CONT Mission to Turkey 01 to 04 November 2016

CONT mission to Turkey

within the context of the

use of pre-accession funds

& visit to Syrian refugee camp

01 to 04 November 2016

Committee on Budgetary Control

Programme

Fact-finding mission of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) to Turkey 01 to 04 November 2016 Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union Directorate for Budgetary Affairs Secretariat of the Committee on Budgetary Control -

Brussels, 21 October 2016

Fact-finding mission of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) to Turkey

01 - 04 November 2016

DRAFT PROGRAMME

Tuesday 1 November 2016

16.20 Arrival at Ankara Esenboğa Airport

17:30 – 18:00 Briefing session with Head of EU delegation, Ambassador Berger (Confirmed) Venue: EUD, Uğur Mumcu cad. No.88 Kat.5 GOP, Cankaya

18:00 – 19:30 Debriefing session with UN Agencies (UNHCR, WFP, UNFPA, UNDP, IOM) (Confirmed) Venue: EUD

20:00 Private Dinner

Venue: Günaydın Restaurant, Gaziosmanpaşa, Attar Sk. No:6, Çankaya

Night in Hilton Hotel

Wednesday 2 November 2016 - Ankara

09:00-10:00 Courtesy call to İsmail Kahraman, Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) and tour of TGNA (TBC) Venue: TGNA

10:30-11:30 Meeting with Mr. Ömer Çelik, Minister for EU Affairs & Chief Negotiator (TBC) Venue: Ministry for EU Affairs

12:00-13:00 Meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Şimşek (TBC) Venue: Treasury

13:15-14:00 Private Lunch Venue: ?

14:15-15:30 Roundtable with key Turkish actors in indirect management of EU funding (NIPAC, NAO, CFCU and Operating Structures) - (TBC) Venue: Treasury

16:00-17:00 Visit to a school in Altındağ, funded by the Facility Special Measure, where Syrian students are enrolled (Confirmed) Venue: Fatih Sultan Mehmet İlköğretim Okulu, Önder mah. 931. Sok. No:13, Altındağ / Ankara

17:30-18:30 Roundtable with EUD Heads of Sections and Finance & Contracts, including detailed briefing for visits (confirmed) Venue: EUD

19:30 Dinner hosted by Head of Delegation, Christian Berger (TBC)

Night in Hilton Hotel

2 Thursday 3 November 2016 – Ankara, Kayseri and Kahramanmaraş

08:00 Departure from Hilton Hotel

08:30 – 09:30 Meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Veysi Kaynak (TBC) Venue: Prime Ministry

09:30 - 14:30 Departure from Ankara to Kayseri by bus (one hour break on the way for lunch)

14:30 - 15:15 Courtesy Visit to Governor of Kayseri (TBC) Venue: ?

15:30 – 16:30 Visit to Removal Center for asylum seekers, refugees and illegal migrants (IPA National Programme) - Confirmed Venue:

16:45 – 17:45 Visit to ASAM Field Office for Syrian and non-Syrians (IcSP project) - Confirmed Venue: ?

18:00 – 19:00 Visit to Erciyes Technology Development Zone (IPA National Programme) - Confirmed Venue: ?

19:00 - 22:00 Departure from Kayseri to Kahramanmaraş by bus (3 hours) (Dinner box during the trip)

Night in Clarion Hotel Kahramanmaraş

Friday 4 November 2016 – Kahramanmaraş

09:00 – 10:00 Courtesy visit to Governor and Mayor of Kahramanmaraş (TBC) Venue: Kahramanmaraş Valiliği

10:30 - 11:30 Visit to Kahramanmaraş Merkez Refugee Camp (with District Governor) The camp is currently under renovation to move refugees from tents into containers and is not open for external visits ahead of winter. External visit of the camp by bus followed by meetings with Camp Authorities and possibly Syrian refugees. Venue: Kahramanmaraş Governor's office (TBC)

12:00 – 13:15 Visit to Facility funded Temporary Education Center for Syrian Children in Kahramanmaraş City Center (UNICEF as implementing partner, ECHO project)

13:30 Official end of the programme and Departure from Kahramanmaraş Airport

DG NEAR follow-up of the discussions in the EP CONT Committee on 12 October 2016, additional information

Fact-finding mission of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) to Turkey 01 to 04 November 2016 EP CONT mission to Turkey

2-4 November 2016

DG NEAR follow-up of the discussions in the EP CONT Committee

on 12 October 2016, additional information

Table of Contents 1. Transparency...... 3 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) ...... 4 2. Overall level of funding ...... 4 3. Contracting and disbursement, backlog ...... 6 4. Performance indicators and targets ...... 7 5. Continuation of the EU financial assistance to Turkey despite the Turkish Government's strong reaction post-coup ...... 12 6. Irregularities ...... 13 Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRIT) ...... 15 7. Overview and breakdown of EU spending for refugees in Turkey and selection of priorities/projects ...... 15 8. Education and psychosocial support: linguistic issue and coverage ...... 17

9. Cost per refugee in education and health sector ...... 20

10. European Commission's controls applicable to the Facility for Refugees in Turkey ...... 21

11. Examples of positive and challenging projects under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey financing ...... 22

12. Methodology applied in Progress Report and Turkey Progress Report 2015 ...... 23 13. Methodological point to CONT ...... 24

Annexes

1. IATI 2016 report and link ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….3

2. Latest Facility for Refugees in Turkey fact sheet, link to the website ……………………………………………3

3. Latest information sheet on commitments and disbursements …………………………………………….…….6

4. Indicative Country Strategy paper 2014-2020 …………………………………………………………………………….10

5. Letter from Commissioners Hahn and Moedas on Horizon 2020 ……………………………………………….12

6. Letter from Commissioners Hahn and Navracsics on Education …………………………………………………12

7. Guidance note in regards to EU cooperation and financial assistance to Turkey following the attempted coup on 15 July ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

8. Table on recoveries-Turkey Central Finance and Contract Unit of Turkish administration …………14

9. Letter sent to NAO on recoveries of ineligible funds financed in support of the establishment of Courts of Appeal in Turkey ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….14

10. Annex: Table on of projects funded under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey ………………………..15

11. Annex: Note on Controls on Humanitarian Actions ……………………………………………………………….…21

12. Note on Controls on Non-Humanitarian Actions ………………………………………………………………….….21

13. Methodology for assessment of progress in the Commission reports ……………..………………………23

14. Turkey Progress Report 2015 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………23

1. Transparency

DG NEAR pays careful attention to the transparency of the pre-accession funding. As of 2013 comprehensive data is published on all pre-accession assistance on a monthly basis through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) Registry, a public domain, where the information can be freely accessed. Such data is further linked to DG NEAR's website. According to the 2016 Index, DG NEAR registered important achievements and progress and ranks 13 (out of 46 in the donor ranking of the index). DG NEAR has made significant progress since 2013 and is one of the biggest improvers increasing its score by 26%. DG NEAR has published four new indicators in the IATI Standard since the 2015 EU Aid Transparency Review, including budget documents, conditions and impact appraisals

Annex 1: IATI 2016 report and link http://ati.publishwhatyoufund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ATI- 2016_Report_Proof_DIGITAL.pdf

We are making progress in more user friendly presentation of key funding data on our websites including the aid to refugees. During summer, DG NEAR developed an interactive map for the Facility for Refugees in Turkey in close collaboration with ECHO, pinning all the ongoing projects in Turkey. The map was launched in the beginning of September and promoted successfully on all of DG NEAR's social media platforms. It reached more than 500, 000 people on Facebook with over 2k likes, and was retweeted by numerous influencers in Turkey and EU.

Annex 2: Latest Facility for Refugees in Turkey fact sheet, link to the website:

Link to factsheet: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/migration/20161013-frit- factsheet.pdf

Link to Facility webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/migration/index_en.htm

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II)

2. Overall level of funding

The indicative allocations as discussed with the European Parliament in the Strategic Dialogue are set out in the Indicative Strategy Papers. They are defined through an assessment of a combination of the needs, the accession priorities, level of allocations in the past as well as the absorption capacity.

At the beginning of the multi-annual period, the Commission holds a Strategic Dialogue with the European Parliament on the programming of IPA II funds. In addition, in line with the approach for other instruments, preparatory meetings at technical level allow clarifying any more technical/factual questions there may be on the side of the European Parliament. Attendance from the EP generally is at staff level, both from AFET secretariat and political groups.

This is in line with the "Commission declaration on the strategic dialogue with the European Parliament", which forms part of the final compromise on IPA II, and states the following: "The European Commission will present to the European Parliament the relevant available documents on programming with indicative allocations foreseen per country/region, and, within a country/region, priorities, possible results and indicative allocations foreseen per priority for geographic programmes, as well as the choice of assistance modalities. The European Commission will present to the European Parliament the relevant available documents on programming with thematic priorities, possible results, choice of assistance modalities, and financial allocations for such priorities foreseen in thematic programmes. The European Commission will take into account the position expressed by the European Parliament on the matter.

The European Commission will conduct a strategic dialogue with the European Parliament in preparing the mid-term review and before any substantial revision of the programming documents during the period of validity of this Regulation.

The European Commission, if invited by the European Parliament, will explain where the European Parliament's observations have been taken into consideration in the programming documents and any other follow-up given to the strategic dialogue."

As provided for in the legal framework, the needs and priorities for assistance will be reassessed at mid-term in 2017, including a Strategic Dialogue with the European Parliament.

Table: Budget allocations per sector in Turkey based on the effective IPA II programming activities

TURKEY 2014 2015 2016 2017 a.Reforms in Preparation for EU 350 196.6 233.9 141.1 Membership Democracy and governance 515.1

Rule of law and fundamental rights 406.5

b.Socio economic and Regional 155.3 265.3 246.0 242.0 development Environmental and climate action 295.1 Transport 386.0 Energy 39.7 Competitiveness and Innovation 187.8 c.Employment, social policies, 37.4 62.9 65.9 68.9 education, promotion of gender equality, and human resources development Education, employment and social 235.1 policies d. Agriculture and rural development 72.0 100.9 73.4 148 Agriculture and rural development 394.3 Total 614.7 625.7 619.2 600.0

3. Contracting and disbursement, backlog

Concerns about the capacity limitations within the Turkish authorities persist for the programming and absorption of IPA funds managed under indirect management. A sectoral analysis by the EU Delegation highlights an accumulated contractual backlog of EUR 611 million under annual programmes 2013-2016 managed by the national authorities. EU bilateral assistance to Turkey 2014-2016 for IPA, EIDHR, ICSP is summarised in the table shared with CONT already – here for ease of reference. Closure of some pre-IPA programmes is still ongoing.

Annex 3: Latest information sheet on commitments and disbursements

161005 Financial Table on IPA, IcSP and

The implementation delays and the contracting backlog for previously programmed actions remain a challenge that has been addressed in various ways. E.g. IPA implementation monitoring committees with the National IPA Coordinator and the Operating Structures (latest meeting on 11 October 2016), regular implementation reviews meetings (IRMs) at sector-level for IPA II, where the progress is regularly assessed with sector lead institutions and the respective Operating Structures and recommendations and mitigation measures agreed. Key criteria of "relevance" and "maturity" of projects are used in the programming process, i.e. only proposals where preparation is considered sufficiently advanced are included into programmes to be adopted.

In addition, the issue of backlog in the implementation of IPA programmes was taken into consideration in the drafting of the Indicative Strategy Paper for Turkey 2014-2020. Given the at the time existing backlog of projects under IPA I programming, in order to enable a smooth transition between IPA I and IPA II and avoid the risk of overloading the most affected Operating Structures with the parallel implementation of projects under two different instruments, the budget allocations in such sectors was phased-in, with no heavy cost investments financed in the first years, and increasing allocations in subsequent years. This measure was particularly relevant for the IPA assistance in the Environment and Climate action and Competitiveness and Innovation sectors.

4. Performance indicators and targets

Turkey refused to include certain type of indicators with milestones and targets into the Indicative Country Strategy Paper 2014-2020. The Turkish authorities were generally reluctant on indicators, questioning the basis and methodology of some and considering others as tools for "interference in domestic politics". For example: Freedom of Press score (Freedom of House) and Global Press Freedom index (Report without Borders) proposed under the Fundamental Rights sub-field were rejected because there were not relevant to the sector priorities for Turkey and, in their opinion they were not fit to provide a basis to track sector performance throughout time in order to establish a solid monitoring and evaluation system. Moreover, Turkey stated that that the Freedom of House's method was an example of expert-based evaluations which were prone to bias. Therefore, the data published in their view could not be assumed to be collected through an independent mechanism. In addition, year to year ranking fluctuations in the Global Freedom Index showed that metric used by the Reporters without Borders for measuring changes in press freedom within individual countries was unrealistic.

When IPA II performance reward 2017 will be allocated this will be taken into consideration. Indicators at annual programme level are easier to set. In each sectoral action document, an "indicator measurement table" has been included, with a list of action related indicators defined, and for each of them the following information included: Indicator, Description, Baseline (year), Last [available value] (year), Milestone (2017), Target (2020), Source of information. As an example, the indicator measurement table related to the 2015 Action in Judiciary sector.

Indicator Baseline (year) Last (year) Milestone 2017 Final Target 2020 Source of information CSP indicator(s) – if applicable Action outcome EU Progress indicator 1 Reports Level of progress achieved towards meeting accession criteria. Action outcome (2013) (2014) indicator 2 Number 508 200 175 150 Statistics of infringement released by judgments by the ECtHR. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as well as follow up given Action outcome indicator 3 (2010) (2014) Clearance rate for 58.09 62.08 65 70 Statistics backlog in courts released by CEPEJ Action output indicator 1 (2014) (2014) Number of (2017) (2020) HCJP Statistics Related to the Number of appeals Appeals to the Number of Number of Appeals Activity 1.1 to HCJP 877 HCJP 877 Appeals to the to HCJP 1- Number of HCJP 865 applications for 865 7

Indicator Baseline (year) Last (year) Milestone 2017 Final Target 2020 Source of information review and appeals to the HCJP for promotion of judges and prosecutors

2- Percentages of (2014) (2014) (2017) (2020) Statistics voluntary transfer of Voluntary transfer Voluntary transfer Voluntary Voluntary transfer released by judges and of judges and of judges and transfer of judges of judges and HCJP prosecutors prosecutors prosecutors and prosecutors prosecutors Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Justice 77% Justice 77% Justice 80% Justice 84% Civil and Criminal Civil and Criminal Civil and Civil and Criminal Justice Justice Criminal Justice Justice 87% 87% 92% 94%

3- Shorter decision (2014) (2014) (2017) (2020) Statistics making process in 17.495 pending 17.495 pending The number of The number of files released by HCJP Chambers, files at the 3rd files at the 3rd files transferred transferred to HCJP reduction in the Chamber. Chamber. to following following years at backlog In 2014, the total In 2014, the total years at the 3rd the 3rd Chamber will number received number received Chamber will be be reduced by 30%. by the 2nd by the 2nd reduced by 20%. The number of files Chamber was 727; Chamber was 727; The number of transferred to 361 of them were 361 of them were files transferred following years at decided and decided and to following the 2nd Chamber finalized; 366 finalized; 366 years at the 2nd will be reduced by were transferred were transferred Chamber will be 20% to 2015. to 2015. reduced by 10% Action output indicator 2 Related to the Activity 2.2

1- Number of (2014) (2014) (2017) (2020) Statistics of trained judges and MoJ. prosecutors on 0 0 100 200 criminal justice system, cybercrime and human rights, included as sub- categories judges of peace within the Activity

2- Number of Baseline data for Baseline data for %10 decrease in the Statistics individual the number of the number of number of released by the applications made to applications to be applications individual Constitutional the Constitutional constructed through applications made Court Court regarding the through the constructed to the Constitutional unjustified decisions Activity itself. through the Court regarding the taken by criminal Activity itself unjustified decisions judges of peace taken by criminal judges of peace

Indicator Baseline (year) Last (year) Milestone 2017 Final Target 2020 Source of information 3- Number of cases Baseline data to Baseline data to Increase in the Increase in the Statistics opened for be constructed by be constructed by numbers by % 5 numbers by %10 released by cybercrimes due to the Activity itself. the Activity itself. UYAP. the strong evidence obtained 4- Cybercrime 0 (number of 0 (number of 3 (number of 5 (number of Statistics Investigation bureaus) bureaus) bureaus) bureaus) released by Bureaus are MoJ. established 5-Number of ECtHR 200 200 170 150 5-Statistics infringement released by judgements ECtHR

Action output indicator 3 Related to the 2014 2014 2017 2020 Statistics of the Activity 3.1 Department of Information 1-Trial period in the Criminal Cases: Criminal Cases: Criminal Cases: Criminal Cases:348 Technologies Court of Cassation 370 days 370 days 360 days Statistics of the Civil Cases: 160 Civil Cases: 160 Court of Civil Cases:152 Civil Cases:148 Cassation days Related to the Activity 3.2 (2014) (2014) (2017) (2020) Statistics released by 1- Number of the 0 0 100 200 MoJ evidences secured with the new barcoding system 2- Number of 0 0 100 200 Statistics trained property and released by evidence officers MoJ

3- Dedicated 0 0 3 5 Statistics property and released by evidence units MoJ established in the pilot court houses for keeping digital and biological evidence Related to the 246 days 246 days 240 days 230 days Statistics Activity 3.3 released by CEPEJ, MoJ 1- Trial period in the first instance courts Related to the Baseline data to Baseline data to Statistics Activity 3.4 be constructed be constructed released by through the through the MoJ and HCJP 1-Number of judges Activity itself Activity itself and Prosecutors obtained positive 9

Indicator Baseline (year) Last (year) Milestone 2017 Final Target 2020 Source of information scores during senior colleague assessments and inspections

Action output indicator 4 Related to the Activity 4.1

1-Number of Baseline data to Baseline data to Increase by 5% in Statistics of the terrorist offenders be constructed be constructed the number of General attending socio- through the through the terrorist offenders Directorate of cultural and Activity itself Activity itself attending social, Prisons and education activities cultural and Detention educational Houses activities at the end of Activity 2-Number of Baseline data to Baseline data to Increase by 5% in Statistics of the terrorist offenders be constructed be constructed the number e of General communicating with through the through the terrorist offenders Directorate of their families Activity itself Activity itself communicating with Prisons and their families. Detention Houses

Update of indicators can be discussed during the mid-term revision of the Indicative Strategy Papers in 2017. Indicative Strategy Paper 2014-2020 is attached and the main indicators are extracted below.

Annex 4: Indicative Country Strategy paper 2014-2020

Acrobat Document

IPA II indicators: baseline values and targets for Indicative Strategy Papers absolute value of scores: baseline values $ and targets put forward by beneficiaries

Turkey EU value 2010 2017 2020 2012 Composite indicator 51.60 not provided not provided 76.96

Governance and PAR 56.53 not provided not provided 70.57 Statistics (2013) 19-25 60-70 85-95 NA Judicial Reform 52.14 54.50 60.00 63.35 Fight against corruption (2) 50.52 not provided not provided 70.64

Press Freedom (inverted value) 51.63 not provided not provided 19.66

Transport 3.51 3.70 3.82 3.46 Energy 4.60 4.90 5.00 4.93 Competitiveness and Innovation 63.13 69.94 71.77 72.98 Employment and Social Policy 46.30 49.90 52.00 64.20

Agriculture (2) 185000000 not provided NA

Territorial cooperation (2) not provided not provided NA $: baseline values have been recalculated based on updated figures *: This designation is without predjudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence **: only Judicial independence available NA not apllicable na: not available % change 2010-17 % change 2010-20

IPA II indicators: baseline values and targets for Indicative Strategy Papers Comparison with EU 2012 baseline (EU level = 100)

Turkey

2010 2017 2020 Composite indicator 67.05 Governance and PAR 80.10 Statistics (2) Judicial Reform 82.30 86.03 94.71 Fight against corruption (2) 71.52 Press Freedom (inverted value) 60.21 Transport 101.45 106.94 110.40 Energy 93.31 99.39 101.42 Competitiveness and Innovation 86.50 95.83 98.34 Employment and Social Policy 72.12 77.73 81.00 Agriculture (2) Territorial cooperation (2) *: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence (1) Taking midpoint of ranges (2) EU level not available for comparison

5. Continuation of the EU financial assistance to Turkey despite the Turkish Government's strong reaction post-coup

The 15 July attempted coup has been a deep psychological shock for the Turkish society as a whole and for its political elite. Some of the post-coup measures are of serious concern in terms of respect for the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. We certainly do not turn a blind eye on the arrests of a large number of journalists, the dismissals of tens of thousands of people and the closing down of dozens of media outlets. We will share this very clear assessment in our upcoming country report on Turkey, to be published on 9 November.

In spite of its very serious internal challenges, Turkey pursues in the implementation of the 18 March EU-Turkey statement.

It is important in this respect that we stick to its commitment in particular to provide support to the refugees in Turkey in all envisaged areas - humanitarian aid, education and health, socio-economic support - as the huge needs which have been assessed this spring will continue to require a determined response. The implementation of our assistance will follow the requirements of the EU financial regulation and the Commission will remain in control of its implementation and make sure funds have an impact on the situation on the ground. The same goes for EU funding in general and under the Instrument for pre-Accession (IPA) in particular.

This being said, there are clear conditions attached to the IPA instrument and the Commission will permanently reassess the situation in Turkey and take any necessary remedial measure. Financing Agreements include provisions which would allow suspension of funding if the situation so requires.

As regards the Turkish post-coup measures, however legitimate they may be, they raise nevertheless due concerns in terms of respect for the rule of law and human rights. The large dismissals in the administration are also a source of concern as regards sustainability of the administrative performance in certain sectors, which may also impact implementation of our financial assistance. We have an open dialogue with the Turkish authorities in this respect, and have addressed them at the relevant Ministries (MoEUA, MoFI). The Commission will ensure close monitoring of the whole range of such issues in the coming period: as dismissals or suspensions of scientists and academics, closing of universities and higher education institutions or restrictions to travel, will have some impact on the implementation of EU programmes such as Erasmus+, H2020, among others. DG NEAR has already issued guidance in this sense to the DGs managing EU programmes in which Turkey participates. Relevant notes have been shared with EP.

3 annexes on EU programmes: 2 letters from Commissioner Hahn and one guidance note

Acrobat Document Acrobat Document Acrobat Document

6. Irregularities

Irregularities are duly followed up by the Commission and Turkish authorities. IPA and pre-IPA recoveries were summarised in the table shared with CONT already – here for ease of reference. For the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRIT) there are not yet recoveries as the implementation has recently started.

Based on the available data for disbursement provided by Central Finance and Contract Unit (CFCU) since 2002 (2002-2006 pre-IPA programmes and 2007-2013 IPA I Component I and II programmes managed by DG ELARG) the total recovered amount by CFCU after completion of contradictory procedure is 6,805,803.58€ out of the total 1,439,148,255.79€ paid toward beneficiaries, which represent 0.47% ineligible amount. Table provided to CON earlier an attached here for ease of reference includes detailed amounts per year.

For the same pre-IPA programmes since 2002 the EU Delegation realised payments to the National fund amounting to 865,724,466.07€. Based on the data for Pre-IPA programmes in the process of closure so far the EC recovered 72,848,094.07€ representing 8.41% of the total disbursement. The 0.47% represents what the CFCU considered ineligible, entirely in terms of legality and regularity, therefore it reported to the Commission and recovered, accordingly, whereas 8.41% represents what the Commission considered irregularity not only in terms of legality and regularity but also accomplishment of objectives (i.e. The Courts of Appeal Project where € 21.8 million was recovered (details below), as simply constructed courts were not used in line with project purpose, which was not considered and recovered by the CFCU because the expenditure incurred for them legal and regular. Another project the "Kayseri Metropolitan Drinking Water" project where over 5 Meuro was recovered due to misleading info about eligibility of three municipal beneficiaries even though the CFCU disagreed about their eligibility based on 'pacta sunt servanda' principle.

This only covers recovery under pre-IPA programmes for 2002-2006 since IPA I component I and II programmes are still ongoing and final declarations for the latter have not been submitted by the National Fund. The recovered amount represents ineligible expenditure detected as a result of external audits, irregularity, desk reviews and on-the spot controls performed by EU Delegation staff and external auditors. Subject to completion of contradictory procedures and the pipeline for recovery remains 46,158,404.53€ representing 5.33% of the total disbursed. It has to be noted that the contradictory procedures to determine the ineligible amounts are lengthy and require exchange of letters until a final ineligible amount is agreed with the National Fund. Table attached includes details per year.

In the attached table there is an overview of the IPA projects which have been qualified at risk including information on the volume of direct risk as well as an estimation of the financial risk involved. At this stage it is very early to determine the possible amount to be recovered due to suspension or cancelation of projects. It will take some time to perform financial verifications of eligible amounts under these projects. Furthermore contradictory procedures

14 should be carried out to determine the final amount to be recovered and agreed with beneficiaries, and in the case of IPA I contradictory procedures have not taken place yet.

An example of a less successful project where EC recovery procedures were implemented in full.

EU support for the establishment of the Courts of Appeal in Turkey - 2005

Financial Contribution of the EC: € 21.8 million.

In 2005 the European Commission agreed to support the ongoing judicial reform by co-financing a project for the construction of three model courthouses meant to serve as future Regional Courts of Appeal. Project started but the system did not start working on time despite new legislation foreseeing that the new Courts of Appeal start by 1 June 2007. One year later the Ministry of Justice proposed temporary use of these EU funded court houses by other courts and by the Ministry of Justice departments in Ankara until the new court of appeal system will have been set up. The Commission agreed but the start of the courts of appeal system was again postponed until September 2010 due to legislative changes (composition of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, the decisive body for the assignment of judges/prosecutors for the new Courts of Appeal).

At that moment the European Commission informed the Turkish authorities of launching a recovery procedure for € 22.8 million unless a number of benchmarks and deadlines were met by 3 February 2011. The set benchmarks which depended only on the Ministry of Justice and other preconditions agreed with the High Council for the start of the system were never met.

After 5 years of the Commission showing its understanding to the various difficulties faced by the national authorities in the judiciary reform process, on 27 February 2012 the official recovery procedure was initiated by the EC for a total amount of € 21.767.205,29.

Annex 8: Table on recoveries-Turkey Central Finance and Contract Unit of Turkish administration

Annex 9: Letter sent to NAO on recoveries of funds for the establishment of Courts of Appeal in Turkey

Acrobat Document

Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRIT)

7. Overview and breakdown of EU spending for refugees in Turkey and selection of priorities/projects

The establishment of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey at the end of 2015 aimed to provide the European Union with a coordination mechanism that should allow for the swift, effective and efficient mobilisation of EU assistance to refugees in Turkey. It was the answer to the EU Member States’ call for additional funding to support refugees in the country. The Facility became fully operational early in 2016. The Facility ensures that all relevant EU instruments are mobilised in a coherent and coordinated manner, either as EU humanitarian assistance or as non-humanitarian assistance. The major part of non-humanitarian funding under the Facility is implemented via the framework of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (though for actions where other instruments are used the rules and regulations of these are applied).

A Steering Committee provides the Facility with strategic guidance on the type of actions to be financed, and on the selection of the best financing instruments to reach the objectives. It is chaired by the European Commission and composed of EU Member State representatives, with Turkey sitting in an advisory capacity. The Committee endorsed the Facility's six priority areas – humanitarian assistance, migration management, education, health, municipal infrastructure & socio-economic support – in May. The last meeting of the Steering Committee took place on 4 October 2016.

Facility's projects are selected according to a needs assessment, and following the procedure of the financing instruments mobilised. Comprehensive and up-to-date information on commitments, contracts, disbursements, beneficiaries and the nature of the intervention in the context of the facility can be found on the Commission's DG NEAR website: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/about/directorate-general/index_en.htm.

Annex 10: Table on of projects funded under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey

Acrobat Document

Legal basis governing the financial support for refugees and host communities

The Facility for Refugees in Turkey is not a financing instrument. It provides for a joint coordination mechanism for actions financed by the EU budget (EUR 1 billion) and national contributions made by the Member States as externally assigned revenues (EUR 2 billion). The resources of the Facility come from the EU budget and from EU Member States over 2016 and 2017, making a total so far of EUR 3 billion over two years. Facility funds are managed in accordance with the rules for external action contained in Title IV of part two of the Financial

Regulation and its rules of Application. For IPA funds, detailed rules to be followed by DG NEAR are set out in the Procurement and Grants for European Union external actions – A Practical Guide (PRAG). Given that the Facility acts as a coordination mechanism, implementation of the Facility funding takes place through several established financing instruments – in majority ECHO humanitarian assistance, the EU Trust Fund in response to the Syria crisis, and the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA), with limited actions under EIDHR, IcSP, DCI. Depending on the instrument used to finance a specific action, its specific rules and regulations apply.

The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of the Facility (art 8 of the Decision establishing the facility).

As regards parliamentary scrutiny, the annual report and the special reports of the Court of Auditors serve as the basis for Parliament’s yearly discharge exercise, in the course of which it politically assesses the Court’s reports. The Court’s Members are invited to present their reports in committee meetings and to reply to questions raised by MEPs, as well as the members of the Commission in charge of each area of EU expenditure. The Court provides then the Parliament and the Council with a yearly Statement of Assurance , known as ‘DAS’, as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

8. Education and psychosocial support: linguistic issue and coverage

As concerns funding for Turkish language training for adults under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, under humanitarian assistance ECHO has been providing funding for Turkish language classes addressed to adults mainly through projects implemented by the United Nations Population Fund with an overall budget of EUR 9 million, of which language classes are a small component. Emphasis has been placed on educating women and the provision of language classes as a means of promoting their empowerment. These language classes are provided in women and girls safe spaces that also provide reproductive health services and gender-based violence actions. They are often accompanied by computer literacy, life-skills and vocational trainings to facilitate the women's integration into the host communities.

Under non-humanitarian assistance, the EUR 300 million direct grant on education signed on 27th of September 2016 with the Turkish authorities provides access to formal education for some 500.000 students. It does not foresee Turkish language trainings for adults. However, it does provide for Turkish language training for Syrian students, both in and out of school. The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) is planning to recruit or assign about 4200 teachers to teach the Turkish language. Teachers will receive training on teaching the Turkish language to foreign children. 300,000 Syrian students should be trained in the Turkish language so as to allow them to follow the Turkish curricula in formal schools. MoNE teachers can be included in these trainings for an additional fee. In addition, the development of an examination system to determine students' and Syrian teachers’ proficiency, including in Turkish, is foreseen under the contract. The contract covers the following operational costs and outputs:

Number Beneficiaries Action

40,000 Syrian students Arabic training to comprehend and speak basic Arabic

10,000 Syrian students catch-up training to follow the curricula of their educational level

20,000 Syrian students backup training for each calendar year and are able to follow the curricula at the educational level corresponding to their age

50,000 Syrian students school transportation every scholastic year

60,000 Syrian students scholarships to support the economic needs of families as an incentive for the children to attend regularly schools

500,000 Syrian students complementary supplies for schooling

300,000 Syrian students & Turkish language training materials will be revised or teachers developed and distributed

40,000 Syrian students & Arabic language training materials will be revised or teachers developed and distributed

400,000 Syrian students & sets of examination kits will be produced to determine the teachers students' and Syrian teachers’ academic level and Turkish language skill will be developed and implemented

n/a Schools and other psychological guidance and counselling assistance relevant institutions

500 Students & Staff daily cleaning of Public schools and Temporary Education Centres (TECs)

500 Students & Staff schools and TECs will be adequately equipped to face the challenge of education

15,000 Teachers training to adequately educate Syrian students in Turkey

2,000 MoNE mobilized to increase their capacity to handle Syrian student administration issues staff

In addition, under Action 3 'Socio-economic support' of the Special Measure adopted end-July, a EUR 50 million project is included with the World Bank that envisages an 'access to short and long term employment' component, which aims to increase income opportunities for refugees by financing, among other things, cash for work programmes that include vocational and language training. Also, a EUR 20 million project with KfW under the same Action will aim to increase the capacity of the Turkish employment agency Iskur to provide active labour market measures and job opportunities for Syrian men and women, including vocational training capacities. Language training will be included in this project.

As regards interventions under the EU Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis (EUTF), several projects supporting access for young adult Syrians to universities and vocational training include Turkish language training. Under a EUR 12 million project with UNHCR, the agency with its partner Presidency for Turks Abroad (YTB) will provide 1,600 Syrian high school graduates aged 17-24 with a one-year university preparation programme that offers an intensive one-year language tuition programme that leads to the award of a C1 level proficiency certificate. UNHCR also works with MoNE to train 1,200 teachers and master trainers in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. This training will be based on an age-differentiated curriculum framework for teaching Turkish as a foreign language as well as on teaching and learning support materials for teaching Turkish as a foreign language that will both be developed by UNHCR and the Ministry of National Education. Also, the Dutch NGO Spark working with several Turkish universities to place Syrian students, is offering preparatory language training.

Support to Syrian refugees through Turkish language trainings is so far mainly aimed at Syrian students, both in and out of school, but it also targets young adults in preparation of academic studies or training measures. The Facility also provides language training to Syrian refugee women.

Since September 2015, EU funding ensured access to schools for more than 310,000 Syrian children. Syrian children are provided with second-shift Arabic teaching, life skills education, educational materials & school supplies and psychosocial support. This funding also provided more than 5,000 Syrian volunteer teachers monthly remuneration, delivered more than 40,000 stationery kits to children in school.

Ongoing EUTF Actions on Education

EU Budget Implementing Title of the action under the Location Partner Facility (EUR)

Generation Found: EU Syria Trust Fund - 36 950 286 United Nations Nationwide UNICEF Partnership Children's Fund (UNICEF)

Strengthening Resilience of Refugee Hosting 17 335 920 Gesellschaft fur Ankara; Countries in Response to the Syrian and Iraqi Internationale Gaziantep; Crisis Zusammenarbeit İstanbul; (GiZ) Şanlıurfa

HOPES - Higher and Further Education 2 700 000 Deutscher Nationwide Opportunities and Perspectives for Syrians Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD)

In addition, the Turkish government decided to fully integrate Syrian Refugee children into the Turkish school system. This means a gradual transition from TECs (Temporary Education Centres) to "normal" Turkish schools.

Language continues to be a barrier to entry to the Turkish labour market. Additional language training could be funded under the EUTF with the EUR 250 million top-up envisaged under the Special Measure adopted end-July. Such activities could also be included into the socio economic measures to be financed via International Financial Institutions. This will require strong commitment from the Turkish authorities as well as their support to provide language teachers and facilities.

9. Cost per refugee in education and health sector

It is not possible for the European Commission to scientifically assess a standard cost per refugee per capita in Turkey. It is to be noted that conditions and costs vary widely within the refugee population in Turkey (registered vs unregistered; camps vs urban settings, access to legal employment vs illegal work, etc…).

