TYÖASIAKIRJA. FI Moninaisuudessaan yhtenäinen FI. Euroopan parlamentti

Transkriptio

1 Euroopan parlamentti Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta TYÖASIAKIRJA tilintarkastustuomioistuimen erityiskertomuksesta nro 9/2016 (vuoden 2015 vastuuvapausmenettely): EU:n ulkoiseen muuttoliikepolitiikkaan liittyvä varainkäyttö eteläisen Välimeren alueen maissa ja itäisissä naapuruusmaissa vuoteen 2014 asti Talousarvion valvontavaliokunta Esittelijä: Iris Hoffmann, Marian-Jean Marinescu DT\ docx PE v02-00 Moninaisuudessaan yhtenäinen

2 Introduction The external dimension of the EU s common migration policy aims to promote effective management of migration flows, fair treatment of non-eu nationals residing legally in Member States and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, irregular immigration and trafficking in human beings and this, in partnership with migrant's countries of origin and transit. The EU's overarching policy framework for political dialogue and cooperation on external migration is based since 2011 on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) adopted by the Council in May 2012 and reiterated in April Although the GAMM was global in scope, the European Neighbourhood countries 2 were its first priority with the aim to "move towards strong, close partnerships that build on mutual trust and shared interests, paving the way for further regional integration". The GAMM is implemented via varied institutional and financial instruments notably regional / bilateral policy dialogue, Mobility Partnerships, visa facilitation and readmission agreements with non-eu countries, Frontex and financial contributions to non-eu administrations and international organisations. This report deals with the two main financing instruments supporting external migration policy in six out of the 11 Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries (Algeria, Georgia, Libya, Moldova, Morocco and Ukraine), the Thematic Programme for Migration and Asylum (TPMA), and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 3, both established for the period. Over this period, the estimation of amounts contracted for external migration spending was 1.4 billion euro but financial data were only available for the TPMA with payments of million euro. Audit Scope and approach The Court examined whether EU spending from the TPMA and the ENPI, both established for the period, in the area of migration had clear objectives and whether it had been effective and well-coordinated in six of the 11 countries of the Southern Mediterranean and Eastern partnership. In particular, the Court checked whether migration spending: a) pursued a clear and coherent set of objectives - accompanied by an effective monitoring system - which responded to well-identified needs and priorities in the Neighbourhood countries; b) was achieving its objectives in the Neighbourhood countries; 1 The GAMM is not legally binding and identifies four general thematic priorities (a) better organising legal migration and fostering well-managed mobility, (b) preventing and combatting irregular migration and eradicating trafficking in human beings, (c) maximising the development impact of migration and mobility and (d) promoting international protection and enhancing the external dimension of asylum. The respect for human rights as a cross-cutting priority is also included in this policy framework. 2 For the southern Mediterranean (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) and for the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). 3 The other programmes that also contribute to the external migration policy are the Development Cooperation Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Instrument for Stability, The European Development Fund and the Instrument for Pre-accession assistance. PE v /9 DT\ docx

3 c) had been well coordinated among EU bodies and with Member States. The audit does not cover the developments in migration after 2014 nor the EU s reaction to the current refugee crisis. The Court based its audit work on three sources of data: a) interviews and the collection of information from the Commission and three countries (Algeria, Georgia and Morocco) covering 12 projects, with visits to EU delegations, the responsible national and local authorities and, where possible, final beneficiaries and with other stakeholders, such as Member State representatives, international organisations, civil society and think-tanks; b) a desk review of 11 projects implemented in Libya, Moldova and Ukraine; c) documentary reviews of policy, programming and project documents with a questionnaire sent to 11 Member State administrations and a review of the related literature and relevant evaluations. The 23 projects reviewed represent a total contract value of 89 million euro on a total contracted amount of 742 million euro and were selected on the basis of the amount of expenditure, balanced coverage of the various thematic priorities of the GAMM, location, project status (closed or ongoing), whether the assistance supported mobility partnerships. The Court also carried out the audit against the backdrop of the new spending regulations adopted for the period. Court's Findings and Observations I - Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country needs and monitoring instruments need improving The Court found that EU s external migration spending was implemented through various instruments like the TPMA, the ENPI and other instruments governed by their own general policy objectives, which were not always interlinked. Moreover, it was not clearly established what the existing objectives were intended to achieve at EU level with respect to external migration as a clear strategy or monitoring arrangements by which to identify the scale of the contribution were missing. Likewise, the identification and definition of partner countries needs required a better attention insofar as the general objectives of the thematic programme were not broken down into operational goals. This was also combined with a lack of specialized migration officials in EU delegations to specify countries needs. With regard to monitoring and assessment instruments, further improving was necessary as the Court found little evidence of precise and systemic indicators with a lack of consistency between the indicators used at different policy levels (strategic framework, budget and Commission activity reports): a) At the strategic level, the Court considered the arrangements for monitoring the GAMM as very broadly defined with no assigned indicators, reference values or DT\ docx 3/9 PE v02-00

