Glossary

ACP : African, Caribbean and Pacific (States)

ASECNA : Agence pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne en Afrique et à Madagascar (Agency for the Safety of Aerial Navigation in Africa)

COMESA : Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

EAC : East African Community

EC : European Community

ECOWAS : Economic Community of West African States (Communauté économique des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, Cedeao, in French)

EDF : European Development Fund

EPA : Economic Partnership Agreement

IAS : Internal Audit Service

IGAD : Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IOC : Indian Ocean Commission

IRCC : Inter Regional Coordinating Committee

RISM : Regional Integration Support Mechanism

RISP : Regional Integration Support Programme

SADC : Southern African Development Community

UEMOA : Union économique et monétaire ouest africaine (West African Economic and Monetary Union, WAEMU, in English)

UNIDO : United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

Executive summary

I. Regional integration is the process of neighbouring countries cooperating in order to improve political stability and to stimulate economic development in a region. In larger and more harmonised markets, the free movement of goods, services, capital and people enables economies of scale and stimulates trade and investment. Regional economic integration between developing countries is thus a vehicle for economic growth and can contribute to poverty reduction.

II. The objective of the Court’s audit was to assess whether EDF support for regional economic integration in East Africa and West Africa had been effective. The audit examined the Commission’s approach to regional economic integration, its management of the support provided and the results of a sample of individual projects.

III. The regional economic integration process is making progress in both regions in terms of agreements being reached on regional objectives and policies relating to trade and transport issues. However, the implementation of such agreements by the national authorities is lagging behind and the free movement of goods, services, capital and people is not yet a reality in either of the two regions.

IV. Overall, EDF support for regional economic integration has so far been only partially effective, being undermined by several factors. The occurrence of multiple Regional Organisations with overlapping mandates and membership, as well as weak capacity, results in a complex institutional framework. Furthermore, there are weaknesses in the Commission’s approach to, and management of, regional economic integration programmes.

V. The Commission’s approach to supporting regional economic integration in East Africa and West Africa is relevant to the regions’ and the countries’ needs to achieve higher economic growth as a means to fight poverty. However, the strategies and interventions at the regional and national levels have largely been designed and implemented independently of each other, with insufficient attention paid to the possibility of creating complementarity between them except, to some extent, in the transport sector.

VI. The Commission’s Delegations have neither adequate guidelines nor sufficient capacity to deal with the preparation, implementation, reporting and coordination of regional activities. At the level of the Regional Organisations, coordination is also inadequate and there is no monitoring system to track the overall progress of the regional economic integration process in the individual countries.

VII. It was difficult to assess the results achieved or likely to be achieved by individual projects, due to poorly defined objectives, the lack of adequate reporting and monitoring and the fact that several major projects are ongoing and their final results are not yet known. Overall, these projects are likely to have, at best, only partially satisfactory results.

VIII. The Court’s main recommendations are that the Commission should:

- make the continuation of its support for regional integration conditional on an early agreement on how to achieve the necessary convergence between the various Regional Organisations in a region within a predefined timeframe and on the national authorities taking greater ownership of the regional integration process;

- from the 2010 mid-term review of the 10th EDF strategies onwards, improve coherence between its regional and national strategies;

- examine whether the financial allocation in the 10th EDF to regional programmes is too high;

- in relation to the Delegations’ management of regional programmes, define their responsibilities, set up an appropriate coordination mechanism between them and review their staff capacity.

Introduction

Policy framework

1. The main objectives of cooperation between the European Community (EC) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States under the "Cotonou Agreement" are the reduction of poverty and ultimately its eradication, sustainable development and progressive integration of the ACP countries into the world economy [1]. Regional economic integration can be an important step towards meeting these objectives for many countries, especially for the smaller ones. Its main goals are to create or improve political stability and to stimulate economic development within a region. Large harmonised markets facilitate the free movement of goods, services, capital and people which enables economies of scale and stimulates trade and investment. Regional economic integration (hereinafter called "regional integration" for the purpose of this report) helps stimulate economic growth and can thereby contribute to poverty reduction [2].

2. Even prior to the Cotonou Agreement, in a Communication of 1995 [3], the Commission had defined its support for regional integration among developing countries by outlining a conceptual framework and by formulating three main areas for development cooperation support: capacity building and institutional strengthening at regional and national levels, direct support for the private sector to help exploit the opportunities resulting from regional integration and budget support to help meet the transitional costs of economic liberalisation and reform.

3. The EC Development Policy of 2000 [4] selected a limited number of priority fields for Community development cooperation activities, including trade and development, and regional integration and cooperation. The updated EC development policy of 2005, "The European Consensus on Development" [5], again emphasised the importance of trade and regional integration by linking them and selecting them as one of the priority areas for Community action.

4. The Commission updated its policy on regional integration, specifically in relation to ACP countries, in a Communication in 2008 (see footnote 2) in which it confirmed its view that regional integration was essential for increasing economic growth and reducing poverty. It also identified several longstanding challenges for achieving regional integration, including a lack of institutional capacity and ownership at national and regional levels, a need to improve implementation of economic integration agreements and to streamline overlapping and inconsistent integration agendas, insufficient economic diversification in national economies and inefficient infrastructure interconnections. In the area of regional economic integration, the Communication proposed focusing EU support on the following priority areas: strengthening regional institutions, building regional integrated markets, supporting business development and connecting regional infrastructure networks.

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: European Court of Auditors.

EDF support for regional integration

5. The EC supports the ACP countries in their development efforts through the European Development Funds with national programmes established with individual countries, regional programmes covering several or all countries in a particular region and what are known as Intra-ACP programmes, which target many or all ACP States. From the ninth EDF (2002–07), regional programmes have become the main instrument used to support regional integration. A number of Regional Organisations, established by various groups of ACP countries with a mandate to pursue regional economic integration, have become the main partners of the Commission to prepare and implement these regional programmes. Under the ninth EDF 1000 million euro was originally reserved for regional programmes. After the end-term reviews of the various programmes, the final amount committed for regional programmes was 904 million euro, of which 70 % was dedicated to regional economic integration interventions [6]. Under the 10th EDF the total allocation for regional programmes has been increased to 1783 million euro, with the share of regional economic integration coming to 75 %. The allocated amounts by region are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Financial allocations to regional programmes

(million euro) |

Region | 8th EDF (1996–2001) | 9th EDF (2002–07) | 10th EDF (2008–13) |

Total | REI [1001] | Total | REI | Total | REI |

East Africa [1002] | 219 | 154 | 289 | 203 | 645 | 548 |

West Africa | 226 | 143 | 253 | 200 | 597 | 418 |

Subtotal | 445 | 297 | 542 | 403 | 1242 | 966 |

Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) | 121 | 81 | 147 | 95 | 116 | 93 |

Central Africa | 91 | 60 | 64 | 29 | 165 | 97 |

Caribbean region | 90 | 40 | 111 | 89 | 165 | 140 |

Pacific region | 35 | – | 40 | 15 | 95 | 45 |

Total | 782 | 478 | 904 | 631 | 1783 | 1341 |

Management of regional programmes

6. Before the ninth EDF, the regional programmes were agreed between the Commission and the individual countries belonging to the region concerned, with regional projects often providing additional funding for national activities (e.g. road building) rather than supporting clearly designed regional policies.