Concerning the education sector, DG NEAR assessment suggests an estimate based on Eurostat data yielded an average cost per pupil of EUR 950/1000 for expenditure covering exclusively the costs related to education services (i.e. no infrastructure, food, transport or scholarships). This is comparable with levels in Member States where eg. Romania, with a lower GDP than Turkey, estimates the average education cost per pupil at EUR 750 per year.

Estimating a cost per head is even more difficult in the area of health as it is impossible to predict who will be suffering from which disease and for how long. However, a Turkish needs assessment suggests EUR 100 million would cover the cost of healthcare provision and pharmaceuticals for 15% of the Syrian population for the period 2016-2017, meaning that some EUR 666 million would be required to cover the whole of the Syrian population. With a EUR 300 million contract the Facility aims at covering 50% of these costs. This excludes the provision of infrastructure (eg. hospitals, medical equipment), which will be covered with the help of IFIs in an additional measure.

10. European Commission's controls applicable to the Facility for Refugees in Turkey

Please refer to the two information documents already shared with CONT – here for ease of reference.

Annex 11: Note on Controls on Humanitarian Actions

160616 Note on Controls Humanitarian

Annex 12: Note on Controls on Non-Humanitarian Actions

160616 Note on Controls Non-Humanit

11. Examples of positive and challenging projects under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey financing

The implementation of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey has just started. Therefore it is too early to assess it.

Positive examples of what has been recently launched are below.

The European Commission has launched the Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN) in September. Monthly cash-transfers will be made onto a debit card, covering the everyday needs of the most vulnerable refugees in a dignified, cost-effective and efficient manner. The ESSN is ground-breaking. By its size – one million refugees will be helped by the first quarter of 2017, starting in October. By its innovative nature: it combines humanitarian principles and the Turkish social protection system. But also by its financial envelope – it is the biggest ever humanitarian programme funded by the EU (EUR 348 million). Finally by how efficient it is as the ESSN uses economies of scale getting cheaper overtime. The ESSN is a game changer: It has been designed in partnership with Turkey and is implemented by the World Food Programme and the Turkish Red Crescent, using contributions from the EU Member States. The ESSN is a joint endeavour between Turkey, the EU – the Member States and the European Commission- and the UN.

Another EUR 74 million was contracted for humanitarian assistance this summer for projects focusing on child protection and gender-based violence, specialised health (including reproductive health and assistance to persons with disabilities), non-formal education and school transportation, and special assistance for the cold winter months.

The key challenge is to ensure the speedy processing of all the programmes targeted, and in particular to ensure their effective and financially sound delivery in full cooperation with the Turkish authorities.

12. Methodology applied in Progress Report and Turkey Progress Report 2015

Annex 13: Methodology for assessment of progress in the Commission reports (see annex 2 in the strategy doc)

Annex 14: Turkey Progress Report 2015

13. Methodological point to EP CONT

For such studies there should be a way to build in for comments of the Commission on a draft or a method resembling the contradictory procedure with the Court. It would be useful to introduce a phase in which the contractor gives the Commission the opportunity to provide comments on the draft study within reasonable deadlines. This prevents any misunderstandings and allows the Commission to provide the data that the contractor may not have discovered. This could be reflected in the Terms of Reference.

Background Briefing prepared by the Policy Department

Fact-finding mission of the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) to Turkey 01 to 04 November 2016 Background Briefing

FOR EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT INTERNAL USE ONLY

Committee on Budgetary Control Mission to Turkey 1-4 November 2016

Authors: Policy Department for Budgetary Affairs: Jean-Jacques Gay; CONT Secretariat: Michal Czaplicki; Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs: Sarah Sy; Policy Department for External Policies: Andre De Munter, Marika Lerch, Valérie Ramet and Susana Mendonca.

European Parliament

PE 572.701 EN CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Page 2 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 1. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN TURKEY AND TURKEY’S EU INTEGRATION 5 Latest developments in Turkey 5 Turkey’s EU Integration Path 9 2. THE GLOBAL ANSWER OF THE EU AND STATUS OF REFUGEES 12 2.1 The Status of Refugees in Turkey 12 2.2 International Response 16 2.3 The EU Response to the Refugee Crisis, Notably in Turkey 18 3. THE EU FINANCIAL INTERVENTIONS IN TURKEY 25 3.1 Overview of the EU Financing Instruments in Turkey 25 Management and Implementation of Pre-accession Assistance 28 The EU’s Budgetary Response to the Refugee Crisis 30 Control of EU Funds in Turkey 33 4. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S POSITIONS AND ACTIVITIES 36 5. POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE PARLIAMENT 39 ANNEXES 42 Annex 1: Has the Commission changed its approach after the Coup attempt? 42 Annex 2: Guidance Note on Potential Impact on EU Assistance Following the attempted coup 43 Annex 3: Letter sent to Turkish authorities on potential impact on EU assistance following the attempted coup 51 Annex 4: Syrians in Turkey and current ECHO ProgrammeS in Response to the Refugee Crisis 55 Annex 5: EU Assistance to Turkey in 2014-2019 Programming Period 58 Annex 6: Overview sheet of commitments and disbursements of ECHO funding 59 Annex 7: EU Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis List of Turkey projects signed and under negotiation September 2016 63 Annex 8: Draft Results Framework 2015-2017 - European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis, "the Madad Fund" 66 Annex 9: File Note on ECA 2009 Audit findings (Special Report 16/2009) related to EUD monitoring System 68 Annex 10: File Note for EP BUdgetary Control Committee on Monitoring Processes of IPA, EIDHR and Icsp 71 Annex 11: Concept Note: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the ‘Madad’ Trust Fund 76 Annex 12: Total paid and recovered by the CFCU and part of the closure reports following external Audit/irregularities detected, ineligible amounts and desk reviews by EUD staff. 80 Annex 13: Recommendations and conclusions of the study: ”Turkey: How the pre-accession funds have been spent, managed, controlled and the monitoring system?” 82 Annex 14.1: Extracts of AAR 2013 and 2014 (DG ENLARG) 91 Annex 14.2: Questions to Commissioner Mimica 97 Annex 14.3: Paragraphs from the 2015 and 2016 discharge resolutions. 103

Page 3 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Impact of EU- Turkey Statement on arrivals of migrants in Greece ...... 12

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Budget allocations per sector in Turkey based on the effective IPA II programming activities (in million EUR) 26 Table 2: IPA: Refugee- and migrant-related actions in Turkey (commitment appropriations in EUR million) 30 Table 3: Refugee Facility for Turkey - planned breakdown of contributions, (commitment appropriations in EUR million) 33

Page 4 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

1. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN TURKEY AND TURKEY’S EU INTEGRATION

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN TURKEY

Four elections in seventeen months

Between March 2014 and November 2015 no fewer than four elections have dominated the Turkish political scene. Municipal elections were held in March 2014, followed by presidential elections in August 2014, when Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became Turkey's first directly elected president. Regular parliamentary elections took place on 7 June. The ruling AKP, which had won all elections for more than a decade, lost its absolute majority in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT). This was largely the result of the unexpected entry into parliament of the predominantly pro-Kurdish party HDP, which comfortably passed the 10 % threshold, the highest among the countries of the Council of Europe. Following this outcome genuine political will to try and build a coalition between the AKP (still by far the largest party) and the three other parties represented in the GNAT (CHP, MHP and HDP) was lacking. As a result attempts to form a coalition failed and the President called early elections for 1 November, obviously hoping to secure a sufficiently large majority for the AKP to carry his dream of a 'presidential system' with sweeping powers for the President forward. He partly succeeded, as the AKP again secured an absolute majority, largely thanks to significant electoral losses for MHP and HDP, but fell short of obtaining enough seats to single- handedly change the Constitution to pave the way for the presidential system. The election campaign for the 1 November 2015 elections was conducted in a dramatically changed environment, in particular as a consequence of the de facto collapse of the peace process following the resumption of clashes between Turkish military and security personnel on the one hand and the PKK and closely affiliated groups on the other. In its 2 November statement of preliminary findings and conclusions the International Election Observation Mission found inter alia that (a) 'certain fundamental freedoms, including the right to vote and be elected, are unduly restricted by the Constitution and legislation', (b) 'Previous OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations for legal reforms dating back to 2011 that would address gaps and ambiguities have generally not been addressed' and (c) 'three out of the five monitored television stations, including the public broadcaster, favored the governing party in their programs, with the remaining two offering negative coverage.' Its final report will be published very soon.

(Lack of) media freedom

It is fair to say that the state of democracy in Turkey is on red alert, with many fearing a return to the dark 1990s, or worse. Regarding media freedom Turkey ranks 149/180 in the World Press Freedom Index 2015, between Mexico and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In light of the unprecedented deterioration of media freedom, in particular during the second half of 2015 (including multiple instances of blocking of Internet content without a court order, intimidation of and physical attacks on critical journalists and - in the run-up to the 1 November elections - the closing down of TV stations, two attacks on the premises of Hürriyet, the seizure of 'too critical' media by the state and the 'live' firing of journalists by government- appointed trustees), Turkey's ranking in the Index 2016 (which is due in mid-February) will most probably plunge further. Two days before the 29 November 2015 meeting between EU leaders and Turkey two prominent Turkish journalists, Can Dündar and Erdem Gül, were

Page 5 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

imprisoned (they spent 40 of their first 50 days in prison in isolation) for having published reports claiming that Turkey's Intelligence Agency secretly armed Islamist rebel groups in Syria. Their incarceration made the number of imprisoned journalists in Turkey at the time soar to 32, an increase of 50 % as compared to the figure of 21 mentioned in the July 2015 updated table of the OSCE representative on freedom of the media. On 27 January the indictment in the case brought against them by President Erdoğan himself and the National Intelligence Organisation MİT was published. The prosecution has recommended two life sentences plus 30 years for each of the defendants. A coalition of 11 renowned international free expression and press freedom defenders, whose request (on 8 January) to visit both journalists in prison was rejected, held a 'vigil of hope' outside Silivri prison on 27 January. On the same day Freedom House published its 'Freedom in the World 2016' report, which categorises Turkey's freedom status as 'partly free' and its freedom of the press 2015 status as 'not free'. The country also received a downward trend arrow due to renewed violence between the government and Kurdish militants, terrorist attacks by the Islamic State group, and intense harassment of opposition members and media outlets by the government and its supporters ahead of the November parliamentary elections.

Academic freedom - the hunt is on!

A telling example of the increasingly vindictive majoritarian rule in Turkey is the 11 January statement / call for peace 'We will not be partner to this crime' issued by over 1000 academics ('academics for peace' - 'barış için akademisyenler'). An infuriated President Erdoğan immediately reacted by calling the signatories traitors and so-called intellectuals and urged the state's institutions to act and do 'whatever is necessary', thus setting in motion familiar mechanisms in the media and the judiciary. An investigation was launched against all signatories of the statement on the basis of - inter alia - the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish penal code (which covers, among other things, 'insulting Turkishness'), and several academics were either fired by their universities (by 23 January the number of fired academics was 29) or explicitly intimidated / threatened, including by marking the doors of their offices with crosses in red paint and by posting unambiguous messages on them. In an unexpected and unprecedented show of solidarity many other academics, writers (including Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk), artists and other personalities issued supportive statements. Over 600 journalists have lended their support to the academics in a separate statement and through the launch of a petition. On 24 January the 'academics for peace' announced the end of their initiative and informed that by that date the petition had been signed by 2212 academics from within Turkey and supported by 2279 academics and researchers from abroad. Fresh initiatives in support of academic freedom in Turkey, including from abroad, are being taken on an almost daily basis. During the plenary debate on 20 January several MEPs also addressed the issue. So did US Vice-President Joe Biden during his recent visit to Turkey, much to the dismay of Ankara.

The EU - a silent witness?

In light of the refugee crisis and the absolute need to keep Turkey on board in order to stem the influx of migrants / refugees into the EU, there has been no or limited reference to rule of law issues / EU values in recent official EU documents.

Page 6 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

The 29 November 2015 statement following the meeting between EU leaders and Turkey does not contain a single reference to rule of law issues and the persisting deterioration of media freedom and freedom of expression in Turkey. This is all the more striking in light of the arrest and imprisonment of leading journalists Can Dündar and Erdem Gül just two days before the 29 November meeting (see also above), their appeal to EU leaders from Silivri prison the day before the meeting not to forget about values and fundamental rights when discussing the refugee crisis with Turkey and the brutal assassination of the President of the Diyarbakır Bar Association Tahir Elçi, also on 28 November. This omission was and is a completely wrong signal to the Turkish leadership and has dealt another blow to the EU's credibility when it comes to defending core EU values. The joint statement by High Representative Mogherini, commissioner Hahn, Turkish MFA Çavuşoğlu and Turkish EU Affairs Minister Bozkır following the 25 January High- Level Political Dialogue between the EU and Turkey in Ankara is hardly a step forward, with a 'minimum minimorum' mention on the rule of law in paragraph 4 (the whole document has 15 paragraphs): '(...) reiterated its determination to continue with the political reform process, including the reforms in the area of the rule of law and fundamental rights.' In their personal remarks following the Dialogue Meeting both Ms Mogherini and Mr Hahn were - at long last - more explicit on rule of law / freedom of expression issues. The 15 December 2015 Council conclusions on enlargement and the Stabilisation and Association Process had also focused on these issues in some detail, notably in paragraph 16. German Chancellor Merkel and Turkish PM Davutoğlu held talks in Berlin on 22 January, after which they issued a joint statement in which no reference is made to rule of law / freedom of expression issues either.

Erdoğan as Turkey's center of gravity

President Erdoğan, obsessed with the introduction of a presidential system, is acting in constant violation of the Constitution (notably its Article 101 on neutrality), and the number of investigations into alleged cases of 'insulting the President' defies one's imagination (900 in the 16 months following his inauguration, with 400 more in the pipeline - situation in early December). The 64th government which was formed after the 1 November elections and again shows a huge gender equality deficit (2/26 women) is very much a government of close Erdoğan allies. No wonder that the President has repeatedly claimed that the coveted presidential system is already de facto in place and just needs to be 'constitutionally formalised'. The GNAT has since long become a rubber stamp parliament, and important, often anti-democratic pieces of legislation are regularly passed 'in disguise' as part of so-called omnibus laws that go straight to the plenary, where they are predictably adopted by the AKP majority.

The opposition - divided we stand

In the face of growing authoritarianism in Turkey the opposition remains weak, inefficient and hopelessly divided. Both the social-democratic main opposition party CHP and the ultranationalist MHP have been unable to progress in any relevant way during the many years of AKP rule. Their leaders, both in their late sixties, lack charisma and forward-looking policy ideas to offer Turkey a new, realistic perspective. Despite that, but also because of the very hierarchical and rigid structure of the parties, both Devlet Bahçeli (MHP leader) and Kemal

Page 7 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Kılıçdaroğlu (CHP leader) have recently been re-elected party leaders. The only 'success story' on the opposition side is the rise of the predominantly pro-Kurdish HDP, which managed to secure votes all over Turkey in the June 2015 elections, thus comfortably passing the 10 % threshold and entering the GNAT for the very first time. However, its apparent inability to consistently and explicitly distance itself from the PKK following the resumption of hostilities some months ago at least partially explains its considerable losses in the November 2015 repeat elections. Unless the HDP is able to take a stance against the PKK's acts of violence that is as unambiguous and convincing as its condemnation of state violence, it may see its support dwindle further in the foreseeable future.

The situation in the south east - back to the dark 1990s?

The security situation in Turkey and in particular in the south east is highly problematic. Nothing is left of the once hailed and until fairly recently genuinely promising Kurdish peace process. According to data of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TİHV) between 11 December 2015 and 21 January 2016 at least 198 civilians (amongst them 39 children, 29 women and 27 people older than 60) were killed as a result of clashes opposing Turkish security forces and (mainly) the Revolutionary Patriotic Youth Movement (YDG-H, very closely affiliated to the PKK) in areas which were under (often prolonged for more than a month) curfew, especially in Sur (Diyarbakır) and Cizre and Silopi (Şırnak). (Note: During an AKP retreat on 8-10 January the Minister of the Interior put the figure of civilian casualties at 18). According to TİHV at least 40 civilians were killed within the boundaries of their homes, while at least 21 people died because they were denied access to medical care (the latter figure applies to the period 11 December 2015 - 21 January 2016). Strict enforcement of curfews has indeed resulted in numerous heart-rending situations, with relatives being denied the right to bury their beloved ones, whose corpses remain abandoned in the streets for days. Some wounded civilians have been left to die where they were shot. Recent days have seen multiple reports about some thirty wounded people hiding in a cellar in Cizre and waiting in vain for an ambulance. Several of them have reportedly succumbed to their wounds. In a briefing published on 21 January 2016 Amnesty International - which also refers to the TİHV figures - states inter alia that 'The quasi-military operations currently being conducted under round- the-clock curfews (...) are putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people at risk and are beginning to resemble collective punishment'. The briefing concludes that 'there is little doubt that the Turkish authorities are putting lives at risk by using lethal force excessively and recklessly'. Attacks by the PKK, of course, also claim lives of civilians. A recent example is the attack on the Çınar police headquarters (Diyarbakır) on 13 January, to which Mr Demirtaş reacted by saying that the perpetrators should apologise to the people for the women, babies and civilians (who were killed)'. President Erdoğan's recent statements, like the one during a speech to muhtars (village leaders), when he announced that 'In the forthcoming process, nor the separatist terrorist organisation (PKK) nor the party/parties and other structures that it manipulates will ever again be our interlocutors. That is a thing of the past', do not augur well for a shift of policy and the resumption of a dialogue aiming at a political solution any time soon. On 25 January the government's spokesman Numan Kurtulmuş announced that the government would soon share its 'action plan to combat terrorism' and that the aim was 'to end the fight against

Page 8 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

terror as soon as possible by obtaining an effective result'. It remains to be seen what such an action plan could bring at this very late stage. The EP held a plenary debate on the situation in the south east on 20 January.

The fight against ISIL - too little too late

On top of Turkey's war against the PKK - and all its complex ramifications beyond Turkey's borders - the country is increasingly being plagued by terrorist attacks which the Turkish authorities have blamed either on ISIL (even when ISIL has not officially claimed responsibility) or the PKK. Numerous dormant cells of ISIL fighters, which have been present in Turkey for at least two years, mainly as a perverse consequence of Turkey's long-standing 'open border policy' for Syrian refugees, do not augur well for the near future. Many blame Turkey for prioritising its policy of trying to contain the capabilities and strength of Kurdish forces alongside its borders with Syria and Iraq over the fight against ISIL.

Turkey and the wider region

As Turkey has virtually no friends left both among its neighbours and in the wider region, its recent rapprochement with Israel does hardly come as a surprise. Last but not least, the unfortunate downing of a Russian jet fighter by Turkey on 24 November 2015 has dealt a serious blow to traditionally friendly Turkish-Russian relations. The two countries' 'strong leaders' have since found themselves trapped in some kind of stubbornness competition that is set to last for some time to come, despite first prudent behind-the-scenes moves by Turkey to mend fences. The most recent stand-off was triggered by fundamental disagreement on whether or not Kurds, in particular the PYD (Democratic Union Party, a Kurdish party in northern Syria), which Turkey has branded a terrorist organisation akin to the PKK, should be invited to the next round of Geneva talks on Syria. To the question put to the Commission whether its approach had changed after the Coup, Members find the answer given by DG NEAR (IPA coordination- Country Team) in annex 1, a note on the “Guidance on action in regards to EU cooperation and financial assistance to Turkey following the attempted Coup on 15 July” in annex 2 and a letter sent to Turkish authorities on potential impact on EU assistance following the attempted coup in annex 3.

TURKEY’S EU INTEGRATION PATH

Ten years of negotiations

Accession negotiations with Turkey were officially opened in October 2005. Since then 15 chapters have been opened, only one of which (science and research) was provisionally closed. In December 2006 the European Council blocked negotiations on eight chapters (free movement of goods, right of establishment and freedom to provide services, financial services, agriculture and rural development, fisheries, transport policy, customs union and external relations). Moreover, it was decided that no chapter will be provisionally closed as long as Turkey does not fully implement the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement. In November 2013, after a stalemate of almost three and a half years, Chapter 22 (regional policy and coordination of structural instruments) was opened. It took another two years (and

Page 9 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

a major refugee crisis) for another chapter, Chapter 17 (economic and monetary policy) to be opened on 14 December 2015 (see also below).

The 're-energising' 29 November statement and Juncker's 'secret' letter to Davutoğlu

In its paragraph 4 the 29 November 2015 EU-Turkey statement following the meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey refers to the opening of Chapter 17 on 14 December 2015 and more vaguely to the Commission's 'commitment to complete, in the first quarter of 2016, the preparatory work for the opening of a number of chapters without prejudice to the position of Member States'. More detail on this was provided by Vice-President Frans Timmermans during the 2 December 2015 plenary debate on the EU-Turkey meeting. In his speech he referred to 'a letter sent by President Juncker to Prime Minister Davutoğlu' in which specific chapters are mentioned. Interestingly, this letter had not been made public. On 10 December Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake (ALDE) together with 33 more MEPs sent an open letter to Juncker and Timmermans requesting the publication of the letter. It took a reminder and a written question for the Commission to move. Juncker forwarded the letter to the MEPs as late as on 15 January. It mentions, inter alia, the 'commitment for the European Commission to complete, together with Turkey, in the first quarter of 2016, the preparatory work for the opening of chapter 15 'Energy', chapter 23 'Judiciary and fundamental rights', chapter 24 'Justice, freedom and security', chapter 26 'Education and culture' and chapter 31 'Foreign, security and defence policy' without prejudice to the position of Member States.' This is a very ambitious goal and an excruciating task. Moreover, regardless of the successful preparation a lot will depend on the Member States and notably on significant progress on the Cyprus issue. The Commission is advancing well in good cooperation with Turkey. Updated screening reports for chapters 23, 24, 15 and 31 as well as an updated draft common position for opening Chapter 26 are being prepared at the time of writing. These documents should be finalised by the end of March 2016 and then be submitted to the Council. Parliament has been supportive of the opening of key Chapters 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) and 24 (justice, freedom and security). Indeed, it would be in the interest of both Turkey and the EU - including the most reluctant Member States - to do this: Turkey would have to scrupulously meet a series of benchmarks and progress could be measured very accurately. Moreover, the early opening of these chapters would be in line with the 'new approach' already adopted vis-à-vis Montenegro and Serbia. It would also be a logical move against the background of an overall increased focus on rule of law issues under the new Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 2014-2020 (IPA II). The 29 November statement also paves the way for progress on other vital elements of EU- Turkey relations. These include visa liberalisation (paragraph 5), which is of overriding importance to Turkey. Issues related to visa liberalisation are addressed in detail in the relevant part of this briefing. Another key dossier is the upgrading of the Customs Union (paragraph 10). After more than twenty years the EU-Turkey Customs Union appears to be completely outdated. It covers only industrial goods and is complemented by special trade arrangements on agricultural products. It does not cover public procurement and services. Numerous recent free trade agreements between the EU and important partners, which are wider in scope, have been a game-changer. It is therefore in the interest of both Turkey and the EU to expand the

Page 10 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

scope of the Customs Union and make it more functional (e.g. by introducing a dispute settlement mechanism which is currently lacking). The ball is currently in the EU camp. An impact study is being made and should be finalised by the spring, after which a public consultation would be launched. The aim would be to propose a negotiating mandate to the Council by the autumn of this year.

The Commission's 2015 report on Turkey and follow-up by the EP

The Commission's 2015 reports on enlargement countries - which are conveniently no longer called 'progress reports' - were published on 10 November instead of 14 October. Many, including a number of MEPs who also vented their frustration in a letter to the Commission prior to the elections in Turkey, suspected that this was a 'strategic move' of the Commission in order not to disturb the Turkish authorities too much days before the parliamentary elections. Anyway, the 'arguments' put forward by the Commission to justify the delay were not convincing. The 'new generation' of reports follows an innovative methodology which, among other things, should make comparison between enlargement countries easier. Five terms are used to describe the state of play in different areas while another five assess the progress (or lack thereof). The overall assessment of key Chapter 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) is 'some level of preparation and no progress'. The assessment of Chapter 24 (justice, freedom and security) is somewhat better: 'moderately prepared and some progress'. Interestingly, several key sub-areas of Chapters 23 and 24 are given distinctly ‘lower marks’ (in bold):

• Functioning of the judiciary: some level of preparation and no progress • Fight against corruption: some level of preparation and no progress • Freedom of expression: some level of preparation and backsliding • Fight against organised crime: some level of preparation and some progress Parliament's annual resolution on the 2015 Commission report on Turkey follows the same procedural path as the resolutions on other enlargement countries. The standing rapporteur for Turkey is MEP Kati Piri (NL/S&D). The debate and vote in plenary are scheduled for April. Like last year, the adoption of the resolution is likely to become a particularly demanding exercise, with large numbers of amendments and a cumbersome process of agreeing on compromise amendments.

Page 11 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

2. THE GLOBAL ANSWER OF THE EU AND STATUS OF REFUGEES

2.1 THE STATUS OF REFUGEES IN TURKEY

Facts and figures on refugees in Turkey

According to figures from the EU, the number of refugees in July 2016 reached 3.1 million1. The majority are registered Syrian refugees (over 2.7 million according to the Turkey’s Directorate General of Migration Management), but in addition come several hundred thousands of non-Syrian refugees (including from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia), plus an unknown number of unregistered refugees. Already since 2014, Turkey has been the country with the biggest refugee population in the world. The majority of refugees (ca. 90%) live in local communities outside camps, where provision of shelter and food remains precarious for the big majority. In addition to the refugees from outside Turkey, the resumption of hostilities between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party has also led to internal displacement, affecting 350 000 Turkish citizens as well as refugees. In particular since 2015, Turkey has also become an important transit country of Syrian and other refugees to the EU, mainly via the eastern Mediterranean route to Greece. In 2015, over 856 000 arrivals by sea to Greece from Turkey were recorded (data from UNHCR). Following the EU-Turkey Action Plan of October 2015 and later the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016, numbers have considerably gone down. According to the data from the third report on the progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, the daily number of arrivals to the Greek islands went down from an average of 1700 in the month before the statement to an average of 85 since June. In addition, the number of lost lives considerably decreased2: Figure 1: Impact of EU- Turkey Statement on arrivals of migrants in Greece

Source: Third progress report on implementation of EU-Turkey statement Turkey is also an important starting point and a much needed cooperation partner for providing trans-border international assistance to refugees within Syria. In 2015, 27% of the EU’s humanitarian assistance inside Syria was delivered from Turkey.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/turkey_syrian_crisis_en.pdf 2 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160928/3rd_report_on_the_progress_made_in_the_implementation_of_the_eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf.

Page 12 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

90% of the Syrian refugees reside in urban and rural areas, most of them in the south and in the south east (Adana, Adıyaman, Gaziantep, Hatay Kahramanmaraş, Malatya, Kilis, Mardin, Osmaniye and Şanlıurfa), with the refugee percentage reaching up to 20% in some provinces, and up to 50 % in Kilis (see annex 4). However, there is also a trend of movement to other areas, in particular urban centres, with 400 000 refugees estimated to be living in Istanbul.

Turkish refugee policy

As regards Syrian refugees, Turkish refugee policy is part and parcel of its policy towards the Syrian conflict, in which it has taken a staunch anti-Assad position3. Initially, Turkey assumed that the conflict would not last long and refugees would return, and generally practiced an open door policy. However, due to the continuous influx of refugees and increasing security concerns, Turkish authorities, since March 2015, have severely restricted the access for Syrian refugees to Turkey, except those in need of immediate health treatment. According to a Human Rights Watch report of November 2015, this forces Syrian refugees, including the most vulnerable, to use smugglers and take dangerous irregular routes4. An Amnesty International report from December 2015 also describes cases of unlawful detention and deportation of refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey who had irregularly attempted to cross to the EU5, an issue taken up in the EP resolution on Turkey adopted in April 2016. As a tendency, Turkish authorities have become increasingly selective in admitting even the most vulnerable refugees, accepting their entry only in severe cases, and not letting in their family members or accompanying persons. To address security concerns, Turkey has started already in 2014 to build a concrete wall to stop illegal crossings along the length of its border with Syria. If finished by the end of February 2017, as announced, access to Turkey for Syrian refugees would become even harder. As a candidate for EU accession, Turkey has made substantial efforts to upgrade its migration and asylum system to conform to EU and international standards. Turkey is signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, but with a geographical limitation: Turkey is not obliged to grant refugee status to asylum seekers from non-European countries. Yet from 2011 onwards, Turkey granted Syrian refugees a status of "Temporary Protection" and free access to health care, although the legal basis was not clear and transparent. The uncertain situation has been improved considerably with the 2013 adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, and the October 2014 Temporary Protection regulation6. The new legal framework, although leaving untouched Turkey's reservation under the 1951 Geneva Convention, establishes a firm legal basis for "temporary protection" status granted to Syrian refugees and stateless Palestinians originating from Syria on a group basis. It creates a new institution responsible for migration and asylum matters, the Directorate General for Migration and Management (DGMM), provides safeguards against refoulement and creates a number of entitlements, such as information and advice. Following registration, Syrian refugees receive an identification document which enables access to main public services, including free access to primary and emergency health care. The new legal framework also creates a basis for access to education and to the labour market, without however

3 Souad Ahmadoun: Turkey's Policy towards Syrian refugees, SWP Comments, November 2014, Berlin. 4 https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/23/turkey-syrians-pushed-back-border 5 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/3022/2015/en/ 6 Meltem Ineli-Ciger: Implications of the New Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection and Regulation no. 29153 on Temporary Protection for Syrians Seeking Protection in Turkey, in: Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, Vol. 4 (2015), No. 2.

Page 13 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

guaranteeing explicitly the rights to work, or to receive education or social assistance. A lot therefore hinges on implementing decisions by the Turkish administration. As for non-Syrian asylum seekers, the new Law creates the legal basis and establishes procedures for applying for individual "international protection" status. However, even those refugees from non-European countries who are granted the international protection statues are considered “conditional refugees”, who are expected to move on through resettlement schemes rather than receiving a long-term integration perspective. In its Turkey 2015 progress report7, the Commission notes that Turkey made progress towards meeting the benchmark of the visa liberalisation roadmap, but with regard the status of refugees, points in particular to two elements to be further developed in 2016: • to complete the stabilising of institutional and regulatory structures needed to effectively implement the law on foreigners and international protection and • to adapt and implement legislation on labour market access for Syrians under temporary protection. Both issues also feature strongly in the EU -Turkey Action Plan and the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016. Some progress has indeed been made in 2016: As regards access to work, Turkey adopted on 15 January 2016 a Regulation on work permits for Syrian refugees under temporary protection, which was later complemented by a work permit regulation for refugees applying for or holding international protection status (non-Syrians). Both regulations allow to apply for work permits six months after registration and clarify implementation issues such as quotas. In the case of Syrian refugees, the number of temporary protection workers cannot exceed 10% of the Turkish citizens employed, unless the employer proves that there is no qualified Turkish citizen who can perform the job. Turkey has also adopted in 2016 a roadmap which should help to reduce the backlog of pending applications for international protection which should speed up processing if asylum applications in Syria. In response to the EU-Turkey statement of March 2016, the Turkish Government made an amendment to the Temporary Protection Regulation which should ensure that the temporary protection status is also granted to Syrians who had irregularly travelled to the Greek islands after 20 March 2016 and had been returned to Turkey, regardless of whether they were previously registered in Turkey. Observers have noted, however, that the "temporary protection" for Syrians, formally still considered as guests, is problematic because it hinders a long-term approach to integration of Syrian refugees, who are likely to stay for much longer than originally foreseen.8 Similarly, the international protection status for other refugees from a non-European country does not offer the prospect of long-term integration in Turkey9. In a recent report, Amnesty International (AI) states that Turkey, despite its legal and political efforts, does not provide “effective protection” to the asylum-seekers and refugees on its territory. The three main reasons stated by AI are that: 1) Asylum-seekers do not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of their status, because the asylum system is still new and not yet capable

7 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2015/20151110_report_turkey.pdf 8 Guenter Seufert: Die Türkei als Partner der EU in der Flüchtlingskrise, SWP Aktuell, December 2015. 9 European Council on Refugees and Exiles: Asylum Information Database. Country Report: Turkey, December 2015.

Page 14 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

of coping with individual applications made by hundreds of thousands of asylum- seekers 2) Asylum-seekers and refugees do not have timely access to what are known as “durable solutions”. This is partly due to Turkish law which denies full refugee status to non- Europeans, but AI also blames the international community, which fails to take a fair share of the world’s displaced people which would provide another durable solution. 3) Asylum-seekers and refugees in Turkey are denied access to means of subsistence sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living10. The latter issue will be discussed further below.

The situation of refugees

International organizations and governments have lauded Turkey for its initial open-door policy and for its efforts to accommodate Syrians in decent conditions. The Government of Turkey has been providing high quality assistance to over 269 000 Syrian refugees in 25 camps. It is estimated that the government has spent over EUR 12 billion since the beginning of the crisis. The refugee camps, set up by the Disaster and Emergency Management Agency (AFAD), are considered exemplary. General basic services (shelter, wash, food, health, education etc.) are above standard. The situation of the refugees outside camps is much more precarious. Although host communities together with Turkish civil society organizations and NGOs have been assisting refugees outside camps, many are forced into inadequate living conditions. DG ECHO adopted a new Humanitarian Implementation Plan11 for Turkey in June 2016, which describes the major humanitarian needs. Overall, the living conditions remain precarious, with the majority living in substandard or even unsanitary shelter conditions. According to the Amnesty International report mentioned above, the housing stock in Turkey was already limited before the refugee crisis, thus making it difficult even with the additional EU funds to close the infrastructural gap. Access to existing social services is hampered by lack of means and lack of information, language barriers and also different interpretations of entitlements given by various service providers. In addition there is lack of availability of certain services, such as for primary health care. In more specialised areas, there are even important gaps, such as for mental health and physical rehabilitation, and protection related services such as assistance to unaccompanied minors or victims of gender based violence. In addition, education is a major challenge, to avoid a "lost generation". Approximately 54% of the Syrian refugees in Turkey are children. In principle, Syrian school children can enrol in the regular system or in specifically created "Temporary education centres" for refugees and education has become a major focus of international attention. But still, 74% of Syrian refugees children are not enrolled in formal education. There is progress on the ground as regards work permits: From 1 April 2016 to 30 April 2016, 1 135 applications for work permits were received and 974 work permits were issued in line with the Regulation giving Syrians under temporary protection the right to work legally in Turkey (Delivered work permits by sector: agricultural 4, industrial 371, construction 34,

10 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/3825/2016/en/ 11 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/hip_turkey_2016.pdf

Page 15 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

services 565). Overall, according to the third EU-Turkey Statement implementation report of end September 2016, more than 10 500 work permit applications have been submitted by Syrians, of which 8 000 have been granted by now. However, the procedure is somewhat cumbersome, in particular with regard to recognition of diplomas for skilled workers. Due to the so far limited access to work, many refugees outside camps have used existing resources for their livelihoods. A 2014 AFAD survey of Syrian women in Turkey found that around 97% of female Syrians living outside the camps have not been able to earn an income in the month prior to the survey, and 78% of respondents indicated not having a sufficient amount of food for the next seven days12. As own resources are increasingly depleted, many refugees have to rely on negative coping strategies, such as child labour or prostitution. Overall, education and access to work seem to be key elements for convincing Syrians to stay in Turkey: According to one reported survey, many Syrians who fled to Greece cited the lack of educational prospects and the absence of economic opportunities as the reasons for their flight13. The overwhelming influx of Syrian and other refugees into Turkey and the on-going conflict in Syria and Iraq have had a significant socio-economic and political impact on the country and the host communities. Inter-communal tensions in refugee affected and hosting areas are on the rise, in particular in border cities. Prices have increased, and Syrians take up jobs in the informal economy for lower wages. According to surveys, in 2014, 70% of the Turkish population considered the refugees from Syria an economic burden and a security risk for the country.14 Tensions are further heightened in some regions due to assumed political affiliations of refugees overlapping with ethnic tensions. There are also some positive economic effects, such as formal employment for Turks and demand for local goods related to humanitarian assistance to refugees, as well as economic activity spurred by businesses set up by Syrians.15 But still, the EU aspiration for a long-term integration of the high number of Syrian refugees, including the granting of their access to the labour market may not be easily accepted by the Turkish population16. This also became visible when, in early July 2016, the Turkish president launched the idea of granting citizenship to up to 300 000 skilled Syrians. The move was immediately opposed by opposition parties and met with strong reactions in the public.

