Special Report Did the Commission 
effectively manage  
the Humanitarian aid 
provided to populations 
affected by conflicts  
in the African Great Lakes 
Region? EN 2016  NO 15
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print ISBN 978-92-872-5012-4 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/292235 QJ-AB-16-014-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-5016-2 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/92371 QJ-AB-16-014-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-5076-6 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/71466 QJ-AB-16-014-EN-E
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of the table on p. 36 and the map on p. 37, permission must be sought directly from the 
copyright holder.
Did the Commission 
effectively manage  
the Humanitarian aid 
provided to populations 
affected by conflicts  
in the African Great Lakes 
Region?
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2016  NO 15
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Chamber III of the ECA, which is responsible for the audit of the external ac -
tions’ spending areas.  Mr Karel Pinxten, Dean of this Chamber, is the reporting Member.  He was supported in the prepa -
ration of the report by the Head of his office, Gerard Madden; Gérald Locatelli and Beatrix Lesiewicz, support and quality 
control; Myriam Cazzaniga, Head of Task; Kim Hublé, Peter Kovacs, Cyril Messein and Roberto Ruiz Ruiz, auditors.
From left to right:  C. Messein, M. Cazzaniga, K. Pinxten, K. Hublé, R. Ruiz Ruiz. 

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Acronyms and abbreviations
I – IX Executive summary
1 – 10 Introduction
11 – 12 Audit scope and approach
13 – 55 Observations
13 – 31 Funding allocated to well established main priorities but insufficient clarity at further prioritisation 
stage
14 – 17 The Commission has properly identified needs for the AGL region
18 – 24 The Commission’s response is appropriate
25 – 31 Insufficient transparency at the project selection stage
32 – 44 Overall, the Commission’s monitoring is appropriate although the information obtained could be 
better used
33 – 40 In most cases, the Commission obtains adequate information on project implementation
41 – 44 Follow‑up is insufficient
45 – 55 Most of the projects examined delivered satisfactory results
46 – 49 Overall outcomes achieved are positive but in some cases, the Commission’s assessment is not clearly 
justified
50 – 52 The Commission was responsive to changes but could better justify time extensions granted
53 – 55 There is limited evidence of what is being done to link Relief, Rehabilitation and Development
56 – 63 Conclusions and recommendations
04 Contents 
 Annex I — Map of the African Great Lakes Region
 Annex II — DRC refugees at the beginning of 2016
 Annex III — Map Burundian refugees at 26 January 2016
 Annex IV — List of projects examined
 Annex V — Interim and final reports examined
 Annex VI — Amendments to projects reviewed
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Acronyms and 
abbreviations
AGL : African Great Lakes
DG International Cooperation and Development : Directorate-General for International Cooperation and 
Development
DG ECHO : Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
DRC : Democratic Republic of the Congo
EAR : Emergency Aid Reserve
EDF : European Development Fund
EEAS : European External Action Service
HAP : Humanitarian Action Plan
HIP : Humanitarian Implementation Plan
IDP : Internally Displaced People
IHL: International Humanitarian Law
IO: International organisation
LRRD : Linking Relief and Rehabilitation with Development
NFI: Non Food Items
NGO : Non -governmental organisation
NIP : National Indicative Programme
OCHA : Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN agency)
06
 Executive summary
I
The African Great Lakes area 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.
II
At present, the area most affected is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 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 popu -
lations who are caught up in the conflicts or are hosting refugees and displaced persons.
III
This aid consists of the provision of shelter, food, health care and other basic services. To provide this aid the Com -
mission works in close cooperation with international non -governmental organisations, United Nations agencies 
and other international organisations. The amount spent on humanitarian assistance in the African Great Lakes area 
over the period 2011-2015 was about 300 million euros.
IV
The auditors conclude that humanitarian aid to the population affected by conflict, in the African Great Lakes area 
was, generally, managed effectively by the Commission. The needs assessment carried out was comprehensive and 
the flexibility to react quickly to changing circumstances was ensured. Most of the projects examined were satisfac -
tory in responding to the particular challenges faced. However, a number of weaknesses were identified.
V
There was a lack of documentary evidence at the stages of determining geographical priorities and assessing pro -
ject proposals. As a result it was not possible to determine whether the projects chosen complied with the relevant 
criteria and if the most appropriate projects were selected. When considering the merits of proposals their cost 
efficiency was not given sufficient attention.
07 Executive summary 
VI
The monitoring framework was appropriate given the difficult working environment. The reports from the partners 
were, however, frequently late and this hampered their usefulness. The expertise of the Commission’s field staff was 
helpful to the funded partners but reporting from the field visits was not sufficiently comprehensive. Because of 
inadequate recording of the follow -up of problems raised, it was not possible to ensure that these were satisfacto -
rily resolved. On a more global level there is no reporting on the Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) to provide 
an overview of results and lessons learnt.
VII
The results achieved overall for the projects examined were satisfactory. One partner, however, managed to spend 
most of its budget despite achieving a small percentage of the planned results. In a few cases the justification for 
time extensions and additional budgets was not apparent. As regards the Commission’s own assessment of results it 
was unclear, in some cases, from the information available, how they arrived at their conclusions.
VIII
While the desirability of Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) has been widely accepted by the 
Commission and other donors, there are 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.
IX
A number of recommendations are made in paragraphs 58 to 63 of the report which are designed to enable the 
Commission to improve its management of humanitarian aid in the Great Lakes area and beyond.
08
Source:  European Court of Auditors.Introduction
01 
The African Great Lakes (AGL) region comprises the countries of Burundi, Demo -
cratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda (see 
map in Annex I ). It has witnessed some of the worst conflicts on the African 
continent over the last decades. In Eastern Congo, armed groups, including the 
Congolese Army, continue to commit human rights abuse, exactions, looting 
accompanied by violence like rape, abduction, and forced recruitment of chil -
dren. The resulting humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
(DRC) is among the world’s most complex and protracted emergencies in one of 
the world’s poorest countries1. At the end of April 2015, presidential elections in 
Burundi, that took place in July, triggered a spiral of violence and unrest that sent 
hundreds of thousands on the roads fleeing their country.