7. The Cotonou Agreement, however, placed a new emphasis on the regional programmes as the main instrument to support regional economic integration and stipulated that multi-annual Regional Support Strategies and Indicative Programmes be prepared and agreed for each region jointly by the Commission and the duly mandated Regional Organisation(s), under the following conditions [7]:

- the ACP States concerned decide on the definition of the geographical regions;

- to the maximum extent possible, regional programmes should correspond to programmes of existing Regional Organisations with a mandate for economic integration;

- in the case of overlapping membership of several Regional Organisations, the regional programme should "correspond to the combined membership of these organisations".

8. As a result of the aforementioned provisions, regional programming under the ninth and 10th EDFs has resulted in strategies and indicative programmes for six different regions covering the totality of the ACP countries, i.e. four in Africa, one in the Pacific and one in the Caribbean. In several of the African regions more than one Regional Organisation exists with a mandate for economic integration, covering different, and sometimes overlapping, areas. This has led to the situation that in the two largest regions, East Africa and West Africa, for example, the Commission has to work with four (East Africa) and two (West Africa) Regional Organisations respectively as the duly mandated organisations to draw up, sign and implement the Regional Strategy and Indicative Programme for their region. The Regional Indicative Programme provides a first allocation of the resources available for the region and the period concerned to the focal areas of support. For each individual intervention the most appropriate Regional Organisation is allocated the role of Regional Authorising Officer, responsible for preparation and implementation of the interventions in close cooperation with the Commission.

East Africa region

9. The East Africa region in its current composition was created with the signing of the ninth EDF Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme [8]. It is a heterogeneous and diverse region in many respects, with countries varying in size, population, geographical situation, level of development and political stability. Under the ninth EDF, the regional programme covered 21 countries, but under the 10th EDF this number has been reduced to 17, following the withdrawal of four countries from the Regional Organisations involved.

10. The region is characterised by the presence of four Regional Organisations, covering different sub-regions, with a mandate for regional integration. These are known respectively by the acronyms COMESA, EAC, IGAD and IOC [9]. These organisations show significant overlaps in geographical coverage and membership and in mandates and policy objectives (see Annexes I and II). COMESA and EAC are primarily aiming for regional economic integration, with EAC already having established a customs union, while COMESA is still in the process of transforming its free trade area into a customs union. IGAD also includes regional economic integration in its mandate but focuses more on conflict resolution and food security issues. The IOC has a mandate for economic and trade cooperation rather than for regional economic integration, and it focuses mainly on regional cooperation in natural resources management (fisheries). Nevertheless, IOC participates in the programming and implementation of the 9th and 10th EDF Regional Indicative Programmes for the East Africa region.

11. The overlapping membership poses considerable problems, as some member countries belong to two different trade areas (COMESA and EAC). In addition, there are overlaps and incompatibilities in membership with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), the Regional Organisation for Southern Africa [10], which also aims to establish a customs union between its member countries. Membership in more than one customs union, however, is technically not possible. These overlaps in membership and mandates result in a complex institutional framework. These factors, and the current weak state of coordination between these organisations (see paragraphs 39 to 43), pose serious problems for the Commission, in particular for the design and implementation of interventions in the area of regional economic integration.

West Africa region

12. There are two mandated Regional Organisations in this region, i.e. the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Union Économique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA/WAEMU — West African Economic and Monetary Union). The regional programme covers the combined membership of these two organisations. Mauritania, the region’s only country which is not a member of either organisation, also takes part in EDF regional cooperation under the umbrella of ECOWAS.

13. Although economic integration in this region may appear more straightforward to achieve as there are fewer sub-regions than in East Africa, it too faces significant challenges. UEMOA has the advantage of a common currency and an established customs union, while ECOWAS is much less advanced in this respect, but ECOWAS has the wider membership and is, therefore, the more logical regional integration structure in the long term and the main reference for the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) to be agreed with the EC [11]. The two organisations have recognised the need for convergence between the two regions and organisations and have agreed to work towards this long-term goal through an "approche à géométrie variable et à rythmes différents". In the meantime, substantial coordination is required between the two organisations, and between them and the European Commission, in order to move this regional integration process forward as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Audit scope and approach

14. In view of the growing interest in, and the increased EDF support for, regional economic integration, the Court decided to carry out an audit on this subject. The audit was planned so that the results could be taken into account by the Commission in its mid-term review of the implementation of the 10th EDF which is scheduled for 2010.

15. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether European Development Fund (EDF) support for regional economic integration has been effective. The audit addressed the following questions:

(a) Does the Commission have a relevant and coherent approach to regional integration?

(b) Has the Commission managed its support for regional integration well?

(c) Have the Commission’s individual projects in support of regional integration met their objectives?

16. Regarding the geographical scope, the Court’s audit has focused on the two largest of the six existing regional programmes, i.e. those for East Africa and West Africa (see Table 1), which together account for well over 50 % of the total amount allocated to regional programmes.

17. The audit work carried out included the following:

(a) a review of relevant documentation on EC development policy concerning regional integration;

(b) an examination of the Commission’s regional strategy documents [12] for the ninth and 10th EDFs for the two regions selected, together with the national strategy documents [13] for the countries visited;

(c) on-the-spot missions to both regions, covering in total nine countries as well as the Headquarters of the relevant Regional Organisations [14];

(d) an examination of 18 regional projects, which include all ninth EDF and the largest eighth EDF projects on regional integration, trade and transport, with a total financial allocation of almost 450 million euro [15]. The scope of this examination was restricted to an assessment of the achievement (or likelihood thereof) of the project results, but not the longer-term impact thereof. The list of projects examined is provided in Annex III;

(e) a review of the evaluations carried out of the Commission’s regional strategies for East and West Africa, in order to assess the reliability of their conclusions and the follow-up action taken or planned by the Commission and a review of an internal audit of the financial management of regional projects, in particular in the Southern Africa region [16].

