ΕΓΓΡΑΦΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΣ. EL Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία EL. Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο

Transcript

1 Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού ΕΓΓΡΑΦΟ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑΣ σχετικά με την ειδική έκθεση αριθ. 15/2016 του ΕΕΣ (απαλλαγή 2015): Ήταν αποτελεσματική η διαχείριση από την Επιτροπή της ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας προς στους πληθυσμούς που πλήττονται από συγκρούσεις στην περιοχή των Μεγάλων Λιμνών της Αφρικής; Επιτροπή Ελέγχου του Προϋπολογισμού Συντάκτης γνωμοδότησης: Miroslav Poche DT\ docx PE v01-00 Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία

2 Introduction The African Great Lakes (AGL) area 1 has in recent decades been beset by conflicts, which have resulted in huge population displacements with severe humanitarian consequences. The Commission has funded humanitarian projects in this area since 1994, and is continuing with its efforts to tackle the consequences of the conflicts and unrest. At present, the area most affected is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which has about 1.6 million internally displaced people. Currently, there are about Congolese refugees in the neighbouring countries, mainly in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. The unrest in Burundi in 2015 has added about to the overall figure for refugees. In addition to the refugees and the displaced persons, humanitarian aid is also given to the local populations who are caught up in the conflicts or are hosting refugees and displaced persons. This aid consists of the provision of shelter, food, health care and other basic services. To provide this aid, the Commission works in close cooperation with international nongovernmental organisations, United Nations agencies and other international organisations under a framework partnership agreement (FPA) 2. The Commission has also set up an extensive field network with offices located in crisis zones where EU aid is delivered. The amount spent on humanitarian assistance in the African Great Lakes area over the period was about 300 million euros. Audit Scope and Objectives The Court examined whether the Commission effectively managed its funding for humanitarian aid targeted at populations affected by conflicts in the African Great Lakes region and focused on the following three main questions: (a) Did the Commission allocate its funding to well-established priorities? (b) Did the Commission monitor the projects properly? (c) Did the projects achieve their objectives? The audit carried out between May and December 2015 covered the Commission s support during the period to the AGL region and included (i) a review of EU policy documents and strategy documents related to humanitarian aid, and other relevant documentation and reports, (ii) interviews with Commission officials and with partners representatives, (iii) a review of 19 projects implemented during the period , plus the ECHO Flight service contract for aerial transport and (iv) visits to the DRC from 16 to 25 September 2015 and to Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda from 30 September to 8 October 2015 including interviews with staff in the field, EU delegation staff, partners representatives and beneficiaries as well as on-the-spot visits to 10 projects. 1 The AGL region comprises the countries of Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. 2 In the AGL region, the split was 46% NGOs, 7.3% with international organisations and 46.7% for United Nations. PE v /2 DT\ docx

3 Court's Findings and Observations (a) Did the Commission allocate its funding to well-established priorities? The Court observed that the Commission has properly identified needs for the AGL region. The humanitarian aid to populations affected by conflict in the Great Lakes area was, generally, managed effectively by the Commission. The needs assessment was thorough providing a good overview of the situation in the DRC and neighbouring countries in relation to the affected populations. The Court noted that the Commission s response was appropriate with well-established priorities for the region i.e. consistent with the analysis of the situation and needs assessment as described in the DRC s Annual Humanitarian Action Plan. Moreover, the approach adopted by the Commission in the Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) ensured sufficient built in flexibility in programming and funding to cope with the rapidly changing circumstances in the conflict affected areas i.e. when an unexpected crisis occurred. It was observed that the HIP was revised any time the evolution of a situation triggers a modification of the initial allocated amount, the extra additional funding being available from the operational reserve, from the EU Emergency Aid Reserve or from the EDF budget. The projects examined by the Court were mainly successful in addressing urgent needs. However, a number of weaknesses were identified some of which related to insufficient transparency at key stages in the life cycle of projects. The Court found that the appraisal of the funding requests were not including sufficient evidence to clearly show that all the relevant criteria and general principles were applied for the approval of project proposals, as this process was not documented in a transparent manner. Neither the system did mention key aspects such as the partner s implementation capacity or its knowledge of the country and did provide sufficient information to determine the comparative merits of the projects and determine if the most appropriate projects were selected. In addition, the Court showed that the cost-efficiency was not assessed as the budgets provided with the funding requests were not detailed and analysed prior to selection. Furthermore, the audit work revealed that there was no information on the level of funding that went to partners, particularly for UN agencies sub-contracting activities to implementing bodies, and on the level of aid spent on the beneficiaries. (b) Did the Commission monitor the projects properly? The Court assessed that in most cases the Commission obtained adequate information on project implementation thanks to the monitoring framework in place based on a set of reports, field visits of project, periodic assessments of the partners and their financial soundness and external audits. However, the Court noted that the interim and final reports from the partners were frequently late 1 and this hampering their usefulness, especially in a high proportion of reports on projects implemented by UN agencies and international organisations. The quality of the final reports was qualified by the Court as insufficient to explain the level of performance achieved or the impossibility of using some indicators. Moreover, if the expertise of the Commission s field 1 The percentage of late interim reports is 40% for UN agencies, 67% for international organisations and 29% for NGOs. For the final reports, 100% are late for the UN agencies, 67% for the international organisations and 38% for NGOs. DT\ docx 3/3 PE v01-00

