 16.6.2000 (rapporteur: Mrs zu Eulenburg).
(3) 30 and 31 October 2003.
(4) SEC(2004) 161 of 12 February 2004, Commission Staff Working
Paper: Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European
Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2010 — Extended Impact Assess-
ment {COM(2004) 102 final}.

(5) Most particularly: the budget headings which in 2003 and 2004
funded pilot integration projects; the proposed establishment of an
agency to manage the EU's external borders; the use of the EQUAL
programme for integrating asylum-seekers in the labour market, etc.

Emergency measures in the event of implementation
2.2.1
of temporary protection mechanisms may also be co-financed
(up to 80 % of cost), for reception, accommodation, subsis-
tence, medical and psychological assistance, staff and adminis-
tration costs and logistical and transport costs.

(6) Status defined by the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 as

amended by the Protocol of 31 January 1967.
(7) Within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC.

C 241/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

2.2.2
10 % of the ERF II budget is set aside for Community
actions, managed directly by the Commission and intended to
finance Community cooperation, pooling of experience, inno-
vative pilot projects, research and the application of new tech-
nologies to refugees and management of actions geared to
them.

ERF II

2.3
Commission are jointly responsible for implementing ERF II.

implementation. The Member States and the

previous years, have benefited from refugee status, international
protection under a resettlement scheme or subsidiary protec-
tion; 65 % in proportion to the number of persons who, over
the three previous years, have requested asylum or enjoyed
temporary protection. Part of the annual allocation may be
used for technical and administrative assistance. The Fund's
financial contribution takes the form of a non-refundable grant;
however,
is
an irregularity is ascertained,
demanded with interest for any default at the rate applied by
the ECB plus 3,5 %. In order to obtain co-financing segments
subsequent to the first one of the programme, Member States
must submit a report and declarations of expenditure certified
by a service independent of the responsible authority.

repayment

if

The Commission lays down guidelines for the multi-
2.3.1
annual programmes, ensures that management and control
systems are in place in the Member States and operate
smoothly, and implements Community measures. The Commis-
sion is assisted by a committee under the terms of Decision
1999/468/EC.

The Community contribution to Member State actions
2.5.2
may not exceed 50 % of the total cost; it may rise to 60 % for
innovative or transnational actions and up to 75 % for Member
States covered by the Cohesion Fund.

2.3.2
The Member States are responsible for implementing
national actions, setting up a ‘Responsible Authority’ with legal
personality and management capacity; they are responsible in
the first instance for the financial control of actions, and coop-
erate with the Commission in collecting statistics.

2.6
Evaluation. The Commission will submit an initial inter-
mediate report by 30 April 2007, and a second intermediate
report by 31 December 2009. Lastly, there will be an ex-post
evaluation report by 31 December 2012.

The Member States

2.3.3
and the Commission work
together to ensure that results are disseminated, transparency is
guaranteed and actions are cohesive with and complementary
to other relevant instruments and initiatives.

3. Comments

Programmes. Two multiannual programme phases are
2.4
planned (2005-2007 and 2008-2010). The Member States
submit the draft three-year programme to the Commission,
which approves them within three months, after checking for
compatibility with the guidelines through the committee proce-
dure. The multiannual programmes are implemented by means
of annual work programmes.

2.5
Distribution of resources. Each Member State receives a
fixed annual amount of EUR 300 000; for the new Member
States, the sum is EUR 500 000 per annum for the first three
years.

2.5.1
The remainder of the available annual resources is
broken down between the Member States as follows: 35 % in
proportion to the number of persons who, over the three

The EESC's overall appraisal of

3.1
the Commission's
proposal is highly positive, seeing it as a potentially significant
step towards putting into practice both the part of Title IV of
the Treaty regarding the right of asylum and the decisions of
the Tampere and other European Councils which laid down
guidelines and implementing methods for visa, asylum and
immigration policy. Failure to implement these decisions or
agreements reached by the Council on matters which weaken
the original proposal and enable wide legislative discrepancies
between Member State laws to persist would probably make
the Fund less effective than it could be. The EESC is disap-
pointed to see that the content of the directive on refugee
status, as recently adopted by the Council (1), falls far short of
both the Commission's proposals (2) and what the EESC had
called for in its opinion (3).