2.2 INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE The main international coordination tool for assistance to Turkey in coping with the refugee crisis is the UN Inter-Agency Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP), a consolidated regional framework bringing together the plans of the national authorities of Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, and covering the funding needs of governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. The 2016-2017 3RP brings together more than 200 partners. In Turkey, the response to the Syria situation within the 3RP is coordinated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, Refugee Response) and the United Nations Development Programme

12 http://www.3rpsyriacrisis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Turkey-Regional-Refugee-Resilience-Plan-2016-2017.pdf 13 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/12/03-turkey-eu-deal-on-syrian-refugees-kirisci 14 The survey is quoted in Guenter Seufert: Die Türkei als Partner der EU in der Flüchtlingskrise, SWP Aktuell, December2015. 15 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/09/syrian-refugee-international-challenges-ferris- kirisci/turkey-policy-paper-web.pdf 16Guenter Seufert: Die Türkei als Partner der EU in der Flüchtlingskrise, SWP Aktuell, December2015.

Page 16 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

(UNDP, Resilience Response) with the participation of the Food & Agricultural Organization (FAO), the International Labour Office (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and international and national NGOs17. In early 2016, in view of the unprecedented movement of people from Turkey to Europe, the UNHCR and IOM launched in addition the Regional Refugee and Migration Response Plan (RRMRP), which brings together more than 60 UN agencies and NGOs to respond in a coordinated manner to the refugee crisis affecting Southern Europe and the Western Balkans. The plan was revised in May 2016 to take into account the effects of the EU-Turkey Statement. The second largest funding requirement defined under the plan is for Turkey (11%). It is complementary to the 3RP as it does not cover support to registered refugees in Turkey, but focuses on new refugee and migrant arrivals in Turkey which attempt to enter Europe, refugees and migrants who have been returned from Greece, and Syrians selected for resettlement (in total up to 200 000 people of concern)18. The main intervention area is protection, and assistance is focused on the Western coast of Turkey. UNHCR has recently launched a nationwide verification exercise of all registered Syrian refugees in Turkey, the outcome of which should enhance the information basis for designing evidence based programmes for targeted assistance. In 2016, the 3RP appeal is USD 5.78 billion for the total programmatic response of Governments, United Nations agencies, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and non- governmental organizations (NGOs). This represents an overall increase of 10 per cent in the appeal compared to the corresponding 2015 figure, reflecting a rise in the number of refugees in the region, their increased vulnerabilities, an increase in host Government requirements, and a greater focus on service delivery through local and municipal systems to reduce duplication and build resilience19. The Turkey component for 2016 amounts to USD 806,9 million. At the beginning of June 2016, USD 223 million had been received (28%). The mid-term report on the overall 3RP20, warns that overall the funding is not keeping up with needs, given that only 30% of the requirements were met at the end of May 2016. The London Conference held in February 2016 raised an impressive USD 11.22 billion in pledges for the overall Syria Crisis response but disbursements were too slow. This risks to undermine the programmes which aim to mitigate further impoverishment of refugees and host communities and to stem the protection risks associated with increasing poverty. As a concrete example from Turkey, the report states that it will not be possible to extend vocational skills training, basic life skills and employment support skills for Syrian refugees in need living under Temporary Protection, as well as support vulnerable Turkish host communities, should the funding gaps not be closed. Besides continuing funding challenges, the operating environment for humanitarian assistance by the EU has changed since the end of 201521: The breakdown of the peace process between Turkey and the Kurds has increased threats of militant attacks, protests and demonstrations. Another challenge for DG ECHO is the changing location of needs, with

17 http://www.3rpsyriacrisis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Turkey-Regional-Refugee-Resilience-Plan-2016-2017.pdf 18 http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/RRMRP%20Europe%20Jan.-Dec%202016%20-%20Revision%20May%202016.pdf 19 http://www.3rpsyriacrisis.org/the-3rp/strategic-overview/. 20 http://www.3rpsyriacrisis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/3RP-Mid-year-Report-Final.pdf 21 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/hip_turkey_2016.pdf

Page 17 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

refugees moving towards urban canters and the Aegean cost, while the humanitarian presence was previously concentrated in the Southeast. The failed coup has not had a direct impact on the work on the ground of humanitarian actors, but it has increased uncertainty in the overall political environment, The unclear and poorly understood regulatory framework governing the work of international humanitarian NGOs in Turkey is another constraining factor, which continues to hamper strategic cooperation and effective humanitarian response in Turkey, and in Syria from Southern Turkey. Procedures are reported to be complicated, cumbersome and arbitrary. DG ECHO sees a need for streamlining the NGO registration, project approval, work permit and residence procedures, to facilitate the operations planned by the EU. Another challenge is to reach the non-Syrian refugees, who are less visible und less accessible. They have to go through an individual asylum procedure, but often lack information, while procedures are slow. In addition, they are obliged to live in so-called satellite cities, where prospects for work are so bleak, that many do not register at all. The overall objective for EU humanitarian assistance in Turkey is to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable refugees through predictable support, which addresses basic needs and protection. One of the main instruments is the innovative Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN), which allows refugee households to meet their basic needs in a dignified manner though direct and unconditional electronic cash transfers. Around 1 million vulnerable refugees should benefit from the scheme, which should the local purchasing of goods and services should spur the local economy. The scheme is implemented in close coordination with the Turkish government, the Turkish Red Cross and with the WFP as implementing partner. Given the novelty of the instrument, a comprehensive longitudinal study will analyse the impact and the lessons learned to allow the EU to decode about its future application in other contexts. Other areas of intervention to be supported by DG ECHO include: − Specialised protection services for all population of concern (such as prevention and response to violence, child protection, legal counselling etc.); − Access to quality health services and improving safe access to quality education (complementary to developmental support to the Turkish health and education system). DG ECHO’s HIP puts strong emphasis on cost efficiency and effectiveness, including by targeting the most vulnerable groups, choosing the most appropriate transfer modalities, controlling overhead costs, improved coordination, information management, and partnerships. It also envisions mechanisms to ensure transition towards development programmes by foreseeing capacity development components for local Turkish CSOs and relevant government departments. These elements are in line with the wider international efforts to enhance effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian assistance, agreed upon at the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) in Istanbul in May 2016. In particular the ESSN, as an innovative approach to delivering cash assistance directly to refugees in a cross-sectoral and predictable manner, is also in line with the “Grand Bargain”, an agreement of mutual commitments between major donors and aid agencies to make aid more effective and transparent.

2.3 THE EU RESPONSE TO THE REFUGEE CRISIS, NOTABLY IN TURKEY EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan of 15 October 2015

Page 18 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Since April 2015, the EU has held several meetings at Heads of State and Government level to discuss the ongoing refugee crisis. At each of these meetings the need was stressed to cooperate with Turkey to secure the borders, to bring order to migratory flows, and to stem irregular migration. On 15 October 2015 the European Commission presented to the European Council a Joint Action Plan22 negotiated with Turkey to jointly manage the Syrian refugee crisis. The Council endorsed this Action Plan and convened an EU-Turkey Meeting23 on 29 November 2015 which activated the Action Plan and re-energised the EU-Turkey relationship. The Action Plan identifies a series of collaborative actions to be implemented as a matter of urgency by the EU and Turkey to address the current crisis situation in three ways: (a) by addressing the root causes leading to the massive influx of Syrians, (b) by supporting Syrians under temporary protection and their host communities in Turkey (Part I), (c) by strengthening cooperation to prevent irregular migration flows to the EU (Part II). EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 Building on this Action Plan, a statement was agreed between the Members of the European Council and Turkey24 on 18 March 2016. Pursuant to this statement: 1) All new irregular migrants or asylum seekers whose applications have been declared inadmissible crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands as of 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey; 2) For every Syrian being returned to Turkey from the Greek islands, another Syrian will be resettled to the EU from Turkey directly; 3) Turkey will take any necessary measures to prevent new sea or land routes for irregular migration opening from Turkey to the EU; 4) Once irregular crossings between Turkey and the EU are ending or have been substantially reduced, a Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme25 will be activated; 5) The fulfilment of the visa liberalisation roadmap will be accelerated with a view to lifting the visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by the end of June 2016. Turkey will take all the necessary steps to fulfil the remaining requirements; 6) The EU will, in close cooperation with Turkey, further speed up the disbursement of the initially allocated EUR 3 billion under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. Once these resources are about to be used in full, the EU will mobilise additional funding for the Facility up to an additional EUR 3 billion to the end of 2018; 7) The EU and Turkey welcomed the ongoing work on the upgrading of the Customs Union. 8) The accession process will be re-energised, with Chapter 33 to be opened during the Dutch Presidency of the Council of the European Union and preparatory work on the opening of other chapters to continue at an accelerated pace; 9) The EU and Turkey will work to improve humanitarian conditions inside Syria.

22 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5860_en.htm 23 European Council, Meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey - EU-Turkey statement. Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/29-eu-turkey-meeting-statement/ 24 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18-eu-turkey-statement/ 25 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/securing-eu-borders/legal- documents/docs/commission_recommendation_for_a_voluntary_humanitarian_admission_scheme_with_turkey_en.pdf

Page 19 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

The European Commission monitors the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement and regularly reports on it. The first26 and second27 report of 20 April and 15 June 2016 on the progress made in the implementation of the statement concluded that the success achieved so far is fragile, and the daily operation of the actual return and resettlement processes in full compliance with EU and international rules can still not be considered fully implemented. The third report28 of 28 September 2016 found that the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement has continued to deepen and to accelerate. It recommended that it is essential that: • Resources are immediately provided to ensure the effective processing of asylum applications on the Greek islands, with Member States to respond in full to calls from the European Asylum Support Office to support their work at first instance, and the Greek authorities to ensure that the Appeal Committees can work swiftly, as well as to step up pace of returns; • The swift pace of contracting under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey and implementation of projects to support refugees on the ground continues; • Turkey should take the necessary measures to fulfil the remaining visa liberalisation benchmarks as soon as possible, to enable the EU to lift the visa requirements for Turkish citizens. The Commission is expected to present its fourth report on the implementation of the EU- Turkey Statement in December 2016. In addition to the reports, the Commission publishes regular updates on the operational implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement29. The EU-Turkey Statement was debated in the European Parliament’s plenary on 28 April 201630 with a focus on its legal aspects, democratic control and its implementation. It has also triggered criticism by the international community, including the Council of Europe31 and UNHCR32, which have raised serious human rights concerns both with regard to the substance and implementation of the statement. EU Resettlement Framework Prior to the adoption of the EU-Turkey Action Plan and Statement, the Commission presented the European Agenda on Migration33 on 13 May 2015, which laid the foundation for the Commission's continuous work to address both the immediate and the long-term challenges of managing migration flows effectively and comprehensively, including by strengthening cooperation with countries of origin and transit. As part of the Agenda, the Commission proposed in July 2016 a Regulation establishing a Union Resettlement Framework for the admission of third-country nationals and stateless persons to the territory of the Member

26 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160420/report_implementation_eu-turkey_agreement_nr_01_en.pdf 27 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160615/2nd_commission_report_on_progress_made_in_the_implementation_of_the_eu- turkey_agreement_en.pdf 28 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160928/3rd_report_on_the_progress_made_in_the_implementation_of_the_eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf 29 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/press-material/docs/state_of_play_- _eu-turkey_en.pdf 30 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20160428+ITEM- 002+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN 31 http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=22738&lang=en 32 http://www.unhcr.org/56f10d049.html 33 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background- information/docs/communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf

Page 20 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

States with a view to granting them international protection34. This proposal aims to put in place a horizontal mechanism for launching targeted EU resettlement initiatives, by setting out common EU rules for admission and distribution, on the status to be accorded to resettled persons, on financial support, as well as on measures to discourage secondary movements. The content of the proposal is building on the experience with existing resettlement initiatives in the EU framework and existing resettlement practices of the Member States, in particular the Standard Operating Procedures guiding the implementation of the resettlement scheme with Turkey set out in the EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016. The European Parliament and the Council act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, when it comes to the adoption of the proposed regulation. Roadmap towards a visa-free regime with Turkey Since the beginning of 2014, the European Commission is also carrying out a visa liberalisation dialogue with Turkey, based on a visa roadmap.35 This roadmap identifies the areas where Turkey will have to undertake legislative and administrative reforms with a view to establishing a secure environment for visa-free travel. This includes the development of an integrated border management in line with EU policies, in terms of land and sea border security and surveillance and customs’ controls enforcement. The dialogue also provides policy guidance aiming to prevent and fight organised crime, terrorism and corruption, enhance judicial cooperation, law enforcement cooperation and personal data protection. As mentioned above, in accordance with the EU- Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016, the fulfilment of the visa liberalisation roadmap should be accelerated vis-à-vis all participating Member States with a view to lifting the visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by the end of June 2016, provided that all benchmarks have been met. Following the publication of the first36 and second37 progress report in October 2014 and March 2016, the European Commission presented the third progress report38 on the implementation by Turkey of the visa liberalisation roadmap on 4 May 2016. As indicated in this report, the Turkish authorities have not yet managed to meet all benchmarks, as 7 requirements out of 72 have not yet been fulfilled. According to the Commission, two of these seven outstanding requirements need for practical and procedural reasons a longer timeline for implementation, and this has made it impossible for them to be fulfilled in a complete manner by the time of the publication of this report. This concerns the following two benchmarks: • upgrading the existing biometric passports so as to include security features in line with the latest EU standards; • fully implementing the provisions of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement, including those related to the readmission of third country nationals. The Commission and the Turkish authorities have agreed on practical ways of implementing these benchmarks before their complete fulfilment. Moreover, the Commission has invited the

34 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160713/resettlement_system_en.pdf 35 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/docs/20131216-roadmap_towards_the_visa- free_regime_with_turkey_en.pdf 36 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/international- affairs/general/docs/turkey_first_progress_report_en.pdf 37 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/international- affairs/general/docs/turkey_second_progress_report_en.pdf 38 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160504/third_progress_report_on_turkey_visa_liberalisation_roadmap_en.pdf

Page 21 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Turkish authorities to urgently undertake, following the publication of the third progress report, the measures that are necessary to fulfil the other outstanding benchmarks of the roadmap, namely: • adopting the measures to prevent corruption foreseen by the roadmap i.e. ensuring an effective follow-up to the recommendations issued by the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO); • aligning the legislation on personal data protection to EU standards notably to ensure that the data protection authority can act in an independent manner and that the activities of law enforcement agencies fall within the scope of the law; • negotiating an operational cooperation agreement with Europol. This also depends upon the above changes to the data protection legislation; • offering effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters to all EU Member States; • revising the legislation and practices on terrorism in line with European standards notably by better aligning the definition of terrorism with that set out in Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA39 as amended in order to narrow the scope of the definition and by introducing a criterion of proportionality40. On the understanding that the Turkish authorities will fulfil, as a matter of urgency and as they committed to do so on 18 March 2016, the outstanding benchmarks of the roadmap, the Commission decided to present in May 2016 the proposal41 to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/200142 to lift the visa requirement for Turkish citizens who are holders of a biometric passport in line with EU standards. In order to assist the co-legislators in their deliberations, the Commission confirmed that it continues monitoring the steps which the Turkish authorities take to fulfil the outstanding requirements of the visa liberalisation roadmap. The European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents decided that as co-legislator the Parliament is ready to play a constructive role to contribute to a successful outcome, but that it would start its deliberations and legislative procedure on visa liberalisation only when the 72 legal requirements would be fulfilled by the Turkish authorities.43 Until the Commission provides the Parliament with a written guarantee that this is the case, thorough work should continue but no referral of the proposal to committee can take place44. Irregular migration and return As mentioned before, one of the requirements included in the visa roadmap is the full and effective implementation of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement45 of 2014, whose main objective is to establish, on the basis of reciprocity, procedures for the rapid and orderly readmission, by each side, of the persons having entered or are residing on the territory of the other side without authorisation. The agreement includes provisions related both to the readmission of the nationals of the EU Member States and Turkey, and to the readmission of any other persons, including the third country nationals and the stateless persons that entered into, or stayed on, the territory of either sides. At their meeting on 29 November 2015 both

39 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism 40 European Commission, 2016. Third progress report on visa liberalisation with Turkey (COM(2016) 278 final) 41 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160504/turkey_proposal_en.pdf 42 Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement 43 http://www.epintranet.ep.parl.union.eu/SibData/02_Cpg/06_PV-Minutes/2016/2016-05-04/pv%202016-05-04-final_en.pdf 44 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160504IPR25841/visa-liberalisation-turkey-must-meet-all- benchmarks-before-ep-can-vote 45 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A22014A0507(01)

Page 22 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

sides agreed that the EU-Turkey readmission agreement will become fully applicable, including its provisions on third country nationals, from June 2016 (instead of the initially proposed date of October 2017). According to the third implementation report46 of the EU- Turkey statement of 28 September 2016, however, no progress has been recorded in the implementation of the third-country nationals provisions of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement. The Turkish Council of Ministers has not yet taken the decisions authorising the application of these provisions. The report notes, however, that there has been some progress in the implementation of the provisions of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement with regard to the readmission of Turkish nationals. As agreed by the European Council of 25‐26 June 2015 and in light of the unprecedented pressure on Member States’ asylum systems, the Commission presented in September 2015 a proposal for a regulation establishing an EU common list of safe countries of origin47 for the purposes of the Asylum Procedures Directive48. The proposal aims to support the swift processing of asylum applications from persons originating from countries designated as safe, allowing for faster returns if the individual assessments of the applications confirm no right of asylum. On the basis of an analysis of the legal situation, the application of the law within the democratic system and the general political circumstances, the Commission proposed to add Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey to this list of safe countries of origin. This would mean that there are in these countries generally and consistently no persecution, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat of violence in situations of armed conflict. The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament endorsed the Commission's proposal for an EU common list on 7 July 201649. On 13 July 2016, the Commission published a further proposal for a Regulation establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing the Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU) 50. This proposal, which is currently being discussed by the co-legislators, designates the above-mentioned seven countries as safe countries of origin at Union level and envisages the full replacement of national safe country lists with European lists or designations in five years' time from the entry into force of the Asylum Procedures Regulation. Border management Since 2008, the Eastern Mediterranean route, i.e. the passage used by migrants crossing through Turkey to the EU via Greece, southern Bulgaria or Cyprus, has become one of the biggest migratory hot spots, with the EU external border with Turkey being the main nexus point on this route. On 15 December 2015, the European Commission proposed the Borders Package51, a set of measures aimed at securing the EU's borders and managing migration more effectively. The package included a proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Border and Coast Guard, as part of the measures under the European Agenda on Migration.

46 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160928/3rd_report_on_the_progress_made_in_the_implementation_of_the_eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf 47 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/proposal_for_regulation_of_the_ep_and_council_establishing_an_eu_common_list_of_safe_countries_of_origi n_en.pdf 48 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. 49 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bREPORT%2bA8-2016- 0244%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN 50 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation- package/docs/20160713/proposal_for_a_common_procedure_for_international_protection_in_the_union_en.pdf 51 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/securing-eu-borders/index_en.htm

Page 23 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

The European Border and Coast Guard52 was agreed by the European Parliament and Council in 9 months and became operational on 6 October 2016 at the Bulgarian external border with Turkey. The new Agency should ensure that EU standards for border management are implemented at all external borders; carry out periodic risk analyses and mandatory vulnerability assessments to identify and address weak spots; draw on a rapid reserve pool of at least 1,500 border guards and a technical equipment pool; and play an enhanced role in return operations. At the same time it should help safeguard free movement within the EU and respect fully fundamental rights. It will consist of a European Border and Coast guard agency (the current Frontex agency with expanded tasks) and those national authorities responsible for border management. As outlined above, the EU has committed to increasing political engagement with Turkey, providing Turkey with significant financial support, accelerating the fulfilment of the visa liberalisation roadmap and re-energising the accession process with Turkey. Critiques argue, however, that this approach is intended to fight irregular migration and to protect EU’s external borders, in order to stop the influx of people looking for international protection in the EU. Human rights organisations and critical academics fear that this reinforced cooperation with Turkey allows EU Member States to externalise the management of migration outside of their own borders, while people in need of international protection will remain in Turkey, a country without a well-functioning asylum system.53 It is argued that this approach falls short of a proper common European asylum policy and that the internal divisions in the EU will remain.

52 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-29-2016-INIT/en/pdf 53 European Council on Refugees and Exiles, ECRE fears human rights being left behind in the rush to an EU-Turkey deal, 1 December 2015. Available at: http://ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/1065.html

Page 24 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

3. THE EU FINANCIAL INTERVENTIONS IN TURKEY Out of all non-EU countries, Turkey is the single biggest beneficiary of EU financial assistance, receiving more than EUR 600 million on average per year, mostly under the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance (IPA II). A large share of this IPA II envelope is managed by Turkey itself (indirect management). In addition, with around EUR 2 billion of EIB loans signed every year, Turkey ranks first among EIB recipient countries outside the EU. Finally, as a result of the refugee crisis, EU or Member States' additional funds channelled via the Madad Trust Fund and/or the Refugee Facility for Turkey add up to the amounts spent by the EU in Turkey 54.

3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EU FINANCING INSTRUMENTS IN TURKEY

3.1.1 The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance Initially as a member of the European-Mediterranean Partnership, Turkey has been eligible for EU resources since 1996, when it benefitted from EU funding through the MEDA Programme (EUR 376 million for the period 1996-1999 and EUR 890 million for 2000-2006). After signing the Accession Partnership in 2001, Turkey benefitted from the Turkey Pre-Accession Assistance scheme, worth EUR 1.25 billion for 2002-2006. As of 2007, the main mechanism of financial assistance became the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance (IPA), which replaced a series of programmes and instruments for 'enlargement countries'. The main objective of this instrument was to help the beneficiaries make political and economic reforms, preparing them for the rights and obligations that come with EU membership. For the first programming period (2007-2013) EUR 4.8 billion were allocated to Turkey. In the current period 2014-2020, the new Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) builds on the results already achieved by dedicating EUR 4.45 billion to Turkey over seven years. Financial assistance under IPA II is provided for the following four specific objectives: (a) support for political reforms, (b) support for economic, social and territorial development, (c) strengthening the ability of the beneficiary country to fulfil the (future) obligations stemming from membership in the EU by supporting progressive alignment with the Union acquis, (d) strengthening regional integration and territorial cooperation. The envelope is broken down per policy area, as outlined in the Table 1.

54 See Annex 5: EU assistance to Turkey in 2014-2016 Programming period: The table annexed proves a snapshot of the EU Financial Assistance 2014-2016 programming period and contracted funds as per 28 September 2016.

Page 25 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Table 1: Budget allocations per sector in Turkey based on the effective IPA II programming activities (in million EUR) TOTAL TOTAL TURKEY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2020 2014-2020 a. Reforms in Preparation for EU 350 196.6 233.9 141.1 652.2 1,573.8 Membership Democracy and governance 515.1 416.3 931.4

Rule of law and fundamental rights 406.5 236.0 642.5 b. Socio economic and Regional 155.3 265.3 246.0 242.0 595.3 1,503.9 development Environmental and climate action 295.1 347.5 642.6 Transport 386.0 56.8 442.8 Energy 39.7 34.4 74.1 Competitiveness and Innovation 187.8 156.6 344.4 c. Employment, social policies, education, promotion of gender 37.4 62.9 65.9 68.9 199.9 435.0 equality, and human resources development Education, employment and social 235.1 199.9 435.0 policies d. Agriculture and rural development 72.0 100.9 73.4 148 504.2 898.5 Agriculture and rural development 394.3 504.2 898.5 Total 614.7 625.7 619.2 600 1,940.0 4,399.6 Source: Indicative Strategy Paper for Turkey (2014-2020). Breakdown per sector not adapted with the final budgets/revised financial programming.

Already before the migration and refugee challenges gained such a prominence, the subsector of Home affairs became one of the key areas of cooperation between Turkey and the EU, especially after the entry into force at the end of 2013 of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement and launch of the visa liberalisation roadmap covering wider justice, home affairs as well as fundamental rights benchmarks. Funding from IPA in the area of home affairs has increased from EUR 130 million over 2011-2013 to an indicative allocation of EUR 245 million for the period 2014-2016. For the year 2015, more than EUR 125 million was allocated to it. It includes three priority areas: (1) migration and asylum, (2) integrated border management and (3) fight against organised crime.

3.1.2 Other Instruments: EIDHR , IcSP and ECHO The EIDHR (the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights) aims at supporting organizations in their action to promote, protect and defend human rights. This support has sought to complement Turkey’s reform efforts by enabling better participation of organised citizens in the reform process. Turkey benefits from the EIDHR since 2002 with an average of approximately EUR 2.7 million per year. For the years 2014-2016, a total of EUR 11 million has been allocated to Turkey under this instrument, amounting to EUR 5 million only for the year 2015. A further instrument is the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), which focuses on crisis response, crisis preparedness and conflict prevention to better contribute to the EU's comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises. In 2014 and 2015, Turkey has received EUR 17 million per year under this instrument.

Page 26 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Last but not least, the European Commission's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) supports emergency humanitarian assistance programmes, primarily focussed on life-saving activities in various sectors, including health, food security and livelihood support, water and sanitation, core relief items, and other protective measures. The refugee crisis has given particular relevance to this action in Turkey (see part 3.3.1). Humanitarian aid provided in Turkey amounted to EUR 36 million in 201555.

3.1.3 Turkey’s participation in Union Programmes and Agencies In addition to instruments where Turkey is a specific beneficiary or zone of intervention, the country has developed its capacity to participate in other Union Programmes and Agencies. 2007-2013 programmes included the Seventh Research Framework Programme, Customs, Fiscalis, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, Progress, Culture, Lifelong Learning and Youth in Action. Turkey has also recently concluded or is in the process of concluding new agreements for a number of 2014-2020 programmes, including: Horizon 2020, Erasmus+, Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium sized Enterprises, Creative Europe and Employment and Social Innovation. Turkey participates in the European Environmental Agency and in the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

3.1.4 The EIB action in Turkey The EIB Group’s activities in Turkey support Turkey’s economic development and assist the country in its pre-accession phase to the EU. Lending priorities reflecting the national and EU priorities and are developed in close consultation with the Turkish Treasury and the EC. There are three main ‘pillars’: 1. Corporate sector – this includes loans for energy projects (including renewables, combined heat and power), R&D, Foreign Direct Investments (telecom, automotive, etc.). 2. Public sector support - i.e. transport (national flagship projects such as the Istanbul Ankara high speed railway, Marmaray tunnel, and Eurasia Tunnel PPP), the environment / local infrastructure (e.g. water, waste water, metro, light rail, earthquake risk mitigation); climate change (afforestation, flood prevention) and investment in human capital (R&D). 3. Co-operation with banking sector (public and private) – there the focus is on SMEs (the EIB reaches SMEs through extensive cooperation with local banking partners), energy efficiency and renewable energy, the environment, and municipal infrastructure. For the last five years, EIB’s annual lending to Turkey has been in excess of €2 billion per year, reaching €2.3billion in 2015. SME lending accounts for approx. 42% of the EIB’s portfolio while 58% is infrastructure related including transport, energy, water, waste, and forestry. In line with its role as the EU Bank, the EIB actively partners with the EC in Turkey, in particular under the EC-managed Instrument for Pre-Accession which blends grant funds with EIB loans to leverage greater impact. In 2016, the EC has delegated the EIB to implement a number of projects under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRiT) and EU Trust Fund (MADAD). These projects are mainly in the area of municipal infrastructure and SME development and target both migrants and host communities.

55 See Annex 6: Table of expenditures made for ECHO for the period of 2014-2015 and 2016 and current ECHO Programme in response to the Refugee crisis.

Page 27 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

3.1.5 Coordination and complementarity with other EU assistance Relatively few international donors provide grant support to Turkey, such as the Council of Europe, several UN agencies and other specialised international organisations (IOs - e.g. the International Organisation for Migration). Rather, in addition to the EIB, International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World Bank (WB), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), Germany’s KfW or the Agence Française de Développement (AFD) are very active with loan programmes. To avoid overlapping assistance, the Commission systematically consults and meets Member States embassies, IFIs and IOs, especially at country level. As part of the IPA II Annual Action Programme for 2015, the objective was set to increase cooperation with IFIs and to further systematise it during the programming stages, in close partnership with the Turkish authorities, with a view to blending IPA II grants with IFI loans and achieve a stronger overall impact.

MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE

3.2.1 The Architecture of IPA II implementation in Turkey Pre-accession assistance is mostly implemented under indirect management (previously called decentralised management), i.e. EU budget implementation tasks are delegated to Turkish entities accredited by the European Commission. Only a small part of IPA II remains under direct management by the European Commission, namely in 2015 the activities 'Strategic capacity building for local/grassroots civil society organisations: ad hoc support mechanism' and 'Support to refugees from the Syrian crisis in Turkey'. Programming documents, adopted by the Commission in partnership with the Turkish authorities, form the basis for the implementation of the IPA II in Turkey: • The indicative country strategy paper for Turkey 2014-2020 (CSP), covering the full financial period, was adopted by the Commission on 26 August 2014. • Annual action programmes are adopted each year - the 2015 one was adopted on 7 December 2015. It covers a number of priority sections: Democracy and governance; rule of law and fundamental rights; energy; agriculture and rural development. It fixes maximum amounts for the EU contribution. • The rest of the sectors are covered through multi-annual sector operational programmes with separate financing decisions. As other instruments at the start of the MFF 2014-2020, the kick-off and implementation of IPA II was delayed due to the late adoption of the relevant legal bases and the subsequent need to approve national programmes. This resulted in carrying over commitment appropriations from 2014 to 2015. In addition, a Framework Agreement between the Turkish Government and the European Commission was signed in February 2015 and sets out the mutual implementation arrangements. The main interlocutor for the Commission is the National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC), which belongs to the Ministry of EU Affairs, in the process of strategic planning, coordination of programming, monitoring of implementation, evaluation and reporting. Depending on the sector, other line ministries will be the lead institutions. An IPA Monitoring Committee, co-

Page 28 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

chaired by the Commission and the NIPAC, is put in place, as well as sectoral monitoring committees. The Undersecretary of Treasury is the National Authorising Officer (NAO) and hosts the Central Finance and Contracts Unit (CFCU) which is responsible for the financial execution of the actions (overall budgeting, tendering, contracting, payments, accounting and financial reporting). The requests from Turkey for being entrusted with budget implementation tasks were received by the Commission (DG NEAR) in spring 2015 and assessed in the second half of the year. Several audit missions were performed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the national internal control systems. The conclusion was positive for the operating structures managing the IPA multiannual programmes on Environment, Competitiveness and Employment. However, as far as the transport multiannual programme is concerned, DG NEAR decided to wait given the significance of findings previously identified by DG REGIO under IPA I programme leading to payment suspension in 2015. The NAO has been requested for a new self-assessment report and revised entrustment package by 31 January 2016, to ensure timely finalisation of DG NEAR’s assessment by spring 2016.

3.2.2 Past problems and future challenges In 2009, the Court of Auditors published a Special Report (16/2009) on the European Commission’s management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey, assessing the first pre- accession assistance period (TPA 2002-2006) as well as the programming and project-selection system in the first year of the IPA (2007). Problems identified at those very early stages of pre- accession assistance were the following: • Insufficient strategy documents, lacking specific, measureable and achievable objectives and with a multitude of priorities; • No mechanism to ensure that project selection is guided by the Accession Partnership priorities; • Objectives and indicators insufficient for performance monitoring; • Unsatisfactory monitoring and evaluation reports, with insufficient data and absence of reporting of some implementation problems; • Understaffing in the structures entrusted with the management, leading to systematic delays in tendering, contracting and implementation. In its response, the Commission acknowledged several of those weaknesses. It however underlined that measures aimed at improving programming and implementation had already been taken when establishing the first IPA 2007-2013 and in the course of its implementation. The Commission also mentioned the slowdown of political reforms in Turkey and wider challenges linked to accession negotiations as one of the reasons why priorities were not always met. Building on the evaluations subsequently conducted by the Commission, the features of the IPA II sought to further address the implementation problems, i.e. with a more strategic and inclusive set of programming documents, a sector-based approach and clearer priorities. Enhancing democracy and governance, rule of law and fundamental rights has therefore emerged as a clear focus of IPA II assistance. However, some have argued that, in the face of the political realities, IPA II was "moving away from a strictly enlargement-driven instrument

Page 29 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

towards a more general development instrument (with references to enlargement)"56. IPA II also includes a monitoring mechanism to assess the overall performance at strategic, sector and action levels in addition to monitoring of financial execution. In its report on financial assistance for enlargement in 2014, the Commission was still considering that efforts were needed to reduce the persisting contracting backlog, and a joint NIPAC/EU Task Force was set up. It also considered that programming, management and monitoring capacities still need to improve, and the National Authorising Officer submitted to the Commission a report on an action plan to address all systemic issues. The 2015 Action Programme noted that Turkey still needs to "strengthen its capacity to absorb funds, achieve results and implement EU financial assistance in a timely manner (...) Greater ownership by the lead institution for each sector and stronger cooperation among stakeholders will be required in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness."