4 staff was helpful to the funded partners, the reporting from the field visits was not enough comprehensive in particular with regard to the financial implementation. The Court also considered that the methodology to select the partners and projects audited should be further clarified to facilitate synergies with the monitoring system in place. Finally, the Court observed that the recording of the follow-up of problems raised at project level was inadequate making it impossible to ensure that these were satisfactorily resolved. On a more global level, there is no reporting on the Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) to provide an overview of results, best practices and lessons learnt. (c) Did the projects achieve their objectives? Most of the projects reviewed by the Court were in line with the Commission s objectives and actions envisaged for the region and delivered satisfactory results. One partner, however, managed to spend most of its budget despite achieving a small percentage of the planned results. The Court observed that in some cases, the Commission s assessment did not provide enough justification on the project achievement and of the partner s performance. With regard to the time management of the projects, the Court found that half of the projects were implemented over a longer period than initially planned, from two to six months, or with more budget but the Court considered that the granting of time extensions could be better justified. As regards the Commission s own assessment of results, it was unclear, in some cases, from the information available, how it arrived at its conclusions. On linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD), the Court has found only very few examples of this being applied in practice. Without very actively pursuing this goal, there is a danger that opportunities to move from humanitarian aid to development aid will be missed. Summary of the Commission Replies The Commission acknowledged that more formal documentation on the compliance with mandatory criteria could be useful. However, the fine-tuning of geographical priorities was done on a constant basis through the presence of the Commission's field staff in humanitarian coordination fora, and written weekly updates on the humanitarian situation. Due to the whole framework of communications channels and monitoring tools set by the Commission, no systematic link can be established between late submission of a report and late identification of problems. With regard to the justification for time extensions and additional budgets, the Commission pointed out that there was for each project amendment, a justification for extending the project duration in line with applicable procedures. While recognising that it remains a priority, the Commission stated that the constraints associated to the implementation of LRRD in DRC are significant and need to be acknowledged. The Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO) and the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) are closely cooperating for ensuring LRRD and to share information concerning the humanitarian situation in the different areas, resulting for instance into a LRRD health programme in DRC for the 11th EDF. PE v /4 DT\ docx

5 Court's recommendations In the light of its findings, the Court makes a number of recommendations in order to improve the allocation of funding, the transparency of the selection procedure, the monitoring system of projects and the reporting of stakeholders on results achieved: 1. The Commission should be more transparent in the selection procedure; 2. Costs of proposals should be better analysed prior to acceptance; 3. The Commission should make clear the extent to which problems raised for follow-up are resolved; 4. Better reporting from partners and field staff should enable prompt action to be taken; 5. The Commission should introduce an overall reporting system on the implementation of the HIP; 6. The Commission should establish a clear link between results achieved by a project and the assessment used to make the payment; 7. Time extensions and additional funding for projects should be clearly justified; 8. The Commission should prioritise the linking of Relief Rehabilitation and Development. Συστάσεις του εισηγητή για πιθανή ένταξη στην ετήσια έκθεση απαλλαγής της Επιτροπής [Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο] 1. εκφράζει ικανοποίηση για την ειδική έκθεση σχετικά με την επισκόπηση των κινδύνων που συνεπάγεται η εφαρμογή μιας προσανατολισμένης στα αποτελέσματα προσέγγισης της δράσης της ΕΕ στους τομείς της ανάπτυξης και της συνεργασίας και θέτει τις παρατηρήσεις και τις συστάσεις του κατωτέρω 2. εκφράζει ικανοποίηση για τα πορίσματα που επιβεβαιώνουν ότι η διαχείριση της ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας ήταν αποτελεσματική σε ένα δύσκολο περιβάλλον εργασίας το οποίο χαρακτηρίζεται από ανασφάλεια και έλλειψη προβλεψιμότητας, χαρακτηριστικά που δυσχεραίνουν σε μεγάλο βαθμό την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή της 3. ζητεί από την Επιτροπή να συνεχίσει τις προσπάθειές της για σύνδεση της αρωγής, της αποκατάστασης και της ανάπτυξης (ΣΑΑΑ), όταν το επιτρέπουν οι τοπικές συνθήκες οι προσπάθειες αυτές θα μπορούσαν ενδεχομένως να στηριχθούν μέσω μιας μόνιμης διυπηρεσιακής πλατφόρμας ΣΑΑΑ μια τέτοια πλατφόρμα θα μπορούσε να λειτουργήσει, μεταξύ άλλων, για την ταυτοποίηση πιθανών προγραμμάτων προς συνδυασμό θεωρεί ότι πρέπει, όταν είναι δυνατό, να υιοθετούνται ολοκληρωμένες στρατηγικές με σαφώς διατυπωμένους στόχους συντονισμού και μια συνεκτική στρατηγική χώρας/περιφέρειας μεταξύ όλων των ενδιαφερόμενων παραγόντων 4. ζητεί επίσης από τις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής να βελτιώσουν τη μετάβαση από βραχυπρόθεσμες ανθρωπιστικές δραστηριότητες σε μακροπρόθεσμες παρεμβάσεις για DT\ docx 5/5 PE v01-00