(1) Adopted on 29 April 2004.
(2) Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the
qualification and status of
third-country nationals and stateless
persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international
protection, in OJ C 51 E of 26.2.2002.

(3) EESC opinion in OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002 (rapporteur: Ms Le Nouail-

Marlière).

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/29

3.1.1
The programme's importance is self-evident, purely in
view of the fact that there are some 400 000 new asylum
seekers each year (1); they bring with them a burden of human
suffering which must be met with solidarity, material, moral
and psychological support, decent reception conditions, proper
services, transparent and efficient procedures, an opportunity
for active integration into the community by means of a
socially-oriented job or activity and, in the event of a freely
expressed desire to return, risk-free repatriation.

3.2
The budget (EUR 687 million over six years as against
EUR 36 million over the five years of the previous programme)
appears substantial, but the EESC would point out that ERF I's
resources were very limited compared with the real needs of
refugees. It welcomes the fact that with the proposal for the
2007-2013 financial perspectives, priority is given to the
chapter concerning security, justice, migration and asylum, and
that progressively greater resources are to be allocated to this
area. The budget for ERF II is consistent with this approach.

towards responsibility shared between all

ERF II firstly represents the necessary mutual effort to
3.2.1
carry out an important policy and secondly, it shows that the
Community institutions are aware that the problems connected
with Title IV of the Treaty cannot be resolved without a major
shift
the players:
actions which are strategically well-conceived, efficiently imple-
mented and backed by civil society and local administration
also have the effect of consolidating rights,
instruments and
mechanisms geared to implementing a common policy on
asylum. The EESC points out that the effect of ERF II must be
it
to complete and strengthen existing national measures;
cannot be a substitute for what has been achieved so far. In
particular,
the social partners and civil
society actors must not be reduced: on the contrary, it should
be stepped up and improved.

the involvement of

3.2.2
The share of the budget resources earmarked for Com-
munity actions rises from 5 % for ERF I to 10 % for ERF II. The
EESC would point out that in its opinion on ERF I, it called for
10 % to be set aside for Community actions. It would empha-
sise the need to stand by this percentage, if the actions under-
taken are to achieve two essential objectives: supporting the
development of
initiatives
(including from organised civil society); and providing financial
backing for studies, research and experience-sharing between
all the Member States.

transnational

innovative

and

The breakdown of resources between the various actions
3.3
is also
(reception,
integration and voluntary repatriation)
balanced and reflects both current circumstances
in the
Member States and foreseeable future flows of asylum seekers
or others eligible for different forms of protection. Co-financing
is set in part in accordance with the five target groups of indivi-
duals, and reflects the present situation in the Member States,
whereas
the multiannual programmes, broken down into
annual management periods, will enable adjustments to be
made in the event of any unexpected developments. The
committee procedure will also provide for collective moni-
toring of the implementation process, and will facilitate the
circulation of good practices and innovative actions. The EESC
considers that a substantial portion of the resources needs to
be channelled to reception and integration work, and hopes
that the Member States will not put excessive emphasis, within
the multiannual programmes, on repatriation efforts.

The EESC warmly welcomes the fact that help with
3.3.1
finding work is included among the integration measures, since
the ability to provide for one's needs — or at least go a signifi-
cant way towards doing so — boosts confidence and a feeling
of having a place in society. It also helps to avoid lengthy
periods of unemployment and scarce resources pushing young
people into marginal or possibly illegal activities. The EESC
would, however, emphasise the need to offer working condi-
tions enabling the final beneficiaries of ERF II to take an active
part in the procedures and activities which concern them. The
EESC expresses its disappointment that the Council's recent
decision on refugee status leaves it up to the Member States to
decide if refugees may or may not work, and recalls that in its
opinions (2), it has always emphasised the importance of facili-
tating their employment: the EESC considers work to be a right
admitting no form of discrimination.