THE EU’S BUDGETARY RESPONSE TO THE REFUGEE CRISIS Alongside operational and legal measures both within and outside the EU, as of 2015 the response to the refugee crisis has entailed a major budgetary dimension, extending EU funding in Turkey well beyond 'traditional' pre-accession assistance. This involved the setting- up of an EU Trust Fund dedicated to the Syrian crisis and the conception of an 'ad hoc' vehicle, the Refugee Facility for Turkey.

3.3.1 The contribution of existing Funds Migration and asylum are already a strong element of IPA II, mostly as part of the Home affairs sub-sector. The refugee crisis has however increased its relevance, and in 2014, an additional EUR 40 million was programmed to support the Turkish authorities (migration and asylum systems, municipal infrastructure and services) in responding to the growing influx of refugees. In 2015, besides 'regular' IPA II spending for migration and refugees, an additional EUR 172 million of funds have been reoriented towards the Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis. A large part of this reorientation (EUR 147 million) was possible thanks to funds available on IPA completion lines which have been reprogrammed and would have otherwise been de- committed. In the 2016 budget, it is expected that EUR 37 million will feed into the new Refugee Facility for Turkey. This corresponds to the reinforcement obtained by Parliament during conciliation. Table 2: IPA: Refugee- and migrant-related actions in Turkey (commitment appropriations in EUR million) 2014 2015 2016 and before IPA, excluding contributions to the Trust Fund and the 194 152 100 Facility IPA-contribution to EU Trust ('Madad') Fund for Syria 173 IPA-Contribution to the Refugee Facility for Turkey 37 Total IPA 194 325 137 Source: European Commission. 2016 figures subject to evolution.

56 "The New Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II): Less Accession, More Assistance?", Wolfgang Koeth, EIPA, 2014.

Page 30 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

In addition, since the beginning of the crisis, the European Commission has expanded its humanitarian aid presence in Turkey and estimates having so far (end of 2015) contributed by EUR 71 million to assist refugees and other populations of concern. The majority of the resources allocated early on in the crisis assisted refugees inside the camps, while since 2014 support has primarily focused on off-camp refugees, predominantly in south-east Turkey, while further expanding in the far-east, along the Aegean coast and in major cities.

3.3.2 The EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis (The 'Madad' Fund) The EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis (The 'Madad' Fund) is the first Trust Fund established to address the refugee crisis57 and bridge the funding gaps identified by international organisations. The 'Madad' Fund is focusing on mid- to long-term resilience support to refugees and host communities. The goal is to stabilise the overstretched host countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq) and to reduce the pull factors and root causes of the migration crisis. The EU Trust Fund is a new management mode for external actions introduced in the Financial Regulation in 201258. It is created by signing an agreement with at least one other donor. EU money from the Heading 4 programmes is transferred to a specific bank account while observing the financial rules and the objectives of the legal bases. An advantage is that it can attract additional funds from the Member States (as well as other public or private donors), thus reaching a bigger firepower than what the EU budget could achieve alone. It also brings together various sources of EU funding (and other) under a common, visible umbrella. Last but not least, it enables the EU to intervene more flexibly and quickly in response to emergency needs by emancipating itself from programming stages as well as fixed country/thematic allocations. It may therefore raise questions as regards its transparency and accountability, even more so since it does not appear in the EU budget nomenclature59. In September 2015, the Commission set the target of EUR 1 billion to be equally shared between EU and Member States contributions. The EU budget’s target was quickly met with EUR 570 million at the end of 2015, thanks to both a reorientation of existing appropriations (IPA: EUR 173 million; European Neighbourhood Instrument - ENI: EUR 81 million; Development Cooperation Instrument: EUR 16 million) and a substantial reinforcement (EUR 300 million for the ENI through Amending Budget 7/2015). Member States’ contributions, however, are only slowly flowing in, reaching just over EUR 50 million at the end of January 201660. The Madad Fund is supervised by a Board, which has so far approved two aid packages: EUR 40 million in May and EUR 350 million in December 2015. The remaining funds were mobilised in early 2016. Actions are spread across four sectors: education and training (41% of potential projects in January 2016); livelihoods (28%); health, psychosocial support and sexual and gender-based violence (16%); water, wastewater, municipal services (15%). A large part of the aid (e.g. almost half of the first package) is provided to Turkey.

57 The second one being the Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa. 58 Article 187 of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 59 See Annex 7: EU Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis List of Turkey projects signed and under negotiation, September 2016, and Project overview 1rst Board meeting 2015 60 See Annex 8: Draft Results Framework 2015-2017 - European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis, "the Madad Fund"

Page 31 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

The Fund basically channels grants to organisations active on the ground. The UN is a strategic partner in the international response, but the Fund has a priority for leveraging European capacities for aid delivery. Therefore, UN agencies and international organisations are expected to implement just around 20-25% of the actions funded. The rest is implemented by European NGOs and Red Cross societies (around 55%) and by Member States’ development agencies (around 25%).

3.3.3 The Refugee Facility for Turkey As part of the EU-Turkey Action Plan and in response to calls from Turkey to step up its financial engagement, the EU side – on the Commission’s initiative and with the support of the European Council – mobilised new funds to support Turkey in coping with the presence of Syrian refugees. In November 2015, the Commission proposed to set up a EUR 3 billion Refugee Facility for Turkey covering the year 2016 and 2017 and even adopted an autonomous decision based on Articles 210(2) and 214(6) TFEU61. This is made up of EUR 1 billion from the EU budget and EUR 2 billion from the EU Member States. Of the overall EUR 3 billion, EUR 2.239 billion have so far been allocated for both humanitarian and non- humanitarian assistance. Of the EUR 2.239 billion allocated, EUR 1.252 billion have been contracted. Of these EUR 1.252 billion contracted, EUR 467 million have been disbursed to date62. The Facility for Refugees in Turkey is the answer to the EU Member States’ call for significant additional funding to support refugees in the country. The Facility is designed to ensure that the needs of refugees and host communities are addressed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. The Facility for Refugees in Turkey focuses on humanitarian assistance, education, migration management, health, municipal infrastructure, and socio-economic support. This Facility will be a mere coordination mechanism, and not a new Trust Fund. This means that EU budgetary appropriations, although placed under this umbrella, will remain on their original lines and be implemented within the procedures laid down in their corresponding legal bases. They can however be implemented via an existing Trust Fund: this means that the amounts announced for the Refugee Facility for Turkey are likely to partially overlap with those of the Madad Fund. The novelty in this Facility is that additional Member States’ contributions will be provided as external assigned revenue (Article 21 (2) (b) of the Financial Regulation) according to a GNI- based allocation key. It will result de facto in an additional spending capacity for the European Commission and in a reinforcement of the external financing instruments, bypassing the budgetary procedure as well as the constraints of the MFF ceilings.

61 Both articles provide that the Commission "may take any useful initiative to promote coordination" between policies/actions of the EU and Member States in the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid respectively. 62 European Commission, Managing the refugee crisis, The facility for refugees in Turkey, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/news_corner/migration/20161013-frit-factsheet.pdf

Page 32 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Table 3: Refugee Facility for Turkey - planned breakdown of contributions, (commitment appropriations in EUR million) INSTRUMENTS 2016 2017* 2016-2017 Humanitarian Aid 165** 80 245 IPA 37 - 37 IcSP 20 20 40 DCI 10 10 20 ENI 18 - 18 Heading 4 margin - 140 140 Top-up requested by MS 500 500 Total EU Budget 1 000 Financial Contributions of EU Member States (as external assigned 2 000 revenue) Source: European Commission * Based on current programming and to be requested as part of the draft budget 2017. ** Including a transfer from the Emergency Aid Reserve to be proposed in early 2016.

Funds labelled under this Facility should address the immediate humanitarian and development needs of the refugees and their host communities on the one hand, support national and local authorities in managing and addressing the consequences of the inflow of refugees on the other hand. There has been some controversy as to the degree of commitment that this involves on the part of the Turkish Government, notably in containing the migratory flow towards the EU, and as to whether this money should be channelled via the Turkish authorities or via independent organisations (most likely both). There has also been some discontent in Turkey as to its formal role in the Facility (Turkey would be member of the Facility’s Steering Committee in an advisory capacity only, whereas the Commission and EU Member States would send full members). Concerns have been voiced in the European Parliament regarding the lack of involvement of the budgetary authority in this process (although the Council, as the grouping of EU Member States, is de facto a decision-maker). In the Commission’s plans, the budgetary authority will just be regularly informed about the implementation of the Facility and will receive an annual report. However, any additional contribution from the EU budget will have to be approved, notably as part of the 2017 budgetary procedure.

CONTROL OF EU FUNDS IN TURKEY 3.4.1 Monitoring, evaluation and monitoring. As explanatory cases Members will find in annexes two notes on the monitoring approach used by the EU related to IPA (EU Delegation) and humanitarian funds63, one document64 on monitoring processes of IPA, EIDHR and IcSP and a Concept Note: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the 'Madad' Trust Fund65. Two tables are also available in the annexes regarding recoveries for Pre-IPA and IPA I programmes66. This last document has been performed by the CFCUs, the Central Finance and Contract Unit. The CFCU, as the Implementing Agency, is responsible for the overall budgeting, tendering, contracting, payments, accounting and

63 See Annex 9: Note of the Delegation of the EU to Turkey, September 2016: File note on ECA 2009 Audit findings (Special report 16/2009) related to EUD Monitoring system, note of the Commission on Controls applicable to humanitarian aid actions 64 See Annex 10: Note of Delegation of the EU to Turkey, 5 October 2016: File note on monitoring processes of IPA, EIDHR and IcSP 65 See Annex 11: Concept Note: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the 'Madad' Trust Fund 66 See Annex 12: Total paid and recovered by the CFCU and part of the closure reports following external Audit/irregularities detected, ineligible amounts and desk reviews by EUD staff. October 2016.

Page 33 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

financial reporting aspects of all procurement of services, supplies, works and grants in the context of EU funded programmes. Under the responsibility of a “Programme Authorising Officer (PAO)”, the CFCU ensures that the EU rules, regulations and procedures pertaining to the procurement are adhered to and that a proper reporting system is functioning. Senior Program Officers (SPO) in the line ministries assist the PAO in technical implementation of the projects. The CFCU is situated between EU and Turkish administrations as an autonomous body under the responsibility of a PAO who is also the Head of the CFCU. The CFCU is administratively linked to the Under secretariat of Treasury which is responsible for the financial management of EU funded programmes.

3.4.2 Reported irregularities for Turkey (IPA), 201567 In 2014 Turkey was the country reporting the highest number of irregularities and aggregate amounts involved in irregularities. Concerning the 20 irregularities reported as fraudulent, these were reported by three countries. Cross-Border Cooperation programmes record the highest number of irregularities reported, while Rural Development programmes account for the highest amounts involved.

3.4.3 Understanding of the effectiveness and impact of European Union funding to Turkey is still very limited. The study on Turkey presented in Budgetary control committee the 12 October 2016 considers the basis for EU funding decisions, and how these are informed by past results. In this regard, it considers what objective basis is used by the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of EU funding to Turkey (i.e. how results are defined and evaluated). In addressing these points, the study also considers management and control structures and processes of the European Commission and the Turkish authorities, and transparency in the system. The document follows up on the European Court of Auditors Special Report 16/200968 ‘The European Commission's management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey’. The European Commission has undertaken actions addressing the recommendations of the report but it is unclear how effective these actions have been, or are likely to be, in addressing the underlying concerns expressed in the report. In particular, understanding of the effectiveness and impact of European Union funding to Turkey is still very limited. Members will find in annex 13 the conclusions and recommendations of this study regarding the control of EU funds in Turkey.

67 European Commission, Brussels, 14.7.2016, SWD(2016) 235 final, PART 2/2. Commission Staff Working Document, Statistical evaluation of irregularities reported for 2015, Own Resources, Natural Resources, Cohesion Policy, Pre-accession and Direct Expenditure Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against Fraud 2015 Annual Report 68 See Annex 9

Page 34 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

3.4.4 Key messages of the Committee on Budgets mission in February 2016 For your information, please find below information on the key messages reported to the mission of the Budgets Committee in February 201669: • Money under the Facility should go to projects directly benefiting refugees and not to ‘budget support’ for administrations 70; • The Facility cannot be efficient without a strong involvement of the Turkish authorities and civil society organisations; • The success of the Facility requires confidence, and confidence can only be based on transparency; the needs assessment and the implementation of the Facility should therefore take place in full transparency and exchange of information between both sides; • The implementation of the Facility cannot be efficient without a strong involvement of Turkish authorities, notably for the provision of fundamental services and infrastructures or for reaching out to host communities via municipalities; civil society organisations should also be closely involved; • Speedy execution, flexibility, simplification and monitoring should be ensured by any means while addressing more structurally the shortcomings of the EU budget and of the MFF in the area of crisis funding; • The Madad Fund and the Facility should be an opportunity for the EU to show leadership in the coordination of European donors, while also facilitating the coordination of the international response; a stronger coordination effort should be made in order to consolidate and properly implement the resources while avoiding redundancies and inefficiencies.

3.4.5 Documentation Members will find in annex 14 extracts of AAR 2013 and 2014 (DG ENLARG), questions to Commissioner Mimica and her answers as well as various paragraphs from the 2015 and 2016 discharge resolutions.

69 Report on Mission to Turkey (Ankara - Osmaniye - Gaziantep), 8-10 February 2016, BUDG committee 70 The new Facility for Refugees: When Turkey called for solidarity in 2015, the Union has followed it up relatively quickly by committing to set up a EUR 3 billion Facility for Refugees in Turkey. It is part of the follow-up to the EU-Turkey Action Plan agreed in October 2015 where Turkey, in exchange for burden-sharing by the EU, committed to take measures e.g. in the area of border control and fight against human trafficking, which would contribute to ‘stemming the flow’ of migrants and refugees reaching EU countries

Page 35 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

4. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S POSITIONS AND ACTIVITIES The issue of Syria and the ensuing humanitarian crisis has been high on Parliament's agenda for many years. In this context, Parliament has repeatedly praised Turkey for its continued assistance to Iraqi and Syrian refugees as well as its open border policy, and regularly called for more international solidarity, both in terms of funding and in terms of reception of refugees. The situation of refugees has also been an element of several official parliamentary visits to Turkey: the President travelled there in April 2015, including visits to Gaziantep and Kilis. The AFET standing rapporteur on Turkey, Ms Kati Piri, has paid several visits, including collecting information on the situation of refugees. The DEVE committee sent a fact finding delegation in September 2015, focusing on the use of DG ECHO funds and the link between development and humanitarian assistance.71 In 2016, BUDG and LIBE Committees sent delegation in February. DROI sent a fact finding delegation in May, focusing on the human rights aspects of the EU-Turkey agreement reached on 18 March well as the general rule of law situation in Turkey, including the conflict in the South East, freedom of expression and of the media. DEVE also sent a delegation in May, which was joined by two Members each from the DROI and FEMM committees. Following the attempted coup of July, AFET sent a fact-finding mission end of August and the President paid an official visit on 1 September. The European Parliament has adopted several important resolutions to tackle the refugee crisis. One is the Resolution of 17 December 2014 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration (2014/2907(RSP)). In accordance with this: • The Parliament asked the LIBE Committee to assess the various policies at stake, draw up a set of recommendations and report back to plenary with a "strategic initiative report" which is currently being prepared (2015/2095(INI)). • The EU should assume its fair share of responsibility and solidarity towards the member states that receive most refugees and asylum seekers "in either absolute or proportional terms". • The EU should ensure safe and legal access to the EU asylum system, and explore further avenues of legal migration. Regarding irregular migration, MEPs proposed the swift processing, in collaboration with non-EU countries of transit and origin, and return of "those who do not qualify for asylum and protection in the EU". • MEPs stressed the need to examine the overall strategy on cooperation with third countries and the need for those countries to respect international law with regard to saving lives at sea and to ensure the protection of refugees and respect for fundamental rights. • MEPs call on Member States to lay down strong criminal sanctions against human trafficking and smuggling both into and across the EU and against individuals or groups exploiting vulnerable migrants in the EU. The Parliament voted a resolution on 10 September 2015 on migration and refugees in Europe (2015/2833(RSP)). According to this Resolution: • MEPs welcomed the Commission's initiatives on relocation and resettlement, including a fresh proposal for emergency relocation of 120,000 asylum seekers from Italy, Greece and

71 http://www.emeeting.europarl.europa.eu/committees/agenda/201510/DEVE/DEVE(2015)1012_1/sitt-1233671

Page 36 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Hungary and endorsed the Commission's announcement of a permanent relocation mechanism amending the Dublin Regulation. • A "fair, compulsory allocation key" and the integration prospects and the specific cases and needs of asylum seekers themselves should be taken into account. • Parliament considers it "a high priority that the EU and its Member States create safe and legal avenues for refugees", such as humanitarian corridors and visas. It also wants member states to take in refugees from third countries via a compulsory resettlement- programme. Parliament also notes that the Commission proposal to establish a common EU list of safe countries of origin under the Asylum Procedure Directive could limit the procedural rights of citizens of those countries and requests that steps be taken to ensure that this approach does not undermine the principle of non-expulsion and the individual right to asylum. MEPs call for the Common European Asylum System to be properly implemented by all participating Member States. • A long-term approach is required that also addresses the root causes of migration. On 12 April 2016 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration (2015/2095(INI))72. In its resolution, the Parliament: • emphasises the need for all parties to fulfil their commitments deriving from the Joint Action Plan, including addressing the root causes leading to the massive influx of Syrians, stepping up cooperation for the support of Syrians under temporary protection and their host communities in Turkey, and for Turkey to fulfil its commitments to prevent irregular migration flows from its territory to the Union; • accepts that the Union needs to strengthen its external border protection and further develop the CEAS, and that measures are necessary to enhance the capacity of the Schengen Area; • suggests that search and rescue capacities must be strengthened, and that Member States’ governments must deploy more resources – in terms of financial assistance and assets – in the context of a Union-wide humanitarian operation, dedicated to finding, rescuing and assisting migrants in peril and bringing them to the closest place of safety; • believes that the return of migrants should only be carried out safely, in full compliance with the fundamental and procedural rights of the migrants in question, and where the country to which they are being returned is safe for them; • underlines that there is a need for a permanent Union-wide resettlement programme, with mandatory participation by Member States, providing resettlement for a meaningful number of refugees, having regard to the overall number of refugees seeking protection in the Union; • stresses that, in so far as resettlement remains unavailable for third-country nationals, all Member States should be encouraged to establish and implement humanitarian admission programmes; • calls on the Member States to make use of any existing possibilities to provide for humanitarian visas, particularly for vulnerable persons, at Union embassies and consular offices in countries of origin or transit countries;

72 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bTA%2bP8-TA-2016- 0102%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

Page 37 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

• reaffirms that the Union must adopt a long-term strategy to help counteract the ‘push factors’ in third countries (conflict, persecution, ethnic cleansing, generalised violence or other factors), which force people into the hands of criminal smuggling networks, which they see as their only chance to reach the Union. In its resolution of 28 October 2015 on the 2016 budget, the EP: • undertook to support, where necessary, reprioritisation within the external programmes to address the refugee challenges, but stressed that this must not lead to reduced efforts related to the initial objectives of the respective legal basis, thus risking the destabilisation of the European neighbourhood or other regions concerned; • reiterated the need to adopt a comprehensive and human rights-based approach linking migration with development and working towards the integration of legal migrants, asylum seekers and refugees; • emphasised the need to reinforce cooperation and commitment with countries of origin and transit to effectively tackle the current migration crisis, and in particular the needs of displaced persons in third countries in the field of health and education; • noted that the Trust Funds were created because the Union budget lacks both the necessary flexibility and funding to allow for a rapid and comprehensive response to the crisis, but stressed that a more holistic solution needed to be found in the MFF review/revision on how to make support from the Union budget for humanitarian assistance and development more effective and more readily available and how to successfully coordinate it with bilateral aid offered by Member States; • adopted reinforcements of the external financing instruments to be used, in particular, to increase the funding for the two Trust Funds as well as for immediate assistance via the UNHCR and the World Food Programme; • called on the individual Member States to turn words into deeds and bring the necessary additional contributions to match the Union funding linked to the Trust Funds and to close the funding gap of the UN agencies without further delay; • stressed that the ceiling for Heading 4 might be insufficient given that it has been set well before major developments in Ukraine, Syria, Tunisia and more generally throughout the neighbouring countries, the Middle East and Africa; called, therefore, for a full use of the potential of the Emergency Aid Reserve and expressed its openness to any further mobilisation of the flexibility provisions foreseen in the MFF for addressing the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis. In response to the EU-Turkey Action Plan, MEPs expressed their positions during the plenary debate of 2 December 2015. Most of them said that the 29 November EU-Turkey meeting aimed at reinvigorating the partnership and finding common responses to the refugee crisis and the Syrian war was, in their view, very timely and, therefore, welcomed the outcomes of the meeting. However, in view of Turkey’s human rights and democracy record, many argued that EU funding for Turkey must be thoroughly scrutinized and questioned the decision to re- energise EU accession talks with Turkey73.

73 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20151202IPR05702/MEPs-hail-EU-Turkey-deal-but-say-human-rights- and-freedoms-must-be-respected

Page 38 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

5. POLICY OPTIONS FOR THE PARLIAMENT There is no short or even medium-term term solution in sight for the Syrian refugees in Turkey and other neighbouring countries, whose solidarity is stretched to the limits. Parliament could consider the following policy options during and after its delegation visit: • The Parliament could stress the importance of the efficient use of funding in close cooperation with the Turkish government, and in the spirit of burden sharing, in accordance with the EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan. Turkish authorities could be asked which measures they are planning to undertake as a result of the increased EU financial support, notably in order to give refugees a better status and perspective within Turkey. The EP could also recall that funding for migration and refugees in Turkey should neither come at the expense of other types of assistance to Turkey nor disregard the needs of other countries in the region. • The Parliament could emphasise that, although Turkey needs support in dealing with the humanitarian crisis, what is needed even more is a political solution to the conflict in Syria. • Parliamentary diplomacy tools should be used to enhance cooperation with Turkey in order to prevent irregular migration by combating migrant smuggling and organising joint return operations, including reintegration measures, in accordance with the EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan. • The Parliament could keep stressing the importance of providing refugees' safe access to Turkish territory, as well as the need for adequate services in the off-camp settings. • The need for further implementation of Turkey's international protection law and temporary protection regulation is greater than ever. Protection systems and services available should not only include basic services, but also prospects for employment. This is why the Members could underline the need to fully and speedily implement the latest regulations on work permits for Syrian refugees. • As extensively explained in the section 'Latest developments in Turkey' the deterioration of democratic standards and the drifting away from 'European values' has acquired alarming proportions in Turkey. Recent official EU statements following meetings with the Turkish authorities have largely disregarded if not ignored this. There is a genuine opportunity for MEPs, as directly elected representatives of the citizens, to fill the gap and point out to interlocutors (and reiterate consistently) that there is no way fundamental values and democratic principles can be sacrificed or swept under the carpet for the mere sake of stemming the influx of migrants / refugees from Turkey into the EU. • Members could insist on the need to ensure that the human rights of all refugees and migrants – including the most vulnerable and the minority groups – be protected. Reports of illegal detention or deportation should be carefully investigated and the Turkey-EU Action Plan should be used to support and monitor the respect for human rights. This effort should include a strengthened legal and political framework for combatting sexual- and gender-based violence and for protecting children • An estimated 500.000 refugee children - the vast majority of them living outside the official camps - currently have no access to education in Turkey at all. This is a potential time bomb, as these children are particularly vulnerable and will be even more exposed to extremist ideologies and potential recruitment by organisations like

Page 39 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ISIL which have a strong, underestimated presence in Turkey, especially in the vast areas bordering Syria and Iraq. MEPs could stress the need to focus heavily on this problem and insist that considerable funds are allocated to urgently and effectively deal with this alarming phenomenon and avoid ad hoc initiatives which are, in the end, no more than a drop in the ocean. • Turkey continued the implementation of certain reform commitments, such as the 2013 democratisation package. However, there have also been grounds for serious concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary and the protection of fundamental freedoms. • In the framework of 'The Madad Fund', Parliament could underline the importance of the displaced persons' needs, in particular education for children and vocational training or retraining for adults focusing on the jobs needed in a post conflict environment. Such vocational training should include training for women in order to boost their economic and social role in post-conflict reconstruction.74 • Parliamentary diplomacy tools could be used systematically to urge other donors to contribute to the 3RP, including to the resilience component, which benefits the host communities. Although 2015 has seen a larger amount of contributions to Turkey in comparison to previous years, the level of support is still far from sufficient. Therefore, there is a need for increased international responsibility sharing to support Turkey, in terms of technical advice, financial contributions and resettlement places.75 EU Member States in particular should pay their share of the newly-established EU instruments while sharing information about their own bilateral cooperation. All players (at international, EU, national and local levels) should strive to coordinate their work. • Parliament could also advocate for an ambitious outcome of the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit. As this summit will be hosted by Turkey, the forum provides an incentive for the country to further improve the situation of refugees. The aim of the Summit is to build a more inclusive and diverse global humanitarian system with a strong commitment to humanitarian principles. • The Commission representatives could be lauded for the budgetary initiatives taken in the past months (reinforcements of external action, Madad Fund, Refugee Facility) and be reminded that Parliament has been its staunch supporter; it could stress, however, the need to better involve and be accountable to the budgetary authority, especially given the large amounts involved and the urgency to look for further flexibility within the MFF.

Humanitarian aid: • On a defensive point, Members could stress that the EU is delivering on its promise to provide additional aid to support refugees in Turkey. • Members could underline the need for keeping open the border for refugees which

74 Strategic Orientation Document for the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response To The Syrian Crisis, "The Madad Fund". http://statewatch.org/news/2015/dec/eu-com-madad-strategic-orientation-doc.pdf. 75 3RP Regional Refugee& Resilience Plan 2016-2017 in response to the Syria crisis- Turkey. http://www.3rpsyriacrisis.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Turkey-2016-Regional-Refugee-Resilience-Plan.pdf.

Page 40 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

have acute medical needs and require protection and for transborder humanitarian assistance to respond to needs within Syria. • Members could insist on the need to further speed up the granting of work permits. • Members could discuss with Turkish authorities the need to create an easier working environment for international NGOs providing aid in Turkey and through cross-border assistance, and to streamline the application of existing regulations.

Page 41 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: HAS THE COMMISSION CHANGED ITS APPROACH AFTER THE COUP ATTEMPT?

From a political perspective, following the attempted coup that the EU immediately and strongly condemned as an unacceptable attempt against democracy, we are pursuing our engagement with the Turkish government on all issues of common interests, in full implementation of the 18 March EU-TR statement. This commitment was reconfirmed in September at the High Level Political Dialogue in Ankara. The current post-coup measures, however legitimate they may be, raise nevertheless due concerns in terms of respect for the rule of law and human rights. The large dismissals in the administration are also a source of concern as regards sustainability of the administrative performance in certain sectors, which may also impact implementation of our financial assistance. We have an open dialogue with the Turkish authorities in this respect, and have addressed them at the relevant Ministries (MoEUA, MoFI ). We will ensure close monitoring of the whole range of such issues in the coming period: dismissals or suspensions of scientists and academics, closing of universities and higher education institutions or restrictions to travel, may have some impact on the implementation of EU programmes such as Erasmus+, H2020, among others. DG NEAR has already issued guidance in this sense to the DGs managing EU programmes in which Turkey participates. Relevant notes have been shared above. Following our review in early September for the AAP 2016 the Indicative Strategy Paper 2014-2020 priorities remain relevant and our engagement in particular in the JHA and fundamental rights remains important. We will stress more the support to Fundamental Rights and continue support to Civil Society support in a centralised mode. In addition, on monitoring EUTF Madad: The Madad fund management has its own M&E system developed to fulfil legal reporting and accountability requirements. The M&E framework for Madad financed projects is a combination of project level monitoring arrangement, Madad internal monitoring by MADAD field staff embedded in the respective EU Delegations and an external M&E agent. The latter will conduct evaluations according to ROM methodology as well as being deployed for to monitor projects or components of projects on an ad hoc basis.

Page 42 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016 ANNEX 2: GUIDANCE NOTE ON POTENTIAL IMPACT ON EU ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING THE ATTEMPTED COUP Ref. Ares(2016)5688419 - 30/09/2016 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations

The Director-General

Brussels, 3 o SEP. 2016

NOTE TO

Mr Alexander IT ALI ANER Secretary General Mr Luis ROMERO REQUENA Director-General, SJ Mr Timo PESONEN Director-General, DG COMM Mr Marco BUTI Director-General, DG ECFIN Ms Lowri EVANS Director-General, DG GROW Mr Johannes LAITENBERGER Director-General, DG COMP Mr Michel SERVOZ Director-General, DG EMPL Mr Jerzy Bogdan PLEWA Director-General, DG AGRI Mr Henrik HOLOLEI Director-General, DG MOVE Mr Dominique RISTORI Director-General, DG ENER Mr Daniel CALLEJA CRESPO Director-General, DG ENV Mr Jos DELBEKE Director-General, DG CLIMA Mr Robert-Jan SMITS Director-General, DG RTD Mr Roberto VIOLA Director-General, DG CNECT Mr João AGUIAR MACHADO Director-General, DG MARE Mr Marc LEMAÎTRE Director-General, DG REGIO Mr Stephen QUEST Director-General, DG TAXUD Ms Martine REICHERTS Director-General, DG EAC Mr Xavier PRATS MONNE Director-General, DG SANTE Mr Matthias RUETE Director-General, DG HOME Ms Tiina ASTOLA Director-General, DG JUST Mr Jean-Luc DEMARTY Director-General, DG TRADE Mr Stefano MANSERVÍSI Director-General, DG DEVCO Ms Monique PARIAT Director-General, DG ECHO Ms Nadia CALVIÑO Director-General, DG BUDG Ms Helga SCHMID Secretary General, EEAS Mr Hans BRUYNINCKX Executive Director, EEA Mr Alexis GOOSDEEL Director, EMCDDA

Subject: Guidance on action in regards to ELI cooperation and financial assistance to Turkey following the attempted coup on 15 July

The purpose of this note is to guide DGs possibly affected by the post-coup measures taken by the Turkish government which may have an impact on the implementation of EU financial cooperation and EU programmes. By the way of example you will find below the main issues brought to the attention of DG NEAR and DG BUDG so far and the initial measures agreed at interservice level. Should you face similar or other difficulties in your relationship with Turkey, we invite you to communicate them to us to ensure a consistent and coordinated approach from Commission services.

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 Office: L-15 10/109 - Tel. direct line +32 229-50228

Page 43 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Background information

In response to the failed coup attempt of 15 July 2016, the Turkish government has undertaken a series of measures targeting the Turkish public administration at all levels, judiciary, academia, police, military etc. On 20 July, the government declared a state of emergency for 90 days. This has resulted in dismissals, detentions, closures of institutions, travel bans etc.

Such measures may have an impact on the daily cooperation of Commission services with our many Turkish counterparts, including on financial management of certain contracts. Some services are already faced with concrete implementation difficulties or concerns expressed by stakeholders participating in EU programmes.

In light of the difficulties already experienced for the implementation of some EU programmes, in particular Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+, and potential further impact on contracts with civil society, three main issues have been identified so far:

• The travel ban applicable to number of Turkish citizens may prevent individuals to actively participate in the implementation of programmes, including conferences, workshops, etc.;

• The closure of some institutions, such as higher education institutions, schools and NGOs, with whom contracts have been signed may jeopardise EU financial interests.

• The Turkish authorities unilaterally decided to suspend the Jean Monnet Scholarship programme co-funded by DG NEAR (please note that this programme is not the same as the Jean Monnet actions under Erasmus+)

a DG EAC: Implications on ERASMUS +

23 higher education institutions (HEIs), 11 schools and 2 youth organisations involved in Erasmus+ projects were closed. The VET (Vocational and Educational training) and adult sectors are likely to be impacted as well, but the Turkish National Agency, which is in charge of implementing the Erasmus+ programme, does not yet have full information.

All grants already paid by the Turkish National Agency to the closed HEIs were transferred to the Treasury, meaning that there is a problem to pay any Erasmus+ participants currently undertaking mobility. EU financial interests are potentially at risk.

b DG RTD: Implications on Horizon2020

Under Horizon 2020 no grants signed involved any of the closed HEIs. No immediate financial impact could be identified. However, many Turkish researchers and academics were called back to Turkey, and the travel ban could turn into a big obstacle for the implementation of the programme.

Turkish researchers are involved in 214 projects of Horizon 2020. 279 participants are involved in those 214 projects. The total contribution amount for those projects is EUR 68.5 million. There are Turkish leading partners /coordinators in about some 58 projects. So far two cases with Marie Curie fellows being suspended by their HEI have been brought up, asking to be transferred to a new host institution.

Page 44 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

c DG NEAR: Implications on Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme The Turkish authorities unilaterally decided to cancel the programme for the academic year 2016-17. DG NEAR aims to ensure that those allocations will be transferred for use in the next academic year.

Line to take

1. From a political and policy perspective, cooperation between Turkey and the EU should continue unimpaired in the fields of common interest, as confirmed by both sides at the last High Level Political Dialogue on 9 September.

This applies in particular to all cooperation activities, including those scheduled in Turkey, such as meetings, seminar, conferences, workshops, etc. provided the Turkish organisers confirm them. EU participants (i.e. students, staff, external experts etc.), remain of course free to make individual choices as regards their participation. The Commission's approach should be "flexibility within the rules".

2. In case financial assistance projects are de facto suspended due to the absence of a legal counterpart (closure of institutions/associations), it was decided to engage with the responsible Turkish Ministers (EU Affairs and Finance) at political level, asking for the actions they intend to take so as to secure unimpaired cooperation with the EU.

A first letter is being sent in the coming days by Commissioner Hahn. Pending reply, implementation of the EU financial assistance needs to follow the requirements of the EU financial regulation to protect EU financial interests and to ensure that funds have an impact on the ground. In order to determine the potential financial impact of closures of institutions/associations, it is necessary to compile ASAP an overview of all programmes with Turkish entities as grant beneficiaries or affiliated entities / third parties that may be concerned. This will be of benefit to appreciate the bigger picture and to see the proportion of agreements affected and in which way. Some grant agreements will be able to continue as before, but for other cases we may face two broad sets of scenarii,

No option to continue the contract (termination, possible recovery); - Possible options to continue with amendments or even envisage possible transfer of the contract to other organisations.

Such scenarii may differ in practice according to a number of factors such as the provisions of the grant agreements themselves; hence a case-by-case approach may be needed whilst bearing in mind the need for a coordinated approach.

DG BUDG, together with the LS, can assist services affected, and are already liaising with the general aim to develop scenarii for confronting situations where pre-financing paid by the EU may not be accounted for or returned/ recovered (e.g. potential for amicable solutions, possibilities to offset, etc.).,

As a matter of example, the situation facing DG EAC is becoming clearer; therefore it may be of interest to know that DG BUDG and the LS are:

- Preparing to assess the possibility for contractual transfers to HEIs which have accommodated students transferred from closed HEIs. A necessary preliminary step would be to verify whether organisations to which Erasmus + students were transferred fulfil the same initial selection and eligibility criteria.