Observations

Does the Commission have a relevant and coherent approach to regional integration?

18. In addressing this question the Court examined whether, for the two regions concerned, the Commission’s regional cooperation strategy was aligned with the regions’ own priorities and complementary to the Commission’s individual country cooperation strategies. For individual regional projects, the Court examined whether they addressed priority needs at both the regional and national levels.

The Commission’s regional cooperation strategy is relevant but complementarity vis-à-vis its national cooperation strategies is weak and the level of funding does not take account of absorption capacities

19. In its regional strategy documents for both the ninth and the tenth EDFs the Commission provides an accurate analysis of the progress made in regional integration and the challenges it faces. This analysis justified the decision to focus the EDF financial allocations for both regions on economic integration and trade, with transport either being included or treated as a second focal sector. The justification provided, in the 10th EDF regional strategy papers and in the Commission’s 2008 Communication (see footnote 2), for the doubling of the financial allocation to regional programmes under the tenth EDF to 1783 million euro is that it reflects "EU-ACP consensus on the importance of regional integration for development". This large allocation will be difficult to use in an efficient and effective way by the Regional Organisations, given their limited absorption capacity demonstrated so far (see paragraphs 44 to 49).

20. The Commission’s regional strategies are aligned with the strategies and objectives of the main Regional Organisations to increase economic growth and reduce poverty through higher levels of regional economic integration, by supporting the implementation and consolidation of existing free trade areas and customs unions, and by addressing supply side constraints in the area of infrastructure.

21. The Commission has followed an appropriate approach of providing institution building support to the Regional Organisations in order to increase their capacity to develop regional policies and enforce their implementation. Its strategy of supporting, in each region, one joint Regional Indicative Programme involving the various Regional Organisations takes account of the complexity of the current institutional framework, caused by the multiplicity and overlapping mandates of Regional Organisations (see paragraphs 10 to 13). Another aim is to strengthen cooperation and the convergence process between these organisations. However, the regional strategy documents do not identify the priority needs to strengthen the institutional capacity of individual countries to participate actively in the formulation and implementation of regional integration policies.

22. The focus on transport in the regional strategy is in line with the Joint Africa–EU Strategy [17] which stated that Africa and the EU would aim at increasing interconnectivity by investing in and improving infrastructure along the Trans-African road transport corridors in order to support development through growth and trade. The objective is to support the definition and implementation of regional transport policies, with priority being given to the harmonisation of national transport policies (e.g. standardisation of maximum axle load for heavy goods vehicles) and transport facilitation along regional corridors (e.g. jointly built and managed border posts, elimination of illicit controls).

23. The Commission’s cooperation strategies with individual countries under the ninth and 10th EDFs are aligned with national development strategies, as formulated in the countries’ Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. The aim of all these national strategies is to achieve higher economic growth, which is seen as a necessary condition to be able to reduce poverty. However, in many cases the national strategies do not consider how they should interact with or complement regional integration programmes.

24. For most of the countries examined by the Court, the Commission’s cooperation strategies have focused on budget support. This is meant to contribute to macro-economic stability, which is an important condition for strengthening the convergence of national macro-economic policies, economic growth and development of trade in the regions and thus, regional integration overall.

25. Transport is defined as a focal sector for most of the countries examined by the Court and has the potential to contribute to regional integration. Under ninth EDF national programmes, whilst the importance of improving regional transport corridors is mentioned in several cases, the majority of road programmes in the different countries examined by the Court focus on improving domestic interconnectivity. In the 10th EDF country strategies, there has been a significant change of emphasis, since priority is now given to promoting regional interconnectivity in order to facilitate and expand regional trade.

26. In the ninth EDF country strategies, in areas other than transport, varying and generally inadequate attention is given to regional integration. There is no indication as to how the Commission’s support and policy dialogue at national level should support the regional integration process and there are no explicit linkages or complementarity with regional interventions, for example in relation to the need for institutional support for national administrations in the transposition and application of regional law or for strengthening the competitiveness of the private sector. Whilst, for most of the countries examined by the Court, the 10th EDF country strategies include provisions for non-focal support in areas such as trade, regional integration or implementation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), they do not specify the priority needs to be addressed.

27. The Court’s findings corroborate the evaluations commissioned by the Commission for the two regions. These evaluations, which covered the eighth and ninth EDFs, concluded that there was insufficient complementarity, because of inadequate coordination, both at the level of the policy dialogue between the Commission, the Regional Organisations and individual countries, and at programme level between regional and national programmes.

Regional projects are relevant but do not sufficiently address regional integration needs at national level

28. The ninth EDF regional programmes for East Africa and West Africa each contain comprehensive regional integration projects [18] which address most of the issues in the area of regional integration. They focus on support for institutional capacity building, development of trade policy regulations, negotiations and implementation of EPAs and financial compensation mechanisms for loss of government revenues due to customs tariff reductions. In the area of transport, they focus on transport facilitation, since support for transport infrastructure is funded by the national programmes.

29. The RISP project in East Africa for example consists of nine "Result Areas", which range from implementation of the agreements on the Free Trade Area and the Customs Union to harmonisation of statistical data, harmonisation of monetary, fiscal and tax policy, to preparation of a transport and communications strategy and priority investment plan. The Economic Integration and Trade project in West Africa contains four main components, i.e. achievement of a common market, macro-economic stability and convergence, institutional capacity building and enhancement of the competitiveness of productive sectors. All these activities are relevant to the integration agenda of the Regional Organisations, i.e. COMESA and EAC in East Africa and ECOWAS and UEMOA in West Africa [19].

30. The RISM project in East Africa is the largest financial intervention in that region with an EDF commitment of 78 million euro. Its objective is to assist countries in the region in the fiscal adjustment process when they liberalise their tariffs vis-à-vis other Member States joining the free trade area or the customs union. There has been a lack of interest from certain countries in the project. The main reason is that the project, as designed, does not target the priorities of those countries. No disbursement had been made under this project at the time of the audit.

31. The regional projects examined all have a clear regional dimension and involve activities at the regional level. However, the Commission, Regional Organisations and individual countries have respectively given insufficient attention to and support for the necessary follow-up actions at national level, in particular in relation to the transposition and application of legislation and the implementation of regional policies (see Box 1).