3.3.2
The EESC also suggests that a degree of priority be
attached to cultural and psychological awareness training for
administrative or police officials coming into contact with refu-
gees, asylum-seekers and people enjoying other
forms of
protection. This is also needed in order to counter the all too
often negative image and stereotypes of refugees conveyed by
the press and media.
Initiatives to promote dialogue and
mutual understanding between the cultures of such people and
host country citizens also represent a major contribution to
integration and the social consensus necessary if ERF II is to be
effective in practice.

(1) Arrivals have been falling over the last two years but, clearly, the
possibility of a sudden upsurge can never be ruled out. It should be
remembered that because trends are identified on the basis of
national, unharmonised statistics, they may be strongly influenced
by the different policies applied by the Member States and how they
are implemented in practice.

(2) EESC opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive laying down
minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in
Member States, point 4.3, in OJ C 48 of 21.2.2002 (rapporteur:
Mr Mengozzi), and the opinion on the abovementioned proposal on
refugee status, point 3.7.1, in OJ C 221 of 17.9.2002 (rapporteur:
Ms Le Nouail-Marlière).

C 241/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

report:

3.4
The EESC agrees with the overall strategic approach to
the implementation of
the programme through guidelines,
multiannual programmes managed year-by-year,
two inter-
this
mediate Commission reports and an ex-post
approach reflects the thinking behind other implementation
mechanisms previously put into motion by the Member States
and the Community, demonstrating the effectiveness of a
method which facilitates proper sharing of responsibilities
between the Community and the Member States, in application
of the principle of subsidiarity understood as a shared responsi-
bility. ERF II must be more than simply an instrument for
sharing out resources between Member States; as argued in
point 3.1, it should seek to take a step in the direction of a
common asylum policy. Given that not all the legislative instru-
ments proposed in order to create such a policy have been
adopted, implementing ERF II may also help the Member States
to take the outstanding decisions with greater awareness and
clarity.

Setting up a responsible authority in every Member
3.4.1
State will contribute greatly to increasing the unity and cohe-
siveness of national programmes, ensuring that their implemen-
tation is transparent and correct, and fostering the necessary
links with the general public and civil society. The EESC high-
lights the importance the proposal attaches to consultation,
participation and joint responsibility of the relevant players
from the outset, when multiannual programmes are drawn up.
This accent on involving civil society organisations and local
authorities is crucial if the necessary account is to be taken of
the experience built up in the field, if a social debate is to be
held, and if consensus and the consequent governance in this
sphere are to be achieved. This is an aspect which the EESC has
repeatedly stressed in its opinions, and which it is pleased to
see figuring in the Commission's text.

The Committee considers it particularly important
3.4.1.1
that NGOs should be guaranteed easy access to reception and
transit centres so that they can provide assistance at the point
of initial arrival. The scope of their work in this regard could
be usefully enhanced by including it under a specific Com-
munity action.

3.4.2
The accumulated experience in all the Member States
over the years clearly shows the effectiveness of partnerships
between national and local authorities on the one hand, and
civil society organisations on the other. The EESC hopes that
this wealth of cooperation will not be wasted when ERF II is
implemented, but rather will be given new and better designed
tools.

the relevant Member State policies — when proposing the
guidelines for the multiannual programmes.

three years of

3.5.1
It is of at least symbolic significance that the fixed
annual amounts allocated to the new Member States for the
the programme are greater than those
first
reserved for the existing EU 15. It is true that these countries
have not yet built up much experience in this area, and some
of them will be situated on the EU's external borders. Fitting
into the general flow of existing asylum policies in the current
15 Member States, and the ability to make use of the relevant
Community instruments, is therefore crucial. It will be particu-
larly important to make the experience of the EU 15 available
to the new Member States and provide them with special
in part by giving priority to Community actions
support,
designed to help them develop the administrative and manage-
rial capacities required in connection with asylum.

financial

The EESC would draw particular attention to the need
3.6
to make the ERF II
implementing procedures as
streamlined and efficient as possible and to prevent irregulari-
ties arising from complex or unclear procedures; civil society
organisations working with refugees and those receiving
various types of protection must not be weighed down by
procedures which are complicated and/or difficult to put into
practice. This applies to both Member State and Community
actions. An NGO, however properly subject to strict transpar-
ency conditions, has an operating method and flexibility
requirements quite distinct
from those of a construction
company which wins a tender to build a reception centre. The
EESC is concerned that the contracts signed by the responsible
authorities with civil society organisations may not make the
obligations and responsibilities sufficiently clear, compelling
these organisations to focus more on administrative niceties
and certification of expenditure than on the action's effective-
ness in ensuring that the target group's rights are upheld and
its needs met.