Page 45 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

- Consultations will be needed also to help DG EAC in finding a solution, so as to guarantee continuity to the students. Recent contacts between EAC and the Turkish National Agency aimed at analysing the amounts at risk after the closure of the HEIs and the current level of unused funds held by the National Agency. This is a necessary first step to determine contingency measures pending reply from the Turkish Ministry of Finance on the potential release of EU funds currently held by the Treasury. A quick intermediate solution is vital considering the urgency of pending payments to Turkish Erasmus+ students and staff.

While we do not have an exhaustive vision about the situation, it is likely to impact numerous programmes and DGs across the Commission, hi this respect, it is crucial to develop a coordinated approach. We will keep you informed on the follow up given to the contacts with the responsible Turkish Ministries.

Pending a solution, we would invite you to inform DG NEAR (Tarja EL IDRIS SI NEAR A5, phone 59532 and Rossana CHERI NEAR A5, phone 51345) and BUDG (Matthew HIGHAM, BUDG D2, phone 52912) of any difficulty you may be faced with in your contacts with the Turkish authorities and implementation of EU programmes as a result of the Turkish government's actions, as well as any additional details on ongoing grants and amounts to be committed to existing or new projects. It is essential that individual actions/reactions are avoided and that we jointly develop a coherent and systemic approach.

We will continue assessing the situation in Turkey and adjust as necessary the implementation of the programmes financed from EU funds.

if starina Mathernoyâ : ..unod

Christian Danielsson

Annexes

• Statistic about the staff changed in key Ministries from EUD Ankara • List of closed higher education institutions (HEIs) • List of closed schools • List of closed youth organisations

Page 46 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Annexl: Statistic about the staff changed in key Ministries (as of end August 2016)

Name Total Total Rem number of number nimbiIBs .« of ol ■ trox.) demotei demo CL

Competition 339 2% The number of staff Authority suspended is also included in the Ministry of Customs and Trade.

Energy Market 500 25 5% Regulatory Authority (EMRA)

Ministry of 16066 176 1% Including one Deputy Customs and Undersecretary, Director Trade General, Deputy Director General (both from the trade part), 50 customs and trade investigator (based on informal communication), Head of Department, advisor, customs counsellor (place of posting was not mentioned) and regional customs and trade directors, local director, chief of section from local offices.

Ministry of 803 82 10% Development

Ministry of 2530 15 0,6% Including one Deputy Economy Director General for Imports and Deputy Director General, and a Head of Department (both from the EU Affairs).

Ministry of Energy 2000 200 10% and Natural Resources

Ministry of 31514 1500 4% No demotion from senior Finance management (DG and above - most of them were appointed two months ago). A number of heads of departments______were

Page 47 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Nume Total Tola remark nim щ number nu P ne of of 'P Ό\. demoted demot

removed.The majority of the purged staff is from local offices of the Ministry.

Ministry of Food, 56000 378 0.15% Majority possibly from Agriculture and IPARD Agency but no Livestock certain info available yet.

Ministry of 11886 560 4% According to some sources, Science, Industry (approx, the number 560 includes & Technology & with all also demotions in all affiliated affiliated affiliated organisations of organisations institutions) the Ministry. Hence, we had (KOSGEB, to weigh it against that total TUBIT AK, Sugar for the time-being. Institution, Turkish Standards Institute, Turkish Patent Institute)

Ministry of 38133 8777 23% Including some governors. Interior

Petroleum Pipeline 3000 30 10% Corporation (BOTAS)

Public 340 2% Procurement Authority

Treasury 1323 62 5%

Turkish Atomic None Energy Authority (TAEK)

Turkish Court of 1580 108 6% Mostly auditors. Accounts

Turkish Electricity None Corporation (TEIAS)

Turkish Petroleum 4780 70 1,4% Corporation

Page 48 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ame Total Total Rem number of number numb», ι employed of οί (approx.) demoted demot

Turkish Statistical 3889 21 0.5% Institute

Annex 2: Closed Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) - last update 22 August 2016

HE NAME N TURKISH ECHE NUMBER Altin Koza ( pek' 263750-EPP-1-2014-1- 952908 Ipek University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 310 Band Non-Comissioned Officer 270924-EPP-1-2016-1- 930573 Bando MYO Vocational College TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 381 Bursa Orhangazi 270083-EPP-1-2015-1- 955548 Bursa Orhangazi University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 456 Canik Başari 269521-EPP-1-2015-1- 947665 Canik Basari University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 460 221053-EPP-1-2014-1- 948293 Deniz Harp Okulu Turkish Naval Academy TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 341 Deniz Kuvvetleri 271137-EPP-1-2016-1- 928367 Naval Petty-Officer Vocational School Astsubay MYO TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 019 221925-EPP-1-2014-1- 998164 Fatih Üniversitesi Fatih University TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 339 259051-EPP-1-2014-1- 949636 Gediz Üniversitesi Gediz University TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 306 Gülhane Askeri Tip 270287-EPP-1-2015-1- 949501 Gulhane Military Medical Academy Akademisi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 670 228914-EPP-1-2014-1- 949364 Hava Harp Okulu Turkish Air Force Academy TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 318 Hava Kuvvetleri Air Non-Commissioned Officer Higher 269766-EPP-1-2015-1- 945769 Astsubay MYO Vocational School TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 789 257491-EPP-1-2014-1- 998037 ¡zmir Üniversitesi Izmir University TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 657 Jandarma Astsubay Gendarmerie Non-Commissioned 271164-EPP-1-2016-1- 930036 MYO Officers Vocational School TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 001 223424-EPP-1-2014-1- 957087 Kara Harp Okulu Turkish Military Academy TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 943 Turkish Land Forces Non- Kara Kuvvetleri 269544-EPP-1-2015-1- 943546 Commissioned Officer Vocational Astsubay MYO TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 064 College Melikşah 256366-EPP-1-2014-1- 944921 Meliksah University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 524

Page 49 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Mevlana 261814-EPP-1-2014-1- 949381 Mevlana University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 681 Murat 269869-EPP-1-2015-1- 940265 Hüdavendigar Murat Hüdavendigar University TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 815 Üniversitesi Selahaddin Eyyubi 269517-EPP-1-2015-1- 944305 Selahaddin Eyyubi University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 380 Süleyman Şah 267018-EPP-1-2014-1- 949664 Süleyman Sah University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 436 265315-EPP-1-2014-1- 950604 Şifa Üniversitesi Sifa University TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 560 Turgut Özal 261264-EPP-1-2014-1- 947701 Turgut Ozai University Üniversitesi TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 156 256458-EPP-1-2014-1- 949091 Zirve Üniversitesi Zirve University TR-EPPKA3-ECHE 651

Annex 3: Closed schools - last update 5 September 2016

NAME IN TURKISH Işiklar Askeri Hava Lisesi 946187180 Maltepe Askeri Lisesi Komutanligi 935628148 Maltepe Askeri Lisesi Komutanligi 935628148 Kuleli Askeri Lisesi 938076040 Özei istanbul Fatih ilkokulu 934205255 Özei Şehzade Mehmet Anadolu Lisesi 948111757 Özei Şehzade Mehmet Anadolu Lisesi 948111757 ÖZEL BURÇ VURAL ORTAOKULU 929199667 ÖZEL TOROS AKDENiZ ORTAOKULU 947051450 ÖZEL AZÍZiYE ¡LKOKULU ÖZEL ISTANBUL COŞKUN ORTAOKULU IZMIR ÖZEL FATÍH ILKOKULU ÖZEL CONKBAYIRI ORTAOKULU

Annex 4: Closed youth organisations - last update 5 September 2016

NAME IN TURKISH GÜÇ KOŞULLARDAKI BÌREYLERÌ DESTEKLEME DERNEŐI Ankara AVRUPA KÖPRÜ DERNEĠi Istanbul

Electronically signed on 30/09/2016 09:33 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563

Page 50 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 3: LETTER SENT TO TURKISH AUTHORITIES ON POTENTIAL Ref. Ares(2016)5756025 - 04/10/2016 IMPACT ON EU ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING THE ATTEMPTED COUP

JOHANNES HAHN TIBOR NAVRACSICS

MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIION MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD AND ENLARGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS EDUCATION, CULTURE, YOUTH AND SPORT

Brussels, 0 Ц, October 2016

Dear Ministers,

Let us start by emphasising that the European Union strongly condemns the attempted coup in Turkey and reiterates its full support to the legitimate institutions of the country. We deplore the high number of casualties and continue to stand in solidarity with the Turkish people. There is no room for this kind of direct attacks on democracy. Our various bilateral contacts over the past weeks have permitted to reconfirm our joint commitment to continue our intense cooperation on all strands of work. We are grateful for the central, constructive role which you play in this deepening of our ties.

It has also been reconfirmed that the accession process remains the foundation of our relations and, in that vein, Turkey's association and participation in EU programmes is an important element of the enlargement policy. Such programmes, in particular those that are enhancing people-to-people contacts, are highly valued and their mutual benefits widely recognised.

We are contacting you to share the difficulties we are now unfortunately experiencing in the implementation of some of our EU programmes, following the measures taken by your government in response to the failed coup.

The Commission services were informed on 22 August 20161 that a number of Turkish higher education institutions (HEIs) had been closed and their legal entity annulled. 23 closed HEIs were involved in the EU Erasmus+ programme and therefore managing EU funds. We understand that funds which had already been paid to the closed HEIs under EU grants have been transferred to the Turkish Treasury.

The closure of HEIs means that Erasmus+ participants (students and staff) currently undertaking a mobility in another European country can no longer be paid by those HEIs and that ongoing cooperation projects are stopped. We were also informed that the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) has appointed 13 Turkish universities as "coordinating" universities which will take over the administrative activities from the closed HEIs.

1 Letter from Mr Ahmet YÜCEL, Deputy Undersecretary of the Ministry for EU Affairs to the Director General of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC)

Page 51 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

To ensure a smooth handover of these activities, we would need assurance that the EU funds transferred to the Turkish Treasury will soon be .released for their initial purpose. The matter is urgent for those students and staff currently on mobility.

We were also informed of the closure of eleven schools and two youth organisations which were involved (or about to be involved) in Erasmus+ projects (see list attached). We understand that other institutions and non-governmental organisations might also be affected. Such a situation may jeopardise sound financial management of EU funds if no clear legal responsibility is assigned in due time for outstanding contractual obligations of the closed institutions. As you know, pre-financing by the EU remains in the ownership of the EU until final payment is made on the basis of evidence that EU funds have been spent regularly for the intended purpose.

In this context, we would be grateful for your swift assistance in order to, first, identify all Turkish partners involved in EU funded projects (Erasmus+ or other) that have been affected by recent measures, as it is in our joint interest to ensure the smooth implementation of our programmes.

Secondly, we are concerned that similar difficulties may affect other EU funded projects supported by different programmes. In this respect we would be grateful for the reassurances and details you could provide on the measures that your authorities are putting in place to guarantee the protection of EU financial interests.

Yours sincerely,

Johannes Hahn Tibor Navracsics

Mr Ömer Çelik, Minister of European Union Affairs Mr Naci Agbal, Minister of Finance

Annexes

• List of closed higher education institutions (HEfs) • List of closed schools • List of closed youth organisations

Page 52 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Annex 1: Closed Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) — last update 22 August 2016

PIC HEI NAME IN NUMBE TURKISH HEI NAME IN ENGUSH ECHE NUMBER R Altin Koza (¡pek) 263750-ЕРР-1-2014-1 TR- 952908 Ipek University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 310 Band Non-Comissioned Officer 270924-EPP-1-2016-1-TR- 930573 Bando MYO Vocational College EPPKA3-ECHE 381 Bursa Orhangazi 270083-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 955548 Bursa Orhangazi University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 456 Canik Başari 269521-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 947665 Canik Basari University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 460 221053-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 948293 Deniz Harp Okulu Turkish Naval Academy EPPKA3-ECHE 341 Deniz Kuvvetleri 271137-EPP-1-2016-1-TR- 928367 Naval Petty-Officer Vocational School Astsubay MYO EPPKA3-ECHE 019 221925-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 998164 Fatih Üniversitesi Fatih University EPPKA3-ECHE 339 259051-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 949636 Gediz Üniversitesi Gediz University EPPKA3-ECHE 306 Gülhane Askeri Tip 270287-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 949501 Gulhane Military Medical Academy Akademisi EPPKA3-ECHE 670 228914-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 949364 Hava Harp Okulu Turkish Air Force Academy EPPKA3-ECHE 318 Hava Kuvvetleri Air Non-Commissioned Officer Higher 269766-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 945769 Astsubay MYO Vocational School EPPKA3-ECHE 789 257491-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 998037 izmir Üniversitesi Izmir University EPPKA3-ECHE 657 Jandarma Astsubay Gendarmerie Non-Commissioned 271164-EPP-1-2016-1-TR- 930036 MYO Officers Vocational School EPPKA3-ECHE 001 223424-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 957087 Kara Harp Okulu Turkish Military Academy EPPKA3-ECHE 943 Turkish Land Forces Non Kara Kuvvetleri 269544-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 943546 Commissioned Officer Vocational Astsubay MYO EPPKA3-ECHE 064 College Melikşah 256366-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 944921 Meliksah University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 524 Mevlana 261814-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 949381 Mevlana University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 681 Murat 269869-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 940265 Hüdavendigar Murat Hüdavendigar University EPPKA3-ECHE Üniversitesi 815

Page 53 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Selahaddin Eyyubi 269517-EPP-1-2015-1-TR- 944305 Selahaddin Eyyubi University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 380 Süleyman Şah 267018-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 949664 Süleyman Sah University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 436 265315-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 950604 Şifa Üniversitesi Sifa University EPPKA3-ECHE 560 Turgut Özal 261264-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 947701 Turgut Ozai University Üniversitesi EPPKA3-ECHE 156 256458-EPP-1-2014-1-TR- 949091 Zirve Üniversitesi Zirve University EPPKA3-ECHE 651

Annex 2: Closed schools - last update 5 September 2016

NAME IN TURKISH PIC NUMBER Işiklar Askeri Hava Lisesi 946187180 Maltepe Askeri Lisesi Komutanligi 935628148 Maltepe Askeri Lisesi Komutanligi 935628148 Kuleli Askeri Lisesi 938076040 Özei Istanbul Fatih ilkokulu 934205255 Özei Şehzade Mehmet Anadolu Lisesi 948111757 Özei Şehzade Mehmet Anadolu Lisesi 948111757 ÖZEL BURÇ VURAL ORTAOKULU 929199667 ÖZEL TOROS AKDENiZ ORTAOKULU 947051450 ÖZEL AZÍZÍYE ¡LKOKULU ÖZEL ¡STANBUL COŞKUN ORTAOKULU ÍZMÍR ÖZEL FATÌH ÍLKOKULU ÖZEL CONKBAYIRI ORTAOKULU

Annex 3: Closed youth organisations - last update 5 September 2016

NAME IN TURKISH LOCATION GÜÇ KOŞULLARDAKI BÌREYLERÌ DESTEKLEME DERNEGÏ Ankara AVRUPA KÖPRÜ DERNEGÍ Istanbul

Electronically signed on 26/09/2016 17:07 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563

Page 54 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 4: SYRIANS IN TURKEY AND CURRENT ECHO PROGRAMMES IN RESPONSE TO THE REFUGEE CRISIS

Page 55 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Page 56 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Page 57 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016 ANNEX 5 EU ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY IN 2014-2016 PROGRAMMING PERIOD The EU Assistance in Turkey is channeled in two ways: 1. Direct Management: Contracting Authority being EU Delegation, 2. Indirect Management: The bulk of the assistance is contracted and implemented by Central Finance & Contracts Unit under Prime Ministry Undersecretariat of Treasury of Republic of Turkey for Annual Action Programmes while the Multi-annual Action Programmes are managed respective Ministries. The table below proves a snapshot of the EU Financial Assistance 2014-2016 programming period and contracted funds as per 28 September 2016.

Date of Financing EU Commitments by Programmes - Indirect Management by the Beneficary Country Decision Fund Transfers by EU Contracted Paid Agreement Financing Agreement

2014 Annual Action Programme - Objective 1 - Democracy-Governance, Rule of Law & Fundamental R. 31-874 21/12/2015 161.980.000 2014 Annual Action Programme - Objective 1 - Union Programmes 31-874 21/12/2015 167.304.624 167.304.624 151.144.624 151.144.624 2014 Annual Action Programme - Objective 2 - Energy and Agriculture 37-708 21/12/2015 16.080.376 2015 Annual Action Programme - Objective 1 - Democracy-Governance, Rule of Law & Fundamental R. 38-404 17/03/2016 196.600.000 16.000.000 2015 Annual Action Programme - Objective 2 - Energy and Agriculture 38-405 17/03/2016 58.500.000 2016 Annual Action Programme - Objective 1 - Democracy-Governance, Rule of Law & Fundamental R. 39-354 - 2016 Annual Action Programme - Objective 2 - Energy and Agriculture 39-355 - Sub Total - Annual Programmes 600.465.000 183.304.624 151.144.624 151.144.624 2014-2016 Multi-annual Action Programme - Environment & Climate Change 31-878 26/04/2016 181.890.000 2014-2016 Multi-annual Action Programme – Education, Employment & Social Policy 31-882 26/04/2016 166.200.000 2014-2016 Multi-annual Action Programme - Competitiveness & Innovation 31-879 26/04/2016 129.800.000 2014-2016 Multi-annual Action Programme - Transport 31-877 - Sub Total - Multi-annual Programmes 477.890.000 Total - Indirect Management 1.078.355.000 183.304.624 151.144.624 151.144.624

Programmes - Direct Management by the EUD Decision EU Allocation Contracted Paid Audit 2014 31-724 155.000 109.594 69.795 Audit 2015 31-729 235.000 130.998 22.249 Audit 2016 39-136 480.000 27.405 Sub Total - Audit 870.000 267.997 92.044 Information Communication 2014 31-745 4.000.000 3.990.000 1.569.444 Information Communication 2015 37-909 4.000.000 3.654.000 730.800 Information Communication 2016 38-330 4.000.000 Sub Total - Information Communication 12.000.000 7.644.000 2.300.244 EIDHR 2014 37-396 3.000.000 2.992.568 1.887.521 EIDHR 2015 38-058 5.000.000 EIDHR 2016 38-669 3.000.000 Sub Total - EIDHR 11.000.000 2.992.568 1.887.521 Civil Society Facility and Media 2014-2015 31-605 5.000.000 4.989.460 997.892 Civil Society Facility and Media 2016-2017 38-960 10.000.000 Sub Total - Civil Society Facility and Media 15.000.000 4.989.460 997.892 2014 Annual Action Programme - Objective 1 - Democracy-Governance, Rule of Law & Fundamental R. 31-874 20.675.000 2015 Annual Action Programme - Objective 1 - Democracy-Governance, Rule of Law & Fundamental R. 38-404 9.943.961 2014-2016 Multi-annual Action Programme - Environment & Climate Change 31-878 25.000.000 2014-2016 Multi-annual Action Programme - Transport 31-877 1.800.000 Sub Total - Direct Management under Action Programmes 57.418.961 ICSP 2014 37-891 17.000.000 16.990.500 13.908.121 ICSP 2016 39-790,39-583 28.500.000 20.000.000 7.240.198 Sub Total - ICSP 45.500.000 36.990.500 21.148.319 2015 Individual Measure - Support to Turkey mitigating the impact of Syrian refugee crisis 37-851 40.000.000 40.000.000 8.679.004 Support to the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement on Migrants of 18 March 2016 none 60.000.000 60.000.000 12.000.000 Special Measure on Education, Health, Municipal Infrastructure and Socio-economic Support to Refugees 39-782 824.000.000 600.000.000 Sub Total - FRT and Individual Measures on Syrian Refugee Crisis 924.000.000 700.000.000 20.679.004 Total - Direct Management 1.065.788.961 Credit Available 752.884.524 47.105.023

Grand Total - Direct & Indirect Management 2.144.143.961 183.304.624 904.029.148 198.249.647

Page 58 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW SHEET OF COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF ECHO FUNDING

Turkey – Table of expenditures made for ECHO for the period of 2014-2015

HIP Syria Regional 2014 IOM 3.250.000 DRC 1.800.000 PIN/WHH 1.000.000 MDM 400.000 14.560.000 Relief International 250.000 CARE 1.350.000 IMC 510.000 WFP 6.000.000 HIP Syria Regional 2015 IMC 1.700.000 Concern 3.500.000 WHO 500.000 DRC 2.000.000 WHH 1.500.000 Diakonie 4.500.000 MDM 4.000.000 IOM 1.500.000 35.000.000 WFP 5.000.000 CARE 3.000.000 RI 600.000 MC 3.000.000 UNFPA 1.500.000 UNICEF 1.500.000 GOAL 1.200.000 COP 2014 UNICEF 1.350.000 1.750.000 Concern 400.000 COP 2015 PIN 350.000 850.000 Concern 500.000 HIP Iraq 2014 IRC 600.000 600.000 TOTAL SYRIA REGIONAL HIP 50.160.000

TOTAL COP 2.600.000

TOTAL TURKEY 2014 - 2015 52.760.000 Source : European Commission

The important difference between the figures of 2014-2015 and 2016 was due to the implementation in early 2016 of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey adopted in November 2015. (EUR 3 billion including humanitarian and non-humanitarian aid). This explains the major strengthening of ECHO funds.

Page 59 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Turkey – Table of expenditures made for ECHO for 2016

Funding Amount in € Amount in € Amount in € Applicant Name instrument (Committed/Decided) (Contracted) (Disbursed)

ECHO Subject to proposals to Humanitarian be received by 83 650 000 0 0 Implementation Plan (HIP) Turkey 2016I humanitarian partners.

ECHO World Food Programme 348 000 000 348 000 000 HIP Turkey 2016 278 400 000

ECHO Danish Refugee Council 1 000 000 1 000 000 HIP Turkey 2016 800 000

ECHO DIAKONIE 4 000 000 4 000 000 3 200 000 HIP Turkey 2016

ECHO International Medical 3 500 000 3 500 000 1 750 000 HIP Turkey 2016 Corps

ECHO UNICEF 8 000 000 8 000 000 6 400 000 HIP Turkey 2016

ECHO Federation Handicap 2 500 000 2 500 000 2 000 000 HIP Turkey 2016

ECHO Concern Worldwide 3 000 000 3 000 000 2 400 000 HIP Turkey 2016

ECHO UNHCR 35 000 000 35 000 000 28 000 000 HIP Turkey 2016

ECHO UNFPA 9 000 000 9 000 000 7 200 000 HIP Turkey 2016

International ECHO Organisation for 8 000 000 8 000 000 6 400 000 HIP Turkey 2016 Migration (IOM) ECHO HIP Regional Syria World Food Programme 40 000 000 40 000 000 32 000 000 CrisisII

ECHO HIP Regional Syria Diakonie/Support to Life 5 500 000 5 500 000 4 400 000 Crisis ECHO HIP Regional Syria GOAL 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 200 000 Crisis

ECHO HIP Regional Syria Danish Refugee Council 4 500 000 4 500 000 3 600 000 Crisis

ECHO HIP Regional Syria World Vision 2 000 000 2 000 000 1 600 000 Crisis

Page 60 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Funding Amount in € Amount in € Amount in € Applicant Name instrument (Committed/Decided) (Contracted) (Disbursed)

ECHO World Health HIP Regional Syria 2 000 000 2 000 000 1 600 000 Organisation Crisis

ECHO International Medical HIP Regional Syria 3 000 000 3 000 000 1 500 000 Corps Crisis ECHO HIP Regional Syria CARE 4 600 000 4 600 000 3 680 000 Crisis

ECHO International Federation HIP Regional Syria of the Red Cross 8 000 000 8 000 000 6 400 000 Crisis Societies

ECHO HIP Regional Syria Relief International 2 000 000 2 000 000 1 000 000 Crisis ECHO HIP Regional Syria Federation Handicap 3 000 000 3 000 000 2 400 000 Crisis

ECHO Deutsche HIP Regional Syria 2 600 000 2 600 000 2 080 000 Welthungerhilfe Crisis ECHO HIP Regional Syria Mercy Corps Scotland 3 000 000 3 000 000 2 400 000 Crisis ECHO HIP Regional Syria IOM 1 900 000 1 900 000 1 520 000 Crisis

ECHO Médecins du monde HIP Regional Syria 3 000 000 3 000 000 2 400 000 (MDM) Crisis ECHO HIP Regional Syria Concern Worldwide 3 400 000 3 400 000 2 720 000 Crisis 595 650 000 512 000 000 407 050 000 TOTAL Committed Contracted Disbursed Source : European Commission

______I http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/hip_turkey_2016.pdf II Humanitarian funding accounted for under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey was initially also made available both under HIP Syria Regional Crisis 2015 version 4 and HIP Syria Regional Crisis 2016 version 1 for implementation as of 1 January 2016: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2016/HIPs/HIP%20V2%20FINAL.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2015/HIPs/hip_syria_2015_version_4.pdf

Page 61 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

CONTROLS APPLICABLE

TO HUMANITARIAN AID ACTIONS

Document for Information

Controls applicable to humanitarian aid actions

The proper implementation of funded actions, both in direct and indirect management modes, is ensured through several layers of controls (ex-ante and ex-post) at the various stages of the project cycle of humanitarian operations in order to provide an overall reasonable assurance on the legality and regularity of transactions. The main aspects of the control strategy developed, its supervision and monitoring procedures, and the ex-ante and ex-post controls applicable to both direct and indirect management are:

• Selection and quality control mechanisms for partners (through regular and ad-hoc assessment of NGOs and 6-pillar review and regular assessment of International Organisations); • Needs based assessment for identification of actions to be funded; • Ex-ante controls on the selection of projects, and before the contract's signature; • Field presence through a network of staff in all countries where ECHO funded projects are ongoing, for situation assessment and implementation monitoring. In the specific case of Turkey, ECHO is present with two offices in Ankara and Gaziantep which will be fully staffed with a total of 6 experts in the coming weeks; • Regular monitoring of all projects, including field visits of the actions/projects, • Control of eligible expenditure both by operational and financial desk officers to ensure that financial transactions are in conformity with the applicable rules (four eyes principle); • Audits, which are done during and after implementation of the actions, according to annual audit plans; • An overall audit strategy, aimed at ensuring that every partner organisation is audited on average every four years; a broad sample of contracts (per partner) is selected on criteria such as the relative amount of agreements, the type of management used, the complexity of activities, and risk analysis (contracts judged to be at higher risk, information from previous audits, specific requests from the desks, or other risk assessments); audits cover all type of expenditure incurred on the selected contracts; • Evaluation and review programs.

Last but not least, ECHO has developed and implements its own Anti-Fraud Strategy, as foreseen in the Commission's anti-fraud strategy. It has been elaborated on the basis of the methodology provided by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

Page 62 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 7: EU TRUST FUND IN RESPONSE TO THE SYRIAN CRISIS LIST OF TURKEY PROJECTS SIGNED AND UNDER NEGOTIATION SEPTEMBER 2016

The Overall Objective of the programme is to support refugees and host communities

receive learning materials and attend school. Support to the ‘No Lost Generation’ Madad 1 1st Board UNICEF Turkey Education UN 18 months 12.500.000 € Signed 9 Sep 2015 9.727.591 € Initiative in Turkey equipped with life skills education and engaged in peer-to-peer social activities.

constructed pre-fab classroom buildings.

SO: to meet the urgent food and nutritional needs of Syrian refugees in Turkey whose food security has been adversely affected by their displacement from Syria ER 1. Up to Enhancing food security for Syrian Madad 2 1st Board WFP Turkey Food security 41,000 Syrian refugees residing in the camps of Harran Kokenli (Sanliurfa), Cevdetiye UN 6 months 5.000.000 € Signed 9 Sep 2015 4.500.000 € Refugees in Turkey (Osmaniye), and Merkez (Kahramanmaras ) will be supported with e-food vouchers for a period of six months. The overall objectives are to improve perspectives for young Syrians and to contribute Lebanon, HOPES - Higher and Further to the preparation for post-crisis Syria reconstruction. The specific objective of the British Council, Campus France, Turkey, Jordan, Signed 15 April Madad 3 1st Board DAAD Education Opportunities and Higher education action is to increase participation and provide better access to quality further and DE, UK, FR, NL 48 months 2.700.000 € 1.500.000 € Nuffic Egypt, Iraq and 2016 Perspectives for Syrians higher education opportunities in the neighbouring region for vulnerable Syrian youth Syria and host communities. Goal: To strengthen community resilience and cohesion among Syrian refugee youth and host community youth in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Objectives: Resilient communities: Supporting 1. To foster economic self-reliance of vulnerable youth in refugee and host community Search for Common Livelihoods and Social Stability for Lebanon, Livelihoods, social Signed 28 June Madad 7 1st Board COSV, UPP, NOVA populations (Work Package Livelihoods & Food Security) EU, IT 24 months 1.757.154 € 800.000 € Ground Syrian refugee and host Turkey, Iraq services 2016 2. To strengthen the prospects of young refugee and host populations to be socially populations and economically productive (Work Package Education) 3. To promote positive relations and collaboration between youth in refugee and host communities (Work Package Social Stability & Psycho-social Support) Projects from 2nd Board meeting 1 December 2015 ACTION DOCUMENT EDUCATION The UNICEF-Madad Fund partnership aims to invest in the future of a generation of children and young people affected by the Syria conflict. Programmatic interven•tions EU-UNICEF Regional Partnership for Lebanon, Madad 12 2nd Board UNICEF Education will provide Syrian refugee and host community children and young people, with access UN 24 Months 36.950.286 € Signed 7 March 33.255.257 € Education Turkey, Jordan to quality, certified education, protective services, and opportunities for civic engagement, and entrepreneurship initiatives. ACTION DOCUMENT HEALTH Overall objective Improved wellbeing, resilience and peaceful co-existence among vulnerable refugee and host communities in countries affected by the Syria crisis, contributing to overall a RCRC consortium consisting of stability in the region IFRC, 9 European National Addressing Vulnerabilities of Specific objectives Societies and the 5 national Lebanon, Refugees and Host Communities in Health and 1. Refugees from Syria and host communities are more self-reliant and resilient to To be signed Madad 43 2nd Board Danish Red Cross societies in the countries plus Jordan, Iraq, IFRC/DK 36 MONTHS 33.095.079 € Five Countries Affected by the Syria resilience diseases, disasters and local conflicts October 2016 the Palestinian Red Crescent Turkey, Egypt Crisis 2. Refugees from Syria and host communities have improved health and psychosocial who operates in Lebanon with well-being. the Palestinian refugees there. 3. RCRC Host National Societies in the region have strengthened their capacity and enhanced their ability to reach out to most vulnerable groups within the refugee and host communities ACTION DOCUMENT LLH

Overall objective: contribute to mitigating the destabilizing effects of the Syrian refugee crisis and to better respond to hosts’ and refugees’ needs. Specific objective(s): To Livelihoods, improve the psychosocial resilience of host communities and Syrian refugees, in Gesellschaft für Strengthening Resilience of refugee Lebanon, training, capacity- particular of children and adolescents; To improve living conditions and increase the Signed 13 May Madad 13 2nd Board Internationale Expertise France, AECID hosting countries in the Syrian Jordan, Turkey, buidling, conditions for education and economic opportunities for Syrian refugees, in particular DE, FR, ES 36 months 18.207.812 € 4.741.960 € 2016 Zusammenarbeit (GiZ) Crisis Iraq community for youth and women; To decrease tensions between refugees and local populations in centers host communities; To provide coordinated support to the governments of Lebanon and Jordan on policies conducive to enhanced economic resilience and future perspectives for refugee and host communities.

Overall Objective: To increase the resilience of vulnerable Syrian refugees in Turkish host communities and enable them to better integrate through education, psychosocial Quality Education and Livelihoods Livelihoods, support and livelihood support. Specific Objective: Increasing the resilience of To be signed Madad 17 2nd Board Concern PIN, Welthungerhilfe, ACTED Support for Syrian Refugees in Turkey psycho-social IE, CZ, DE, FR 24 months 17.280.000 € extremely vulnerable off-camp Syrian refugees through (1) access to quality formal November 2016 Southeast Turkey support education and psychosocial support and (2) provision of 6 months cash-based assistance.