Box 1

Insufficient link between regional and national activities

In East Africa, the Regional Integration Support Programme (RISP), launched in July 2005, aims to develop the capacity of the Regional Organisations and their member states in policy formulation, implementation and monitoring of regional integration, multilateral and regional trade and in trade-related areas. Under its "Result Area 5 — Improve harmonisation of regional policies at national level", the project is meant to support member states’ "national development and trade policy forum" (or similar national working group) in the task of guiding, co-ordinating and monitoring a country’s regional integration efforts as well as its integration in the world economy. In 2008, however, there were only four countries (Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi and Seychelles) where the Trade Policy Forum was sufficiently active and had enough capacity to present a work plan in this area. Among them, only Ethiopia has actually been assisted by the project.

In West Africa, ECOWAS focal points exist within the administrations of all the member states. They are responsible for assisting the ECOWAS countries in the transposition of regional decisions, but their inputs are not sufficiently considered in the management of the main regional integration project, as they are not represented on the project’s Steering Committee. Their capacity is very limited and so far they have mostly functioned as information and contact points of ECOWAS in the member countries. The project has acknowledged the need to reinforce the capacity of the ECOWAS focal points, but it has allocated insufficient funds for this task. The project work plan for 2008 provided 45000 euro (3 000 euro per focal point) for the development of a capacity building plan, which was still under preparation at the time of the audit. The 2009 work plan only provides for 98000 euro (6 500 euro per focal point) for the implementation of the capacity building plan.

Has the Commission managed its support for regional integration well?

32. In addressing this question the Court examined whether the Commission provided adequate guidelines, mechanisms and human resources capacity to facilitate management by its Delegations of the programming, implementation and monitoring of regional interventions, whether the Commission ensured that adequate coordination and monitoring mechanisms were put in place by the Regional Organisations and whether regional projects were implemented within the planned time frame.

Delegations lack guidelines and capacity to manage regional programmes

33. Whereas country strategy papers are prepared on the basis of discussions between the Commission and an individual country, regional strategy papers concern no less than four Regional Organisations (COMESA, EAC, IGAD, IOC) in the case of the East African region, representing 17 national governments, and two Regional Organisations in the case of the West African region (ECOWAS, UEMOA), representing 16 national governments. On the Commission’s side there is in each region almost the same number of Delegations involved. Activities under the regional projects are mainly carried out at the regional level, i.e. by one or more of the Regional Organisations, but some activities also take place at the level of the individual countries belonging to the region. Establishing a customs union, for instance, requires first an agreement to be reached at regional level on one Common External Tariff, but its application requires the involvement and training of all the Customs services in the participating countries. With so many different parties involved, the preparation and implementation of a regional strategy requires a high degree of coordination.

34. The Commission has not established procedures or guidelines for the preparation and implementation of regional strategies and interventions. The lack of adequate guidelines means that:

(a) there is no clear definition or allocation of specific roles and responsibilities for the different Delegations in a region, i.e. those with and those without responsibility for relations with a Regional Organisation;

(b) no single Delegation has the overall responsibility or coordinating role for a regional indicative programme;

(c) there is no established comprehensive coordination framework covering all Delegations in a region.

35. The 10th EDF regional strategy papers and indicative programmes have been prepared largely following the guidelines for drafting country strategy papers. Specific programming guidelines for regional programming were issued which covered the content and format of the documents but not the preparation process. Neither did they take account of the significant institutional differences between country and regional strategies. The lack of coordination and definition of responsibilities is one of the main reasons for the lack of complementarity between regional and national programmes (see paragraphs 20 to 31).

36. Regarding the implementation of projects, each Delegation only monitors and reports on the activities implemented by the government of the country where it is based and, where it is the case, by the Regional Organisation established in that country (see Box 2). In addition, the Delegations’ reports mainly focus on the financial implementation of projects and provide little or no detail on physical progress or problems with projects. As a result, Commission Headquarters generally do not get an overall, consolidated, picture and are, therefore, not in a position to adequately monitor and coordinate regional projects. Furthermore, the lack of an overall view of the progress of regional projects prevents a timely reaction by the Commission’s services to problems with project implementation as, and when, these occur (see paragraphs 40 to 46).

37. The Delegations in Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia combine the responsibility for maintaining relations with the Regional Organisation established in those countries and for managing both parts of the regional programme and the national programmes. The Court examined whether these "regional" Delegations had been allocated additional staffing capacity for managing a regional programme. Whereas a Delegation’s workload is determined by various factors [20], the size of the financial allocation to be managed by a Delegation is relevant for its staffing position, in particular for operational, financial and contractual matters. However, the Court found that the larger responsibility of those Delegations managing regional as well as national activities is not reflected in their staffing capacity and that the potential impact of the doubling of the 10th EDF regional allocations has not yet been addressed.

Box 2

Inadequate reporting and monitoring by the Commission

The fragmentation of responsibilities can be observed in the way Delegations report on regional activities in their six-monthly External Assistance Management Reports to Commission Headquarters. In West Africa, neither the Delegation in Abuja, which deals with ECOWAS, nor the Delegation in Ouagadougou, dealing with UEMOA, has a full overview of the progress of two major regional projects, "Support for Regional Integration and Trade" and the "Transport Facility", which involve activities taking place in all or many of the countries in the region. In practice, each of these two Delegations reports to Commission Headquarters on those activities for which "their" Regional Organisation is responsible. Furthermore, since Delegations in any of the other countries do not have any formal responsibility for regional projects, they do not report on any activities that may have taken place under these projects in their country [21].

A similar situation has arisen in East Africa, where the Regional Organisation COMESA, based in Zambia, has formal responsibility for the main regional integration projects (RISP/RISM), but part of the project activities relate to the EAC’s integration agenda, and are implemented by the EAC, based in Tanzania, while certain activities concern, in principle, all countries belonging to the East Africa region. Neither the Delegation in Zambia as the main contact point for COMESA, nor any of the other Delegations has a complete overview of the progress of these projects and only the four Delegations in the countries where the four Regional Organisations are based report to Commission Headquarters on those activities for which "their" Regional Organisation is responsible.

38. The Court’s observations concerning the lack of coordination between the different Delegations in the region corroborate the findings of the evaluations commissioned by the Commission. The evaluation report for West Africa observed that the Commission had not effectively used its network of Delegations to manage interventions at the regional and national levels in a complementary and coordinated way. The evaluation also concluded that, in the absence of a functioning coordination system, the separation of the aid management between Abuja and Ouagadougou caused problems and re-enforced the impression that the region was actually composed of two independent sub-regions. The evaluation report for East Africa observed that there were no mechanisms in place to ensure a coordinated policy dialogue between the Delegations responsible for the Regional Organisations involved and between these and the Delegations with national competences. The evaluation also stated that "actual coordination remains weak… as there is no joint monitoring system at Regional Organisation level and communication between Delegations with national responsibilities and regional responsibilities remains low". During the audit, the Court did not find evidence that appropriate action had been taken by the Commission in response to the evaluation findings.

