ES ES DOCUMENTO DE TRABAJO

Parlamento Europeo
2014-2019
Comisión de Control Presupuestario
8.9.2016
DOCUMENTO DE TRABAJO
sobre el Informe Especial n.º 15/2016 del Tribunal de Cuentas Europeo
(aprobación de la gestión 2015), titulado «¿Gestionó la Comisión con eficacia
la ayuda humanitaria prestada a las poblaciones afectadas por conflictos en la
región de los Grandes Lagos de África?»
Comisión de Control Presupuestario
Ponente: Miroslav Poche
DT\1100001ES.docx
ES
PE585.728v01-00
Unida en la diversidad
ES
Introduction
The African Great Lakes (AGL) area1 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 437 000 Congolese
refugees in the neighbouring countries, mainly in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania.
The unrest in Burundi in 2015 has added about 236 000 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
2011-2015 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 2011-2015 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 2011-2014, 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.
PE585.728v01-00
ES
2/2
DT\1100001ES.docx
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
late1 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\1100001ES.docx
3/3
PE585.728v01-00
ES
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.
PE585.728v01-00
ES
4/4
DT\1100001ES.docx
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.
Recomendaciones del ponente para su posible inclusión en el informe anual de
aprobación de la gestión de la Comisión
El Parlamento Europeo,
1. Acoge con satisfacción el informe especial dedicado al análisis de los riesgos de un
enfoque orientado a los resultados en las acciones de desarrollo y cooperación de la Unión
y formula a continuación sus observaciones y recomendaciones;
2. Celebra que las conclusiones indiquen que la ayuda humanitaria se gestionó con eficacia,
especialmente en un entorno de trabajo difícil marcado por la inseguridad e
imprevisibilidad en el que la eficacia en la ejecución resultó ser un auténtico desafío;
3. Insta a la Comisión a que, cuando las condiciones en la zona así lo permitan, no ceje en
sus esfuerzos en pos de la vinculación entre la ayuda de emergencia, la rehabilitación y el
desarrollo (VARD), esfuerzos que podrían complementarse mediante una plataforma
interservicios VARD permanente que, entre otras cosas, podría servir para determinar qué
programas son combinables; considera que, siempre que sea posible, deben aplicarse
enfoques integrados con objetivos de coordinación claramente definidos y una estrategia
nacional o regional coherente entre todas las partes interesadas;
4. Pide asimismo a los servicios de la Comisión una mejor transición de las actividades
humanitarias a corto plazo hacia las intervenciones de desarrollo a largo plazo y una
coordinación coherente no solo entre los diferentes agentes de la Unión, sino también en
función de las prioridades nacionales y junto con otras organizaciones internacionales a
través de una estrategia común en un marco humanitario y de desarrollo conjunto;
DT\1100001ES.docx
5/5
PE585.728v01-00
ES
5. Considera que debe llevarse a cabo un análisis sistémico de la verdadera ejecución de las
intervenciones humanitarias en el que se evalúen los costes administrativos en la región
prestando mayor atención a la eficacia y se establezcan posibles valores de referencia para
los elementos de costes usuales y periódicos;
6. Anima a que, siempre que sea posible, se busque una mejor adecuación del calendario al
entorno de intervención para evitar costosas y largas prolongaciones de los plazos;
7. Pide a las instituciones pertinentes de la Unión y de las Naciones Unidas que respeten y
apliquen plenamente el Acuerdo Marco Financiero y Administrativo (AMFA); solicita a la
Comisión que informe al Parlamento de la aplicación de dicho Acuerdo Marco y de las
directrices conexas, así como que determine los ámbitos en los que se han de realizar
mejoras y presente propuestas pertinentes a tal fin;
8. Recuerda que los informes de las Naciones Unidas y de otras organizaciones
internacionales deben garantizar que, con la mayor precisión posible, haya un rastreo de la
financiación y comparaciones con los aspectos operativos del suministro de la ayuda que
se habían acordado al comienzo de la intervención, así como proporcionar a los servicios
de la Comisión información que les resulte de utilidad; subraya la importancia de que las
organizaciones colaboradoras presenten informes a la Comisión a su debido tiempo para
que se pueda gestionar o ajustar con rapidez la respuesta humanitaria y las modalidades de
financiación;
9. Hace hincapié en la necesidad de mejorar la transparencia y rendición de cuentas de las
Naciones Unidas en relación con el uso de recursos de la Unión y los resultados a la hora
de aplicar orientaciones estratégicas y objetivos humanitarios y de desarrollo acordados
internacionalmente;
10. Pide a la Comisión que establezca evaluaciones de los resultados a escala del HIP que
permitan tanto realizar evaluaciones comparativas entre los distintos HIP como
intercambiar mejores prácticas;
11. Lamenta que haya información incompleta o no lo suficientemente orientada hacia los
resultados, lo que impide que la Comisión pueda ejercer adecuadamente su función de
supervisión;
12. Insiste en la necesidad de alcanzar el máximo nivel de transparencia y rendición de
cuentas institucional a todos los niveles garantizando el acceso a información
presupuestaria y datos financieros exhaustivos y válidos en relación con los proyectos que
cuenten con financiación de la Unión, a fin de permitir que el Parlamento ejerza su poder
de control.
PE585.728v01-00
ES
6/6
DT\1100001ES.docx