02 
Towards the end of 2015, there were about 1.6 million Internally Displaced People 
(IDPs) in the DRC and more than 437 000 Congolese refugees (see Annex II ) in the 
neighbouring countries, namely in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. At 
the end of January 2016, 236 000 Burundians have fled their country and are now 
mostly hosted in refugee camps in Rwanda and Tanzania (see Annex III  about the 
number of Burundian refugees per country of the region).1 It is ranked 176th, out of 188, in 
the world on the UNDP 
Human Development Index 
for 2014. Burundi is 184th, 
Rwanda and Uganda are 163th 
and Tanzania is 151th.Picture 1Internally Displaced People (IDP) settlement of Kibabi ‑ Kishusha, Masisi, North Kivu 
(6 360 people at the end of August 2015)

09 Introduction 
03 
Article 214 of the Treaty of on the functioning of the EU underpins the commit -
ment of the EU to provide humanitarian aid consisting of assistance, relief and 
protection to victims of natural and man -made disasters around the world. The 
overall policy framework for humanitarian assistance is outlined in the ‘European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid’ of 20082. This political document sets out the 
EU’s vision based on common principles aiming at improving the coherence, ef -
fectiveness and quality of its humanitarian response.
04 
The principal objectives (see Box 1 ) and provisions for the implementation and 
administration of humanitarian aid by the Commission are laid out in the Hu -
manitarian Aid Regulation of 19963. Its assistance targets the most vulnerable 
populations and is based on the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutral -
ity, impartiality and independence. It also provides support for the defence of 
humanitarian work and the respect of humanitarian principles and international 
humanitarian law (IHL).2 Joint Statement by the Council 
and the Representatives of the 
Governments of the Member 
States meeting within the 
Council, the European 
Parliament and the European 
Commission (OJ C 
25, 30.1.2008, p. 1).
3 Council Regulation (EC) No 
1257/96 of 20 June 1996 
concerning humanitarian aid 
(OJ L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1).
Principal objectives of the Union’s humanitarian aid4:
(a) to save and preserve life during emergencies and their immediate aftermath and natural disasters that 
have entailed major loss of life, physical, psychological or social suffering or material damage;
(b) to provide the necessary assistance and relief to people affected by longer -lasting crises arising, (…) 
especially where their own governments prove unable to help or there is a vacuum of power;
(c) to help finance the transport of aid and efforts to ensure that it is accessible to those for whom it is in -
tended (…);
(d) to carry out short -term rehabilitation and reconstruction work, (…) taking long -term development objec -
tives into account where possible;
(e) to cope with the consequences of population movements (refugees, displaced people and returnees) 
caused by natural and man -made disasters and carry out schemes to assist repatriation (…);
(f) to ensure preparedness for risks of natural disasters or comparable exceptional circumstances and use 
a suitable rapid early -warning and intervention system;
(g) to support civil operations to protect the victims of fighting or comparable emergencies, in accordance 
with current international agreements.
4 Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96.Box 1
10 Introduction 
05 
For the AGL region, the initial budget5 allocated by the Commission for humani -
tarian aid ranged between 52 million euros in 2011 and 47 million euros in 2015. 
The amount spent after receiving the top -up funding from the EU Emergency Aid 
Reserve (EAR)6 or from the European Development Fund (EDF)7 reached, on aver -
age, 63 million euros annually (see Graph 1 ). In addition to these amounts, the 
Commission spent, annually, about 1.8 million euros for its field office in the DRC 
and 7 million euros for aerial transport in the AGL region8.
06 
As a humanitarian aid donor, the Commission’s worldwide funding is channelled 
through about 200 partners9 with whom they have signed a framework partner -
ship agreement (FPA)10 for a duration of 4 to 5 years. These partners are interna -
tional non -governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations (IOs)11 
or agencies from the United Nations (UN). In the AGL region, the split was: 46 % 
NGOs, 7.3 % IOs and 46.7 % UN. Given the specificities of humanitarian aid, the 
projects funded last between a couple of months and 18 months.
07 
Annually the Commission decides on the allocation of the initial budgetary 
envelope for humanitarian aid in a worldwide decision. The proposed responses 
per crisis, country or region as well as the corresponding budget are detailed in 
the Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIP) and Technical Annex (including op -
erational recommendations), established on the basis of a needs assessment. The 
HIP serves as terms of reference for the partners when preparing their requests 
for funding.
08 
In the case of the AGL region, there is a major assessment (or selection exercise) 
of funding requests received, at the beginning of the year. Additional assess -
ments may take place in the course of the year according to the evolution of the 
situation. The selected projects have a duration of between 3 and 12 months. 
This may be extended by up to 6 months, to a maximum of 18 months in total.5 From Chapter 23 02, 
humanitarian aid, food aid and 
disaster preparation, section 3 
of the general budget of the 
EU.
6 The EAR is designed to enable 
a rapid response to specific aid 
requirements for non -EU 
countries that were 
unforeseeable when the 
budget was drawn up. Priority 
is given to humanitarian 
operations, but the reserve 
may also be used for civil crisis 
management and protection 
if necessary. Decisions on its 
use are taken by the Council 
and the European Parliament, 
on a proposal from the 
Commission.
7 A reserve of 204 million euros, 
approximately 0.7 % of the 
total 11th EDF, for the period 
2014-2020, is set aside in order 
to finance humanitarian and 
emergency operations in ACP 
countries only in cases of 
unforeseen needs which 
cannot be covered by funds 
planned in ECHO’s 
programme. ECHO is in charge 
of administering this reserve 
and may be using the funds 
after having received the EEAS 
and DG International 
Cooperation and 
Development’s agreement.
8 The total amount of the 
contract is higher. This is 
because ECHO Flight also flies 
in other countries outside the 
AGL region such as Mali, 
Kenya, Chad, on an ad hoc 
basis.
9 International NGOs are 
selected through a specific 
procedure carried out by DG 
ECHO. IOs and UN agencies 
have to undergo an 
assessment as requested in 
Article 60 of the Regulation 
(EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of 
the European Parliament and 
the Council of 25 October 2012 
on the financial rules 
applicable to the general 
budget of the Union and 
repealing Council Regulation 
(EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 
(OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1).