Overall coordination, reporting and monitoring by regional organisations is inadequate

39. In both regions, the Regional Organisations have set up mechanisms to support coordination between themselves and to monitor implementation of programmes. In 2003, the four Regional Organisations in East Africa established the Inter Regional Coordinating Committee (IRCC), the Secretariat of which is currently supported through an EDF project ("Support to Secretariat of IRCC"). In West Africa ECOWAS and UEMOA established a Joint Technical Secretariat in 2004. This body is also supported through an EDF-funded project ("RIP Monitoring Mechanism").

40. The IRCC is regarded by all parties concerned as a key coordinating instrument between the Regional Organisations and to help ensure coherence between the different individual projects and the approved regional strategy. However, the IRCC has so far not ensured that an overall monitoring and evaluation system covering the whole Regional Indicative Programme has been established. In practice, the IRCC monitors the financial implementation of the regional projects, but not the progress made by these programmes against predefined targets and their contribution towards the regional integration process as such. A mid-term review of the IRCC project, carried out in 2005, recommended, among other things, the setting up of a common monitoring and evaluation system and a quality-review system of financing proposals, to increase coordination between the National and Regional Indicative Programmes. The Regional Organisations and the Commission have, however, been slow to adjust the project accordingly, as these recommendations will only be taken up in new Terms of Reference for the project’s extension phase under the 10th EDF, which will become operational during the course of 2009.

41. In West Africa, the Joint Technical Secretariat has the potential to be an important instrument for coordinating between the Regional Organisations and ensuring the coherence between the different individual projects and the approved regional strategy. So far, it has not been able to undertake these roles effectively, due to limited human resources capacity and limited authority. The activity reports produced by the RIP Monitoring Mechanism project have mentioned problems such as lack of staff and the unavailability of monitoring data in the absence of timely progress reports by projects. These problems, which were also reported to the Steering Committee for the Regional Indicative Programme, on which the Commission is represented, illustrate the failure of the two Regional Organisations (ECOWAS and UEMOA) and the Commission to overcome basic constraints, which were already known and reported in 2007 and which prevent an effective monitoring and coordination of the Regional Indicative Programme in West Africa.

42. The Court found, in almost 40 % of the projects examined, that reporting by the Regional Organisations or by separate project management teams was poor and, in some cases, delayed. In West Africa no mid-term review, normally required for every project, was carried out on the four closed eighth EDF projects and only one end-of-project evaluation was performed, while all the reviews scheduled for the seven ongoing projects had been postponed because of late starts and insufficient progress. There is a risk that the mid-term review of the latter projects will be held either too late to allow implementation of its recommendations, or not undertaken at all. Inadequate reporting makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess and conclude on project effectiveness (see Box 5).

43. Although the two coordination committees (i.e. the IRCC and the RIP Steering Committee) are under the direct responsibility of the Regional Organisations themselves, the Commission has an indirect responsibility for, and influence on, the functioning of these committees, as it provides financial and technical support to them through the two projects mentioned and is represented on both committees. The Commission has therefore been aware of the shortcomings in respect of the monitoring and coordination systems in both regions, but its influence and support have so far been insufficient to overcome these problems.

Implementation of regional projects is complex and slow

44. The Court examined whether the 18 selected regional interventions were implemented within the timetable planned and whether the use of Contribution Agreements contributed to improving the implementation of regional projects.

45. For 11 projects (8 closed and 3 ongoing) of the 18 examined the duration had to be extended due to a late start following a lengthy preparation process and/or because of slow implementation. Contributing factors include the complexity of regional projects, the weak institutional capacities of the Regional Organisations and the lack of ownership in some cases on the part of national authorities and other stakeholders such as civil society. Overestimation by the Commission of the Regional Organisations’ management and absorption capacities has led to the formulation of project objectives which were too ambitious, with too wide a range of activities and project budgets which are too large (see Box 3).

Box 3

Regional project complex and slow

The main ninth EDF support for regional integration in West Africa is channelled through one large project with a financial allocation of 105 million euro. This complex project started in 2007 and is implemented under the responsibility of the two Regional Organisations, ECOWAS and UEMOA, through the following instruments:

a Contribution Agreement with each of the Regional Organisations for 44,8 and 31,6 million euro respectively with a focus on the common market, macroeconomic stability and capacity building for the Regional Organisations and member states;

a Financing Agreement of 28,6 million euro, with a focus on improving the competitiveness of the private sector and capacity building for Non-State Actors, signed with UEMOA acting on behalf of the two organisations;

the "private sector" component of this Financing Agreement consists of three sub-components: 1) a "Quality" programme implemented through a Contribution Agreement with UNIDO (15 million euro); 2) "Harmonisation of business law" (4 million euro) and 3) "Harmonisation of fisheries legislation" (5 million euro), to be implemented by UEMOA through programme estimates and direct labour operations, but delegated to the National Authorising Officers in member states;

the "capacity building for Non-State Actors" component (2,6 million euro) is implemented by ECO WAS through grant contracts following a Call for Proposals.

Implementation under the fifteen different components has been very slow, mainly due to the weak institutional capacity of the two Regional Organisations. In early 2009, after almost 2 years of implementation, the implementation rate of the Contribution Agreements was 4 % [22]. Payments by the Commission under the Financing Agreement, signed in 2006, amounted to some 20 % of the budget, while in January 2009, the deadline by which all contracts had to be signed, more than 5 million euro (or 17 % of the Financing Agreement’s budget) were not yet committed and are in principle lost for the project.

46. The Court’s observations corroborate those of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service in its report on the financial management of regional programmes (see footnote 16), which mainly focused on the Southern Africa region as far as ACP countries are concerned. It found the programming and design of regional projects to be a complex process involving numerous actors, which, together with the limited capacity of the counterparts, led to significant operational difficulties for the implementing bodies and Delegations, resulting in long inception periods and significant implementation delays.

47. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of projects and increase ownership by the Regional Organisations, the Commission decided to apply the "joint management" mode for the main ninth EDF regional projects. Joint management is the main method of implementation foreseen in the Financial Regulation [23] for cooperation with international organisations. Its main characteristic is that the organisation in question is allowed to use its own accounting, internal control, audit and procurement procedures, provided a four-pillar ex-ante assessment confirms that these procedures comply with international standards. Following a positive assessment, the Commission can provide its financial support for the organisation in question through a Contribution Agreement.

