Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network – EMHRN

> > > EMHRN Statements 2002

Open letter to the European Parliament from various NGOs	Date: 27-09-2002

OPEN LETTER TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY FUNDING IN 2003 (CHAPTER B7-70) Brussels, 27 September 2002 As representatives of various leading non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in the field of human rights and democratisation, we are writing to express our views on the European Union’s (EU) support for human rights and democracy programmes—which are grouped under chapter B7-70 of the budget and known as the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). 1) Size of budget chapter B7-70 Ensure that the 2003 EIDHR budget remain at 104 million Euro; i.e. no reduction. We are concerned about the proposed reduction of the total amount allocated to this chapter from 104 million Euro in 2002 to 88 million Euro in 2003—i.e. a reduction of 15 percent. A reduction of spending would damage the reputation of the EU as a defender of human rights and democracy. In our view, it would only be justifiable if there had been a significant reduction of human rights abuses world wide, which is certainly not the case. The proposed decrease is at odds with the European Parliament’s annual report on the EU human rights external policy, in which the Parliament “[E]xpresses its concern at the decrease in resources for the EIDHR in 2002, given that this budget chapter has high priority for Parliament” and insists on the need for “[A] coherent and consistent EU strategy for human rights and democratisation”.[1] Furthermore, it has been proven time after time that it is far more cost-effective to allocate funds to measures promoting human rights and democracy—which aim, inter alia, to prevent conflicts—than to deal with the consequences of conflicts. A perfect example of this is the high level of resources needed for the reconstruction of Afghanistan or the Western Balkans. In the last two years, the European Commission has implemented substantial reforms in the management of EIDHR. The result of these changes is starting to be noticed. The EU has seriously improved its track record as a donor in the human rights and democracy field: the allocation of EIDHR funding is happening through much more open, transparent and competitive procedures; delays in the transfer of funding are being reduced; the Commission is increasingly responsive to inquiries from NGOs; and the appropriations percentage is, according to our information, increasing. Therefore, the argument that the EIDHR budgets of previous years were not sufficiently used does not, in our view, justify a reduction of the funding available for EIDHR. 2) Role of NGOs Ensure that EIDHR funding be aimed at supporting NGOs—rather than governmental or intergovernmental bodies. We consider that the most effective way to promote democracy and human rights is through the active participation of citizens in the non-governmental sector. This has been the principal motor for the local development of human rights and democracy both within and outside the EU during the past forty years and is likely to remain so. Therefore, we strongly believe that funding available under chapter B7-70 of the budget should be aimed at supporting and facilitating the activities of NGOs—rather than governmental bodies and international institutions. This is in line with the aim pursued by the European Parliament when it proposed the creation of the B7-70 budget chapter. As EU support for institution building in almost all third countries can be addressed through bilateral programmes between the European Commission and the recipient government, we consider that the funds available under chapter B7-70 should in principle not be used to fund governmental institutions or activities. This is in line with the view expressed by the European Parliament in its resolution on the EU human rights external policy, which stated that it “believes that the authorities of third countries should not be involved in decision-making regarding the granting of funds under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights”.[2] We believe that intergovernmental organisations (IGOs)—such as the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the UN—can make important contributions to the promotion of democracy and human rights. Due to the relatively high overhead costs of IGOs and the fact that most IGO activities are carried out with the agreement of the host governments, we consider that EIDHR funding for these organizations should be limited. One of the special features of chapter B7-70 is its ability to work in third countries without the prior consent of their governments. Another feature of EIDHR is that it is not subject to particular political, economic, social or other concerns and interests—unlike programmes of some bilateral donors. As the major European fund available to the non-governmental sector, we consider that EIDHR should be used primarily for this sector. 3) Technical Assistance Enable the availability of human resources to guarantee the efficient, flexible and transparent implementation of the programmes under chapter B7-70 of the budget. It is crucial that sufficient and qualified technical assistance—internal or external—be made available to the Commission in Brussels as well as to the delegations to guarantee the efficient, flexible and transparent implementation of EIDHR. This should include adequate support to the Commission’s delegations for the implementation of micro-grant schemes. The ongoing decentralisation process of the management of external assistance to the Commission delegations makes it even more important to equip the delegations with adequate technical assistance. 4) Budget lines and commentaries Keep the division of budget chapter B7-70 simple and flexible—without commentaries providing for special, preferential allocations. The Commission’s preliminary draft budget proposal divides the chapter into three budget lines: support for the development and promotion of democracy and rule of law, including promotion and defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms; support for the ad hoc war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court; and administrative expenses. We support this broad structure. Moreover, we would certainly not welcome a return to the situation of including in the commentaries specific allocations for certain projects or specific organisations. Nor would we favour the division of the chapter into an increased number of thematic or geographical budget lines, especially if these were also targeted at specific projects or organisations. 