10 A Financial and Administrative 
Framework Agreement (FAFA) 
with UN agencies.
11 International Committee of 
the Red Cross, International 
Federation of the Red Cross 
and the International 
Organisation for Migration.
11 Introduction 
09 
A key feature of the Commission’s interventions is its presence in the field. It has 
put in place an extensive field network with offices located in crisis zones where 
EU-funded relief aid is being delivered12. The main functions of this network are:
(a) to provide headquarters in Brussels with up -to-date information and analysis 
on needs for a given country, region or crisis;
(b) to contribute to the development of humanitarian intervention strategies;
(c) to give technical support to EU-funded humanitarian operations;
(d) to monitor the implementation of EU-funded projects;
(e) to facilitate donor coordination at field level.
10 
In the DRC, the field network is comprised of the head office in Kinshasa, one 
country sub office in Goma and an antenna in Bukavu. It has five expatriated 
experts (‘Technical assistants’) and 12 local staff (‘National staff’). In addition, sev -
eral sectoral experts (food, protection, health …) based in the regional support 
office in Nairobi (Kenya) contribute as needed to the selection, monitoring and 
assessment of projects in the African Great Lakes region13.12 Beginning of 2016, there were 
48 field offices in 40 countries 
and 12 regional offices.
13 Sectorial experts providing 
support to country offices are 
located in regional offices. 
From mid-2015, Kinshasa 
becomes a regional office 
providing support to the 
Republic of Congo, Angola, 
Burundi, Rwanda and 
Tanzania.Graph 1Repartition of the HIP allocation per main areas for the period 2011 ‑2015
million euro
DRC con/f_lict Eastern Congo and Katanga provinceDRC non-con/f_lict areas (response to severe acute malnutrition
and to epidemics)Assistance to refugee camps / settlements in Uganda, Rwanda,
Burundi and TanzaniaCentral African Republic crisis: refugees in the North of the DRCBurundi crisis: refugees in Rwanda and Tanzania
01020304050607080
2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
12
 Audit scope and approach
11 
We examined whether the Commission effectively managed its funding for hu -
manitarian aid targeted at populations affected by conflicts in the African Great 
Lakes region. Our audit 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?
12 
The audit covered the Commission’s support during the period 2011-2015 to the 
AGL region consisting of the DRC, Uganda14, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania. It 
was carried out between May and December 2015 and included the following:
(a) A review of EU policy documents and strategy documents related to humani -
tarian aid, and other relevant documentation and reports.
(b) Interviews with Commission officials and with partners’ representatives.
(c) A review of 19 projects, for a cumulative amount of 42.9 million euros (out of 
a total number of 164 projects, costing 255.3 million euros), that were imple -
mented during the period 2011-2014, plus the ECHO Flight service contract15 
for aerial transport (see list in Annex IV ). The selection criteria included mat-  
eriality, geographical and sectoral coverage, period of implementation, na -
ture of aid and type of partners.
(d) Visits to the DRC from 16 to 25 September 2015 and to Tanzania, Rwanda and 
Uganda from 30 September to 8 October 2015 which included interviews 
with staff in the field, EU delegation staff, partners’ representatives and ben -
eficiaries as well as on -the-spot visits to 10 projects.14 In the 2015 programming, the 
Commission decided to take 
Uganda out of the AGL HIP 
and add it in the Horn of Africa 
HIP. This is because an 
allocation for Uganda was 
approved under the HIP 2015 
for the Horn of Africa region in 
order to respond to the influx 
of South Sudanese refugees 
and, according to 
a Commission internal rule, 
a country cannot be covered 
under two different HIPs.
15 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/
what/humanitarian -aid/
humanitarian -air-services_en
13
 Observations
Funding allocated to well established main priorities 
but insufficient clarity at further prioritisation stage
13 
We examined whether the Commission allocated humanitarian aid to well estab -
lished priorities by looking at how the humanitarian needs for the region were 
identified, what response the Commission envisaged and whether its support 
went to the most relevant projects.
The Commission has properly identified needs for the AGL 
region
The needs assessment is evidence based
14 
The Commission performs annual needs assessments for all countries/regions 
to which it is already providing a financial contribution. It carries out ad hoc 
needs assessments whenever an unexpected crisis occurs, whether natural or 
man -made. In cases of deterioration of existing and already covered crises, the 
Commission updates its initial needs assessment. This is the main exercise in 
preparation for its annual programming, the Humanitarian Implementation Plan 
(HIP).
15 
For the AGL region, the needs assessment is based on the accumulated knowl -
edge and experience of the operational team in Brussels and the team in the 
DRC’s field office. The other main sources of information are (i) a range of in -
ternationally available indicators to determine a risk index value per country16 
and (ii) the stakeholders in the field, namely the Office for the Coordination of 
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for the DRC and the Commission’s partners, humani -
tarian donors.16 See webpage: http://www.
inform -index.org/Home
14 Observations 
16 
The needs assessment for the AGL region gives a good overview of the situation 
in the DRC, both in conflict and non -conflict zones, and in neighbouring coun -
tries. The affected populations identified are:
(a) internally displaced people (IDPs) in the DRC;
(b) refugees, mainly Central African and Rwandan in the DRC and Congolese and 
Burundian in neighbouring countries;
(c) returned people (IDPs or refugees);
(d) host populations who need help to cope with the influx of refugees and IDPs;
(e) other local populations weakened by the conflicts or that are very vulnerable 
to malnutrition or epidemics in non -conflict zones.
17 
The needs identified for these categories covered a wide range: protection, food 
security, nutrition, health care, water and sanitation, non -food items (NFI) such as 
pots and pans, clothing, soap, etc. and shelter. Education was not included as it 
was not deemed to have sufficient priority.
The Commission’s response is appropriate
Main priorities were well established
18 
In the AGL region, the Commission’s overall objective is ‘to address urgent needs 
arising from population movements in conflict zone and life -threatening situa -
tions in non -conflict areas using the most appropriate response mechanisms’17. 