48. The Commission signed Contribution Agreements with UEMOA and ECOWAS for the implementation of a significant part of the ninth EDF regional programme in spite of the fact that the four-pillar assessment conclusion was negative. As a result, the Commission had to add special conditions concerning the financial, procurement and external audit procedures to compensate for weaknesses found in the organisations’ systems and procedures. Instead of strengthening the ownership, this interim solution resulted in considerable discontent on the part of UEMOA, as in its view these conditions defeated the purpose of using a Contribution Agreement. The envisaged increased efficiency has not yet materialised either, as the Delegations concerned are still obliged to monitor financial implementation closely, given the weak financial management capacities of the organisations. In practice, implementation of the current ninth EDF programmes in West Africa has been very slow (see Box 3), and the absorption capacity for increased aid flows remains limited for the foreseeable future. In this context, the doubling of funds allocated to regional cooperation under the 10th EDF is likely to aggravate the implementation problems experienced in this region.

49. In East Africa, one Regional Organisation (COMESA) has so far received a positive assessment of its financial management capacity and the Commission has used a Contribution Agreement to channel its support to the two main ninth EDF regional integration projects (RISP/RISM). However, some of the activities under these projects are to be carried out by the other Regional Organisation, EAC, whereas the institutional capacity of its Secretariat is still weak and the four-pillar assessment was negative. Again, an interim solution was agreed which required the EAC to manage RISP funds on the basis of COMESA procedures. However, according to internal audit reports by COMESA, in practice EAC is actually applying its own procedures, which have not yet been validated by the Commission.

Have the Commission’s individual projects in support of regional integration met their objectives?

50. The Court examined a sample of regional projects to assess the extent to which their objectives, in terms of results achieved or likely to be achieved, had been met. In respect of ongoing projects, the assessment has taken into account their state and pace of implementation. The effectiveness was rated as "satisfactory" where they have been, or are likely to be, successful in achieving their results, "partially satisfactory" where they have experienced some problems and have achieved, or are likely to achieve, only part of their results and "unsatisfactory" where they have experienced significant problems and have achieved, or are likely to achieve, few of the planned results. The list of projects and their respective ratings is included in Annex III.

Project effectiveness difficult to assess but in most cases limited

51. The objectives and expected results of projects are often not formulated clearly in the financing agreements and the related indicators to measure progress are not well defined. In such cases it is difficult to determine objectively whether the expected results have been obtained.

52. Moreover, for five projects, already closed or ongoing for a long period, even though planned activities were generally carried out and expected outputs produced, the Court was not able to assess the results due to the absence of adequate progress reports and/or the required monitoring and evaluation reports (see Box 4).

Box 4

Unable to assess effectiveness

In East Africa the Regional Integration Programme (Phase II) aimed to strengthen regional integration policy-making by increasing the analytical and information capacity of the COMESA Secretariat. The Court found that the project had not reported, as required, on the progress made every six months, but had instead only reported in the annual work plans on the activities carried out during the preceding year. The project did not have a Steering Committee to assess periodically the progress achieved. Apart from a mid-term review, no other external monitoring missions had taken place, nor had an independent evaluation mission at the end of the project been carried out, although this was foreseen in the Financing Agreement. The indicators provided in the project’s logical framework were found to be too vague to permit a reliable and detailed assessment of the project’s effectiveness for each of the expected results.

53. For six projects, including the main regional integration projects in both regions [24], the Court assessed the effectiveness as "unsatisfactory". These are all ninth EDF projects which were still ongoing at the time of the audit. In view of these projects’ wide scope and objectives, their slow pace of implementation and low disbursement of funds, it is unlikely that most of these ongoing projects will be able to achieve their expected results in the remaining period (see Box 5).

Box 5

Project results unsatisfactory

The Court found that the Regional Integration Support Project in East Africa, which is scheduled to be completed by mid 2010, had by the end of 2008 accomplished only three out of the seven intermediate targets proposed in the Contribution Agreement. In particular the lack of relevant results regarding the adoption of regional policies by the national authorities is putting at risk the project’s overall effectiveness.

In West Africa, the Transport Facility Project (64 million euro) aims to improve regional transport services, in particular by establishing joint border posts along the main regional transport corridors. The project has experienced significant delays during its start-up phase and after three years of implementation the main achievement has been the completion of a detailed study concerning the intended functioning of these border posts. In order to be able to continue with the design and eventually the construction of the border posts, the Commission had to provide a "waiver" for what is known as the D+3 rule, which requires contracts within a project to be signed not later than three years after the project’s financial commitment has been approved. Even with the two years’ extension obtained, the two Regional Organisations ECOWAS and UEMOA are still facing a difficult task to complete the construction works and to establish detailed and harmonised arrangements between the countries concerned to operate the border posts efficiently.

54. The remaining seven projects appear to have achieved, or are likely to achieve, part of their expected results, but for the closed projects further support is required and is in most cases provided or programmed under the various ongoing projects (see Box 6).

55. The two evaluations commissioned by the Commission have focused more on the relevance and coherence of the Commission’s regional strategies and choice of focal sectors, than on the performance of individual projects. The West Africa regional evaluation states that the majority of the ninth EDF regional projects had been too recent to allow an assessment of their effectiveness. It does remark, however, on the lack of well-defined, expected results and baseline references, which make it difficult to determine the impact of EDF projects.

Box 6

Project results partially satisfactory

In West Africa the PARI project ("Programme d’Appui à l’Intégration Régionale de la zone UEMOA"/Support programme for regional integration in the WAEMU zone) aimed to support UEMOA and its member states in improving the legal and administrative framework, in establishing a regional market and in consolidating the macro-economic framework. Although these project objectives and related indicators were formulated in very general terms, the final evaluation of the project found improvements in the regional integration process. Specifically, the legislation regarding the customs union and the liberalisation of intra-community trade, produced by UEMOA, was of good quality and was introduced into the legal systems of the various member states. However, the free circulation of goods, persons, services and capital as well as the right of establishment were still far from being achieved. Similarly, the functioning of the multilateral macro-economic surveillance mechanism of UEMOA had improved, but this had not yet resulted in a better convergence of the UEMOA-zone economies, which was the main objective. The same areas are again being addressed under the ongoing Economic Integration and Trade project.