4 targets for assessing the achievement of objectives. The Court made a similar point for several examples of strategy papers 1. The same confusion was also noted by the Court in the programme indicators listed in budgets and DG DEVCO management plans and annual activity reports with little consistency and stability over time between these indicators and those in the TPMA strategic framework 2. The Court acknowledged some improvements with the definition of a new set of indicators for but persistent weaknesses remain such as the absence of baseline and target values. b) At the projects level, the Court retrieved the same shortcomings and inconsistencies between indicators defined at project level and the DG DEVCO s managing excel table, the AAR or the TPMA strategic framework and, thus hindering the overall effectiveness for measuring the results and progress achieved. The reliability of the DEVCO excel table was questioned by the Court as the results presented were incomplete 3. The Court observed too for the results on the TMPA, that the compilation of data included in the AAR was not part of a continuous information-gathering system, that there was no matrix correlating objectives to indicators between the projects and the AAR and finally, that the AAR was only covering the budget devoted to the TPMA (no others documents provided consolidated results for all spending instruments on external migration policy). Moreover, the Court could not established exactly to what degree EU funds were assigned (through the TPMA) to the main priorities related to external migration measures in Neighbourhood countries 4. The Court found difficult to do so insofar data provided by DG DEVCO and DG NEAR did not provide details of actual payments, the amounts recorded for the period came from seven EU spending instruments 5 and data on areas of expenditure other than the TPMA were incomplete and not regularly updated since The Court also noted weaknesses related to the encoding in the financial information system (CRIS) due to the lack of CRIS data codes or specific codes for migration in public development aid to categorise contracts. With regard to the extent of the TPMA spending to the European Neighbourhood (the first priority of the GAMM), the Court estimated that approximately half of the funding (i.e. 42%) were allocated to the EU Neighbourhood. It was also noted by the Court that security and border protection prevailed and superseded other objectives highlighted by the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, namely the development of the link between migration and development. 1 Specific objectives, expected results and performance indicators were to be defined for the TPMA strategy papers, the nine indicators related to the objective to strengthening links between migration and development were too complex to make possible the monitoring and evaluation of this objective. 2 In DG DEVCO s 2011 annual activity report (AAR), the indicator of the number of local businesses supported by EU-funded programmes did not correspond to the indicators in the strategic framework of the TPMA and was not used in the 2012 and 2013 AARs. 3 For 18 audited projects (of 23 in the Court s sample) included in the excel table, results were fully included in three cases, partially included in eight, and not shown at all in the remaining seven. 4 Over the period, the EU budget for funding external migration funding was approximately 1.4 billion euro. 5 The TPMA, the non-tpma part of the DCI, the EDF, the ENPI, the EIDHR, the Instrument for Stability and the IPA. PE v /9 DT\ docx

5 Likewise, the Court finally estimated that no critical mass of financial resources was ensured as the TMPA covered a large geographical area and a wide range of interventions differing considerably in nature and scope, this situation limiting the EU s ability to ensure its intervention a real incentive effect in non-eu countries. II - Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU s external migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the southern Mediterranean and the Eastern partnership countries Based on an examination of selected projects, the Court concluded that the effectiveness of the EU's external migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries could be improved. The Court pointed out that it was often difficult to measure the results as the project objectives were often set in general terms and the indicators often failed to reflect the achievement of objectives. The projects reviewed showed that eight projects achieved their planned results and thirteen projects partially achieved their planned objectives. Moreover, it also appeared from the review that for a small number of cases that political instability hindered the project effectiveness and that some other projects were more oriented towards Member states interests. As regards the delays of project implementation, the situation is equally mixed with nine projects implemented within planned deadlines, five with a delay of less than twelve months and five others with a delay of more than twelve months. Besides the aforementioned weaknesses, the Court identified a limited number of good practices 1 i.e. cases with a well-designed project, an adequate response to local needs, a limited number of operational objectives, concrete expected results, quantifiable indicators and detailed reporting. The Court also assessed the effectiveness issues in three key-areas namely (a) the link between migration and development, (b) the support measures for return and readmission and (c) the protection of human rights: a) the Court examined the flagship project of the Thematic Programme in this area i.e. the Joint Migration and Development Initiative (JMDI) with a 15 million euro budget. The Court found that the objectives 2 were too vague to be properly assessed, the indicators did not clearly show how the positive impact of migration on development could be increased or what specific results could be achieved in terms of quality and quantity. The sample of projects analysed by the Court under this JMDI pilot Initiative revealed mixed results: too ambitious objectives, unclear link between migration and development, projects that were not all sustainable, projects with limited impact and viability and, focusing more on development than migration. b) on the support measures for return and readmission, five of the 23 projects under review related to readmission 3 were qualified by the Court as often rather small and limited in their results and effectiveness 1. 1 The example of good practice mentioned by the Court is the project entitled Promoting respect for sub- Saharan migrants rights in Morocco which began in January 2013 with an allocation of 2 million euro. 2 The purpose of this project is to strengthen the positive impact of migration through the engagement of smallscale actors and dissemination of global best practices among migration and development practitioners. 3 These projects were worth a total of 20.5 million euro out of which mio euro under the ENPI and 4.19 DT\ docx 5/9 PE v02-00