There are five ‘strategic objectives’ which lead to six envisaged actions/priorities 
(see Box 2 ). They are all in line with the Union’s principal objectives for humani -
tarian aid (see Box 1  in paragraph 4) and they allow the needs identified to be 
addressed. All the interventions have to target the most vulnerable populations.17 HIP AGL 2015 version 4, point 
4) envisaged ECHO response, 
p. 10.
15 Observations 
Main priorities:
(a) reducing protection risks and addressing protection needs,
(b) providing minimum basic services, health, food and NFI as fast as possible in emergency situations,
(c) providing support to the management of refugee camps in the region,
(d) providing water, hygiene and sanitation activities in areas at risk, outside conflict zones,
(e) giving priority to multi -sector approaches, and
(f) supporting coordination, security and logistics.Box 2
19 
The main constraints faced by the Commission, and donors in general, are in the 
DRC. They are related to the challenging logistics in such a large country, the 
poor state of infrastructure and the lack of government’s capacity and willing -
ness to contribute. The lack of partners in some parts of the country may also 
limit the capacity to make interventions. Finally, the security constraints, due to 
the constant shifting of military operations and subsequent movements of armed 
groups, curtail the activities of the donors, especially in the most remote areas.
20 
The Commission’s response is consistent with the analysis of the situation and 
needs assessment. Both are consistent with the response described in the DRC’s 
Annual Humanitarian Action Plan (HAP) prepared by a team of humanitarian 
organisations representatives.
16 Observations 
Flexibility in programming and in funding is ensured
21 
In the HIP , the Commission does not impose areas/sectors for intervention which 
may be obsolete by the time of the selection. The Commission’s funding is driven 
by the most acute needs of the most vulnerable populations on the basis of the 
partners experience in the field, corroborated by the information shared by the 
humanitarian coordinator and the knowledge of the staff. Further prioritisation, 
mainly geographical, is done at the selection stage (see paragraph 25).
22 
The Commission carries out a mid -term review of the HIPs on the basis of the 
subsequent year’s needs assessment. Moreover, the HIP is revised any time the 
evolution of the situation triggers a modification of the allocated amount. When 
an increase of the initial allocation is approved, the additional funding can be 
obtained from the operational reserve, an amount of approximately 20 % of the 
annual budget set aside for unexpected emergencies. It may also be obtained 
from the EU EAR or from the EDF budget.
23 
For the AGL region, this flexibility has been used several times during the period 
under review to address the consequences of unexpected events or deteriorat -
ing situation (see Graph 2 ). In 2015 alone, due mainly to the Burundian refugee 
crisis18, the HIP for the AGL region was modified three times.
24 
In addition, the AGL region operational team set aside a small share of the HIP’s 
allocation (approximately 1.5 million euros in 2015) for sudden increases in needs 
in the course of the year. This was used as a top-up for ongoing projects dealing 
with refugee camps in Rwanda and Tanzania as soon as it became known that 
high numbers of Burundians were fleeing the country at the end of April 2015. 
This allowed a prompt reaction while waiting for the approval of the first increase 
of the HIP which took place at the end of May.18 2 million euros were also 
added to the initial 2015 
allocation for the AGL region 
because of the inflow of 
± 80 000 of Central Africans to 
the DRC.
17 Observations Graph 2Budget of the AGL region for the period 2011 ‑2015million euro
Burundian crisisDeterioration of the situation in
Katanga due to con/f_lictsM23 rebellion in North Kivu
Deterioration of nutritional situation inDRC and Burundi
2015 2014 2013 2012 2011HIP initial amountHIP updatesEDF ad-hoc decisionsEU budget ad-hoc decisions
2015 2014 2013 2012 201180
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
18 Observations 
Insufficient transparency at the project selection stage
Geographical priorities in areas of conflict are not documented
25 
In the HIP , the geographical area of intervention corresponding to the conflict 
zones is Eastern Congo, which includes North Kivu, South Kivu and the different 
regions of the former province Katanga. In a volatile environment such as that in 
the DRC, more precise areas, where the most acute needs and most vulnerable 
populations are to be found, cannot be determined in advance. Picture 2Mahama refugee camp in Rwanda, newly built area hosting Burundian refugees
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
19 Observations 
26 
According to the Commission, just before the assessment of the funding re -
quests, the operational team defines top priority areas for allocating its support 
on the basis of information gathered on movements of the armed groups, includ -
ing the FARDC, movements of population and the presence of partners. However, 
as this was not documented it was not possible to ascertain whether these geo -
graphical priorities were soundly based and whether the selected projects took 
place in top priority areas.
The selection process is not well documented
27 
Over the period under review, 2011-2015, the Commission received on aver -
age 71 funding requests per year, following the first publication of the HIP , and 
selected around half of them. Depending on the evolution of the situation and 
the advent of new/increased needs in the course of the year, the Commission 
finally supported an average of 40 projects. The repartition of the HIP allocation 
is shown in Graph 1 .
28 
Partners receive comprehensive guidance regarding their funding requests 
which are submitted in an electronic exchange system in a predetermined 
format. All of these are assessed by the operational teams in Brussels and in the 
field and are discussed among these teams19. They present the final outcome 
of the selection in an internal document for decision. For the selected funding 
requests, the appraisal part of a document used for managing the project is then 
completed. This document provides information for each significant stage of the 
project cycle: funding request, interim report, field visits, modification requests 
and final report.
29 
However, this appraisal part is not structured in such a way to demonstrate 
clearly that the criteria and general principles, detailed in the annex of the HIP , 
were assessed for each proposal. Some key aspects such as the partner’s im -
plementation capacity, the partner’s knowledge of the country/region, protec -
tion and resilience aspects are not mentioned at all. For the projects examined, 
which were all in line with the main priorities and objectives set in the HIP , some 
general principles were not systematically assessed20 or some of the assessments 
were weak21. From the information available it was not possible to determine the 
comparative merits of the funding requests submitted and therefore to conclude 
that the most relevant projects were selected.19 The bulk of the funding 
requests are submitted 
around the indicative date 
mentioned in the first version 
of the HIP, usually towards year 
end or at the beginning of the 
subsequent year.