Conclusions and recommendations

EDF support for regional economic integration in East Africa and West Africa has so far been only partially effective

56. The regional integration process is making progress in both regions in terms of reaching agreements on regional objectives and policies relating to trade and transport issues, such as establishing free trade areas and customs unions and establishing regional transport corridors with harmonised rules and without undue controls. The EDF has been providing considerable technical and financial support for this process. However, the implementation of such agreements by the national authorities is lagging behind and the free movement of goods, services, capital and people is not yet a reality in either of the two regions.

57. EDF support for regional economic integration has so far been only partially effective, due to a number of factors. Some of these factors are outside the direct control of the Commission, even though it can influence them through its support and policy dialogue. In both regions there are multiple Regional Organisations with overlapping membership and mandates. Moreover, despite the Commission’s capacity building support, all the Regional Organisations still lack institutional capacity, albeit in varying degrees, in all aspects of the project cycle, from programming and project preparation to implementation, reporting and financial management. Furthermore, member countries do not always give a high priority to regional integration as a policy objective in view of the many other pressing needs identified at national level. Other factors related to the Commission’s approach and management also undermine the effectiveness of EDF support (see paragraphs 58 to 60).

Recommendation 1

The Commission should make the continuation of its support for regional integration conditional on an early agreement on how to achieve the necessary convergence between the various Regional Organisations in each region within a pre-defined timeframe and on the national authorities taking greater ownership of the regional integration process.

The Commission’s approach to regional integration is relevant but coherence is inadequately addressed and the level of funding does not take account of the limited absorption capacities

58. The Commission’s approach to supporting regional integration in East Africa and West Africa is relevant to the regions’, and the countries’ needs to achieve higher economic growth as a means to fight poverty, an objective which the Commission’s regional and national strategies and interventions all share. However, coherence is inadequately addressed in that the strategies and interventions at the two levels have largely been designed and implemented independently of each other, with insufficient attention paid to the possibility of creating complementarity between them, except to some extent in the transport sector. Furthermore, the doubling of the financial allocation to regional programmes under the 10th EDF does not take into account the limited absorption capacity of the Regional Organisations (paragraphs 19 to 31).

Recommendation 2

The Commission should, from the 2010 mid-term review of the 10th EDF strategies onwards, improve the coherence between its regional strategy and national strategies, by "mainstreaming" regional integration in all its support activities at national level and by seeking more systematic complementarity between its support activities at the two different levels.

Recommendation 3

As part of the 10th EDF mid-term review, the Commission should examine whether the financial allocation to regional programmes is too high.

The Commission does not adequately manage its support for regional integration

59. The Commission’s management of its regional programmes has lacked specific management and coordination instruments to adequately deal with the preparation, implementation, reporting and coordination of regional activities: the roles and responsibilities of the different Delegations in a region are not clearly established, nor has a coordination mechanism between these Delegations been set up. The larger responsibility of those Delegations managing regional as well as national activities is not reflected in their staffing capacity. At the level of the Regional Organisations, coordination is also inadequate and a monitoring system to track the overall progress of the regional integration process in the individual countries is lacking. Where the institutional capacity of the implementing organisation is weak, the use of Contribution Agreements has not improved the speed of project implementation (paragraphs 33 to 49).

Recommendation 4

In relation to its management of regional programmes the Commission should:

- clearly define the responsibilities of the different Delegations in the regions concerned;

- establish an appropriate coordination mechanism between Delegations in a region;

- review the resources allocated to Delegations for the programming and implementation of its regional programmes;

- use Contribution Agreements with Regional Organisations only where the financial management is found to comply with international standards.

Recommendation 5

The Commission should increase its efforts to help Regional Organisations in:

- improving coordination between themselves and between them and their Member States;

- establishing monitoring systems which will support implementation of programmes and provide comprehensive information on the progress of the overall regional integration process, including progress in individual countries.

Individual projects in support of regional integration are likely to have unsatisfactory results overall

60. It has been difficult for the Court, and in some cases impossible, to assess the effectiveness of individual interventions, because their objectives are often not well defined and the necessary information is frequently lacking due to inadequate quality and frequency of project reporting, monitoring and evaluation. Recent, ongoing projects mostly have a wide scope and ambitious objectives; however, their implementation has so far been slow. Overall, for the 18 regional projects examined, the results, or likely results, are, at best, only partially satisfactory (paragraphs 51 to 54).

Recommendation 6

The Commission should:

- formulate project objectives which are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and subject to a realistic timeframe ("SMART");

- pay more attention to regular, good-quality progress reporting, and systematic monitoring and evaluation of project results.

This Report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 19 November 2009.

For the Court of Auditors

+++++ TIFF +++++

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira

President

[1] ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed on F and revised on 25 June 2005 (hereinafter called the Cotonou Agreement), Part 3, Title I: Development Strategies, Article 19.

[2] Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Regional integration for development in ACP countries. COM(2008) 604 final/2 of 6.10.2008. Also see the Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication on regional integration for development in ACP countries, SEC(2008) 2539 of 1.10.2008.

[3] Communication from the Commission: EC support for regional economic integration efforts among developing countries. COM(95) 219 of 16.6.1995.

[4] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The European Community’s Development Policy, COM(2000) 212 final of 26.4.2000.

[5] Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission: "The European Consensus on Development", 22 November 2005.

[6] The Commission’s indicative programmes sub-divide the total allocations into amounts for two or three main areas of support, also referred to as "focal sectors". In the data presented, the share of the regional programmes allocated to regional economic integration has been calculated by adding the amounts allocated to the focal sectors called "regional integration and trade" or "regional economic integration" and "transport and communications" or "transport interconnectivity". Under the 10th EDF regional programmes, "transport" is no longer presented as a separate focal sector but is covered under the main focal sector of "economic integration".

[1001] Regional Economic Integration.

[1002] The Commission’s official denomination for this region is "Eastern and Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean"; in this report it will be referred to as "East Africa".

[7] Cotonou Agreement, Annex IV "Implementation and management procedures", Chapter 2 "Programming and preparation (regional)".

[8] Up to the eighth EDF, this region was covered by two Indicative Programmes, one for Eastern and Southern Africa and one for the Indian Ocean region, but following the principles of the Cotonou Agreement, these were replaced by one single strategy and indicative programme for the larger region.

[9] COMESA — Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa,EAC — East African Community,IGAD — Intergovernmental Authority on Development,IOC — Indian Ocean Commission.

[10] For example Tanzania participates in the East Africa regional programme as a member of the EAC. However, it is not a member of COMESA, but it is a member of SADC.