3.6.1
The EESC also considers that the interest applied to
overdue sums to be recovered in the event of improper use
should be purely symbolic to avoid the danger of Member
States, in order to protect their own interests, imposing exces-
sively restrictive procedures on tenders, again to the detriment
of NGO efficacy and involvement. The EESC points out that in
none of the Member States is asylum policy operated by public
bodies alone, and that in some of them refugees and other
protected persons would be in a hopeless situation except for
the action and assistance of NGOs. The EESC therefore calls for
the ERF II implementing provisions to reflect these concerns.

3.5
ERF II addresses the issue of different circumstances in
the various Member States and upholds the central criterion for
the distribution of resources according to the numbers of
persons in the target groups in the Member States. The EESC
points out that careful attention will have to be paid to these
differences — especially the varying stages of development of

3.7
The EESC asks the Commission to press the Member
States to define common criteria for collecting data. The quan-
titative aspect of ERF II is as important as the qualitative one,
since under ERF II co-financing resources are determined by
the figures for the different categories of persons having
refugee status, enjoying some other form of protection, or
seeking them.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/31

3.8
The Member States should consult NGOs and the social
partners when carrying out the evaluations under Article 26(2).

4. Conclusions

4.1
The EESC considers that the proposal for a European
Refugee Fund (ERF) for the period 2005-2010 is justified, is
equipped with significant resources and is organised in such a
way as to facilitate the joint responsibility of the Member States
and the Community. It also stresses that reception and integra-
tion must continue to be seen as the cornerstone of a sound
asylum policy.

ever-more effective partnership, especially civil society organi-
sations and regional and local authorities. However, it stresses
that ERF II
implementing provisions must ensure effective
action and straightforward, transparent procedures for actors
other than the Member States.

4.3
The EESC underlines the need to define common criteria
for compiling data on refugees, in part in order to ensure a fair
balance between actions undertaken in different countries and
comparability between them, and urges
that Community
actions focus primarily on enhancing and sustaining the admin-
istrative and managerial capabilities of the new Member States.

4.2
The EESC appreciates the fact that, under the proposal,
the Member States and the responsible authorities they are to
set up will have the task of involving all relevant players in an

4.4
The EESC hopes that a decision on the ERF II proposal
will be taken without delay and will be backed by appropriate
and transparent implementing provisions.

Brussels, 2 June 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on a ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the
the Council on conditions for access to the gas-transmission
European Parliament and of

networks’

(COM(2003) 741 final – 2003/0302 (COD))

(2004/C 241/11)

On 23 January 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 95 and 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the gas transmission networks’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2004. The rapporteur was
Mrs Sirkeinen.

At its 409th plenary session of 2 and 3 June 2004 (meeting of 2 June 2004), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 154 votes for, one against and 10 abstentions.

1. Introduction

transmission and large and medium-sized distribution compa-
nies and the establishment of a regulatory authority on each
Member State.

1.1
The second gas-market Directive, adopted in June 2003,
is expected to provide the necessary structural changes in the
regulatory framework to tackle remaining barriers
to the
completion of the internal market for natural gas. The Directive
provides for the right for all non-household gas consumers to
freely choose their supplier by 1 July 2004 and all customers
to have the same right by 1 July 2007. It also provides for
third-party access to transmission and distribution networks on
the basis of published and regulated tariffs, access to storage
facilities on a negotiated or regulated basis, legal unbundling of

1.2
In order to meet the objective of an internal gas market,
additional detailed measures are needed regarding the manner
in which transmission systems are operated. For electricity,
similar measures have been set
in place by a Regulation
adopted in June 2003. This Regulation provides for common
tariff structures, including for cross-border trade, the provision
of
and rules
regarding congestion management.

information on interconnection capacities