Page 63 of 108

1 07.10.2016 18:23 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016 EU Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis List of Turkey projects signed and under negotiation September 2016

Board Nationality of Ref. No. Applicant Name Co-applicants Action Title Action Location Sector Objectives Duration Amount for Turkey Status Disbursed meeting applicant(s) Projects from 1st Board meeting 29 May 2015 CAFOD/Caritas England and Wales (Catholic Agency for Youth RESOLVE: Resilience, Overall objective: Resilient and empowered youth are leading actors in post-conflict Overseas Development), Fener Education, reconstruction and reconciliation for Community Advancement, Jordan, Livelihoods and World Vision Social Cohesion, Opportunities for Specific Objective (SO) 1: Empowered youth utilise knowledge and opportunities to To be signed Madad 47 2nd Board Generations For Peace, Lebanon, non-formal DE, UK SUI 24 months 3.902.451 € Deutschland e.V. Livelihoods and reduced Violence confidently participate in economic and social life November 2016 International Middle East Peace Turkey, Iraq education in Jordan, SO2: Tensions between refugee and host community youth and families are reduced Research Centre, Islamic Relief Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq due to improved access to services and social cohesion Worldwide, Questscope, World Vision Switzerland

Projects from Action Documents adopted by the Board on 11 April 2016 (VTC and written procedure) Action Document Vocational Education and Training & Higher Education Programme for vulnerable Syrians and disadvantaged youth from host communities (€25 million) • Gaziantep University SPARK signed a new MoU with Gaziantep, Mersin, and Adana Universities for another • Çukurova University Access to Higher Education for 900+ placements. As costs on average including reduced tuition, living cost and books • Harran University Turkey, Syria Syrian Refugees and IDPs to are around 4-5,000 Euros per year – that's about 1/10 of the cost of Erasmus • Killis University (liberated To be signed Madad 03 3rd Board Stichting SPARK prepare for post-conflict Higher education scholarships in the EU – we expect the potential for about 5 million Euros in the NL 36 months 5.000.000 € • Mustafa Kemal University areas), Lebanon, October 2016 reconstruction of Syria and academic year 16/17 benefitting 900+ Syrians in Turkey. This can be scaled up with the • Mersin University Iraq (KRG) integration in host communities additional years and more students towards 20+ million. • Osmaniye Korkut University

Projects from Action Documents adopted by the Board on 21 June 2016 (4th Board meeting) In line with the "Strategic orientation document for the European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis" (EUTF), the main objective of the proposed School construction to increase the programme is to cater to displaced persons onger-term resilience, in particular with To be signed Madad IPA I (a) 4th Board KfW number of primary and secondary Turkey Education DE 36 months 70.174.976 € regard to education for children. The specific objective of this programme is to increase November 2016 schools for Syrian refugee children access to inclusive quality primary and secondary education opportunities for Turkish and Syrian children and youth. In line with the "Strategic orientation document for the European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis" (EUTF), the main objective of the proposed programme is to address the most critical needs and gaps for stabilisation and Municipal Infrastructure in the field Water and resilience aid to Syrian Refugees and host communities in Turkey, by supporting the of water, wastewater, solid waste Sanitation, long term capacity of host states to address refugee flows and the effort of Turkish To be signed Madad IPA I (b) 4th Board EIB to support Turkish municipalities Turkey EU 36 months 71.806.941 € municipal authorities to provide long-term hospitality and assistance to the Syrian refugees December 2016 most affected by the Syrian refugee infrastructure sheltered in Turkey. crisis The specific objective of this programme is to increase the resilience of host and refugee communities in Turkey through supporting urgently needed municipal infrastructure projects (water, wastewater, solid waste). In line with the "Strategic orientation document for the European Union Regional Trust Increasing access to inclusive Education, Basic Fund in response to the Syrian crisis" (EUTF), the main objective of the proposed quality primary, secondary and Education, programme is to cater to displaced persons longer-term resilience, in particular with higher education opportunities for To be signed Madad IPA I (c) 4th Board UNICEF, UNHCR Turkey Secondary regard to education for children. UN 36 months 22.352.942 € Turkish and Syrian children, youth October 2016 Education, Higher The specific objective of this programme is to increase access to inclusive quality and students (Human Resources Education primary, secondary and higher education opportunities for Turkish and Syrian children, Development) youth and students. The overall objective is to contribute to reducing the mortality and morbidity of Improved access to comprehensive refugees, migrants and host population in Turkey. Medecins du Monde To be approved Madad 58 4th Board Doctors Worldwide Turkey and quality healthcare services for Turkey Health The specific objective is to ensure access to and availability of healthcare services to FR 36 months 30.000.000 € (MDM) by AFAD (DWWT); Turkish Red Crescent Refugees in Turkey refugees, migrants and host population in Turkey through support to partners in the (Kızılay); Turkish Green Crescent South Eastern Anatolia region, Hatay province, Izmir and Istanbul. Total Total EUTF projects Turkey 300.727.641 € Total Paid contracted: EUTF projects Turkey 2016 only 283.227.641 € 77.115.252 € 54.524.809 € Finaced by FRT 148.892.782 € 59.615.252 € EUTF Turkey 2016 outside FRT: 134.334.859 €

Page 64 of 108

2 07.10.2016 18:23 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Madad Fund / Turkey: current proposals for the implementation of reoriented IPA I funds Support to primary and Education Construction of up to 80 schools in the south- 14 Regional Competitiveness 68.000.000 € secondary education Infrastructure eastern part of Turkey TOTAL RC transferred to EUTF 70.174.976 € TOTAL RC pipeline 68.000.000 € Environment (This is the list of projects Nizip (Gaziantep) Wastewater 15 Water Construction and supervision of Nizip WWTP 18.000.000 € expected to be submitted to EU for funding Project under IPA II. The provinces with the highest Akşehir Drinking Water Construction and supervision of tranmission 16 number of refugees among those can be Water 12.000.000 € Project main, reservoirs and replacement of network selected to be funder under EUTF. The Construction: Sanitary landfill, compost plant, provinces hosting 90% of the refugees living Mersin Solid Waste 17 Solid waste Transfer stations, Rehabilitation of old 20.000.000 € outside camps in Turkey are Gaziantep, Management Project Şanlıurfa, Hatay, İstanbul, Mersin, Mardin, dumpsites Adana, Kilis, Kahramanmaraş, Konya, Batman, Şırnak, İzmir, Kayseri, Bursa and Viranşehir and Ceylanpınar Construction: Sanitary landfill, compost plant, 18 Osmaniye (Şanlıurfa) Solid Waste Solid waste Transfer stations, Rehabilitation of old 20.000.000 € (http://www.aktifhaber.com/turkiyede-illere- Management Project dumpsites gore-suriyeli-multeci-sayisi-1004613h.htm). TOTAL Environment transferred 71.806.941 € TOTAL Environment pipeline 70.000.000 € Designing and implementing a Conditional cash transfer (CCT) to families of Syrian children on the condition that they attend Increasing Access to Primary school (1st to 12th grades). Payment per 19 Human Resources Development and Secondary Schools Education 10.000.000 € student to be determined on the basis of (CCT) existing CCT programme of Turkey (around €15 per month). A higher transfer for the girl child may be considered. Implementing a scholarship programme for Scholarship programme for Syrian ungraduate and master students who 20 Human Resources Development Higher Education 6.000.000 € University Students are living in Turkey and granted admission to study in Turkish public universities Implementing a subsidy programme for students who are admitted to Turkish Academic Turkish Courses Universities but expected to have C1 level 21 Human Resources Development for University Preparatory Higher Education 5.000.000 € Turkish language certificates. Programme will Students cover language course fees of the students enrolled in language centres of universities TOTAL HRD transferred to EUTF 22.352.942 € TOTAL HRD pipeline 21.000.000 € Total paid in: EUTF Management fee 3% 4.930.046 € 164.334.859 € IPA I package 163.930.046 € Total MADAD Fund Pipeline for Turkey: 163.930.046 €

Page 65 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 8 DRAFT RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2015-2017 - European Union Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis, "the MADAD FUND" Disclaimer: This is a living document aligned to the indicators agreed by the international community and included in the 3RP - Regional Refugee and Resilience plan in response to the Syria crisis (2016-2017). It will be further refined and reviewed as the EU Trust Fund progresses in the establishment of it performance monitoring system.

OBJECTIVES/EXPECTED RESULTS INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION OVERALL OBJECTIVE The overall objective of the Trust Fund is to provide a coherent and reinforced aid response to the Syrian crisis on a regional scale, responding primarily to the needs of refugees from Syria in neighbouring countries, as well as of the communities hosting the refugees and their administrations, in particular as regards resilience % of EU budget per fiscal year committed to the aid response for and early recovery. The Trust Fund shall address the needs of the following groups: supporting resilience in the refugee crisis in the region, using as a Official EU data, national statistics, World Bank reports, - refugees, baseline Dec 2014 data (increase to be observed) UNHCR and RDPP studies - internally displaced persons, % of target groups below poverty line among refugees and host - returnees, and communties (decrease to be observed) - vulnerable host communities

specific1. AREA sector of intervention: objective ToACCESS address TO theBASIC continued EDUCATION lack of access to inclusive and quality education and protection* for Syrian refugee children in the host countries 1.1 Opportunities for equitable # of educational facilities constructed, renovated or rehabilited data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation Expected access to formal and non-formal # of children (male and female) receiving school supplies and mid-term evaluation exercises - when possible cross result education scaled up # of children (male and female) supported through cash grants checking with natonal statistics and IO reports

# of children enrolled in early childhood education # children (male and female) enrolled in formal education (basic) # children (male and female) enrolled in formal education (secondary) data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation Expected 1.2 Access to inclusive quality education services promoted # of teacher (or education personnel) (male and female) trained and mid-term evaluation exercises - when possible cross result # children (male and female) enrolled in non formal education checking with natonal statistics and IO reports # children (male and female) enrolled in life skills

specific2. AREA sector of intervention: objective ToACCESS support TO neighbouringHIGHER AND FURTHERcountries EDUCATIONand universities in providing higher education services to Syrian students, as well as further opportunities for Syrian students and researchers through scholarships in Europe and vocational training opportunities in the region.

# of youth, adolescents and adults (male and female) accessing higher education # of youth, adolescents and adults (male and female) accessing Expected 2.1 Participation and equal access to higher education opportunities for target vocational training data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation result groups increased # of people trained and/or provided with marketable skills and services and mid-term evaluation exercises -

Page 66 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

3. AREA of intervention: REGIONAL RESILIENCE AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT specific sector objective: To mitigate the destabilising effects of the refugee crisis # of individuals accessing wage employment opportunities Expected 3.1. Economic growth potential and resilience of the local economy hosting target data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation result groups enhanced. and mid-term evaluation exercises -

# of community support projects implemented data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation 3.2 Local and national systems and service delivery capacities in target areas % of increase in satisfaction with national service delivery for refugees and mid-term evaluation exercises - strengthened and host comunities (survey) # of international media (including social media) municipalities benefiting from improved infrastructure and services

# of active community centres in target areas # of community support projects implemented data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation Expected 3.3 Tensions between refugees and local populations in host communities # of women, girls, boys and men who have kowledge of access to and and mid-term evaluation exercises - result decreased benefit from empowerment programmes (social cohesion and peace international media (including social media) building related)

4. AREA of intervention: ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES specific sector objective: To increase access to quality and equitable health care for refugees and impacted local populations through direct interventions and through bolstering national systems and capacities

# of health consultations for target population in primary health care data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation Expected 4.1 Access increased and capacity strengthened to deliver general primary and services and mid-term evaluation exercises - when possible cross result secondary health care # of health care staff trained in primary and secondary health care checking with natonal statistics and IO reports services

# of children (boys and girls) who are survivors or at risk receiving specialist child protection support data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation Expected # of referrals of target population to secondary or tertiary health care 4.2. Target groups have improved access to psychosocial/mental health well-being. and mid-term evaluation exercises - when possible cross result services (including mental health) # of individuals trained on child protection and GBV checking with natonal statistics and IO reports

5. AREA of intervention: ACCESS TO WASH SERVICES specific sector objective: To improve the stability and resilience of target communities ( refugees and host communities) and to mitigate the risk of WASH related mortality and morbidity Expected data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation 5.1 Relevant municipal infrastructure (water, wastewater and solid waste) improved # of facilities rehabilitated and operational result and mid-term evaluation exercises # of facilities constructed and operational

# of individuals benefiting from improved access to adequate quantity of safe water data generated from programmes monitoring and evaluation Expected 5.2 Access to water services for vulnerable population improved # of beneficiaries who have experienced a hygiene promotion session and mid-term evaluation exercises - when possible cross result reduced checking with natonal statistics and IO reports % mortality and morbidity rate of target group

* Indicators referred to child protection are included together with the indicators foreseen for the Health sector to avoid repetitions.

Page 67 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 9: FILE NOTE ON ECA 2009 AUDIT FINDINGS (SPECIAL REPORT 16/2009) RELATED TO EUD MONITORING SYSTEM

Ankara, 09/09/2016

FILE NOTE ON

ECA 2009 AUDIT FINDINGS (SPECIAL REPORT 16/2009)

RELATED TO EUD MONITORING SYSTEM

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) Special Report 16/2009 (see attached report page 28) included some critical findings related to the supervisory and control systems implemented by the Delegation mainly concerning deficiencies identified in relation to the planning, implementation and effectiveness of on the spot check (OSC) monitoring missions.

As explanatory to the general findings stated in the report, the preliminary findings included the following observations regarding weaknesses of the EUD monitoring system:

1. On-the-spot visits: lack of a consolidated plan and of supervision tools

1.1 The monitoring visits to be performed on the spot by ECD staff are not based on a plan duly approved by the management of the ECD. 1.2 The information tools in place at the ECD do not provide the management with a systematically updated overall picture of what projects/contracts have (or have not) been visited on the spot. At ECA auditors’ request, the Audit Task Manager had to collect the data from all the operational and financial sections in order to prepare a consolidated table. 1.3. The findings and follow up actions are not organized in a summary information tool at disposal of the management. Only task managers are fully informed of findings and follow up actions related to their contracts portfolio.

2 Coverage of the on-the-spot checks and lack of description of the checks carried-out Facts: 2.1 According to the information provided by the ECD, about 740 contracts financed under National Programmes 2006 and 2007 were in the implementation phase at the time of the audit mission (November 2009). During 2009 (Jan-Nov), the ECD staff carried out on-the-spot visits covering about 60 contracts and subcontracted the checks on about 80 contracts to external controllers. In some cases the visits performed by the external controllers have been carried out also by the ECD staff, as a quality control procedure. However all the on-the-spot checks performed by the consultants and 19 out of the 60 visits carried out by ECD

Page 68 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

staff concerned one single grant scheme including about 100 contracts for an overall value of about EUR16.000.000,00 (EU funds). Thus, most of the monitoring visits concern the mentioned grant scheme. About 50% of the work contracts have also been visited on the spot, but few missions have been performed with regard to supply, service and grant contracts awarded under other schemes. 2.2 Based on a sample of monitoring dossiers, it was observed that in a number of cases the checks performed by the ECD staff were not based on standard programs but were documented by "mission reports" not providing precise information on the scope and objectives of the control, on the checks carried out and on the findings and proposed follow up actions.

As a follow up to the ECA audit, EUD took up measures to further improve the monitoring system at all levels both in terms of establishing a monitoring strategy and its approval by the management of the EUD as well as in terms of their follow up and reporting. The OSC monitoring system was revised to ensure a systematic approach. The relevant instructions on the new system were introduced via internal instructions of HoD of July 2010 and June 2011 the system included the following basic elements:

1. Establishment of a Monitoring Map: All TMs are asked to create a Monitoring Map (MM) at project level following the signature of relevant FA. In addition to some basic data concerning the project, monitoring tools to be used, there is also a Risk Assessment section in the MM which evaluates the risk applicable to the project and where necessary to each component level a risk assessment including internal, external risks and financial volume. The MM also includes remarks and approval of both TMs and PMs. 2. Following the Risk Assessment under the MMs, Annual Monitoring Plans are prepared on the basis of risk identified. MMs contain, where applicable, the specific Contract Level Risk Assessment (RA tables in the MMs). As per the new methodology (explained in the Assurance Strategy of 2012) 2 level risk assessments - first at the Project Level then, for the projects, satisfying the pre-defined criteria, for the specific contracts are assessed. The contracts proposed in the long list for the Annual Monitoring Plan in line with this integrated 2-level approach, are included in the Annual Monitoring Plan which is annexed to the AOSD reports. 3. Annual Monitoring Plans include a yearly plan at contract level for all procurement types and are revised on a bi-annual basis. TM performing the mission is required to fill in the relevant checklist developed for each of the procurement type in addition to the mission report. 4. Checklists developed for each procurement type include questions at operational level, systematic level and also visibility issues. In addition, a follow up/recommendation part available helps to identify the next steps to be followed by relevant parties to address the findings identified during the mission. In cases where crucial observations in relation to the project implementation and/or system level deficiencies are observed, the issues are also brought to the attention of EUD irregularity officer and audit/control officer so as to plan for future actions. The Annual Monitoring Plans are shared with partners institutions and the partners are also informed about the findings during implementation review/coordination meeting. 5. The performance against the Annual Monitoring Plan, information on findings out of these missions, lessons learnt/remedial actions taken are reported to HQ on a regular basis through AOSD reports and/or any ad hoc inquiries since 2011. 6. The system also requires the TM to develop an end of project/closure questionnaire so as to provide some basic data in terms of key elements regarding project performance and achievement against the objectives set at the programming stage.

Page 69 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

The system ensures a very effective monitoring strategy for planning, implementation, reporting and follow up of the findings of OSC monitoring missions. The system was presented in detail during supervisory mission following the ECA audit of 2009 and to the auditor who took up follow up audits. In both missions the system was considered effective and satisfactory in terms of answers to the criticism raised in 2009 mission. Later, in their Special Report No.19/2012, which presented the results of their follow up audit on the finding of 2009 mission, ECA reported that the recommendations given are implemented in most respects. (see Annex VIII of the ECA 2012 Special Report attached). With the introduction of the MIS system the requirement to carry on with the Risk Assessment and production of the Annual Monitoring Plan via the system started in 2016. After the start some system adaptions may be necessary to serve effectively performance and results follow- up. DG NEAR guidelines on linking planning/programming, monitoring and evaluation were finalised end of July 2016. The document lays down the basics for monitoring responsibilities and also presents instructions for the monitoring system/strategy, information roles and responsibilities and checklists to be used. EUD now aims to revise its internal monitoring strategy in line with the guidance provided by the end of the year to ensure that all relevant system requirements are met and become effective by 2017.

Page 70 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 10: FILE NOTE FOR EP BUDGETARY CONTROL COMMITTEE ON MONITORING PROCESSES OF IPA, EIDHR AND ICSP

Ankara, 05/10/2016

FILE NOTE

FOR EP BUDGETARY CONTROL COMMITTEE

ON MONITORING PROCESSES OF IPA, EIDHR and IcSP

IPA:

The systems requirements as set under IPA I and IPA II, namely decentralised management and indirect management respectively, require that the EC confers the management of certain actions to the beneficiary country including tendering, contracting and payments. As per the common requirements for accreditation and conferral of management powers to the beneficiary country, the national systems should satisfy relevant conditionalities in particular in regards to the management and control systems, also including monitoring functions.

In line with the above, the main purpose of the EUD in terms of monitoring within the context of assurance strategy established is to verify whether the national systems are reliable and that their monitoring reports and payment claims fully reflect reality. With the introduction of IPA II, the monitoring function has been revised to include sector approach with a larger focus on results.

EUD is fully responsible for regularly monitoring and reporting on results to the next higher level above and where necessary using the information to propose mitigation measures projects. EUD has to report regularly to headquarters and focus on key responsibilities in the area of financial management, i.e. the ex-ante control of procurements, the provision of the “conforme aux faits” for payments, monitoring activities and the follow up of irregularities. The reports should specify the results of these activities and any problems encountered and identified.

It is possible to distinguish among three broad categories of monitoring:

1. Operational monitoring

which can be internal or external:

a. Internal monitoring, is implemented both by implementing partners (such as beneficiary institution's staff, government’s personnel, non-state actors like private sector companies, NGOs, etc.) and by EUD staff.

In line with their monitoring roles and responsibilities EUD staff members participate to meetings with beneficiary institutions/line ministries, CAs and contractors for effective follow up of the projects/Actions. Regular Project/Action level Steering Committee

Page 71 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Meetings are also key elements at the operational level to ensure effective monitoring. Where need be, staff members also organise and/or participate to internal monitoring missions which can also be structured as joint missions with relevant national authorities to ensure satisfactory progress is made towards the planned targets.

There is a very specific type of monitoring mission implemented, namely on the spot checks, which aim to collect monitoring data at operational level as well as contractual level requirements. The on the spot check missions are planned on a bi-annual basis under an Annual Monitoring Plan on the basis of a risk assessment conducted by the relevant TMs and PMs. The performance against the plan established are followed up against the mission reports and checklists used during the missions. The findings of the on the spot check missions are followed up internally within the EUD and also reported to the HQ on a regular basis.

b. External monitoring is implemented by means of Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) in accordance with the relevant guidelines. The guidelines have been introduced by the EC to get an independent view on action’s performance. External monitors assess performance based on some of the OECD DAC evaluation criteria. The new approach to ROM aims at providing support to EUDs/HQ services in action monitoring and reporting functions and is regulated by a specific Handbook regularly updated by DEVCO. Specific to Turkey, ROM monitoring activities have been structured under a TA contract implemented by the NIPAC office for the last five years where eligible projects have been regularly ROM monitored under IPA I.

2. Sector strategic monitoring

Strategic monitoring can be organised, whenever relevant, to ensure a proper, joint supervision of complex, interrelated interventions implemented in a given sector. This type of monitoring takes place at a higher, more strategic level in line with the requirements set under the IPA I and II implementing regulations and framework agreements. This is the case of:

• Sector Monitoring Committees under IPAI and II • Sector level Implementation Review Meetings where sector level achievements, status of programming/planning, monitoring (including lessons learnt from previous activities) and contracting/disbursement rates are discussed and analysed with the participation of relevant national authorities and EUD TM/PM staff members • Inter-service meetings at sector level encompassing different dimensions of interventions (sector strategies, activities implemented by the Government itself together with different development partners). • Specific donor coordination groups set out around a budget support programme. Their role will be to discuss in an holistic way issues related to the implementation of sector reforms; the implementation of interventions’ activities; the review of specific requirements foreseen by the programme (like fulfilment of conditionalities); review of relevant sector indicators. • Sub-committee meetings in the framework of the relevant partnership agreements to follow-up at sector level on reform agenda and bilateral relations.

Page 72 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

3. System monitoring

System monitoring refers to the review (made by means of dedicated meetings, supervision missions, performance audits, reports, etc.) that the different actors (Commission, EUD, national authorities) put in place to assess the way in which the whole system organised in relation to the financial implementation takes place. These meetings were relevant and structured in the framework of IPA I and II, where a specific IPA Monitoring Committee has been foreseen under relevant regulatory arrangements.

It should be noted that the meetings are designed to cover more structured data production and gathering to be ensured by the relevant entities: i) International institutions for impact/context indicators, ii) National administrative services and statistical offices for outcome indicators, and iii) monitoring information systems at Intervention level for output indicators under IPA II since shift towards more strategic and results oriented approach has been adopted.

Complementary to the regular monitoring system as presented above, the EUD also contracts various types of audits to make additional checks on the system. These include audits for system levels checks, verification of expenditure, processing of Request for Funds, processing of payments by the national authorities and legality/regularity controls.

EIDHR:

The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is a key instrument for the promotion of human rights and democracy in Turkey. It is implemented in a centralised manner by the EU Delegation and it tends to operate in a very sensitive context. EIDHR projects in Turkey focus on critical human rights issues for the country, including freedom of expression and independent media, access to justice, fight against torture and impunity, protection and respect of cultural diversity, rights of vulnerable people and minorities, human rights education and training programmes, and political representation and participation, particularly for underrepresented groups (including women, LGBTI, Roma and youth).

Turkey is one of the largest recipients of EIDHR funds in the world: an annual allocation of around EUR3 million is confirmed for the period 2014-2020. At present, there are around 30 ongoing projects (CBSS 2012-13-14) for a value of around EUR 4.1 million, plus new proposals under evaluation (CBSS 2015). The next call for proposals is planned for autumn this year (CBSS 2016).

An additional envelope of EUR 2 million has been allocated to support human rights needs of refugees/migrants in Turkey (CBSS 2015), acknowledging the role of Turkey in the Syrian refugee crisis and the need to support protection of human rights such crisis situations. This envelope is meant to reinforce the human rights dimension of the EU response to the crisis, while accompanying IcSP and IPA interventions and complementing ECHO humanitarian assistance.

The monitoring of the projects is very important for the EIDHR team in the Delegation (both operational and financial), and thus all procedural steps (from call for proposals stage to the implementation and closure stages) are carefully followed-up in order to maintain the success of the EIDHR in Turkey.

In this framework, a well-established monitoring and risk assessment system, both operational and financial, exists for all EIDHR projects. The operational risk assessment is thoroughly

Page 73 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

reflected in the relevant MIS module for risk assessment for all the EIDHR contracts. The latter is based on various criteria, including political sensitiveness/external factors and financial and other capacities. Moreover, since the projects are centralised, the EIDHR team monitors each and every one regardless of their risk.

The monitoring and risk assessment system is based on the following check points:

1. Post-grant trainings 2. Master implementation progress table 3. Operational and financial monitoring visits 4. Interim Narrative and Financial Reports 5. Final Narrative and Financial Reports 6. Expenditure verification/audit report(s) 7. Regular contacts by phone/e-mail (at least 1–2 contacts per week for each project).

It is worth noting that among the EIDHR beneficiary countries, Turkey is considered to have one of the most structured, systematic and advanced monitoring systems. This has been acknowledged by the DEVCO EIDHR team in many occasions. Our structured, systematic and advanced monitoring/risk assessment system has also been confirmed by the Court of Auditors in 2014, when one EIDHR project was audited by this institution and the result was that "no problem [was found] neither in terms of legality-regularity of its cost nor its objective and performance".

In duly justified cases, where there is a real need based on a soundly assessed risk by the operational and financial sections, additional audits are proposed by the EUD. Expenditure verification and existing intensified monitoring system constitute the basis to assess the need for audit in coordination with the audit coordinator.

IcSP:

As the main EU instrument in the area of crisis response, the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) has been a key instrument in the EU response to the refugee and irregular migratory flows crises, which have been considerably affecting Turkey, in particular in the last three years. The IcSP is used in response to crisis when other EU external financial instruments cannot be mobilised. In the case of Turkey, before the establishment of the EU Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis (i.e. the EU Madad Trust Fund), the IcSP had been the only instrument available, other than the Humanitarian Aid Instrument, to be deployed, to respond in a fast and flexible manner, to the impact of the Syrian refugee crisis in Turkey. In the period 2013-end 2015, the IcSP was deployed in Turkey to cover gaps in terms of assistance in a situation of crisis (in line with the conditions laid down in the Regulation establishing an Instrument for Stability and Peace) which could have not been filled by other instruments.

It has also been instrumental to ensure efficient sequencing, complementarity and sustainability in the first phase of the EU response to the refugee crisis, i.e. prior to the high- level political commitments undertaken with the EU-Turkey Action Plan and the consequent establishment of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey.

Most of the actions financed under IcSP in Turkey have stemmed from ECHO projects ensuring a transition from a form of short-term immediate aid to a more medium-term

Page 74 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

assistance, while longer-term actions in the area of livelihood and resilience, for instance, would have been covered by the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA).

As a non-programmable instrument by definition, allocations to Turkey have been driven by actual needs on the ground, which have been jointly identified by the EU Delegation to Turkey, the Service for Foreign Policy Instrument (FPI) and the European External Action Service (EEAS). In the period 2014-2016, three Exceptional Assistance Measures under the IcSP in favour of Turkey have been adopted by Commission Implementing Decision, for a total budget of 45,5 million EUR. The Instrument has been mainly used to-date to respond to the refugee crisis: 24,5 million EUR out of the total allocation of 45,5 M EUR have been used to fund actions directly assisting refugees in Turkey as well as the Turkish national and local authorities in their efforts to address the crisis in the country. The IcSP in Turkey has also been addressing the migration crisis in the Mediterranean and the Aegean with an action for a total budget of 20 M EUR. The monitoring (both operational and financial) of the IcSP projects is very important for FPI.2 in HQ and the FPI staff at the EU Delegation. There is a considerable work already done at the time of formulation (i.e. when a Commission Implementing Decision is drafted and proposed to the other concerned Commission Services and the EU Member States) in: - conducting a risk assessment on the political context of the planned intervention; - assessing the capacity (both operational and financial) of the proposed implementing partner to achieve the objectives sought. Risk mitigation measures are already designed at the formulation stage. The same applies in the preparation of contracts (mainly Delegation Agreements and direct grants). The logframe under the projects submitted by the implementing partner is thoroughly analysed so as to be used as an effective monitoring tool throughout project implementation, where targets and indicators of achievements are actually used to measure progress during the project life. A well-established monitoring and risk assessment system, both operational and financial, exists also for all IcSP projects. In the case of IcSP, the monitoring and risk assessment system during project implementation is based on the following points:

1. Quarterly reports to outline and document (through verifiable indicators) progress vis-a-vis the planned specific objectives and set targets. 2. Operational and financial monitoring visits 3. Interim Narrative and Financial Reports 4. Final Narrative and Financial Reports 5. Expenditure verification/audit report(s) 6. Regular contacts by phone/e-mail (at least 1–2 contacts per week for each project). 7. Regular meeting with project manager and financial officers from the EU Delegation and the implementing partner for each project (every month/two months unless ad hoc meeting to address urgent matters). IcSP projects also include independent audit reports to be submitted to EU Delegation as per contractual obligations. In justified cases, additional audits are proposed by the EUD. Expenditure verification and existing intensified monitoring system constitute the basis to assess the need for audit in coordination with the audit coordinator.

Page 75 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 11: Concept Note: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the 'Madad' Trust Fund

Title Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Madad Trust Fund Total cost (1%?) TBD based on the overall portfolio to be monitored, number of evaluations to be undergone, across various levels Duration Ongoing for the full duration of the Madad EUTF, currently set for 60 months + ex-post evaluations as necessary. Sectors / Actors Mutli Sector / Multi Actor

Global Objective The purpose of the Madad EUTF Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is to assess, across various levels, the degree to which the Overall Objective of the Trust Fund has been achieved, ie: to assess whether the Madad EUTF provides "a coherent and reinforced aid response to the Syrian crisis on a regional scale, responding primarily and in the first instance to the needs of refugees from Syrians in neighbouring countries, as well as of the communities hosting the refugees and their administrations, in particular as regards to resilience and early recovery".

The Madad Trust Fund M&E Framework will assess the effective delivery of programmes, contribute to improved project design, and develop a knowledge base of 'what works' to allow for continuous improvement of aid delivery. Above all and in the spirit of the Agenda for Change, the Madad Trust Fund M&E Framework aims to ensure upward and downward accountability and transparency of EU support towards the Madad Trust Fund Board and end beneficiaries, respectively.

The Trust Fund and actions financed by it are subject to the monitoring and evaluation rules applicable to EU external programmes, in order to ensure the respect of the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, as per Article 13 of the Agreement Establishing the Madad Trust Fund.

Guiding Principles The Madad Trust Fund M&E Framework will capitalise on the extensive M&E work and systems already in place and in use across the region. The following principles should guide the development of the Madad M&E Framework:  Recognise that extensive data collection, reporting, and monitoring already takes place at the level of implementing partners, national government, UN, regional frameworks, and donors (both at field and HQ levels)  Whenever possible utilise, build upon, align to and complement existing data collection, reporting, monitoring, and evaluation systems; to the maximum extent possible, align with and contribute to already existing regional and national resilience and crisis response evaluation plans, including 3RP and country plans  Invest in monitoring and evaluation findings that will allow for a meaningful comparison of performance and results. Collect only data that is relevant to improve programme quality, that improves learning processes by implementing partners, that improves upward and downward accountability, and that contributes to strategic decision making at Board level.  Recognise that monitoring serves implementation and evidence-based decision making. The burden and cost of data collection, management and analysis typically cascades downwards, and that resources will be calibrated accordingly.  Recognise that the operational context is fluid, the crisis is ongoing, and that challenges will be faced by stakeholders involved. Focus efforts and resources to mitigate risks, allow for lessons learned and corrective actions to be identified and rolled-out on an ongoing basis.  Comply to Agenda for Change whereby even monitoring and evaluation should take into account principles of Aid/Development Effectiveness, including partner ownership,

Page 76 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

alignment with local systems, donor harmonisation, and mutual accountability for development results.  Wherever possible include measuring compliance with programming standards and guidelines of the EU. Wherever relevant, consider the use of globally accepted standards such as the Core Humanitarian Standards, SPHERE or IASC or Cluster / Working Groups or SDGs, that can be compared across countries and contexts.

Proposed Approach The Madad Trust Fund supports Actions across sectors, across a wide geographic scope and in partnership with various actors, at different levels of implementation. Consequently, the Madad Trust Fund M&E approach should focus on the different kind of monitoring requirements at different levels and stages in the process.

• Overall Objectives of Madad Strategic & Operational Boards Madad Trust Fund • Strategic Objectives of Madad EU Delegations & Host Governments NEAR/DEVCO/NEAR Management Strategic Priorities • Measurable Contributions of Madad

Operational Board • AD Overarching Sector Objectives Madad Fund Management Action Documents • AD Specific Objectives EU Delegations & Host Governments & Sector Objectives • AD Results to be achieved 3RP / LCRP / JRP Structures

Response / • 3RP/LCRP/JRP Obj, Results & Indicators EU Delegation Programme Managers Programme • Project-level Specific Objectives Implementing Partners • Project Outcomes to be achieved National Institutions & Structures Outcomes 3RP / LCRP / JRP Structures

• Project-level Results and Activities Results, Activities implemented EU Delegation Programme Managers & Outputs • Inputs, processes and outputs Implementing Partners Local Institutions & Structures End Beneficiary / Communities

The M&E approach bases itself on existing programme sources that already provide a frame of reference for the implementation of the Madad Trust Fund, inlcuding:  Madad Trust Fund Strategic Objective to provide “a coherent and reinforced aid response to the Syrian crisis on a regional scale, responding primarily and in the first instance to the needs of refugees from Syrians in neighbouring countries, as well as of the communities hosting the refugees and their administrations, in particular as regards to resilience and early recovery”. Indicators of achievement – to be defined.  Madad Fund Action Documents (AD) and Sector Objectives. Each Madad Fund Action Document offers a framework of overall objectives, specific objectives and results to be achieved, upon which the Madad Trust Fund M&E Framework is based. Indicators of achievement – to be defined.  Regional and National Strategic Plans to Respond to the Syrian Crisis. The Regional Refugee Response Plan (3RP) and each of the country response plans (LCRP and JRP) already set out a comprehensive set of objectives, results and indicators, across each sector, to measure the impact of the response to the Syrian crisis in the region over time. Whilst the 3RP remains a UN-led process and the country response plans remain a nationally-owned plan, the Madad Trust Fund M&E Framework should utilise these as a foundation, feeding into the measure of the achievement of shared objectives. In reverse, this would also allow for a

Page 77 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

measurement of how much of the regional and country response plans have been achieved through the Madad Trust Fund support.  Programme and project level objectives, results and indicators should feed upwards towards the achievement of Trust Fund-level, AD-level and country response plan objectives.

Key Components The Madad Trust Fund M&E Framework must be further elaborated and fine-tuned with key stakeholders to better identify roles and tasks, but should include:

(1) Baseline Data Collection In order to measure change over time, baseline data must be collected using (1) existing programming data and surveys including from UN, OCHA, World Bank, other donors and implementing partners and (2) national statistical agencies and Ministries. Wherever baseline gaps exist, baseline data can be collected by implementing partners if data collection approaches and tools are aligned. Key indicators can be collected on a 6 month or 12 month basis as relevant. Baseline data will be mainly quantitative and should ideally be comparable between projects, countries, and consistent within a sector. Therefore, baseline data indicators could fall into a set of sector-based ‘big picture’ indicators that align with government / UN / country response plan / donor standards, as offered by the 3RP and country response plans. Where baseline data collection is proven to be extremely difficult (ie: where reliable or verified data is not available) it may be necessary to either use proxy data or rely on triangulation between indicators.

(2) Programme Monitoring & Evaluation foreseeing that:  Each project is monitored and evaluated . Against achievement of stated objectives and results on a regular basis by the implementing partner, but also at least once externally throughout the projects lifetime (mid- and/or expost) in line with the ROM approach and methodology already established. . Against processes and 'theory of change' at least once externally throughout the projects lifetime. The process evaluation can assess the drivers of project effectiveness examining whether processes and procedures are/were relevant, inclusive, effective, efficient and economic. It can examine key determinants of relevance including the project’s rationale, the beneficiary accountability mechanisms and its exit strategy. It can also explore the challenges that have been faced, and whether there are/were adaptive processes in place.  Specific monitoring is foreseen to identify changes in context, relevance of Madad projects in the changing context, and to recommend adjustments to a Madad funding strategy and process. This could include monitoring across: o A specific sector eg: achievements towards livelihoods objectives o A specific geographic location eg: regional, country-specific o A specific target group eg: children, youth, women at risk o A distinct event eg: winterization efforts, drought response etc.

