Auditors flay €4.1bn EU trust fund for Africa
The EU Emergency Trust Fund
(EUTF) for Africa is a flexible tool for providing assistance in areas such as
food, education, health, security and sustainable development, according to a
new report by the European Court of Auditors (www.ECA.Europa.eu).
However, its objectives are too
broad to efficiently steer action across the African regions, and the European
Commission has encountered difficulties in measuring the extent to which the
fund has achieved its objectives. The auditors also found weaknesses in its
implementation and note that projects face similar delays to traditional
development aid.
The EUTF for Africa was created
as an emergency trust fund in 2015 to foster long-term stability and address
the root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa. The
fund currently pools €4.1bn and supports activities in 26 countries across
three regions of Africa – the Sahel and Lake Chad, the Horn of Africa and North
of Africa. The auditors assessed whether the fund is well designed and
implemented. They examined projects in Niger and Libya – the countries with
largest fund allocations in their respective regions.
“The EUTF for Africa is a special
emergency tool to deal with migration,” said Bettina Jakobsen, the Member of
the European Court of Auditors responsible for the report. “Considering the
unprecedented challenges and the budget at stake, the fund should be more
focused and steer the support towards specific actions likely to produce
measurable impact.”
The fund’s objectives were kept
as broad as possible, so that most actions would be eligible for funding. While
this meant that the fund could adapt its support to suit different and changing
situations, it was less useful in steering action across the regions and for
measuring impact. The Commission did not comprehensively analyse and quantify
needs, specify which crises the fund was meant to address, or define the means
at its disposal, which limits its ability to demonstrate that the right
priorities have been identified and that actions approved are the most relevant
to address them. In addition, the pooling of donor resources and capacities is
not yet sufficiently effective.
The fund launched projects more
quickly than traditional development aid and, overall, managed to accelerate
contract signatures and advance payments, although greater speed could have
been expected of an emergency tool. In fact, it faced similar challenges
delaying the implementation of projects as those faced by traditional
instruments. The auditors noted a pattern of delays in projects related to
areas such as security and border management.
Project selection procedures
varied between the regions. Criteria for assessing proposals were not
sufficiently clear or documented, and the comparative advantage of using the
EUTF to finance projects was not always well explained. The auditors found
examples of projects addressing similar needs to other EU instruments, which
risks duplicating other forms of EU support.
Project objectives were often not
specific and measurable, and performance indicators lacked baselines. The three
regions use different systems for monitoring their performance, as the common
system is not yet operational. The plethora of information and monitoring
systems means there is no single, comprehensive overview of the results
achieved by the EUTF for Africa as a whole. With €3.7 billion of EU funding at
stake, being able to measure performance is an important aspect of
accountability, the auditors say.
The audited projects were at an
early phase in their implementation but had started to produce outputs. The
fund has contributed to the effort to decrease the number of irregular migrants
passing from Africa to Europe, but this contribution cannot be measured
precisely.
The auditors make a number of
recommendations to the Commission to improve the quality of the objectives,
revise the project selection procedures, and take measures to speed up
implementation and improve monitoring.
Comments
Post a Comment