5) Size of EIDHR grants Encourage the Commission to decrease the minimum grant level. We believe that the minimum grant level of 300,000 Euro for the ‘macro’ projects supported through EIDHR effectively excludes large numbers of potential participants. This minimum size of grants requirement is beyond the institutional capacity of most organisations, especially those in developing countries. We fear that this requirement stimulates a supply-driven rather than demand-led programme. In some cases, applicant organisations might inflate their budgets to fulfil the 300,000 Euro minimum grant requirement. It also follows that the total number of grants in recent years has been significantly lower than in the mid and late 1990s. We strongly believe that EIDHR should encourage and enable a widespread bottom-up approach to the promotion of democracy and human rights. Smaller scale organisations should have equal chances of obtaining support for their efforts. The allocation of EIDHR funding should be guided by the quality of projects proposed by the applicants, rather than their capacity to absorb large project grants. With the above in mind, we recommend that the size of the grants awarded should reflect the needs of the applicants, rather than artificial levels set in the EIDHR guidelines. 6) Micro-projects schemes Encourage the Commission to deliver on its political commitment and implement the EIDHR micro-project scheme without further delay. On various occasions, the European Commission, and Commissioner Patten personally, have pledged to promote democracy and human rights on the local level and to strengthen civil society through the EIDHR micro-projects facility. For example, the EIDHR Programming Document 2002-2004 states that “[t]he microprojects scheme is designed to support small-scale human rights and democratisation activities carried out by grassroots' NGOs. In 2001, the traditional base in Central and Eastern Europe, the NIS and South Eastern Europe will be extended to countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Mediterranean. Microprojects will therefore be available in all focus countries.” We are concerned that this political commitment is being broken due to internal administrative matters. We are referring to the EIDHR micro-projects schemes of 2001 and 2002, which each total 12 million Euro. These schemes are currently delayed due to internal questions about the managerial demands that implementing this facility asks from the European Commission delegations concerned. We understand that EuropeAid is currently undertaking an internal audit to assess the capacity of relevant EU delegations to implement the micro-projects scheme. The EIDHR micro-projects facility is widely considered the most effective and cost efficient Commission instrument promoting democracy and human rights on the local level and strengthening civil society. Small, grassroots, bottom-up grants to promote democracy and human rights have proven to make a major difference. The micro-projects scheme complements the approach taken in the larger-scale components of EIDHR funding and other Commission programmes, whilst allowing the flexibility to take into account local priorities and conditions. An independent evaluation of this scheme in September 2001, available on the EuropeAid website, reconfirmed this positive view of the micro-projects facility. The micro-projects schemes for 2001 and 2002 have been widely announced and are eagerly awaited. Further delaying or potentially even losing this support will not only hurt the local development of democracy and human rights, but also damage the credibility and image of the EU in the countries concerned. We are not suggesting that the Commission should implement the micro-project facility in the absence of qualified human resources in the relevant EU delegations and/or open, competitive and transparent procedures to select the beneficiaries. Rather, we believe that the Commission should be urged to immediately build this capacity where it is lacking, and be allocated sufficient funding to ensure the prompt implementation of the micro-project schemes of 2001, 2002 and 2003. We very much hope that you will take these comments into account when considering the EU budget for 2003. We are at your disposal for any questions you may have as a result of the points we raise. Sincerely yours, • Irune Aguirrezabal, European Coordinator for CICC • Jane Backhurst, Director, World Vision EU Liaison Office • Alan Dréanic, Permanent Delegate to the European Union, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) • Amaya Fernández, Coordinatrice, Bureau de liaison auprès de l'Union européenne, el Movimento por la Paz, el Desarme y la Libertad (MPDL) • María-Teresa Gil-Bazo, EU Representative, ECRE EU Office • Annick Bimbenet, Fédération internationale des Associations chrétiennes pour l'abolition de la Torture (FIACAT) • Lotte Leicht, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch Brussels Office • Dick Oosting, Director, Amnesty International European Union Office • Caroline Pincemin, Brussels representative, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) • Andrew Puddephatt, Executive Director, ARTICLE 19 • Raffaele K. Salinari, President, International Federation Terre des Hommes • Laetitia Sedou, Project Manager – Europe, OMCT-Europe • Marc Schade-Poulsen, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, Brussels office • Anne Simon, EU Coordinator, CARE International • Mabel Wisse Smit, Executive Director, Open Society Institute-Brussels • World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy Contact: OSI-Brussels, tel. 32-2-5054646; fax 32-2-5024646; osi@osi-brussels.be -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Annual report on human rights in the world in 2001 and the EU's human rights policy (A5-0106/2002, title 1 and para 23, 3 April 2002). [2] European Parliament resolution on human rights in the world in 2000 and the European Union Human Rights Policy (A5-0193/2001, para. 51; 5 July 2001).

Back to News List

Credits & Disclaimer