(3) Monitoring & Evaluation Support foreseeing that:  Support is provided to the implementing partners to improve their learning and accountability process, contribute to national reporting (i.e. LCRP, JRP), and to identify and share and apply lessons learned on an ongoing basis  Support is provided to national statistical and planning departments to act as a key data point whenever possible - and with careful consideration of unintended protection consequences

Page 78 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

(4) Mid-Term & Final Evaluation of the Madad Trust Fund foreseeing that:  Evaluations take place following 30 months of implementation of the Trust Fund (mid- way), and expost, integrating a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of success of the Madad Trust Fund against its Overall and Strategic Objectives . Speed and agility of support provided vis-à-vis response needs . Appropriateness of a regional coverage vs national priorities . Appropriateness of partners selected, consortia approach etc. . Internal process evaluation eg: of effective and efficient use of resources, internal corrective decision processes, internal communications processes etc. . Overall added-value of the Trust Fund vis-à-vis alternative response avenues  A 360° evaluation methodology incorporates the perceptions of achievement of the Madad Trust Fund as a whole, including that of Member States, EU Services (EEAS/DEVCO/NEAR/ECHO,HOME etc.), National Host Governments, implementing partners, end-beneficiaries, and EU citizens more generally.

Wherever possible, data collection, monitoring and evaluation processes feed into and are closely linked to the Visibility and Communications Strategy of the Madad Trust Fund.

Considerations moving forward will require the careful calibration of two factors:  On the one hand, recognising that the urgent need for a Madad M&E Framework to be established as soon as possible, capitalising on the current scaling-up of support and contracts yet to be signed. The priority must be to work with existing systems, whilst more sophisticated tools (eg: time-sensitive beneficiary-input based databases) may be considered downstream, requiring year-long timeframes for their creation, piloting and roll out.  On the other hand, consider the technical, logistical, and administrative feasibility of monitoring and evaluation approaches that will have to work with (1) different implementing partners, in (2) different sectors, in (3) different countries, with (4) different project timeframes, in (4) a rapidly changing operational context, with (5) different country priorities. Part of the tender documents must require the submitting offers to detail how they intend to calibrate this, using original and inclusive methods as well as technologically innovative solutions.

Key stakeholders identified to be considered/consulted as needed include:  Madad Operational Board & Management, Member States  EU Delegations (HoP, HoC & OPS), ECHO/NEAR/DEVCO  Implementing partners, with existing M&E systems and frameworks  Host Governments & National Institutions, with existing M&E systems and frameworks  End-beneficiaries (Syrian refugee communities, host communities etc.)  The general public, within the EU and across host countries

Next Steps should include:  Information point to the Madad Operational Board Meeting 1 December 2015  Engaging with Delegations to assess existing M&E systems and practice in-country, as well as harnessing resources and buy-in towards and Madad M&E Framework  Sharing draft TORs widely for consultation with key stakeholders as needed  Launch the service contract tender

Page 79 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 12: TOTAL PAID AND RECOVERED BY THE CFCU AND PART OF THE CLOSURE REPORTS FOLLOWING EXTERNAL AUDIT/IRREGULARITIES DETECTED, INELIGIBLE AMOUNTS AND DESK REVIEWS BY EUD STAFF.

FROM CFCU TABLES Total recovered by the Total paid by the CFCU CFCU Pre-IPA Programmes NP2002 85.910.418,19 19.240,96 NP2003 87.456.182,43 71.820,64 NP2004 149.439.008,00 150.958,73 NP2005 184.104.577,55 42.577,73 NP2006 Part 1a 18.864.923,55 314.055,23 NP2006 Part 1b 58.738.325,48 10.547,53 NP2006 Part 2 226.434.381,59 35.998,44 IPA I Programmes Component I, NP2007 156.351.603,69 2.206.473,57 Component II, NP2007 797.329,44 121.983,78 Component I, NP2008 140.451.917,85 1.752.203,04 Component II, NP2008 871.701,50 17.175,15 Component I, NP2009 95.544.105,60 1.189.003,21 Component II, NP2009 654.698,27 761,36 Component I, NP2010 82.998.017,14 565.943,09 Component II, NP2010 696.611,17 35.794,50 Component I, NP2011 Part 1 14.718.528,05 8.746,33 Component I, NP2012 Part 2 72.786.579,65 262.520,29 Component II, NP2011 2.182.190,17 Component I, NP2012 54.892.284,38 Component I, NP2013 5.254.872,09 TOTAL 1.439.148.255,79 6.805.803,58 TOTAL (%) 0,47%

Page 80 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

FROM CLOSURE REPORTS FOLLOWING EXTERNAL AUDITS/IRREGULARITIES DETECTED, INELIGIBLE AMOUNTS AND DESK REVIEWS BY EUD STAFF

PENDING RECOVERY TOTAL TOTAL PAID SUBJECT TO RECOVERED BY BY EC TO NF CONTRADICTORY EC FROM NF PROCEDURE

Pre-IPA Programmes NP2002 93.921.221,39 10.097.613,25 23.399,69 NP2003 94.206.180,58 6.821.818,79 6.877.348,48 NP2004 161.068.931,72 13.151.274,01 8.833.044,13 NP2005 192.217.772,82 28.820.280,70 4.133.921,68 NP2006 Part 1a 21.094.330,56 3.094.724,23 0,00 NP2006 Part 1b 60.606.567,81 1.730.556,86 4.713.011,31 NP2006 Part 2 234.369.679,15 7.997.447,49 21.577.679,24 NP2006 AI 8.239.782,04 1.134.378,94 0,00 TOTAL 865.724.466,07 72.848.094,27 46.158.404,53 TOTAL (%) 8,41% 5,33%

Page 81 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 13: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY: ”TURKEY: HOW THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS HAVE BEEN SPENT, MANAGED, CONTROLLED AND THE MONITORING SYSTEM?”

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 STUDY AREA 1 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1.1 Study Area 1 conclusions

If cases of misuse of EU funds have been recognised in the past, what practices were involved, to what extent have they been interrupted, were sanctions considered, and what decisions were taken by the EU in this context and what their concrete effects?

Pre-accession funding in Turkey is, as in other candidate countries, subject to extensive, systematic controls that address EU and national requirements. In Turkey, the control system involves Turkish structures, OLAF, and the EUD. The latter is intensively involved in control activities at different stages of implementation, including ex-ante controls. The Turkish authorities report that there have been 397 cases of irregularities involving a total of EUR 26,922,744 of EU funding since 2002. This is equivalent to approximately 0.04% of funding from 2002 to 2013. The EC does not make data on irregularities in IPA countries publicly available and it is therefore not possible to compare the situation in Turkey with other countries. No recovery is necessary in 77 cases (e.g. because no funds have been disbursed). 162 cases are subject to recovery, and EUR 9 million have so far been recovered from beneficiaries. In the remaining cases, either the recovery process and/or the investigation are still in progress. The EUD notes that recovery involving legal action can be a lengthy process in Turkey. A total of 178 cases have been investigated by the AFCOS. It is not possible to compare the situation in Turkey with other candidate countries, as irregularity data is not available for other countries.

An operational programme was suspended for much of 2015 as the beneficiary was considered, by the audit authority (a Turkish body), not to have maintained a sufficient audit trail. The programme was reinstated towards the end of the year following an investigation by the EC and the application of corrective measures.

To what extent have the recommendations of the Special Report of the Court of Auditors been followed by the European Commission and how have they been translated into action (new regulations, strengthening controls and increasing demands on the recipient country)?

Intervention design: Analysis of programme documents covering 50 interventions in Turkey from 2010 to 2015 in the areas of judiciary, fundamental rights, and rule of law indicates that there has been no improvement in intervention design over the period. Objectives are often unclear, indicators are poorly developed and/ or irrelevant, sources of verification are often not valid. Assumptions, if provided, are often superficial and generic. Such weaknesses in intervention design have been a feature of pre-accession assistance for many years, not only in Turkey, but also in other candidate countries, including countries that have since acceded to the EU. This suggests that this is a systemic problem, or an emergent property of pre-accession assistance system generally, and that it will not be resolved simply by insisting that specific actors should do intervention design better.

Page 82 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

IPA II introduces the ‘innovation’ of a sector approach. These are not unlike the TPI sectors, except that IPA II sectors are perhaps more specific. The expectation is that this will support a more strategic, coordinated sector approach in the use of pre-accession assistance, as opposed to a fragmented project-based approach. However, the MEUA notes that this is proving to be difficult as it requires various institutions to adapt their relationships and approaches, purely in order to implement pre-accession assistance. What were previously referred to as projects are now presented in sector action documents in an inconsistent and confusing intervention hierarchy including (depending on the sector) actions, measures, activities, and sub-actions. The sector approach is achieved by combining several interventions into a single logframe and omitting detail, such as the financial allocations for specific interventions. The IPA II sector approach can thus be characterised as a repackaging of previous instruments, rather than a significant rethink, based on dialogue amongst affected actors, to improve the effectiveness of pre-accession support.

Monitoring and evaluation: At the level of interventions, there are three monitoring tools covering IPA I Component I: the PMR, managed by the Turkish authorities; EU-funded ROM, which is managed by the Turkish authorities and is currently carried out by a team under contract to the MEUA/ CFCU; EUD on-the-spot checks, which it carries out as part of its control activities. None of this monitoring information is publicly available. The efficacy of the IPA I Component I sectoral monitoring sub- committees (in which the EUD is a participant) has apparently not improved significantly since the TPI (2002-2006). Again, given the long-standing nature of this issue, we suggest that it is a product of the system, rather than attributable to specific actors. Annual IPA implementation reports, prepared by the National IPA Coordinator, are available on the website of the MEUA. Other monitoring information of a more strategic nature, covering multiple countries is provided by the EC’s staff working documents accompanying its annual reports on financial assistance for enlargement. The lack of detail in the sector action documents is likely to make monitoring more problematic, and it certainly reduces transparency, compared with the TPI and IPA I.

Evaluation is perceived primarily as a tool to provide accountability and decision-making information for the EC. With this emphasis, learning tends to be limited to identifying what should be avoided, what can be copied elsewhere, and how to coax better results from the system without changing it significantly. In contrast, other approaches to evaluation see learning as a social process involving dialogue between actors seeking continuous incremental improvements that are desirable and culturally feasible.

A number of evaluations covering pre-accession assistance in Turkey have been undertaken since the ECA’s special report on Turkey. However, only some of them deal exclusively with Turkey, some of them are not publicly available, and there is limited coverage of interventions from the later years of IPA I. Analysis of a sample of evaluation reports covering TPI and IPA I Component I suggests that evaluations provide little substantive information about the effectiveness EU pre-accession assistance – this is attributable to weaknesses in intervention design and lack of appropriate monitoring data (time series data). Establishing what evaluations have been undertaken, and who is responsible proved to be somewhat problematic as the information is not readily available. DG NEAR was unable to provide more than 20 evaluation reports covering in excess of EUR 1 billion of TPI assistance (2002-2006) - in any case it considers these reports to be irrelevant now.

RCOP monitoring and evaluation has been undertaken in accordance with Structural Fund principles. An interim evaluation report was published in 2011 and is available on the website of the MSIT. However, there appears to be limited publicly available monitoring information.

Page 83 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

An innovation of IPA II is the introduction of sector-level indicators to enable the EC to monitor Turkey’s progress at a more strategic level, in particular Chapters 23 and 24. Nevertheless, the indicators introduced in the Indicative Strategy Paper for Turkey (2014-2020) have not been fully developed. Moreover, while the EC’s 2015 report on Turkey provides much detailed narrative information, especially on Chapters 23 and 24, and a general summary assessment is made in the in the introduction, the report does not update the indicators provided in the Indicative Strategy Paper, or provide missing baselines – indeed there is no reference to the tables of indicators provided in that document.

Transparency: Data protection is, rightly, a high priority for DG NEAR. However, transparency, which is equally important, appears to be less of concern. This limits the possibility for society in both Turkey and the EU to engage in dialogue and reflection on pre-accession assistance to Turkey. It appears that DG NEAR’s own ability to retrieve, analyse, reflect upon, and draw lessons from information in the longer term is constrained by the way it stores information. To put it another way, DG NEAR has limited capacity to monitor and evaluate pre-accession assistance on a more strategic timescale.

While much information about pre-accession funding is publicly available, it is fragmented across numerous EU and Turkish websites and is often buried in hard-to-find web pages. In many cases, the most efficient way to find relevant documents is via a search engine, rather than by attempting to navigate a specific website.

Many documents are available on DG NEAR’s website. These can be filtered by theme (of which there are almost 70) and country, but the utility of this system depends on how the documents have been tagged so, for example, selecting ‘The Madad Fund’ and ‘Turkey’ produces no results, although the Madad Fund clearly relates to Turkey. Moreover, only 10 document links are displayed at a time, making it difficult to see what is available, which is particularly problematic when there are 10 or more pages of results. There does not appear to be any way of sorting search results. Locating specific documents on DG NEAR’s website can be a slow process, with no guarantee of success.

DG NEAR’s website provides access to hundreds of project fiches and other programme documents covering all pre-accession countries dating back to 1999, including the countries that have since acceded to the EU. This is good for transparency, but at the same time, financial and other information has to be manually extracted from each document of interest – transparency would be significantly enhanced of this type of information were available in the form of a searchable database, allowing rapid analysis of the evolution of funding trends and interventions on specific subjects over a number of years.

The sector action documents introduced with IPA II lack transparency, as they do not include financial allocations for individual interventions (projects) but instead provide summary allocations for groups of interventions. The presentation of information in the logframes, which cover multiple interventions is often very poor, making them harder to understand. The objective of the different interventions is often not clear.

How have changes in the volume of pre-accession funding to Turkey over time been justified, and do they corresponded to an improvement in the management and use of aid by Turkey, and by the Commission?

According to DG NEAR, funding allocations are based purely on political considerations, which are monitored in the EC’s annual reports on Turkey. However, it is unclear on what basis specific political considerations are translated into specific funding amounts. Moreover, funding allocations are

Page 84 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

effectively fixed for the entire seven-year financial perspective and the EUD notes that while performance bonuses may be available for ‘well-performing’ countries, there is no system for reducing funding allocations for countries that ‘perform less well’.

EU pre-accession funding allocations to Turkey have historically not been fully utilised. Analysis of cumulative contracting rates as a percentage of cumulative available funding for IPA I Component I indicates that utilisation rates in Turkey have been lower than in other candidate countries. This is commonly attributed to a lack of capacity (in particular insufficient IPA staff) in relevant institutions. We suggest, however, that this explanation is too simplistic and that the issue can not be attributed to specific actors, but rather to the system itself, which involves numerous actors, including EU institutions and member states.

In terms of funding per capita, Turkey receives far less pre-accession assistance than any other IPA country.

What legislative changes have taken place in Turkey in the context of accession negotiations (i.e. since 2005), and have these changes moved Turkey towards, or away from, EU accession requirements?

A survey of EC regular reports for Turkey from 2005 to 2015 identified a total of 230 references to legislative developments during this period in the area of Chapter 23 Chapter 23 Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. The majority of these references indicate movement towards the EU: 117 references (51%) are categorised as moving Turkey towards the EU, and 23 (10%) are categorised as moving Turkey towards the EU, but with serious reservations. In the case of 60 references (26%), it was not possible to determine ‘the direction of travel’ from the text of the relevant reports. 30 references (13%) indicate movement away from the EU. The years in which the most ‘movements away’ were reported are 2007, 2012, and 2014.

It is important to note that this analysis does not indicate the significance of the referenced legislation. Nor does it identify the net ‘direction of travel’ over several reports or the cumulative effect of specific legislative developments referenced in more than one report. Moreover, this analysis relies on the assumption that the EC has consistently applied a systematic methodology for referencing legislation in its annual reports on Turkey.

What support is available to candidate countries from EU institutions to promote best practices in the management of EU funds?

Candidate countries have had, and continue to have, access to a wide range of assistance to promote best practices in the management of EU funding. Some of this assistance is provided directly by EU institutions such as the EUD, the EC (DG ELARG/ NEAR, sector-specific DGs such as DG REGIO, annual OLAF conferences for AFCOS). Other assistance is provided with EU funding by third parties (TAIEX, SIGMA, twinning, technical assistance).

Some feedback provided during the course of this study suggests that the EC may not be able to provide the same level of assistance following the transfer of all management responsibilities back to DG NEAR. Sector-specific DGs now have a much reduced role in pre-accession funding and DG NEAR can not offer the same level of sector-specific expertise as, for example, DG REGIO was able to in the area of regional development (IPA I Component III). Thus, after significant EU and Turkish resources were mobilised prior to and during IPA I to establish operating structures and systems to manage some pre-accession funding along the lines of Structural Funds within the EU, it is likely that

Page 85 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

rules, processes, and practices relating to multi-annual programmes may, over time, increasingly diverge from those of the Structural Funds that they are supposed to mirror.

5.1.2 Study Area 1 recommendations

1. It is recommended that research is undertaken to analyse why clear intervention objectives and indicators remain so problematic for pre-accession interventions, after some 20 years of different pre-accession funding instruments in many countries. This in turn continues to constrain real understanding of the effectiveness of EU pre-accession assistance. We suggest that the issue is more profound than simply a matter of modifying administrative procedures and document templates, and may relate to the EC’s approach to engagement with pre- accession countries (e.g. implicitly seeking to ‘solve’ political issues through ‘technical’ interventions that ignore or suppress different worldviews and objectives).

2. It is recommended that the EC completes the sector monitoring framework for Turkey and update it in its annual reports on Turkey.

3. It is recommended that that the EC rationalise the intervention hierarchy used in different sector action documents and that it provides a more detailed breakdown of financial allocations.

4. It is recommended that the EC makes existing information on pre-accession assistance easier to find on its website and that it publishes additional information, such as: a searchable, sortable, downloadable database of pre-accession interventions over the past 15 years, covering all countries, indicating year, sector, EU and national funding, and beneficiary institution(s); a searchable, sortable, downloadable list of documents relating to pre- accession funding (including unpublished monitoring and evaluation reports). It is recommended that the EC consult civil society organisations on this (for example, the Open Government Partnership).

5. It is recommended that the EC develop more coherent evaluation guidelines. The current guidelines are fragmented and are essentially procedural guides that lack theoretical underpinning, in particular regarding the role of stakeholders, except as sources of information.

6. It is recommended that the EC ensure that the quality of support and advice it provides regarding the management of EU pre-accession funds in certain sectors is not eroded following the transfer of management from sector-specific DGs to DG NEAR.

5.2 STUDY AREA 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.2.1 Study Area 2 conclusions

As regards our overall conclusions, it should be noted that we have not had in-depth direct access to data concerning the large number of loans made to Turkey, and EIB engagement has been limited.

To what extent have EIB loans provided to Turkey been the subject of good or bad practices, and what are the lessons to be learned?

Taking the first key question from the terms of reference, overall it can be concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that the EIB’s operations in Turkey are conducted in a way that is inconsistent

Page 86 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

with the Bank’s anti-fraud and corruption guidelines, and loan operations would appear to comply with prudential banking practices. However, there are some shortcomings with regard to monitoring and evaluating the performance of EIB loans to Turkey in achieving broader (non- financial) objectives. These shortcomings stem largely from deficiencies in Turkey itself with regard to evaluation capacity rather than weaknesses in the EIB’s procedures which largely comply with good practices.

Have loans been used 'in compliance with the general principles of the European Union'?

Taking the second key question relating to EIB lending to Turkey and EU principles, and looking at the three categories of loans under consideration as a whole, the focus has clearly been on meeting requirements of an immediate environmental and social nature. However, it is also highly probable that an improved social and environmental context will support the development of democracy and the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Have certain funds been used to attract European companies so that they would settle in Turkey?

On the third question, regarding the use of EIB funds to attract EU firms to establish in Turkey, while this might have been an indirect consequence of the EIB’s operations in Turkey, we have not found evidence of EIB funds being used as an incentive in a contestable investment location selection process where the choice was between the EU and Turkey. Investments made by EU businesses in Turkey, even if linked to the presence of EU funds can have a positive effect on outcomes in the EU for such enterprises. It is not necessarily a zero-sum situation.

Looking ahead, as noted in our example of EIB loans to promote Research, Development and Innovation programmes (Section 3.2.3), until recently there has been no systematic monitoring of project outcomes by the Turkish authorities. Although this has begun to change, there is scope to further strengthen ex-post controls across the broad range of EIB interventions. This applies less to audit-type controls (the EIB already has well-developed procedures in place to monitor loans and financial outcomes are closely monitored) and more to the assessment of effectiveness and impacts. In particular, and as again noted earlier, there is a need to develop an ‘evaluation culture’ in Turkey.

At present, whilst an assumption tends to be made that EIB loans will have a positive long-term impact, there is very little hard evidence to back this up. Short of EIB personnel from EV undertaking in-depth studies to assess the impact of loan operations, which is clearly impractical given the large number of interventions, the information required to improve the understanding of longer term impacts can only come from the Turkish authorities themselves. The development of Turkey’s evaluation capacity should therefore be a priority. Development of performance indicators for different programmes and data collection methods, as well as capacity building for Turkish authorities’ personnel, are all important in this respect. To help develop the necessary capacity, future EIB loans could include a financial provision for project monitoring and evaluation activities. This is already done with most European Commission grant-funded programmes including the Structural Funds.

5.2.2 Study Area 2 recommendations

1. The EIB should respond to and provide evidence as regards the extent to which the recommendations of the 2009 Report of the Court of Auditors have been implemented.

Page 87 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

2. Given the reportedly relatively high levels of corruption present in Turkey the EIB should implement specific measures to monitor and follow up on any evidence (e.g. ‘whistle blowing’) of corrupt practices related to its activities in Turkey.

3. The EIB should further strengthen ex-post controls across the broad range of EIB interventions in Turkey, particularly as regards the assessment of effectiveness and impacts.

4. There is a need to develop an ‘evaluation culture’ in Turkey with regard to EIB interventions, and the EIB and other EU and Member State institutions can take a lead on this.

5.3 STUDY AREA 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.3.1 Study Area 3 conclusions

How is the EU funding aid to Syrian and Iraqi refugees located in Turkey structured and managed?

Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011, the EU has been channelling aid through various instruments: the humanitarian channel ECHO, and the EU external funding instruments (IcSP, EIDHR and IPA). The EUTF or Madad Fund was created in 2014 to respond to the regional character of the refugee crisis. As of April 2016, the EU disbursed EUR 365 million. This does not include the Refugee Facility for Turkey, a mechanism created to coordinate up to EUR 6 billion. For various reasons, this study finds that it is complicated to have clear a breakdown of the EU spending to help refugees located in Turkey. The novelty of some of the EU instruments does not allow to have a clear picture of coordination and coherence in practice.

This study advocates for better transparency in the EU external funding to Turkey, and recommends to follow up on the development of coordination, ensuring that appropriate mechanisms are formalised to make sure coordination and coherence of EU funding in Turkey are ensured.

How is the EU funding aid to the refugees located in Turkey managed? What are the monitoring and control mechanisms and what is the role of the Turkish authorities?

In general, ex-post control mechanisms seem consistent. However, it is too soon to assess whether those mechanisms have been effective, at least for the new instruments.

While information has been quite hard to find, it seems that the Commission starts to address the concerns on monitoring EU projects in Turkey, after the increase of the scale of funding allocated to the refugee crisis in Turkey. The report of April 2016 on the monitoring of the EU-Turkey statement provides very detailed information. This study welcomes this change and recommends that it be sustained and developed.

This study finds that the concerns raised by the 2009 report of the European Court of Auditors on the monitoring and reporting of UN agencies have been taken into account and addressed by the Commission. Reporting and monitoring requirements are stricter and more frequent than before in that regard.

The role of Turkish authorities in the management of EU funds is in general limited to coordinating implementing partners’ actions. However, the recent special measure under the Refugee Facility fast tracking EUR 60 million to the IPA and then the DGMM of the Turkish Ministry of Interior is to be monitored closely, as the monitoring and control mechanisms of that measure are not clear and the objectives quite vague.

Page 88 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Has the aid the EU contributed to so far been used effectively and has it reached the targeted groups? What are the lesson to be drawn from the previous utilisation of EU funds on migration and to what extent those lessons have been taken into account?

As of April 2016, it is unclear what the EU has been doing to assess the effectiveness of EU-funded projects in Turkey. There are reasons to believe that effectiveness will be difficult to assess because of the lack of assessment of the needs of refugees located in Turkey. This study was not able to find the basis for the current aid priorities of the EU in Turkey. This issue has been addressed by the undertaking of a joint needs assessment between the EU and the Turkish authorities. It remains to be seen whether the priorities established correspond to the previously established priorities for EU aid and this study recommends to make sure that the programmes are adapted according to the newly established priorities.

The case study on an IcSP funded project implemented by UNICEF suggests the importance of channelling funds through partners that have a track record of good coordination with the Turkish authorities when the project aims at complementing the protection offered by the Turkish state. Effectiveness of the project was difficult to assess because of the lack of clarity on the purpose and intended outcomes in the project, the lack of programme monitoring against objectives, and the lack of baseline data against which to gauge progress. The follow up project implemented by UNICEF and funded by the EUTF seems to have taken into account the lessons learned from the previous project. Follow-up will be needed to ensure sound project monitoring and control in the future.

Finally, a comparison between the findings of this study and the recent ECA report on the EU’s migration policy in its neighbourhood until 2014 highlights potential recurrence of issues in the migration policies of the EU. The existence of similarities reveals the need for reflexion on the EU migration policies. Lessons learned from previous experiences in the neighbourhood of the EU could provide useful inputs to the EU’s policy in Turkey. Further research would be needed to provide sound concluding remarks on the comparison and similarities.

What are the terms and conditions for the implementation of the EU-Turkey Joint-Action Plan? What are the reporting, monitoring and control mechanisms of the implementation?

The EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan agreed on 15 October, 2015 is currently the document guiding the strategy of the EU towards Turkey. The overall objective is to bring order into migratory flows and to stem irregular migration. The recent EU-Turkey statement is the object of controversies because of its one for one return and resettlement scheme, as well as the compensations given to Turkey such as visa liberalisation as soon as June 2016 and an additional EUR 3 billion to be coordinated through the Refugee Facility. There are especially big concerns on the respect of human rights and the UN refugee convention in the implementation of the deal. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the deal can be implemented according to its statement, respecting international and European law not only on paper but also in practice. Currently, whether those safeguards are in place and effective is not clear.

The monitoring and control mechanisms of the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement are still unclear. However, the first progress report of the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement compiles very detailed information that was either unavailable or hard to find before. It seems that the Commission is starting to address the concerns on the weaknesses of reporting and lack of transparency on the monitoring and control mechanisms, even though these still need to be improved.

Page 89 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Overall, the likely lengthening of the refugee crisis due to the on-going conflict in Syria shows the importance of taking into account the lessons learned from previous use of EU funds, in order to improve the EU response to the refugee crisis.

5.3.2 Study Area 3 Recommendations:

1. The recent improvement in reporting on the actions of the Commission after the EU-Turkey Statement should be sustained and improved to guarantee easy access to information on EU aid to refugees in Turkey.

2. The Commission should clarify the objectives and the monitoring and control mechanisms of the recently announced Special Measure of EUR 60 million. Rights watchdogs’ organisations should be allowed to have access to migrants returned from Greece to Turkey.

3. It is recommended to follow up on the implementation of the lessons learned from previous use of EU funds in Turkey targeting refugees in order to make sure those are not only taken into account on paper but also in practice.

4. Further research and reflexion is needed on the migration policy of the EU in order to improve its effectiveness (and the measurement of its effectiveness) in the future. Previous experiences, lessons learned and good practices in the neighbourhood should be considered when designing the response to refugee crisis.

5. The Commission should clarify whether the necessary safeguards are in place and effective to ensure full compliance with international and European in practice during the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement.

Page 90 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 14.1: EXTRACTS OF AAR 2013 AND 2014 (DG ENLARG)

ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORTS DG ENLARG 2013 AND 2014

I- AAR 2013: ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT DG ENLARG. Accession negotiations with Turkey regained new momentum with the opening of a new chapter (22 on regional policy) after three years of stalemale in the process. In December 2013, the readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey was signed and the Visa liberalization dialogue initiated. Policy achievements and financial assistance for Turkey In 2013, reform efforts continued, notably with the adoption of important judiciary reforms, the start of peace talks aiming to pave the way for a solution of the Kurdish issue and a number of measures as part of a democratisation package presented in September 2013. A significant step was taken in November 2013 when chapter 22 on regional policy was opened after three years of stalemate in the process. Another key event was that in December 2013 the readmission agreement with Turkey was signed and the visa dialogue was launched. However, the response of the government in December 2013 to allegations of corruption raised concerns in relation to the independence, efficiency and impartiality of the judiciary. The Progress report on Turkey was adopted in October 2013. The regular meetings of the Association Committee and Association Council took place. During the year 2013 extensive work was channelled towards preparation of the Country Strategy Paper 2014-2020. The IPA 2013 component I "Transition Assistance and Institution Building" programme (budget of EUR 236.75 million) was adopted. Support for political reforms In 2013, reform efforts continued, notably with the adoption of important judiciary reforms, the start of peace talks aiming to pave the way for a solution of the Kurdish issue and a number of measures as part of a democratisation package presented in September 2013. However, polarisation continued to mark the political climate. Tensions peaked in May and June 2013 around an urban renovation project in Gezi Park in Istanbul and overflowed into major protests in many other cities, with a harsh response of the government against demonstrators and dissent in general. Key provisions of the Turkish legal framework, combined with a broad interpretation by the judiciary, continued to hamper respect for fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression. In December 2013, the response of the government to allegations of corruption raised concerns in relation to the independence, efficiency and impartiality of the judiciary. The Commission's Progress Report on Turkey was adopted by the College on 16 October 2013. Regarding outputs related to progress in the accession negotiations, a significant step was taken in November 2013 when chapter 22-Regional policy was opened after three years of stalemate in the process. Even if not directly linked to accession, the signature of the readmission agreement and the start of the visa dialogue contributed to a new, promising momentum in EU-Turkey relations. The regular meetings of the Association Committee and Association Council took place. The Commission initiated a number of initiatives in the area of judiciary capacity building, including: the peer-based assessment report on judicial training offered at graduate and post-graduate level; the draft peer-based assessment report on judicial (pre-service and in-service) training; the draft peer-based assessment report on Regional Serious Crimes Courts.

Page 91 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

As regard outputs related to the financial assistance, IPA 2013 component I "Transition Assistance and Institution Building" programme (budget of EUR 236.75 million) was adopted. The programme has been designed so as to facilitate a more integrated sector approach, including in the fields of judiciary and fundamental rights, migration and border management that will also constitute key priorities for IPA II, in line with the envisaged output of inter-institutional negotiations. Support for economic, social and territorial development, with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Regarding the output related to economic dialogue, in 2013 DG Enlargement facilitated the assessment by DG Economic and Financial Affairs of the Turkish Pre-Accession Economic Programme 2013-2015 and the Council issued recommendations. The Economic Programme 2014- 2016 was received and is pending an assessment. The Council is yet to issue recommendations. Turkey has been meeting the market economy criterion for many years including in 2013. Following a slowdown in 2012, the economy re-accelerated in 2013 to an annual growth rate of 3.8%. The regular meetings of the Customs Union Joint Committee, Association Committee and Association Council took place. As for the output related to the financial assistance, IPA 2013 support included a sector programme in the field of energy in cooperation with WB and EBRD. Other DG Enlargement support to economic, social and territorial development remained marginal, due to the fact that relevant programmes remained under the responsibility of DG Regional Policy, DG Employment and DG Agriculture. The budget IPA 2013 programme earmarked substantial funding for participation in EU programmes (30%), mostly in the fields of social development covering Turkey's participation to the new generation of programmes following Lifelong learning, Youth in Action and Progress. Support for acquis alignment In 2013, good progress was registered in Turkey on acquis alignment in the area of free movement of goods, financial services, energy, regional policy and coordination of structural instruments, justice, freedom and security, science and research, education and culture. Progress was made in the area of food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary, fisheries, statistics, enterprise and industry, judiciary. Some progress was reported in the area of public procurement, company law, intellectual property law, information society and media, transport policy, economic and monetary policy, social policy and employment, Trans-European networks, customs union, external relations, financial control. Little progress was made in the area of competition law. Limited progress or no progress was made in the area of freedom of movement of workers, taxation, environment, consumer protection, financial budgetary provisions. There was one chapter opened at an IGC: chapter 22-Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments. The Commission provided update to the screening report (oral), drafted the opening benchmark assessment report and the Draft Common Position. One screening report for Chapter 31 – Foreign security and defence policy was prepared by EEAS and communicated to the Council. The Positive Agenda continued to support Turkey in its alignment efforts with the acquis. Under chapter 32 - Financial control - one benchmark was considered met by the Commission (the Commission's assessment does not prejudge the final assessment to be made by the Council). Intensive work continued also in particular on chapters 6 and 10. With regard to outputs on the financial assistance, IPA 2013 programme included a limited amount for projects for acquis alignment in the fields of environment, climate change and agriculture that will be further supported under IPA II.

