Introduction

UNHCR welcomes this opportunity to submit some observations on the policy orientations and operational strategies which have governed the management of the European Refugee Fund during the last four years. In this contribution, UNHCR also proposes a few recommendations for the future implementation of the Fund, based on lessons learnt and suggestions made by its offices throughout the European Union.

At the time of its inception, UNHCR expressed the hope that the Fund would allow for greater coherence in implementing Community policy in the areas eligible for funding - reception, integration and voluntary return - as well as increased predictability and flexibility in allocating resources. It also supported the criteria according to which funding would be distributed among Member States: with the allocation of a fixed amount to each Member State, the level of development of the asylum system could be taken into account in allocating funding, with the remainder of the available funds made available according to a distribution key based on average numbers of applicants and accepted cases. Moreover, the Office emphasized the importance of including the provision of legal assistance and measures to address the protection needs of vulnerable groups in activities aimed at improving reception capacity in Member States. Given its decentralized management structure, UNHCR also suggested, as a minimum, to be invited by Member States for consultations regarding the selection, monitoring and evaluation of projects implemented at national level. Finally, UNHCR recommended that the Fund, in particularly through Community-wide actions, would be used for public information and awareness measures related to States' policies and practices concerning refugees, asylum-seekers and beneficiaries of temporary protection.

Ever since the implementation of the Fund, UNHCR has been involved, to differing degree, in the preparation and implementation of ERF projects, both at Member State and Community level. In some Member States, UNHCR local offices have been closely associated with the ERF National Advisory Boards while in some others, its offices have had a consultative and monitoring role regarding the use of ERF funds.

Towards a more efficient use and management of ERF funds

Capitalizing on the few years of experience UNHCR offices in Member States have had with the management of the ERF funds at national level, UNHCR would like to submit the following observations and suggestions for a more efficient use and improved management of future ERF funding. They should not be considered as constituting a comprehensive assessment, nor as providing an exhaustive list of conclusions. They are meant as elements for a discussion in the various working groups of the ERF Conference.

v Allocation of funds

UNHCR calls on the new Fund to allocate resources primarily to those current and future Member States with less developed asylum systems, even if they have received so far relatively small numbers of asylum-seekers and refugees. Allocating funding mainly on the basis of an average number of refugees and asylum-seekers during a fixed period may not be sufficient to realize the aim of "burden-sharing" being the stated objective of the Fund. In order to achieve this objective, particularly in view of the expected increase in applications in new Member States, the problems of very uneven capacity must be properly addressed by the Fund, precisely in the areas of reception and integration, as well as in regard to the accessibility and quality of the asylum procedure.

v Use of funds

UNHCR believes that the future ERF should continue to be used primarily for projects aimed at strengthening Member States' reception and integration capacity. In addition, the future Fund could include a stronger focus on measures in support of enhancing the quality of the asylum decision-making process. As regards return projects, UNHCR would argue to re-assess the importance of this theme for the Fund, also in view of the preparation of a separate funding instrument for returns of irregular residents.

UNHCR believes that the reception capacities of Member States, particularly in acceding States, need further financial injection. It can be expected that States with relatively new asylum systems at the eastern and southern external borders of the enlarged Union will be confronted with rising numbers of applicants, not least as a result of a more efficient implementation of the Dublin II Regulation. UNHCR would support ERF funding to be made available to improve asylum-seekers' access to material reception conditions, as well as improving infrastructure or services for accommodation. Yet funding should also be directed to projects aimed at improving conditions for access to asylum procedures, and providing legal assistance to asylum-seekers and help with administrative and judicial formalities. It could also be considered to include in the future Fund a separate objective related to improving the quality of the asylum decision-making, through support for the recruitment and employment of competent, trained and culturally sensitive eligibility officers, the provision of adequate legal and social counseling services and the availability of country of origin information. The future Fund, in focusing on this area, may have to take into account the value of trans-national networking and the exchange of information and analysis, as well as good practice in this area. oreover, future ERF funding could support projects addressing the role of border officials in screening asylum-seekers and referring them to the competent asylum officials, and the role of non-governmental organizations to provide legal and social assistance at border points. This is particularly important in the new Member States which will be responsible for controlling the enlarged Union's external borders.

UNHCR believes that an even larger part of ERF funding could be usefully directed to projects aimed at the integration of refugees and persons benefiting from subsidiary forms of protection. Such projects are particularly needed in Member States in Central and Southern Europe and the Baltic region. As noted above, these States are expected to receive an increasing number of asylum-seekers and those recognized should be supported with their integration in order to avoid that for lack of facilities these refugees feel compelled to move onward to other Member States with better integration prospects. Projects should address the needs of refugees and their host communities in an even-handed manner, and take into account the legal, socio-economic and cultural aspects of the integration process.

In both areas of reception and integration, public information and awareness activity continues to be a priority for UNHCR. Harmonious community relations should be fostered by projects portraying the truth behind the plight of refugees and asylum-seekers, promoting responsible media reporting and reaching out to key sectors in local society.

In regard to repatriation and return, UNHCR would put forward the option to only include the voluntary return of refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, i.e. persons with a status, and to deal with the return of unsuccessful asylum-seekers in the envisaged separate EU instrument for the return of irregular residents (Return Fund). UNHCR notes that the return issue was included in the current ERF and its preceding budget lines mainly - although not uniquely - to the benefit of refugees and beneficiaries of temporary protection originating from the former Yugoslavia. This group is less in need of return assistance than in previous years, and, although other refugee nationalities may ask for return assistance, the importance of this theme in relation to the other eligible areas of work may have to be re-assessed. In order to ensure coherence of approach, and avoid duplication of funding efforts, specific support measures for the return of unsuccessful asylum-seekers - important in order to preserve the integrity of the asylum systems - can best be funded from the future EU Return Fund, and organized on the basis of the policy orientations, standards and operational strategies developed in the 2002 EU Return Action Programme. Specific groups - refugees, unsuccessful asylum-seekers, irregular migrants - who want to return, or are required to do so, can also benefit from separate instruments such as the Afghan Return Action Plan.