6 c) for the human rights protection, the Court found that most of the audited projects addressed directly or indirectly human rights in their objectives. However, the Court pointed out two cases i.e. the Ukrainian reception centres where respectively the treatment of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees in Ukraine has been repeatedly criticised by international organisations and civil society and the Sahara Med project (10 million euro in funding) for which no precautionary measures to guarantee respect for migrants rights were included, either through activities or the purchase of equipment. III - A difficult coordination between several partners at different levels The EU's external migration spending was implemented by a wide range of stakeholders. The Court emphasized the complexity of the governance framework for the implementation of migration policy at the EU level with weaknesses not only in the links among the Commission s directorates/departments but also between the Commission in Brussels and the EU delegations in partner countries. Even though the need to improve internal coordination between the Commission s various key-departments (international cooperation and development, neighbourhood and enlargement, foreign affairs and migration and home affairs, EU delegations and EU agencies) was reiterated, the Court identified no workable strategy or mechanism to ensure coordination between policy areas, funds or DGs. Moreover, the Court found no funding overview of the General Approach to Migration and Mobility defining who finances or how funds are assigned. The Court considered too that a better involvement of EU delegations in migration issues was necessary, particularly in the projects planning to allow both a better understanding of partner s country expectations or specific situation and enhanced information flows between Headquarters and the delegations. Improved coordination on Mobility partnerships was also mentioned by the Court in order to ensure that Member states regularly update and share their partnership scoreboards and inform the EU agency Frontex. Summary of the Commission and EEAS Replies The Commission and the EEAS considered they were acting in a complex and ever-changing environment as migration and asylum is a multifaceted, complex and constantly evolving policy area at both EU and international level. In this context of an unprecedented refugee and migratory crisis, migration policy is very much readjusting its priorities, reinforcing its features at EU level and continuously adapting to changing circumstances. As a result, it is an area that requires similarly complex and multidimensional structures for its implementation. For the Commission and the EEAS considered that this political, legal, operational and budgetary context is not taken sufficiently into account by the Court in the report. The Commission agreed that it is difficult to easily establish the total amount of expenditure charged to the budget and whether this was directed in line with the intended geographical mio euro concerning Migration and Asylum thematic programme. 1 The reasons invoked being that the policy of readmission being wrongly perceived by some partner countries, the lack of awareness on the assistance available for readmission and Member states do not effectively prepare migrants for their return. PE v /9 DT\ docx

