part 1 of the african peace facility evaluation - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

modify, for instance, the duration contribution agreements. This element can be modified (e.g. extended) without modifying the Commission decision, as it is not considered to be a substantial modification affecting the objectives and contents of the action. If the amendment requested is considered substantial, the relevant EC decision must be modified before amending the relevant contract. Amending a contribution agreement already in force to change i.e. its overall funding would require the same time consuming decision-making procedure as when establishing a new contribution agreement, as modifying an EC decision takes as long as adopting a new one. RETRO-ACTIVITY The clause on retroactivity included in all APF agreements is very important, because of the lengthy EC decision-making process. AU/RECs can pre-finance their on-going activities related to PSOs or capacity building, provided that expenditures take place after the official request date from AU/RECS to the EU. As AU/RECs are often not able to pre-finance their APF activities with their own funds, they are forced to reallocate the budget of the previous Contribution Agreement, or make ‘borrow-andswitch’ arrangements between accounts.. CONTINGENCIES As regards the use of contingencies, APF regulations clearly establish that their use is not considered as an amendment of the financing decision, as long as it does not entail a change in the nature of the activities originally proposed. Contingencies have been used as a complement to an ongoing APFfunded intervention, with a DEVCO decision following an AU/REC request. This provision has not caused any problem, but it may be quite important to take into consideration the nature of PSOs. 70% ACCOUNTABILITY One of the complaints made by AU and RECs regarding the Capacity Building Programme under the 9 th EDF APF is the EC requirement that when they have collectively spent 70% of the budget, the AUC and all (6) RECs involved must then justify expenditures (with the relevant documentation) in order to receive the remaining 30%. The evaluation considers the 70% accountability rule perfectly justified; there is no reason for the accounting departments of AU and RECs not to be able to comply with it. However, problems occurred because the rule applied to all the involved organisations, which meant that the best performers were held back by the weakest link. This caused many additional challenges for certain RECs and caused unnecessary frictions. In the future, the EU should apply the rule to individual organisations or require that the AUC does not disburse all the resources to individual RECs, but holds back a reserve that allows the good performers to move forward even if other RECs do not deliver. PERIODIC AUDITS Another important clause in APF contracts refers to the need for periodic audits, as their results have a direct impact on the ongoing funding to AU/RECs and on future contracts because of the recovery requirements. As for any other EC programme, when an audit identifies problems in the management of EC funds, the funded organisation must respond within two weeks. The experience with AU/RECs as regards audits has not always been positive: they seldom respond in time, or provide auditors with inadequate documentation. Some Commission officials report that these organisations even needed technical assistance to deal with audits. On the other hand, it is admitted that AUC has made considerable progress during 2010 in terms of financial and reporting procedures. Page 26 of 49
APF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING In 2005, when APF started, it was assessed that AU/RECs met the four-pillar requirement to sign contribution agreements with the Commission. Later audits, on AMIS and MICOPAX first mission, disclosed a serious lack of sound management in both operations. As a solution, DEVCO Director General and AUC Deputy Chairperson reached an agreement in August 2009 on measures to strengthen AUC financial management, including precautionary measure to ensure tighter financial control over expenditures to keep on funding AMISOM. In the case of MICOPAX, even before ECCAS has undergone such an institutional assessments, the French military accepted to assume financial management of the operation through a special body in the field (CAF), and APF funding started to come through a Grant Agreement. Currently, an institutional assessment of AU is still going on and its official results have not yet been made public. In 2011, ECCAS will also undergo an institutional assessment of its standards in accounting, audit, control and procurement procedures. To the Commission, it is clear that the African organisations should comply with the minimum conditions for implementing contribution agreements, as they are bound to the financing regulations of the EDF and good international practices. According to DEVCO, over the past few years, the discussion on how to address the transition - the necessary time for the AUC to pass a positive 4-pillar review, foreseen for 2011 – was that, as a general rule, no new contribution agreement in joint management could be signed, except for AMISOM (currently IV and V) and, possibly, the APSA support (€40m, currently in the decision-making circuit). For AMISOM this is justified by the fact that the AUC accepted to incorporate into the contribution agreement, precautionary measures from the aide-memoire on measures to strengthen AUC financial management + on the basis of a financial management risk analysis conducted by DEVCO and approved by the Director General (based on constant financial monitoring and positive audit results). In this sense, it should be noted that AMISOM V clearly states that: "the management system set up by the African Union Commission (AUC) for the management of EU funds does not fully comply at the moment with all the conditions set out in Article 29 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th EDF. The Commission considers however that a contribution agreement in joint management may still be established under the strict conditions agreed in the joint European Commission/African Union Commission Aide-Memoire to strengthen AU financial management signed on 27 August 2009 and its revisions. These conditions were integrated in the contribution agreement". III.1.4 APPRECIATION OF APF DECISION-MAKING AND TIMING APF decisions do not take longer than any other EC EDF decisions, although the current APF decision-making procedures are quite lengthy. At best, it takes around two months to obtain an EC decision (AMISOM IV). These procedures are not well adapted to the needs of AUC/RECs’ support for maintaining peace and security in Africa. In peace operations, decisions often need to be fast and effective both from the managerial and financial perspectives; lives may be in danger, many risks are at stake. Nevertheless, APF decision-making procedures are not an exception within the EC legal framework. Other EC financial instruments also have to go through the same general procedures, despite their possible urgency: except for the ECHO and IfS procedures, discussed below. IMPORTANCE OF STAFF COMMITMENT Nevertheless, as APF actions are often urgent and because so many visas are required for a decision to be adopted, DEVCO officials have to maintain a very active, informal, personal approach to their relations with other units, at every stage of the procedure, in order for their funding requests to proceed rapidly through the EC bureaucracy. This permanent, personal approach is demanding as well as time consuming and may not be sustainable. The fact is that the success of APF depends on the current hard working C6 and C5 staff, committed to the ideals of African peace and personally Page 27 of 49
Page 1 and 2: THE EUROPEAN UNION’S EDF PROGRAMM
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary.........
Page 5 and 6: EASBRIG East African Standby Brigad
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EU foreign policy
Page 9 and 10: The principle of subsidiarity shoul
Page 11 and 12: econstruction, relevant capacities
Page 13 and 14: ‣ Areas for further study and que
Page 15 and 16: II. GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE APF II
Page 17 and 18: Item in the APF budget 16 Amount an
Page 19 and 20: AU, the relative limited focus on t
Page 21 and 22: European Parliament and NGOs contin
Page 23 and 24: It is argued by the military bias s
Page 25 and 26: III. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATI
Page 27 and 28: 3) “Political appropriateness”
Page 29 and 30: ‣ EEAS, because APF finances peac
Page 31: The need to respond quickly to peac
Page 35 and 36: Second, the main APF programmes (on
Page 37 and 38: aiming at allowing a fast and effec
Page 39 and 40: mechanism, EDF has its own decision
Page 41 and 42: The costs covered by ATHENA include
Page 43 and 44: RECs that might not qualify or for
Page 45 and 46: IV. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIO
Page 47 and 48: At first sight, the Instrument for
Page 49 and 50: In the short term, this evaluation
Page 51 and 52: The evaluation recommends earmarks
Page 53 and 54: Lack of Synergy between RECs and th
Page 55: IV.4.4 AFRICAN P&S FUNDING POLICIES

part 1 of the african peace facility evaluation - European ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?