ERF funds should be used preferably to finance projects bringing a real added value to the development of the asylum system by implementing agreed European and related international standards in national law and practice. They should be used for the promotion of the key elements and policy orientations of the developing EU asylum policy rather than for projects filling gaps as a result of lack of sufficient State budgets. ERF funds, in principle, should not be used for projects which are to be part of the regular State funding to ensure a minimum and adequate standard of living for asylum-seekers in the reception phase, and refugees during their integration course.

ERF funding could be made available to projects aimed at elaborating and implementing EU policy guidelines and operational strategies which involve specific groups of practitioners (e.g. border guards, eligibility officers, those involved in social and legal support during the reception or integration phase) and benefit specific groups or nationalities of asylum-seekers and refugees (including groups with special needs).

ERF funds can also help standardizing newly established procedures, or implementing innovative projects. The future Fund may raise the percentage of funding to be made available for the latter type of projects. It should also continue to focus on projects attending the needs for groups with special needs, such as separated children, single women, the elderly and medical cases. Support for groups with particular vulnerabilities could be made a distinct objective in the future legal base of the Fund.

ERF projects should not be seen as one-off initiatives, but fit within a longer-term national strategy to improve reception and integration conditions. Once projects have been kick-started with the help of ERF funding, they should be sustained through regular funding from national budgets. Projects therefore should include an evaluation component and an element for follow-up measures to ensure continuity and sustainability.

UNHCR believes that future ERF funding should reserve a certain allocation of funds for Community actions, managed by the Commission. This is to be used projects aimed at implementing the Community standards and practices at national level - the latter with due attention for the role of regional and local authorities, non-governmental organizations and networks of legal and social counselors. Funding should also be made available at Community level for projects aimed at cross-border co-operation and the exchange of information on policies and practices amongst practitioners in the transposition of EC asylum directives (in addition to what ARGO is funding, such exchange should focus particularly on reception, integration, and the quality of the asylum procedure).

v Managing the funds

So far ERF funding has been apportioned to each of the three policy areas more or less at similar levels in each of the Member States. According to UNHCR's own summary evaluation, with few exceptions, the majority of funding has been used for integration projects. UNHCR believes that the procedure for distributing funds to each of the eligible project areas may need revision. This would be particularly the case where there remain serious gaps in the systems, which so far have not been attended, or where authorities have not been willing to act on the recommendations of implementing partners to address specific elements commonly considered by partners as areas to be prioritized (e.g. NGO legal and social counseling networks). A proper balance in funding local authorities, non-governmental organizations and operational networks for legal and social support should be stricken.

Many of UNHCR's local offices have recommended to render the decision-taking on the allocation of funding more efficient and above all more transparent. Improvements could be made in the notification of partners of the selection of projects, and negative decisions should be reasoned on the basis of objective selection criteria (at a minimum on the basis of the criteria as defined in article 9 of the Council Decision). The new implementing directives to be issued to Member States should ensure that sufficient time is given to present project proposals and that requirements for eligible submissions are clearly spelt out.

It would be useful to share with relevant stake-holders and concerned partners the outcome of audits required by national authorities in charge of the ERF funds, in order to contribute to the improvement of project implementation. Auditors are advised to look at the broader range of actors involved in the implementation of a particular project and not limit themselves to assessing the performance of contracting bodies. This would be the case, for instance, for immigration personnel at land and sea borders and airports who, while not directly implementing projects, play an essential role in projects aimed at improving access to the asylum procedure.

Whereas manuals for narrative and financial reporting exist, implementing partners have regularly suggested that they would be in need of better guidance in order to meet the strict requirements for comprehensive financial and narrative reporting.

While the local situation and needs will often dictate the level of involvement of UNHCR, some standardization is recommended, particularly where the authorities and UNHCR may disagree over the eligibility of eligible project areas. As of now, in some countries UNHCR is member of the national advisory board, whereas in others UNHCR is invited to meetings and invited to issue recommendations, and yet in other countries co-operation is near to non-existent.

There is a need for improvement of communication and cooperation among all stake-holders involved in the implementation of projects, particularly those who do not benefit directly from ERF funding, but whose involvement in the project is essential, e.g. border guards involved in projects aimed at improving access to the asylum procedure or local authorities and media reporting on community relations and refugee integration projects. The lack of proper information by the national authorities on projects selected under the ERF to all stakeholders concerned has impeded the efficient implementation of some projects.

It is also recommended, in each of the current and future Member States, to create a web-site on the ERF, including project examples and best practices and to arrange for regular exchange of information and analysis of the various projects - on their objectives, methodology, and the successes or problems met during implementation.

Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, it can be asked whether the future Fund should not be given a considerably larger budget than the 216 MEURO made available during the period 1999 - 2004. Future funding should continue to focus on the areas of reception and integration, yet should also address the problems surrounding access to the asylum procedure - particularly at border points - and enhancing capacities to ensure quality decision-making on asylum applications. The provision of adequate legal and social counseling services would be another priority, as much as measures to attend the needs of vulnerable groups. Member States with relatively young asylum systems, such as the current acceding states, should receive a substantial amount of funding in order to ensure a more equal level of assistance and protection throughout the enlarging Union. This would be in accordance with the overall objective of the Fund to achieve a more equitable sharing of responsibilities and capacities between the Member States in receiving and hosting refugees and asylum-seekers

(UNHCR Brussels)

6 October 2003