20 (1) Adaptation to the specific 
needs related to gender and 
age. (2) Integration of 
resilience activities by 
identifying the possibilities to 
reduce potential risks for 
vulnerable people and to 
reinforce their livelihood, this 
also includes the 
recommendation from the 
Commission to its partners to 
explore from the beginning 
possible synergies and 
complementarities with 
development and national 
actors. (3) Integration of 
protection activities which 
objective is to reduce physical 
and psychological insecurity 
for persons and groups under 
threat.
21 Weak or incomplete project 
appraisal was also mentioned 
by the Internal Audit Service of 
the Commission in its audit 
report on Contribution 
Agreements with UN bodies 
and other International 
Organisations of 19.6.2014.
20 Observations 
Cost efficiency is not analysed
30 
The budgets provided with the funding requests for the projects examined were 
not detailed and were not analysed prior to selection. Thus no assessments of 
these were made to determine if the proposed costs were reasonable. In the case 
of partners, usually UN agencies sub -contracting activities to implementing bod -
ies, there was no information on the level of funding that went to these bodies. In 
general, no data was available on the level of aid spent on the beneficiaries.
31 
In a context of ever-increasing humanitarian needs and ever tighter funding 
possibilities, efficiency aspects are of even greater importance. Moreover, in the 
absence of adequate checks to ascertain that the budget is reasonable at the se -
lection stage, subsequent analyses on the execution of this budget have limited 
use.
Overall, the Commission’s monitoring is appropriate 
although the information obtained could be better 
used
32 
We examined whether the Commission obtained adequate information from 
project reporting to monitor progress and took appropriate and timely measures 
when needed.
In most cases, the Commission obtains adequate information 
on project implementation
The monitoring framework in place is appropriate
33 
This framework is based on:
(a) an interim report, due 3 months before the end of actions whose duration 
exceeds 10 months, and a final report, to be submitted within 3 months fol -
lowing the end of the project and triggering the final payment (see Annex V );
(b) a minimum of one field visit per project by Commission staff, provided that 
security or logistical constraints allow for that22.22 Any exception should be 
justified as it was the case for 
two projects in our sample.
21 Observations 
34 
In addition, the Commission carries out periodic, usually annual, assessments of 
the partners, focused on their financial soundness. The Commission also super -
vises audits, sub -contracted to external audit firms, at partners’ headquarters 
and in the field. Considering the nature of the actions and their duration, the 
monitoring framework in place is satisfactory.
The timeliness and quality of some reporting was unsatisfactory
35 
Interim and final reports are submitted through an electronic exchange system in 
a predetermined format. They should include updated operational information, 
on the values reached per indicator and financial information, namely the budget 
consumption, to allow the Commission to conclude on the progress of an action 
as a whole. The analysis of these reports and the reporting on the field visits is 
entered in its supervision document.
36 
Many interim and final reports were considerably delayed and no explanations 
for these delays were demanded by the Commission. In particular, a high pro -
portion of interim and final reports for projects implemented by UN agencies 
and IOs was not submitted on time (see Table 1 ). The late submission of interim 
reports curtails the Commission’s ability to address any problems that may be 
identified.
37 
While, overall, the quality of the interim reports was satisfactory, we considered 
that only three out of the 18 final reports23 were satisfactory. In the 15 other 
cases, the initial information reported was not sufficient to explain the level of 
performance achieved, the impossibility of using some indicators or why some 
activities had not been carried out. In some reports supporting documentation 
for the provided data was missing and financial information was not detailed 
enough. In all cases but one24, the Commission requested supplementary expla -
nation from the partners. They provided additional information which in all cases 
but two25, was deemed satisfactory.23 One final report was not 
received at the end of the 
audit.
24 In one case, DG ECHO did not 
respect the deadlines for 
reviewing final reports and 
was not able to send a request 
for information.
25 Food assistance for refugees in 
the Northwest of Tanzania and 
Spontaneous Site 
Management and 
Coordination in the DRC.
22 Observations Table 1Timeliness of submitted reports
UN AgenciesInternational 
OrganisationsNGOs Total
Interim reports
Total number of Interim Reports submitted 5 3 7 15
Number of Interim Reports delayed 2 2 2 6
Percentage of late Interim Reports 40 % 67 % 29 % 40 %
Average delay (days) 32 17 9 19
Final reports
Total number of Final Reports submitted 8 3 8 19
Number of Final Reports delayed 8 2 3 13
Percentage of late Final Reports 100 % 67 % 38 % 68 %
Average delay (days) 34 102 17 41
38 
A key feature of the Commission’s intervention in the AGL region, in compari -
son to most other humanitarian donors, is its field presence (see paragraphs 9 
and 10). This allows for collaboration and exchange of information with part -
ners and enables the Commission to have solid knowledge of the projects. This 
on-the -spot presence was much appreciated by the partners met during the 
audit who valued the support and expertise provided by the Commission staff.
39 
However, one quarter26 of the field visit reports were not comprehensive as they 
commented on certain aspects only and other matters such as financial imple -
mentation were not reported. In a few cases, the potential effect of detected 
issues on the results or the budget implementation was not analysed (see exam -
ples in Box 3 ) and no potential mitigating measures were proposed.26 For the 20 projects examined, 
a total of 33 field visits were 
performed. For nine of them, 
the monitoring report 
contained limited comments.
23 Observations 
Examples of lack of analysis of the implications of detected issues in field visit 
reports
In two cases, a project to improve the food security situation of conflict-affected populations in Katanga (n°11) 
and another to provide free healthcare for vulnerable populations in South Kivu (n°19), the projects’ dura -
tions were extended because there were delays in the implementation resulting in an underutilisation of the 
budget. The extensions were granted shortly before the end of the projects.
The reports of the field visits that took place shortly before the extensions were granted did not analyse the 
effect on the budget and did not outline the necessity for an extension.
Furthermore, the last field visit report for the food security project in Katanga, failed to highlight the impact 
on the project’s targets (number of beneficiaries, indicators of food distribution and consumption reached, 
etc.) as a result of funding not received from other donors (final budget less than 50 % of the initial budget).Box 3
40 
The Commission could not explain how the methodology used was applied to 
select the partners/projects audited in any specific year in the 2011-2015 period. 