Page 92 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Financial Assistance During the year 2013, DG Enlargement conducted several missions to Turkey to ensure proper preparation of the Country Strategy Paper 2014-2020 as well as the identification of sectors of interventions for the programming of IPA II, through an inclusive approach that associated all the ministries involved. Strategic priorities will include democracy and the rule of law, social development and social inclusion, promotion of development towards a resource-efficient low carbon economy and increased inter-connectivity and exchange with the European Union. During the year 2013, absorption capacity under decentralised management in Turkey was not optimal. For all the IPA decentralised programmes under ELARG's portfolio, Turkey contracted in 2013 an overall amount of EUR 71.6 million, against an initial forecast of EUR 166.6 million. On a positive note, the IPA 2009 national programme, for which the contracting deadline fell within the year, was well committed (94.6 %). Contracting rates under IPA 2010/2011/2012 national programmes remained low due to unforeseen events (savings and cancellations of tenders) as well as continuous weaknesses in DIS Turkey. IPA 2010 component I (budget of EUR 138 million for DIS projects): by 31 December 2013, 2 years and 3 months after the ratification of the FA, the contracting rate reached only 33%, mostly due to cancellation of the EUR 27 million under the ''Foot and Mouth Disease'' project. Subsequently, the Commission adopted in July a decision amending the 2010 programme in order to reallocate EUR 28 million and extend the contracting deadline by additional 12 months. This decision allows financing new projects (including project related to Syrian crisis). • IPA 2011 component I (part 1) (budget of EUR 21 million - excluding participation to the Union programmes): contracting rate by 31 December 2013 reached 25% only. • IPA 2011 component I (part 2) (budget of EUR 138 million- excluding participation to the Union programmes): contracting rate by 31 December 2013 reached 5% only. • IPA 2012 component I (budget of EUR 146 million- excluding participation to the Union programmes): although the Financing Agreement has entered into force on 21 December 2012, the contracting has not yet started. • IPA 2013 component I programme (budget of EUR 236.75 million): it was adopted on 13 November 2013; the Financing Agreement has not yet entered into force, subsequently contracting has not yet started. Evaluation A country programme interim evaluation of IPA assistance was undertaken in 2012 by the Turkish national authorities. Its findings and conclusions were taken into consideration and integrated in the Meta Interim evaluation of IPA assistance, launched by DG Enlargement, the results of which are presented below. Specific objective 4: Enhance regional co-operation, including implementation of multi- beneficiary programmes An ex-post evaluation on the assistance provided by the EU’s Turkish Pre-accession instrument, 2002-2006 was also completed in the reporting period. It assessed the impact and sustainability of pre accession funded interventions in Turkey and provided recommendations on improvements of future financial assistance. The importance of high level commitment on the use of results of evaluations, continuing the development of capacities and the ownership of the beneficiary

Page 93 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

countries have been confirmed. The evaluation recommends that the budget allocations for IPA II need to be better aligned with the IPA objectives, ensuring their achievement. In addition, the evaluation recalls that the project intervention logic and its design need to be based on a specific needs assessment. A thematic evaluation on assessing of the EC's support to Private Sector Development in Turkey was finalized in 2013 and presented both in Turkey and in Brussels. Its main conclusion was that overall the EU-funded projects to private sector development in Turkey have been successful. However, there is room for improvement in terms of focus in the next programming cycles, also to reflect the dynamisms of the Turkish private sector and the evolving needs. The evaluators recommend that the Commission should put more emphasis on continuous project monitoring and frequent evaluation for assistance funded by EU and other donors. To enhance aid effectiveness and added value of EU assistance in the Turkish private sector, it was proposed that the Commission should better apprehend and assess the absorption and replication capacity of the beneficiaries in designing EU interventions and should strengthen donor coordination. The recommendations were generally approved and a follow-up action plan on the DG Enlargement's response to the recommendations and planned steps is expected to be disseminated in March 2014. Some other evaluations launched by the DG Enlargement are on-going and therefore are not subject to the current report (Capacity Development project on Monitoring and Evaluation with the World Bank; Evaluation of the Customs Union between the EU and Turkey; Thematic evaluation of EU's support to Refugees; Mapping of sector strategies; Mapping of Donor intervention, Ex-post evaluation of PHARE programmes; Third Interim Evaluation of IPA assistance; Meta-evaluation cooperation instruments). Assessment of the effectiveness of the internal control systems As far as Turkey is concerned, DG Enlargement strictly followed-up measures taken by the national authorities in order to remedy management and control weaknesses identified in system audit reports, both through regular reporting by National Authority and via programming and implementation reviews take place during (bi-annual) Sectoral and (annual) Joint Monitoring Committees and through regular meetings between EC and DIS Institutions. Slowdown of Turkey's accession progress: DG Enlargement has continued to sustain accession negotiations (in particular to engage with Turkey on chapter 23-Judiciary and Fundamental rights and chapter 24-Justice, Freedom and Security), monitoring of political criteria, visa dialogue and implementation of re-admission agreement, implementation of the Positive Agenda and linking more closely the financial assistance with the objectives and priorities set therein, increase high- level contacts, engage authorities on European issues at all levels on domestic and foreign policy, Failure to reach a Cyprus settlement and reunification: Implementation of the aid programme to the Turkish Cypriot community takes place in a difficult legal, political and diplomatic context. The achievement of objectives is based on the fundamental political assumption that the two communities on the island continue to work towards a comprehensive settlement. The Commission supports the UN Good Offices Mission and encourages progress in the settlement talks restarted early in 2014. The Commission also stands ready to tailor the aid programme to technically support the settlement process as it develops. II- AAR 2014: ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT DG ENLARG. In November 2014, the new Commission decided to merge DG Enlargement with the Neighbourhood services of DG DEVCO in a new DG NEAR and to move the unit in charge of Aid

Page 94 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

regulation for the Turkish Cypriot Community to DG Regional Policy. This reorganisation came into effect on 1 January 2015, thus not affecting DG Enlargement in 2014. Strengthening of the ability of the beneficiaries to fulfil the obligations stemming from Union membership Important steps were taken by Turkey in key areas under chapter 24, in particular as regards migration and asylum policy, the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing. The country should however accelerate the pace of negotiations by advancing in the fulfilment of benchmarks, Achievement of general and specific objectives Implementation of certain reforms by Turkey continued in 2014, such as the 2013 democratisation package, and steps have been taken towards a settlement of the Kurdish issue. A key milestone was the entry into force of the readmission agreement and the release of the first report on the visa dialogue in October for which DG Enlargement had joined forces with DG Home affairs. However, there have also been grounds for serious concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary and the protection of fundamental freedoms. The Progress report 2014 adopted in October set out these contrasted findings and presented recommendations which were largely taken up by the Council in its December conclusions. The Indicative Strategy Paper for the period 2014-2020 was adopted in August, followed by the annual Action Programme 2014 (EUR 371 million) focusing on democracy and governance, rule of law and fundamental rights, adopted in December. In addition, a special measure (EUR 40 million) was prepared under IPA in support to Turkey dealing with the medium term impact of the Syrian refugee crisis. DG ELARG has implemented the necessary corrective actions to mitigate identified risks for Turkey and how this is influencing progress in the implementation of IPA programmes. Against the background of an almost stalled accession process, the Commission has developed a wide range of proposals to enhance EU-Turkey relations in key areas (economy and trade, energy, visa, asylum and migration policy, foreign policy). Whilst the Cyprus settlement was subject to new initiatives under the UN auspices, these talks were interrupted in October over disputed prospections for natural gas in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus. The Commission has on several occasions called on all sides to de-escalate the tensions and resume the settlement talks. The support to political reforms in Turkey has been affected by a difficult regional environment (i.e. Syria) and contrasting domestic developments, with no progress in the accession process as a result. ABB activity 22 02 - Specific objective 2: Support for economic, social and territorial development, with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Regarding the output related to economic dialogue, in 2014 DG Enlargement contributed to the assessment by DG Economic and Financial Affairs of the Turkish Pre-Accession Economic Programme (PEP) 2014-2016 and the Council issued recommendations. DG Enlargement developed a guidance note for a recast of the PEP, now re-launched as Economic Reform Programme (ERP). The DG also developed an initiative for an enhanced political dialogue with Turkey. Both were communicated in December to Turkey and are awaiting a response shortly. The regular meetings of the Customs Union Joint Committee, Association Committee and Association Council took place. Turkey has been meeting the market economy criterion for many years, including in 2014, but political interference into monetary policy and banking regulation raised concerns over future economic policies. Support to economic, social and territorial development are significant

Page 95 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

components in the adopted Indicative Strategy Paper, in the context of the transfer of sector's responsibilities from DG Regional Policy and DG Employment to DG Enlargement. Four new Sectoral Operational Programmes (2014-2016) were prepared and adopted - in addition to the regular annual Action Programme - in the fields of: Environment (EUR 190 million); Transport (EUR 295 million); Competitiveness and innovation, (EUR 136 million); Employment, education and social policies (EUR 174 million). ABB activity 22 02 - Specific objective 3: Strengthening of the ability of the beneficiaries at all levels to fulfil the obligations stemming from Union membership. Important steps were taken by Turkey in key areas under chapter 24, in particular as regards migration and asylum policy, the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing and good progress made on trans-European networks. Progress was also achieved in the areas of energy, company law, enterprise and industrial policy, statistics, science and research, all sectors which received IPA support. No negotiating chapter was opened. In all areas, more attention needs to be given to enforcement of legislation. The new IPA II programmes adopted in 2014 cover regulatory reform and acquis alignment; in particular assistance under Democracy and Governance sector will continue support institution building activities linked to the acquis and negotiation chapter benchmarks. Risk assessment: Despite an almost stalled accession process, shared economic interests and IPA assistance played a key role in sustaining the interest of the Turkish authorities in pursuing the alignment in 2014. ABB activity 22 02 - Specific objective 4: Strengthening regional integration and territorial cooperation For Turkey there have been reductions in several rejection rate categories under responsibility of the CFCU, the most experienced operating structure, which has significantly developed its capacity. However, the overall rejection rate remained around 13% (15% is the target set in the MP 2014) while 69% of the files were approved by EUD at first submission. The main reason for the still persistently high rejection rates of tender dossier is the poor quality of documents, reflecting the shortcomings of the other operating structures (i.e. line Ministries). On the positive side, in 2014 some modest progress was made by NAO and NIPAC to analyse contracting backlog, reduce de- commitment and rejection rates and hire additional staff.

Page 96 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 14.2: QUESTIONS TO COMMISSIONER MIMICA

I.A. 2014 Discharge to the Commission: written questions to Commissioner Mimica 7. Point 7.16 of the ECA Annual report stresses "that for nine transactions related to the national programme for pre-accession the Commission at its own initiative validated expenditure of 150 million euro in total absence of supporting documentation.... The cleared amounts were based on the Commission's own estimates rather than on incurred, paid and accepted costs, which correspond to actual costs proven by supporting documents. On top of the nine sampled transactions the Court found other transactions affected by the same systemic error...": a. Which country/countries is/are concerned by the above-mentioned national programme and the other transactions affected by the systemic error? Commission's answer: Turkey, Croatia and to a very small extent the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. b. To which extend has this systemic error been taken on board in the error? rate communicated by the Commission? Commission's answer: The error rate is determined by the Court of Auditors in accordance with its own methodology and on the basis of its own findings. As indicated in the Court of Auditors' report (see points 7.11 and 7.17) the error was not quantified. c. How can the Commission justify the followed accounting approach? Commission's answer: The accounting approach was adopted in order to represent as completely as possible, on the basis of the information available, the actual level of completion of each programme in the accounting system of the Commission (ABAC/SAP). As noted under point 7.20 of the report the contested transactions were cancelled in the accounting system of the Commission before the approval of the final accounts. 12. Turkey continues to enjoy the status of the pre-accession country. In recent times, however, some of its policy decisions, such as limiting access to social media or blocking of applicants refuge on the border with Syria, calls into question the fundamental progress in the humanitarian field required by the EU for access to the status of Country in the pre-accession status. Could the Commission consider a preventive suspension of the funds granted to Turkey as a country in the pre-accession status because it contravenes the basic demands of the EU? Commission's answer: Commission support through the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) as well as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) are crucial in times of increasingly complex challenges when rule of law and fundamental rights are put under strain in Turkey, but in which institutions such as the Constitutional Court or the Ombudsman are also playing a meaningful role and contribute to the resilience of the system. Against this background, financial assistance continues to provide concrete and tangible benefits for the citizens of Turkey. Therefore the Commission is making its contribution as effective as possible by supporting activities in crucial areas such as media freedom and pluralism (through EIDHR); strengthening Institutional Capacity in the Field of Fundamental Rights as well as protecting Socially Vulnerable Persons (through IPA and

Page 97 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

now IPA II). The Commission believes that more engagement is needed with Turkey, if the EU wants to remain a benchmark for reforms in Turkey. 13. How much has been paid to Turkey under the pre-accession framework in 2013? Commission's answer: A total of EUR 369.9 million was transferred to Turkey's National Fund under the pre-accession framework in 2013. 14. Has Turkey received other types of EU funding in 2013? Commission's answer: Turkey received EUR 4.8 million from the Instrument for Stability (IfS) Programme: "Syria and neighbouring countries - Regional support programme for those affected by the crisis in Syria" Decision dated 27.11.2012 Turkish NGOs received EUR 2 million from the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) programme for 2012 that were contracted at the end of 2013, and an annual allocation of EUR 1.2 million for 2013 that is to be contracted at the end of December 2014. ECHO contributed EUR 13.6 million to the assistance to Syrian refugees in Turkey, two-thirds for camp refugees, and the remainder for non-camp refugees 15. Has any EU funds been allocated directly or indirectly to the local government in Diyarbakir? If yes, how has the Commission ensured that EU-funds have reached the end beneficiary? Commission's answer: Under the pre-IPA and IPA I periods the EU funded the projects mentioned below in Diyarbakır Province, for an overall amount of over EUR 85 million: 1- Pre-IPA Through the Sustainable Development Grants Programme a project on establishing a "Solar House" was funded for an amount of EUR 78,705. Otherwise, during the same period different projects of a much smaller scale were funded in Diyarbakir province: • For the project on GAP Flood Mitigation under the pre-IPA period, EUR 257,799was allocated to the Municipalities in Çınar and Lice. • Under the ISKUR_2002 project EU funding of a total amount of EUR 296,303was allocated to the Municipalities of Bağlar, Diyarbakır (EUR 62,904and Bismil (completed). • Under the Cultural Rights project EU funds of 148,721 EUR were allocated to the Municipalities Bağlar, Diyarbakır (EUR 40,711) and Kayapınar. • Under Social Dialogue, EU funds of EUR 76,115 were allocated to the Municipality of Bağlar (completed). 2- IPA Component III The EU provided EUR 66.99 million for the ‘Diyarbakır Water and Wastewater Project’; the project includes TA & Supervision, together with the establishment of a Waste Water Treatment Plant, Sewer and Stormwater Collectors, Drinking Water, a SCADA system and the provision of supplies. EUR 9.9 million was allocated to the Municipality of Silvan for the supply of Drinking Water.

Page 98 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

3- IPA Component IV Diyarbakır Greater Municipality is also one of the 12 pilot municipalities under a project on "Training and Coordination for Employment" under the Instrument for pre-Accession, currently ongoing with a EUR 7 million budget. The Turkish Union of Municipalities is the main beneficiary, coordinating the project. The Diyarbakır Greater Municipality will be supported in establishing a social support & coordination centre in a disadvantaged district. Out of the EUR 7 million budget, there will be no direct transfer of funds to the municipality, but they will receive their share of technical assistance, supply of equipment & refurbishment – (ongoing). Under the project Promoting Women's Employment EUR 235,579 EUR was allocated to the Municipality of Diyarbakır – (completed). Under Promoting Youth Employment, EUR 166,994 was allocated to the Municipality of Bağlar – (completed). The Commission has an extensive control system in place to ensure that funds are used for the purpose stated in the agreed projects. Controls include ex ante controls on the procurement procedure, monitoring of implementation including on the spot checks and ex post controls including audits. 16. Has the EU provided any funding for the peace process in Turkey? Commission's answer: Supporting the socio-economic development of the South-East of Turkey and supporting democratisation and human rights is a contribution to the peace process as it makes it possible to reduce regional disparities and allows for normalisation of relations among communities in Turkey. The EU has constantly been targeting the South-East of Turkey as a priority area via its financial instruments (MEDA, PHARE, IPA, EIDHR, etc.). Programmes are ranging from support to regional development, private sector development, human resources development including education, empowerment of women, strengthening of civil society, to programmes on democratisation, peace building (e.g. de-mining, missing persons) and promoting human rights (including children’s rights, women’s rights, minority rights, cultural rights, etc.). 17. Has the EU provided humanitarian aid to refugees from Syria in Turkey in 2013? Commission's answer: In 2013, humanitarian funding amounting to EUR 13.6 million was allocated to support multi- sectoral assistance (shelter, food, WASH, health, protection, etc.) to Syrian refugees in Turkey.

I.B. 2013 Discharge to the Commission: ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO COMMISSIONER MIMICA Hearing on 11 December 2014 4. Which audits did the Commission carry out in Turkey and what were the results? Commission's answer : In 2013, the Commission (DG ELARG) conducted two systemic audits on payment and monitoring subsystems under IPA and commissioned five transactions audits to external audit firms. The Commission will provide the European Parliament with the results of the systemic audits as soon as disclosure has been agreed with the Turkish authorities as required under the provisions of Annex II, 2.1 of the Framework Agreement. The results of the transaction audits have not yet been finalised as the contradictory procedure is still underway.

Page 99 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

5. Were there any flat-rate corrections in clearance of accounts, suspensions of payments, withdrawals of accreditation done in 2013? If yes, which countries were affected with which amounts? Commission’s answer (...) it is worth to note that in 2013 there was an interruption for Transport Operational Programme in Turkey, which has been lifted in November 2014 because the necessary corrective measures have been put in place by the Turkish authorities. For IPA component IV Human Resources Development (DG EMPL) there were four interruptions in 2013 (two for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and two for Turkey). The breakdown is the following: for Turkey two payments

Date of interruption Interrupted amount 15/02/2013 EUR 8,485,028 15/02/2013 EUR 27,427,186 For Turkey, the interruption was decided after an on-the-spot audit performed by DG EMPL auditors identifying several deficiencies in the management and control systems. The 2 interruptions were lifted in August 2013 because the findings have been addressed and the situation regularised. A flat-rate correction was implemented for the Human Resource Development Turkey in 2013. A financial correction of 3.5 % applicable to all grant schemes implemented by the CFCU was agreed between the Commission and the Turkish authorities. The amount of financial correction in 2013 is EUR 1,846,969. For IPA Component V (Agriculture - IPARD) (DG AGRI), no suspension of payments or withdrawal of accreditation were applied in 2013. 8. Roma: Have countries covered by the enlargement agenda or the neighbourhood policy received any money for Roma inclusion? If yes, how much was spent per country and through which funds? Which results were achieved? Commission’s answer The pre-accession assistance allocated under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) is meant to support social inclusion and integration of Roma in the enlargement countries, including housing. Assistance is based on the consideration that the Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States is relevant for enlargement countries, as it forms an integral part of the EU acquis. The Commission is supporting enlargement countries to take targeted actions to bridge the gap between the Roma and the rest of the population in access to education, employment, healthcare and housing, accompanied by cross-cutting policies of particular relevance for these countries such as provision of personal documents and strengthening the involvement of local and regional authorities and dialogue with civil organisations. The Commission works closely with each of the enlargement countries to review progress in implementing their commitments towards the inclusion of Roma. The results expected for the Roma beneficiaries are the following: improved women's employability; enhancement, sustainability and development of and active civil society; improved capacity of national institutions in promoting anti-discrimination policies; provide innovative employment solutions for Roma people excluded from the formal labour market; better access to education; improvement of infrastructure in some Roma settlements.

Page 100 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

During 2013 the following payments were made (split per country): Montenegro EUR 237,604 Kosovo EUR 3,866,176 Serbia EUR 1,528,903 Bosnia & Herzegovina EUR 668,440 Turkey EUR 150,622 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia EUR 129,364 Regional Programmes EUR 1,431,582 Under Component IV (DG EMPL), in Turkey, the only operation directly targeting Roma is the following: Promoting Social Inclusion in Densely Roma Populated Areas under measure 4.2 of the Human Resource Development. The operation is aiming to ensure better functioning and coordination among the institutions and mechanisms in the field of labour market and social protection, with a total budget of EUR 11,927,000. The operation aims to increase social inclusion in the densely Roma populated areas especially by facilitating their entrance into formal labour market with social insurance coverage, to be implemented by three different ministries (Ministry of Family and Social Policies, Ministry of National Education and the Ministry of Health.) The operation is still in tendering stage and has not yet started. 9. What were the security expenditures made in 2013 for the enlargement and neighbourhood countries (per country) and on which purpose were the expenditures made? Commission's answer : For DG ELARG activities, Security-related actions funded by IPA in 2013 were mostly related to security sector reform in view of an approximation of countries' security systems to European standards. The relevant payments for 2013 were distributed as follows: Kosovo 0.7 MEUR The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1.8 MEUR Montenegro 0.07 MEUR Bosnia & Herzegovina 5.1 MEUR Serbia 1.3 MEUR Albania 0.27 MEUR Turkey 9 MEUR Regional Programmes 0.4 MEUR

10. Could you please explain the decision making structures between the EEAS and the Commission regarding projects for the candidate countries and the enlargement and neighbourhood countries? Commission's answer : The decision making structures between the EEAS and the Commission are clearly defined in the working arrangements between the Commission services and the EEAS, which are detailing the provisions of the Council decision establishing the organisation and the functioning of the EEAS of 20 July 2010. For the candidate countries and the enlargement and neighbourhood countries the Commission is fully in charge of the decision making process regarding projects, as the Instrument for pre-accession (IPA) is not listed in Article 9 of the EEAS Council Decision and is therefore solely programmed by the Commission.

Page 101 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

DG ELARG consults the EEAS on strategic priorities when preparing the multiannual financial framework for IPA. As regards the programming cycle of pre-accession assistance, this is managed by the Commission with planning and programming under the responsibility of DG ELARG/REGIO/EMPL/AGRI, depending on the management responsibilities. DG ELARG consults the EEAS on IPA programming through the inter-service consultation process. The Commission staff in EU Delegations is closely associated to the preparation of programmes and projects including: needs assessments, project identification, consultation with local stakeholders, other donors and EU Member states.

Page 102 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

ANNEX 14.3: PARAGRAPHS FROM THE 2015 AND 2016 DISCHARGE RESOLUTIONS.

European Parliament decision of 29 April 2015 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (2014/2075(DEC)) 208. Emphasises that 2013 was the second consecutive year that humanitarian aid through the Union budget exceeded EUR 1,3 billion in commitments due to the occurrence of a high number of humanitarian crises that caused immense human suffering; deplores the impact that the lack of payment appropriations had in this crisis year on DG ECHO's activities, which could only be maintained through rearranging payment schedules, resulting in a carry-over of EUR 160 million in payment arrears at year end; calls on the Council to comply with the payment plan agreed with Parliament; 209. Regrets the reputational damage already suffered due to these ad hoc measures and points to the paradox between the increase in humanitarian crises worldwide in recent years and the operational measures the Union has taken to deal effectively with sudden-onset crises (such as the opening of the Emergency Response Coordination Centre in May 2013) on the one hand and the lacking payment appropriations on the other hand; is alarmed that this situation may be aggravated if adequate budget reinforcement is not ensured; 231. Regrets that the delegations overseen by DG ENLARGE, namely delegations to Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Kosovo and Serbia, provide little fitting data and information within the EAMR; 232. Regrets that the results, outputs or impacts of the actions lead by the Union delegations services are not measured adequately in the framework of the existing KPIs, and that the indicators give very limited clarity about the quantity and especially the performance of the delegations as well as the degree of “stakeholders’ satisfaction” about the services provided by Union Delegations in these countries; 233. Asks the Commission to: − present to Parliament the measures taken in order to improve the performance of Union delegations as regards financial planning and resource allocation, financial administration and auditing in particular as regards the worst performing delegations; − better document every year the conclusions it has drawn from the EAMR and from the KPIs and provide these conclusions together with the EAMRs to Parliament; − include a balance sheet with the accounting data of the delegation into the EAMR; − improve the quality and the exhaustiveness of the data provided in the EAMR and the relevance of the reports as well, in particular as regards the delegations overseen by DG ENLARGE; and − make external assistance contingent on efforts being made to combat corruption;

Page 103 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Resolutions on discharge 2016, parts of “EAMR”, "Global Europe" and "others" European Parliament decision of 28 April 2016 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III – Commission (2015/2154(DEC)) Global Europe General issues 331. Notes that this area covers expenditures connected with foreign policy activities, support to Union candidate and pre-candidate countries, and development assistance and humanitarian aid to developing and neighbouring countries, which are not the part of the European Development Funds´ (EDFs) activities; 332. Notes that heading 4 of Global Europe works with a total amount of EUR 7,4 billion where spending is based on co-operation instruments and delivery methods; 333. Notes that there are currently undoubtedly three areas relevant for the enlargement and neighbouring agenda: partnership, enlargement and synergies with the European, External Action Service (EEAS); 334. Welcomes the fact that four recommendations have been implemented fully, two recommendations are being implemented in most respects and two recommendations are being implemented in some respects out of the Court's eight recommendations made in years 2011-2012; Management issues 335. Notes that there is a direct management in this section, when spending is managed by the Commission and its DG; it is provided via the Brussels headquarters, or Union delegations in particular countries, or in cooperation with international organisations; 336. Notes with surprise that the delegations with the highest amount at risk as measured by key performance indicators 5 (timely implementation) and 6 (objective reached) differ from those listed as the worst performers; considers that it raises questions on the quality and seriousness of reporting of some delegations; 337. Notes with deep concern that according to the EAMR on 2 598 projects led by Union delegations; − 805 projects worth EUR 13,7 billion (45,53 % of the total amount) are delayed, − 610 projects worth EUR 9,9 billion (32,96 %) will not reach the initially set objectives, − 500 projects worth EUR 8,6 billion (29 %) are both delayed and will not reach their initially set objectives, − 915 projects worth EUR 15 billion (50 %) are either delayed or will not reach the initially set objectives, − budget support actions account for almost one fifth of the projects with the worst problems; 338. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has put in place a monitoring system of the ongoing projects and that the EAMR reports provide a snapshot at the end of the year of projects which are either facing some delays in their implementation or where risks exist that they will not reach one or more of their initially set objectives;

Page 104 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

339. Encourages the Commission to continue to monitor these projects and to take appropriate actions in order to allow these projects to reach their objective in the set timeframe; asks the Commission to provide an up-to-date report on the state of these projects and calls on it to include neighbourhood policy aid programmes in that report; 340. Regrets that projects with implementation problems are less often visited by delegation staff than projects without problems; 341. Notes that on the basis of the data in the EAMR of 2014, 77 % of the projects flagged red for KPI-5 were visited and 23 % were not, that for projects flagged yellow for KPI- 5, 74 % were visited and 26 % were not, and that for projects flagged green for KPI-5, 71 % were visited and 29 % were not; 342. Recalls that Parliament requested that the Commission present the measures taken to improve the performance of Union delegations as regards financial planning and resource allocations, financial administration and auditing and to provide the conclusions it has drawn from the EAMR with the EAMRs to Parliament; 343. Notes that action plans for 22 delegations that met benchmarks for less than 60 % of their KPIs in 2014 were transmitted officially to the European Parliament on 5 November 2015; notes, moreover, that conclusions drawn by DG DEVCO from the EAMR were presented in the Annual Activity Report of DG DEVCO for the year 2014; 344. Insists that the Commission should in no way utilise the adversarial procedure foreseen by Article 163 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union in order to delay or to block the adoption of a special report of the Court; 345. Reiterates strongly that the assurance-building process requires measures to reinforce the accountability of Union delegations through the EAMR prepared and signed by the heads of Union delegations; 346. Considers the EAMR issued by the heads of Union delegations to be a useful internal management instrument to enable the Commission to identify early problems with projects and to address them even during the implementation; regrets that these reports are not annexed to the annual activity reports of DG DEVCO and NEAR as is foreseen by Article 67(3) of the Financial Regulation; regrets that they are systematically considered as confidential whilst in accordance with Article 67(3) of the Financial Regulation, "they shall be made available to the Parliament and the Council having due regard, where appropriate, to their confidentiality"; 347. Regrets that the overall performance of Union delegations in implementation of external assistance programs as measured by the KPI utilised in the EAMR of 2014 has worsened compared to 2013; notes however that these reports present an assessment of ongoing projects and that the performance is influenced by factors outside the control of the Union delegations, including quality of governance in beneficiary countries, security situation, political crises, commitment of implementing partners, etc.; 348. Acknowledges that the assessments derived from the EAMR reports provide only a snapshot of the situation of each project at the end of the year and that the actual impact of the identified difficulties can only be assessed by the end of the project; 349. Insists that the Commission use the EAMR to address the identified shortcomings, so that ongoing projects meet the objectives initially set; expects the Commission to ensure that external assistance projects are planned within a realistic time frame so as to decrease the share of delayed projects; expects the Commission to report to the Parliament on corrective action to redress the situation in delegations with serious implementation problems;

Page 105 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

350. Notes that only a very limited part of the ongoing projects were assessed as having serious problems justifying a red flag; welcomes the foreseen corrective actions, which could still produce a positive outcome by the end of the implementation period; 351. Takes the view that heads of Union delegations should be clearly reminded of their duties during their recruitment and pre-posting in terms of management, their responsibility in the management assurance related to their delegation portfolios of operations (key management processes, control management, adequate understanding and assessment of the KPI), providing qualitative and exhaustive reporting in the context of the establishment of the annual activity report and urged not only to concentrate on the political component of their duties; 352. Expresses concern at the Union's management of external assistance in third countries; points out that every second euro is paid late (at the time of the last report, this affected 805 projects), every third euro failed to reach its intended target (affecting 610 projects) and that both of the failings apply to every fourth euro (affecting 500 projects); is concerned that with regard to budget support almost one fifth (18,5 %) of the measures are late and fail to reach the objectives, and almost half of the EDF projects have the same implementation problems; is concerned that projects that are experiencing problems are visited less frequently than those without problems; asks the Commission to provide an up-to-date report on the state of these projects and calls on it to include neighbourhood policy aid programmes in this report; 353. Acknowledges that the actual impact of the identified difficulties can only be assessed by the end of the project; considers that the financial impact of the difficulties and delay encountered during the implementation of the projects should be measured cautiously and that it can represent only a very limited part of the project's spending; notes that on the basis of the data in the EAMR of 2014, 77 % of the projects flagged red for KPI-5 were visited and 23% were not, that for projects flagged yellow for KPI-5, 74 % were visited and 26 % were not and that for projects flagged green for KPI-5, 71 % were visited and 29 % were not; 354. Believes that the heads of Union delegations should be provided with clear guidance in the general guidelines on the definition of the reservation and its components; 355. Believes it is important to identify and consolidate trends by delegation on the basis of management information and KPI, in order to assess the programming cycle for the benefit of the overall or sectoral performance of Union development aid; 356. Welcomes that the Commission has increased the monitoring of Union-funded projects in the Tindouf camps with a total of 24 monitoring missions carried out in 2015, and up to 2 weeks per month being spent by Commission humanitarian staff in the camps; welcomes all efforts by the Commission to ensure the most efficient use of Union funding in the camps and acknowledges that there is no customs duty on humanitarian imports in the case of Tindouf; Legality and regularity; error issues 357. Observes that the Court analysed 172 transactions, out of which 43 were affected by error; notes that based on 28 quantified errors the estimated level of error is to be 2,7 %; 358. Welcomes the fact that the Court issued a specific error rate as to the expenditure directly managed by the Commission (the multi-donor and budget support transactions being excluded) and regrets that the error rate for those specific transactions has been quantified at 3,7 %; finds it frustrating that in seven cases of quantifiable errors, the Commission had sufficient information to prevent or detect and correct the errors before accepting the expenditure; notes that had all this information been used to correct errors, the estimated level of error for this chapter would have been 0,2 percentage points lower;

Page 106 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

359. Notes that the main errors include ineligible expenditures claimed by financial beneficiaries (involving the period, taxes, non-compliance with rule of origin or insufficient documentation) and insufficient clearance and acceptance of payments by the Commission; Contribution by type of error Global Europe Ineligible expenditure 57 % Services/works/supplies not provided 24 % Absence of supporting documents to justify 8 % expenditure Non-compliance with the rules on public 6 % procurement Incorrect calculation of expenditure claimed 4 % Total 100 %

360. Welcomes the fact that the Court issued a specific error rate as to the expenditure directly managed by the Commission, multi-donor and budget support transactions being excluded; regrets that the error rate for those specific transactions has been quantified at 3,7 %; 361. Points out that the budget support transactions examined by the Court were free from errors of legality and regularity; takes the view, however, that the Commission should introduce consistent monitoring of funds allocated in the form of budget support, including systematic checks on compliance with the conditions governing eligibility for this type of support; 362. Regrets that the Court observed the systemic error consisting of accepting expenditure based on their own estimates rather than on incurred, paid, and accepted costs it had already detected in the financial exercise of 2013 once again in 2014; but notes with satisfaction that DG ELARG corrected the incorrectly-made clearings from their accounts for 2013 and 2014 in May 2014 and also revised the instructions laid down in the ELARG manual on accounting; 363. Recalls that in his declaration of assurance1, the director general of Europe Aid stated that the control procedures in place give the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions whilst issuing a global reservation concerning the error rate being above 2 %, which demonstrates that the control procedures failed to prevent, detect, and correct material error; 364. Regards it as essential that suspension of pre-accession funding should be possible not only in cases where misuse of funds has been proven, but also in cases where preaccession countries violate in any way the rights laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Data reliability issues 365. Notes that due to the character of expenditures and the territories of their allocation, data management in this field visibly differs from any other area of the Union budget; Performance- and result-based approach 366. Notes that due to the character of support, even improved risk management and strengthened control systems contribute substantially to a performance focus; Financial engineering instruments 367. Notes that in this area, FEI do not represent a core topic. If there is a space for this kind of support, it is rather utilised via the EDFs´ actions;

Page 107 of 108 CONT mission to Turkey - 1 - 4 November 2016

Measures to be taken 368. Concludes that the Commission should: (a) follow the Court's recommendation to set up and implement internal control procedures to ensure that re-financing payments are based on actual expenditure, and to strengthen the ex- ante controls for grant contracts, including the use of risk-based planning and systematic follow- up visits; (b) reflect the current and sharply changing set of priorities to provide efficient Union financial support to follow not only the territorial aspects (Ukraine, Turkey, Western Balkan, Eastern Partnership countries among others), but simultaneously also the thematic ones; 369. Requests that the Commission set up and implement internal control procedures to ensure that pre-financing is cleared on the basis of actual incurred expenditure not including legal commitments; 370. Fully endorses the instruction given by the Commission in its synthesis report1 urging DG DEVCO "to look for ways to increase the extent to which it takes the result of its controls into account to provide a more risk differentiated assurance and to subsequently direct more of its control resources towards areas covered by specific reservations taking into consideration the relative cost -effectiveness of the various controls"; 371. Asks the Commission to: (a) provide the Parliament every year with a global assessment of the EAMR; and (b) indicate in the annual activity reports of DG DEVCO and DG NEAR the measures it has taken to redress the situation in the delegations with implementation problems, to shorten the delays in budget support and to simplify the programmes;

Others Migration and Refugees 405. Welcomes the information on funds, which could be used to mitigate the crisis situations caused by a high influx of refugees1; 406. Is of the opinion that the Union funds involved in migration policy should be the subject to control and audits on the basis of performance indicators; 407. Points to the ongoing migration crisis and underlines the need to address it with a coherent Union solution; notes the funds allocated to migration and external-border management in 2014; and asks the Court to consider preparing a quick, special report on the effectiveness of these funds, drawing conclusions to be reflected in the ongoing process of upgrading the Union migration and border control policy; 408. Refers to paragraphs 234 and 235 of the 2013 discharge resolution; asks for an update about the ongoing cooperation with the International Management Group (IMG) and for information from the Commission in particular about ongoing and new contracts and payments; 409. Calls for clarification as to which unfinished Greek Union projects can no longer be funded after 31 December 2015; calls for clarification as to what is to happen with each of these projects;

Disclaimer The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. Contact: [email protected] Manuscript completed on 21 October 2016.