Aid agencies slam EU refugee fund

Groups working with refugees have backed criticism by the European Court of Auditors over the European Commission’s management of a €216 million refugee fund.

UNHCR, the United Nations’s refugees agency, and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) said that the management of the European Refugee Fund (ERF) lacked consistency and transparency.

Madeline Garlick, a senior European affairs officer at UNHCR, said: "We would…like to see more transparency and consultation in the way member states spend money under their national ERF allocations."

The European Court of Auditors examined the way the fund, which was set up to help member states receiving refugees and asylum-seekers, was managed and allocated for the first phase (2000-04). The money was spent on reception, integration and repatriation. In 2005-06 the fund amounted to €114 million while for 2008-13 it will be increased to €628m.

Though the allocation of the money is based on statistics, the court found "these data were not complete, consistent, comparable and reliable".

The Commission was late in publishing implementing rules, "leaving member states without clear instructions in the start-up phase of the ERF", according to the court’s report, which added that the Commission did not help member states avoid ambiguities in the interpretation of the rules.

Problems arose in the interpretation of how money could be spent for the repatriation of refugees and asylum-seekers. Germany and Sweden only used the funds to send recognised refugees back home at their request. The UK and Italy on the other hand used the fund mainly to send failed and rejected asylum seekers home.

The report also claimed that the definition of eligible people, whose repatriation back home could be funded, was inadequate. The UK used the fund to send back home 332 Czech nationals and 125 Poles who had sought asylum before their countries joined the EU in 2004. This example is highlighted to show how the fund was used to send people back home who were soon to have the right to travel and work in the UK.

The report, published on 17 July, also highlights delays in payments to member states because of the "cumbersome administrative process".

The Commission in its response to the report said that the quality of the data was being improved and that simplifications had been made to reduce delays in getting payments to member states. It added that national governments bore the responsibility for implementing projects and that the Commission never corrected shortcomings in this system.

The Commission said that part of the success of the fund was the flexibility it gave member states in implementation.

Garlick said that while the needs of member states were different, the goals of the fund should be upheld, especially when it came to improving standards in how asylum seekers and refugees were treated. "We would welcome a more consistent approach across member states in administering the fund at national level. Member states take very different approaches to implementing EU legislation in the asylum area generally, not just on the financial side," she said.

Chris Nash, head of policy and advocacy at ECRE, said: "When you consider problems we hear about in Greece and Malta with how refugees and asylum-seekers are given protection and housed, there is a need to ensure that Europe meets its obligations in achieving standards."

Groups working with refugees have backed criticism by the European Court of Auditors over the European Commission’s management of a €216 million refugee fund.