The lack of a clear methodology for programming of audits at both partners’ 
headquarters and field level may lead to inappropriate audit strategy and cover -
age and does not facilitate synergies with the monitoring framework in place.
Follow‑up is insufficient
There is no consolidated reporting giving an overview of the HIP’s 
implementation
41 
The Commission only assesses results at project level, but there is no overview 
for a given country or HIP . Consequently, no aggregated analyses at HIP level are 
available and no benchmarking between HIPs is possible. Similarly, the main les -
sons learned, best practices and the Commission’s added -value identified in the 
course of the implementation are not reported.
24 Observations 
42 
Every year the Commission selects and evaluates a number of thematic and 
geographical areas of intervention in line with its planned multi -annual coverage. 
The last evaluations dealing with the AGL region were country evaluations and 
took place in 2009 for Burundi, in 2010 for the DRC and in 2011 for Uganda.
The follow‑up of issues identified at project level is not systematic 
and lacks documentation
43 
The individual management document has a specific box for ‘issues for fol -
low-up’. Some issues raised during the field visits and in partners’ reports were 
not mentioned in the box even when they obviously necessitated remedial 
action. In addition, when issues were raised for follow -up, there was nothing to 
indicate that these had been raised with the project partner. Finally, there was no 
indication that the problems in question had been addressed.
44 
‘Issues for follow -up’ were specifically identified for 14 projects under review in 
our audit but only two partners reported directly on the actions taken. While in 
some cases there were indications that measures had been taken by the partners, 
there is no assurance that this is done systematically.
Most of the projects examined delivered satisfactory 
results
45 
We examined whether the intended project results were delivered as planned 
and whether the Commission was responsive to changes in the field.
25 Observations 
Overall outcomes achieved are positive but in some cases, 
the Commission’s assessment is not clearly justified
46 
All the projects we examined were in line with the Commission’s objectives and 
with the envisaged actions for the region. Out of the 20 projects examined, 1927 
were found to have delivered satisfactory results despite partial achievements of 
targets (see example of successful project in Box 4 ). The assessment of project 
results is based on the comparison between set and achieved targets taking into 
account the particular difficulties arising in this area of operations.27 One was not satisfactory.
Example of a successful project: Rapid response to movement of populations 
(R R M P,  n°15):
This project is one of the Commission’s main vehicles for emergency response related to movements of popu -
lations in the DRC. It is a recurring project and the Commission’s funding over the period 2011-2015 amounted 
to 31.5 million euros.
It provides multi -sectoral assistance, shelter, NFI (pots and pans, clothes, soap, etc.), water, sanitation, and 
health care in areas where no other humanitarian organisations are present. Interventions consist of the 
distribution of NFI and shelters, provision of water, sanitation and health care to the most vulnerable popula -
tions who have fled from armed groups or returnees that are just back in their villages but have nothing left. 
Interventions are usually limited to 3 months.
From May to December 2014, the project allowed assistance to be provided to approximately 1.3 million ben -
eficiaries, mainly in North and South Kivu, Maniema and Province Orientale.
On average, 35 % of the interventions took place within 30 days of the movement of population alert com -
pared to a target of 40 %.
Despite partial achievement of some initial targets, this project was judged successful considering the context 
in which it is implemented and the number of beneficiaries reached.Box 4
26 Observations Picture 3Rapid Response to Movements of Population: distribution of NFI in Lulingu, 
Shabunda territory, South Kivu, people retrieving their goods
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
47 
In some of the cases where the Commission’s assessment was positive despite 
partial achievement of the targets, it did not provide enough explanation to 
substantiate its position. In four cases we found that the assessment of the over -
all project achievement and of the partner’s performance was inadequate and 
did not provide a clear conclusion on the project. Consequently, a clear logical 
link between the Commission’s overall conclusion on the project and the results 
achieved could not be established.
48 
For the projects examined, one was found to have unsatisfactory results (see 
Box 5 ). Contractually, the Commission can reduce its contribution in the cases 
of poor, partial or late implementation of a project, without acceptable justifica -
tions provided by the partner. This option was used for one case with unsatis -
factory results but is seldom used as it is cumbersome to implement and could 
result in the loss of budgeted funds. Thus, in case of unsatisfactory results and/ 
or partner’s performance, the Commission’s preferred option was to reduce the 
subsequent year’s contribution28 or to stop the collaboration with the partners29.28 This was the case for at least 
two partners in 2015.
29 For instance, in the selection 
process for 2015, 
three requests for funding 
were rejected by ECHO partly 
because of implementation 
problems identified during 
ECHO’s monitoring of 
previously funded projects.
27 Observations 
49 
For the only contract in the selection awarded following a tendering procedure, 
ECHO Flight (n°16), more than 10 500 people and 250 tons of merchandise in 
the DRC30 were transported from May 2014 to March 2015 (11 months). Through 
this contract, the Commission ensured its partners, and their cargo, secure and 
rapid access to remote locations which would otherwise be virtually impossible 
to access. It thus provided humanitarian assistance to vulnerable population and 
fulfilled one of the main priorities in the HIP .30 The contract provides with air 
transport services for cargo 
and humanitarian actors also 
in Kenya and other locations 
when needed (Mali, Chad, 
etc.).Spontaneous Site Management and Coordination in the DRC (n°18)
This project was initiated in 2013 and funded by the Commission with an amount of 2 million euros. The fund -
ing for this partner reached 3 million euros by the end of 2015.
The project’s objectives were:
(1) to gather and disseminate information on the managed sites;
(2) to manage and coordinate the provision of assistance such as water, sanitation, shelter and non -food 
items;
(3) to digitally register the IDPs in the managed sites.
The target values for (1) and (2) were eventually reached but due to a delay in procuring equipment the sup -
ply of non -food items was delayed by 14 months. For (3) the digital registration was delayed by 10 months 
and reached only 25 % of the targeted number. Only 24 % of the beneficiaries expected to be covered by the 
whole project were reached.