[11] The EPAs will be the new trade agreements between (groups of) ACP countries and the EU, to replace the system of non-reciprocal trade preferences agreed in the Lomé Conventions, which preceded the Cotonou Agreement.

[12] Within the Commission, these documents are called "Regional Strategy Paper" and "Regional Indicative Programme".

[13] Within the Commission, these documents are called "Country Strategy Paper" and "National Indicative Programme".

[14] In East Africa visits were made to Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia and to the regional organisations Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and East African Community (EAC). In West Africa visits were made to Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal and to the regional organisations Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Union Économique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA/ WAEMU, West African Economic and Monetary Union). In East Africa two other regional organisations (Intergovernmental Authority on Development and Indian Ocean Commission) are also involved in regional cooperation, but they play a minor role in relation to economic integration and they were not visited during the audit.

[15] 12 projects were financed from the 9th EDF and 6 from the 8th EDF; no projects financed from the 10th EDF were being implemented yet at the time of the audit.

[16] "Évaluation de la stratégie régionale de la Commission Européenne en Afrique de l’Ouest", Rapport final de synthèse, mai 2008; "Evaluation of the Commission’s support to the region of Eastern and Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean", final report December 2008; IAS Audit report, July 2008 (Commission internal document).

[17] "The Africa–EU Strategic Partnership: A Joint Africa–EU Strategy", adopted at the EU–Africa Summit, Lisbon, December 2007.

[18] In East Africa this consists of the Regional Integration Support Programme (RISP) in combination with the Regional Integration Support Mechanism (RISM); in West Africa it consists of the project Support for Regional Integration in West Africa in combination with the project Economic Integration and Trade.

[19] The full names of the regional organisations are given in the Glossary, provided after the Table of Contents and in footnote 14.

[20] For example, budget support may carry a different workload for a Delegation than project support, while the percentage of budget support may vary from one country to another; or, in addition to the normal EDF allocations, Delegations in the regions concerned may also have responsibility for a number of projects funded from horizontal budget lines in the General Budget.

[21] An exception is the regional project "Appui au programme de formation de l’ASECNA" (support for ASECNA’s training programme) for which the responsibility is shared by the Delegations in Senegal and Niger.

[22] Excluding payments under the financial compensation mechanism for loss of government revenues due to customs tariff reductions.

[23] Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th EDF, Article 16 (OJ L 83, 1.4.2003, p. 1); Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 of 18 February 2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th FED, Article 29 (OJ L 78, 19.3.2008, p. 1).

[24] In East Africa this concerns:

- Regional Integration Support Programme (RISP);

- Regional Integration Support Mechanism (RISM).In West Africa this concerns:

- Economic Integration and Trade;

- Support for Regional integration in West Africa.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX I

CHART OF EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION ARRANGEMENTS

+++++ TIFF +++++

COMESA: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

EAC: East African Community

IGAD: Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IOC: Indian Ocean Commission

SACU: Southern African Customs Union

SADC: Southern African Development Community

Source: Region of Eastern and Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean — European Community: Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme for the period 2002–07, Annex 6.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX II

MAIN REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS IN EAST AFRICA AND WEST AFRICA

Main regional organisations | Type of economic community | Areas of integration and cooperation include | Date of entry into force | Member states | Specified objective |

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) | Free Trade Area | Goods, services, investment, migration | 8 December 1994 | Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe | Common market |

East African Community (EAC) | Customs Union | Goods, services, investment, migration | 7 July 2000 | Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi | Full economic union |

Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) | Free Trade Area | Goods, services, investment, migration | 25 November 1996 | Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda | Full economic union |

Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) | | Diplomatic, economic, commercial cooperation, Natural resources, environment protection | 1984 | Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion (France), The Seychelles | See COMESA |

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) | Free Trade Area | Goods, services, investment, migration | 24 July 1993 | Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo | Full economic union |

West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) | Customs Union | Business law harmonised. Macroeconomic policy convergence in place | 10 January 1994 | Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo | Full economic union |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX III

LIST OF PROJECTS EXAMINED

Reference | Project title | Amount [1] | Rating |

EAST AFRICA |

9 ACP RSA 03 | Support to Secretariat of IRCC | 9,7 | partially satisfactory |

9 ACP RSA 08 | Trade Negotiations Facility | 2,0 | unable to assess |

9 ACP RSA 16 | Regional Information and Communication Technologies Support Programme | 21,0 | partially satisfactory |

9 ACP RSA 19 | Regional Integration Support Programme | 33,5 | unsatisfactory |

9 ACP RSA 25/26 | Regional Integration Support Mechanism | 78,0 | unsatisfactory |

8 ACP ROR 01 | Regional Harmonisation of Customs and Trade Statistics Systems | 13,6 | partially satisfactory |

8 ACP ROR 02 | Regional Integration Programme Phase II | 9,5 | unable to assess |

| TOTAL EAST AFRICA | 167,2 | |

WEST AFRICA |

9 ACP ROC 16 | Economic Integration and Trade | 76,4 | unsatisfactory |

9 ACP ROC 15 | Support for Regional Integration in West Africa | 28,6 | unsatisfactory |

9 ACP ROC 14 | Facilitation des Transports (Transport Facilitation) | 63,8 | unsatisfactory |

9 ACP ROC 10 | RIP Monitoring Mechanism | 6,0 | unsatisfactory |

9 ACP ROC 09 | Appui à l’intégration régionale et aux négociations de l’Accord de Partenariat Économique entre la CE et la région de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (Support for Regional Integration and the Economic Partnership Agreement between the EC and the West Africa Region) | 7,0 | unable to assess |

9 ACP ROC 08 | Appui technique à la CEDEAO pour la facilitation des transports en Afrique de l’Ouest (Technical Support for ECOWAS Transport Facilitation in West Africa) | 2,0 | partially satisfactory |

9 ACP ROC 01 | Appui au programme de formation de l’ASECNA (Support for the ASECNA Training Programme) | 14,2 | unable to assess |

8 ACP ROC 44 | ECOWAS Statistical Development Programme | 2,0 | partially satisfactory |

8 ACP ROC 33 | ECOWAS Capacity Building Programme for Regional Integration | 1,9 | unable to assess |

8 ACP ROC 31 | PARI II — Secteur privé (PARI II — private sector) | 15,0 | partially satisfactory |

8 ACP ROC 21 | PARI II | 65,0 | partially satisfactory |

| TOTAL WEST AFRICA | 281,9 | |

GRAND TOTAL | | 449,1 | |

[1] Financing/Contribution Agreement + Riders. In million euro.

--------------------------------------------------