7 and thematic priorities. The Commission will further improve the overall monitoring and evaluation framework in this complex policy area, still ensuring that the intended geographic and thematic priorities, according to the focal areas, are identified by the relevant instruments. At the individual level, all projects funded by EU financing instruments include indicators that are monitored throughout the lifetime of each project. It was also stated that migration is a politically sensitive policy area cutting across a number of sectors and involving a wide range of different stakeholders (e.g. European Agencies, IOM, UNHCR), within and outside the EU institutions. The management of EU external migration policy and cooperation necessarily mirrors this situation. Efforts have been made recently to further improve the coordination between the Commission's Directorates-General and with the EEAS, as well as with EU Member States, and a number of coordination mechanisms have been put in place for this purpose. The recent European Agenda on Migration underline the need to further strengthen these efforts. Court's recommendations The Court issued five recommendations in order to develop clear and measurable objectives to be implemented by a coherent set of EU funding instruments supported by effective monitoring and evaluation, and by an appropriate information system. Governance arrangements must be simpler and better coordinated. 1. Clarify objectives, develop, expand and improve the performance measurement framework and focus available financial resources on clearly defined and quantified target priorities; 2. Develop an appropriate coding in the Commission s information systems; 3. Improve project preparation and selection; 4. Further consolidate the link between development and migration; 5. Internal and external dialogue to improve coordination. Esittelijöiden suositukset mahdollisesti sisällytettäväksi vuotuiseen mietintöön vastuuvapauden myöntämisestä komissiolle 1. pitää myönteisenä EU:n ulkoiseen muuttoliikepolitiikkaan liittyvää varainkäyttöä eteläisen Välimeren alueen maissa ja itäisissä naapuruusmaissa vuoteen 2014 asti keskittyvää erityiskertomusta ja esittää tässä sitä koskevat huomautuksensa ja suosituksensa; 2. panee merkille tilintarkastustuomioistuimen kriittisen tarkastelutavan ja sen esiin tuomat lukuisat puutteet, erityisesti sen, että osoitettujen varojen käyttö ei ole ollut vaikuttavaa; 3. kehottaa komissiota arvioimaan kaikkia tilintarkastustuomioistuimen huomioita ja ryhtymään vaadittaviin toimiin välttääkseen samat virheet vuosien muuttoliikepolitiikassa; kehottaa noudattamaan kaikkia tilintarkastustuomioistuimen suosituksia; 4. katsoo, että varainkäyttöä olisi ohjattava paremmilla seuranta- ja arviointijärjestelmillä, jotka perustuvat lähtötilannetta koskeviin indikaattoreihin, progressiivisiin DT\ docx 7/9 PE v02-00

8 vertailuarvoihin ja mitattavissa oleviin, realistisiin tavoitteisiin, kehottaa komissiota tarkastelemaan uudelleen kaikkia nykyisten muuttoliikeohjelmien indikaattoreita, vertailuarvoja ja tavoitteita; 5. katsoo, että aina on pyrittävä reagoimaan kattavasti ja koordinoidusti, sillä muuttoliikekriisi aiheuttaa monia haasteita, jotka koskevat eri aloja ja toimielimiä; 6. katsoo, että unionin muuttoliikepolitiikkaa ja toimintavaihtoehtoja koskevaa strategista näkemystä ja puitteita olisi kehitettävä jatkuvasti keskeisten toimijoiden kanssa, jotta voidaan varmistaa muuttoliikettä koskevien ulkoisten mekanismien selkeys ja niiden koordinoitu ja johdonmukainen käyttöönotto lyhyellä, keskipitkällä ja pitkällä aikavälillä unionin talousarvion puitteissa ja sen ulkopuolella; 7. kehottaa komissiota toimimaan rakentavasti eri välineiden, mekanismien ja asiaan liittyvien sidosryhmien välisen koordinaation parantamiseksi, jotta muuttoliikekriisejä voidaan ehkäistä ennalta; 8. kehottaa kaikkia merkittäviä sidosryhmiä ottamaan huomioon toimien joustavuuden, varojen täydentävyyden ja määrän ja tarvittavan velkarahoituksen välisen tasapainon sekä mahdolliset synergiavaikutukset ja yleisesti unionin toimien toissijaisuuden ja toimimaan niiden mukaisesti; 9. katsoo tässä yhteydessä, että olisi huolehdittava asiaan kuuluvalla tavalla avun asianmukaisesta kohdentamisesta toisistaan poikkeaviin ja kehittyviin ulkoisiin muuttoliikeilmiöihin sekä varmistettava samalla maksettujen varojen riittävä valvonta, jotta vältetään varojen väärinkäyttö ja kaksinkertainen rahoitus; 10. pitää ehdottoman tarpeellisena, että vaatimus saada aikaan parempia tuloksia sovitetaan yhteen käytettävissä olevien riittävien varojen kanssa, jotta voidaan varmistaa, että tavoitteet asetetaan korkealle laadittaessa unionin kattavaa ja kestävää vastausta muuttoliikekriisin aiheuttamiin nykyisiin ja tuleviin haasteisiin; pitää monivuotisen rahoituskehyksen tarkistusta koskevia neuvotteluja sopivana foorumina näiden haasteiden käsittelemiseksi; 11. katsoo, että rahoitusvajeen lisäksi välineiden nykyinen hajanaisuus ja niiden omat erityiset tavoitteet, jotka eivät ole yhteydessä toisiinsa, haittaavat varojen käytön parlamentaarista valvontaa ja vastuiden määrittämistä ja tekevät siten vaikeaksi arvioida selvästi muuttoliikettä koskevien ulkoisten toimien tukemiseen todellisuudessa käytetyn rahoituksen määrää; pitää valitettavana, että tämä heikentää vaikuttavuutta, avoimuutta ja vastuuvelvollisuutta; panee merkille nykyisten politiikan välineiden tavoitteiden selkeän uudistetun rakenteen ja pitää tarpeellisena kyseisten välineiden käytön suuntaamista uudelleen, jotta voidaan lisätä niiden yleistä vaikuttavuutta ja näkyvyyttä; 12. katsoo, että varat muuttoliikkeeseen liittyviin EU:n ulkoisiin menotarpeisiin on maksettava tehokkaammin ja että tarpeiden on täytettävä lisäarvoa koskeva kriteeri, jotta ihmisille voidaan tarjota asianmukaiset elinolot alkuperämaissa ja välttää taloudellisen muuttoliikkeen lisääntyminen; 13. kehottaa komissiota seuraamaan, arvioimaan ja tarkastelemaan rakentavasti uudelleen lokakuussa 2016 toimintansa aloittavan Euroopan raja- ja merivartioviraston toimintaa; PE v /9 DT\ docx