ECHO considered that the performance of the partner was not satisfactory: its project management skills were 
limited, the administrative procedures were cumbersome and its monitoring of the implementing partner was 
insufficient. All this negatively impacted the outcome of the action.
Despite the unsatisfactory implementation, the Commission reduced its contribution by 57 000 euros only. 
Furthermore, the partner was contracted again the subsequent year but for a lower amount of contribution.
The Commission also identified ineligible expenditure but given that the total amount of eligible expenditure 
was still higher than the Commission’s maximum contribution, this did not impact the amount of the contri -
bution paid.Box 5
28 Observations 
The Commission was responsive to changes but could better 
justify time extensions granted
50 
About half31 of the projects in the audit sample were implemented over a longer 
period than initially planned, from 2 to 6 months, or with more budget (see 
details in Annex VI ). Five out of seven time extensions, without budget increase, 
were granted in cases of budget under -consumption, related to delays in imple -
mentation mainly justified by external factors. Most of the increases in budget, 
five out of seven, were related to additional needs resulting from the deteriora -
tion of the situation or the lack of stabilisation.
51 
In one case, the main reason for the extension was to give the partner additional 
time to ‘organise the transition from the Commission funding to another mecha -
nism’. The Commission itself acknowledged in the assessment of the modifica -
tion request submitted by the partner that it had ‘not prioritised this project for 
2014’32.
52 
In two cases, the extensions were granted when the implementation delays were 
mainly the partners’ responsibility. In those cases, the Commission decided not 
to recover part of the funding and not to reallocate this to other projects (see 
paragraph 48). Instead it chose to give the partners an opportunity to implement 
as much of the project as possible thus ensuring that beneficiaries would receive 
the aid. Nevertheless, the extension of the duration was not primarily driven by 
the prioritised needs and vulnerabilities.
There is limited evidence of what is being done to link Relief, 
Rehabilitation and Development
53 
Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) and better coordination 
between development and humanitarian activities are policy priorities in the 
Commission’s strategy. However, there was no analysis of potential programmes 
which could be combined and what could be put in place in the region. For 
instance, there is no mention of the Commission’s possible participation in the 
elaboration of the Health LRRD strategy, one of the specific objectives in the 
health focal sector under the National Indicative Programme (NIP) under the 11th 
European Development Fund 2014-2020 for the DRC33.31 10 out of 20 projects. Increases 
related to the payment 
appropriations shortage in 
2014 are not counted. All the 
extensions were formalised in 
contract amendments.
32 Project n°6. Extract of ECHO’s 
technical assistant in the field 
assessment of the 
modification request from the 
partner.
33 See pp. 10-12 of the NIP 
2014-2020.
29 Observations 
54 
For the period under review, there was only one example of a humanitarian pro -
ject being integrated in the health programme developed under the NIP 2014-
2020 for the DRC34. In Uganda, refugees are given a plot of land and some rights 
to participate in the local economy35. Humanitarian aid support services, for 
instance health care, were also used by the local population which is best prac -
tice to lift the burden on the host communities and avoid tensions with refugees. 
However, there were no examples of synergies with development programmes. 
This may result in humanitarian aid substituting other sustainable solutions, such 
as return, resettlement to another country or local integration.
55 
OCHA, the humanitarian coordinator for the DRC, recognised that more effort 
should be put into the coordination between humanitarian and development ac -
tors. This was also identified as a priority area for the DRC’s forum of humanitar -
ian donors, called the Good Humanitarian Donorship group36 for 2015. A recent 
report from the World Bank37 also recommended that ‘development agencies 
should become more involved in addressing displacements in the Great Lakes 
Region’.34 The HIP 2015 indicated that 
the Commission was 
continuing the funding for the 
project in 2014 with 
humanitarian aid, until the 
agreement for funding 
development aid was 
finalised.
35 Uganda is also hosting South 
Sudanese and Central African 
refugees that were not in our 
audit scope, in other parts of 
the country. Thus, our 
comments here are limited to 
Congolese refugees’ 
settlements.
36 See more details in http://
www.ghdinitiative.org/ .
37 http://documents.worldbank.
org/curated/
en/2015/01/24356083/
forced -displace -
ment -great -lakes -region , see 
p. 11.
30
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
56 
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 and the approach adopted had sufficient built-in flexibility to cope 
with the rapidly changing circumstances in the conflict-affected areas. Extra 
funding was available for emergency situations such as the aftermath of the crisis 
in Burundi. The projects examined were mainly successful in addressing urgent 
needs.
57 
A number of weaknesses were identified, some of which related to insufficient 
transparency at key stages in the life cycle of projects. While the project manage -
ment information system maintained by the Commission provides useful data 
on the project’s life cycle, it does not meet information requirements in some 
specific areas.
58 
The main priorities for the region were determined on the basis of needs assess -
ments and the funding was allocated according to these priorities. However, 
it was not possible to determine if the proposals selected were in the priority 
locations as this further prioritisation was not documented. Neither was there 
sufficient evidence to show that all the relevant criteria and general principles 
were applied for the approval of project proposals, as this process was not docu -
mented in a transparent manner. The system did not give sufficient information 
to assess the comparative merits of the projects and determine if the most appro -
priate projects were selected.
Recommendation 1  
The Commission should be more transparent in the selection 
procedure
The key stages of the selection process should be clearly documented in order 
to show that the most appropriate proposals are selected and to ensure that the 
selection process is transparent. This should be implemented by the next selec -
tion phase.
31 Conclusions and recommendations 
59 
In addition, the budgets accompanying the proposals were not examined to 
assess the reasonableness of the costs therein. In fact, in some cases the budg -
ets presented were inadequate for any assessment to be undertaken. This has 
not only consequences at the project approval stage but it also means that cost 
analysis at further stages for control purposes may not be soundly based.
Recommendation 2  
Costs of proposals should be better analysed prior to 
acceptance
The Commission should pay more attention to the proposed project costs and 
these should, in all cases, be assessed for their reasonableness. In this regard, the 
Commission should insist on the submission by its partners of budgets, which 
provide the necessary information for analysis. A short checklist could be intro -
duced to provide evidence of compliance with these control features. This should 
be implemented by the next selection phase.