6 την ανάπτυξη και να εφαρμόσουν συνεκτικό συντονισμό όχι μόνο μεταξύ διαφόρων παραγόντων της ΕΕ αλλά και με τις εθνικές προτεραιότητες και άλλους διεθνείς οργανισμούς, μέσω μιας κοινής στρατηγικής με χρήση ενός κοινού ανθρωπιστικού και αναπτυξιακού πλαισίου 5. θεωρεί ότι πρέπει να διενεργείται συστημική αξιολόγηση της πραγματικής αποτελεσματικότητας των ανθρωπιστικών παρεμβάσεων παράλληλα με την αξιολόγηση του διοικητικού κόστους στην περιοχή εστιάζοντας περισσότερο στην αποτελεσματικότητα και ορίζοντας πιθανά σημεία αναφοράς για τα συνήθη και τακτικά στοιχεία κόστους 6. ενθαρρύνει, όπου είναι δυνατό, την καλύτερη προσαρμογή των χρονοδιαγραμμάτων στο περιβάλλον παρέμβασης προκειμένου να αποφεύγονται οι χρονοβόρες και δαπανηρές παρατάσεις 7. καλεί τα οικεία θεσμικά όργανα της ΕΕ και του ΟΗΕ να σεβαστούν στο ακέραιο και να εφαρμόσουν τη χρηματοδοτική και διοικητική συμφωνία-πλαίσιο (FAFA) ζητεί από την Επιτροπή να υποβάλει έκθεση στο Κοινοβούλιο σχετικά με την εφαρμογή της FAFA και των σχετικών κατευθυντηρίων γραμμών, να επισημάνει τομείς που χρήζουν βελτίωσης και να διατυπώσει συναφείς προτάσεις σε αυτό το πλαίσιο 8. υπενθυμίζει ότι η υποβολή εκθέσεων από τον ΟΗΕ και τους διεθνείς οργανισμούς θα πρέπει να διασφαλίζει την ακριβέστερη δυνατή ιχνηλασιμότητα της χρηματοδότησης, συγκρίσεις με λειτουργικές πτυχές της παροχής βοήθειας που συμφωνήθηκε στο ξεκίνημα της παρέμβασης, καθώς και να παρέχει χρήσιμες πληροφορίες στις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής τονίζει τη σημασία της υποβολής έγκαιρων εκθέσεων από τους οργανισμούς εταίρους προκειμένου να είναι δυνατή η ταχεία διαχείριση ή προσαρμογή της ανθρωπιστικής απόκρισης και των τρόπων χρηματοδότησης 9. επισημαίνει την ανάγκη να βελτιωθεί η λογοδοσία και η διαφάνεια του ΟΗΕ όσον αφορά τη χρήση των πόρων της ΕΕ και την απόδοση που σχετίζεται με την εφαρμογή των διεθνώς συμφωνημένων στρατηγικών προσανατολισμών και στόχων που αφορούν την ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια και την ανάπτυξη 10. ζητεί από την Επιτροπή να θεσπίσει αξιολογήσεις των αποτελεσμάτων στο επίπεδο των σχεδίων εφαρμογής ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας (HIP) προκειμένου να καταστεί δυνατός ο καθορισμός σημείων αναφοράς για τα HIP και η ανταλλαγή βέλτιστων πρακτικών 11. εκφράζει λύπη για τις ελλιπείς ή ανεπαρκείς πληροφορίες που προσανατολίζονται στα αποτελέσματα, οι οποίες παρεμποδίζουν την Επιτροπή από το να ασκήσει δεόντως τα καθήκοντα της όσον αφορά την παρακολούθηση 12. επιμένει ότι θα πρέπει να επιτευχθεί το μέγιστο δυνατό επίπεδο διαφάνειας και θεσμικής λογοδοσίας σε όλα τα επίπεδα, με την εξασφάλιση πρόσβασης σε αναλυτικές και ορθές δημοσιονομικές πληροφορίες και χρηματοπιστωτικά δεδομένα που σχετίζονται με έργα που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ, ώστε να γίνει εφικτός ο έλεγχος εκ μέρους του Κοινοβουλίου. PE v /6 DT\ docx