9 14. pitää ilahduttavana EU:n erityisrahastojen perustamista ja aikomusta maksaa varat hätätilanteissa nopeammin ja joustavammin ja kerätä yhteen erilaisia rahoituslähteitä, jotta voidaan puuttua kriisien kaikkiin ulottuvuuksiin; 15. toteaa, että erityisrahastot ovat osa tilapäisiä toimia, mikä osoittaa, että unionin talousarviossa ja monivuotisessa rahoituskehyksessä ei ole tarpeeksi resursseja ja joustavuutta, jotta pahimpiin kriiseihin voitaisiin reagoida nopeasti ja kattavasti; pitää valitettavana, että tämä johtaa budjettivallan käyttäjän ohittamiseen ja talousarvion yhtenäisyyden heikentämiseen; 16. suhtautuu myönteisesti komission ehdotukseen luoda osana monivuotisen rahoituskehyksen tarkistusta vapautetuista määrärahoista rahoitettava uusi Euroopan unionin kriisivaraus lisävälineeksi, jonka avulla voidaan reagoida nopeasti hätätilanteisiin unionissa; pyytää neuvostoa hyväksymään tämän ehdotuksen kokonaisuudessaan; 17. korostaa, että riittävät valvontamekanismit ovat tärkeitä, jotta varmistetaan talousarvion toteutuksen poliittinen valvonta vastuuvapausmenettelyn yhteydessä; kehottaa komissiota ryhtymään välittömiin toimiin budjettivallan käyttäjän ja talousarvion valvontaviranomaisen osallistumisen lisäämiseksi sekä erityisrahastojen ja muiden mekanismien mukauttamiseksi paremmin talousarviota koskeviin sääntöihin erityisesti sisällyttämällä ne unionin talousarvioon; 18. pitää valitettavana, että komissio ei antanut tarkkoja tietoja maksujen todellisesta määrästä, ja kehottaa komissiota ryhtymään asianmukaisiin toimiin tehostaakseen ja yksinkertaistaakseen tietojen ilmoittamista tilinpitotietojärjestelmässä, jotta muuttoliikkeeseen liittyviin ulkoisiin toimiin kohdennetut määrät voidaan jäljittää ja niitä voidaan seurata paremmin; 19. pyytää komissiota ottamaan käyttöön tietokannan, johon kirjataan kaikki unionin muuttoliikkeeseen liittyvät menot, kaikki päättyneet sekä käynnissä ja suunnitteilla olevat hankkeet mukaan luettuina; katsoo, että interaktiivisen tietokannan olisi esitettävä tulokset sidosryhmille ja kansalaisille maailmankartan muodossa ja mahdollistettava haut maiden, hankkeen tyypin ja määrien mukaan jaoteltuina; 20. katsoo, että ennakoiva hallinnointi olisi pitkällä aikavälillä vaikuttavampaa kuin pelkät reagoivat toimet, kuten kriisinhallinta; 21. palauttaa mieliin parlamentin kannan muuttoliikettä koskevaan kokonaisvaltaiseen lähestymistapaan, joka perustuu toimien uudenlaiseen yhdistelmään ja johon kuuluu muuttoliikkeen ja kehityksen välisen yhteyden lujittaminen puuttumalla muuttoliikkeen perimmäisiin syihin; kannattaa myös muutosta muuttoliikekriisiä koskevaan rahoitukseen. DT\ docx 9/9 PE v02-00