60 
Considering the nature of the actions, the monitoring framework in place is 
satisfactory as it balances ECHO’s need for information with the requirement to 
minimise the administrative burden. However, information supplied by partners 
in their interim and final reports was frequently late and hindered the Commis -
sion’s ability to address, quickly, any issues raised and to learn lessons for future 
programming. While there were indications that follow -up had been undertaken 
in some cases, this was not ensured as the issues and subsequent actions taken 
were not systematically recorded. An important feature of monitoring is the pres -
ence of field officers on the spot, which is of mutual benefit to the partners and 
the Commission. However, reporting from field officers did not, in some cases, 
identify key issues. Overall, the monitoring is appropriate but more thorough 
follow -up is required.
Recommendation 3  
The Commission should make clear the extent to which 
problems raised for follow‑up are resolved
The management document for each project should be revised by the end of this 
year to include the necessary features to clearly identify issues arising for further 
action and the follow -up undertaken.
32 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 4  
Better reporting from partners and field staff should enable 
prompt action to be taken
Partners should be continuously reminded of their responsibilities to report 
comprehensively and in good time. A checklist for Commission staff should be 
introduced for the field visits so that the key issues are covered. This should be 
implemented by the end of this year.
61 
The overall implementation of the Humanitarian Implementation Plan is not as -
sessed. As a result the lessons that could be learned from its strengths and weak -
nesses are not identified for future use. In addition, an assessment of this nature 
would provide useful summary information for management purposes. It was 
also noted that no evaluation in the Great Lakes area has taken place in recent 
years.
Recommendation 5  
The Commission should introduce an overall reporting 
system on the implementation of the HIP
The Commission should introduce a system of reporting at HIP level outlining 
the main outputs and outcomes, identifying the main lessons learned and best 
practices to be applied in subsequent years’ HIPs. It should also deal with strate -
gic issues such as what approach to adopt in a protracted crisis.
62 
Overall, the results achieved for the sample of projects examined were satisfac -
tory. One partner, however, managed to spend most of its budget despite achiev -
ing a small percentage of some planned results. In a few cases the justification for 
time extensions and additional budgets was not clear. As regards the Commis -
sion’s own assessment of results it was unclear, in some cases, from the informa -
tion available, how they arrived at their conclusions.
33 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 6  
The Commission should establish a clear link between results 
achieved by a project and the assessment used to make the 
payment
The Commission should better design, structure and document the assessment 
of an action that is only partially achieved and establish a clear link between the 
results achieved and the overall conclusion on a project, before authorising final 
payment. This should be implemented at the earliest possible stage.
Recommendation 7  
Time extensions and additional funding for projects should 
be clearly justified
The Commission should provide clear justifications for additional funding and 
time extensions granted to partners and should respond firmly to all instances 
of under -performance. This should be implemented for all future requests for 
extensions.
63 
While Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development is an expressed policy 
of the Commission there is not much evidence of how this is implemented. In 
practice it is more likely that Humanitarian Aid will be used in cases where other 
sustainable solutions, such as return, resettlement to another country or local 
integration would seem more appropriate.
Recommendation 8  
The Commission should prioritise the linking of Relief 
Rehabilitation and Development
All opportunities should be exploited to link efforts in the relief, rehabilitation 
and development areas. This will involve placing this consideration high on the 
agenda at key stages in the planning process.
34 Conclusions and recommendations 
This report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, Member of 
the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 10 May 2016.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President
35
 Annexes Annex IMap of the African Great Lakes Region
TANZANIABukavu
 
  
 
 
 
 
  Abyei Region 
(disputed territory)
Administrative 
boundary
Lake Lake 
Turkana
Lake 
Albert
Lake 
Edward
Lake 
Kivu
Lake 
Tanganyika
Lake 
Rukwa
Lake 
Mweru
Lake 
MalawiVictoria
Administrative boundaries: © EuroGeographics
Cartography: Eurostat — GISCO, 03/2016 0 200 400 600 800 kmLake 
Kyoga
Lake 
BangweuluIndian 
Ocean
Atlantic OceanGoma
Bukavu
BujumburaKigaliKampala
DodomaNairobi
BrazzavilleBanguiN’Djamena
Luanda
LilongweKinshasaJuba
TANZANIA
MALAWI
KENYA
SOMALIA
UGANDA
RWANDA
BURUNDI
CHAD
CENTRAL
AFICAN REPUBLIC
SUDAN
ETHIOPIA
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH SUDAN
CAMEROON
CONGO
GABON
ANGOLA
ZAMBIA
MOZAMBIQUE
DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC
OF THE CONGO
Legend:     Countries in the scope of the audit

36 Annexes 
DRC Refugees at the beginning of 2016Annex IIANNEXE  II
437.347
Age
0  -­‐  4 9%
5  -­‐  11 12%
12  -­‐  17 8%
18  -­‐  59 21%
  60  + 1%Demography
18%Refugees  from  DRC  in  neighbouring  
Countries
1%8%Male	  (48%) (52%)  Female  
9%
12%
Uganda  
31	  Dec	  2015
Rwanda  
31	  Jan	  2016
Tanzania  
27	  Aug	  2014
Burundi  
30	  Sep	  2015
Kenya  
27	  Aug	  2014
South  Sudan  
27	  Aug	  2014
Congo
(Brazaville)  
31	  Dec	  2015
Central  African
Republic  1,2%
17	  Feb	  2015
Ethiopia  
30	  Jun	  2014
Sudan  
30	  Jun	  2014
Source:  http://data.unhcr.org/drc/regional.php 
Country
202.289 Individuals
Individuals15.626 Individuals54.625 Individuals74.820
12.267Individuals
2,8%
0,2%3,6%
3,3%Individuals
0,2%  DRC  Refugees  by  Country  of  Asylum
Total  Population
914 Individuals46,3%
17,1%
12,8%
5.342 Individuals
966 Individuals14.628 Individuals12,5%55.870

37 Annexes Annex IIIMap Burundian refugees at 26  January  2016
Burundi Situation 
Displacement of Burundians into neighbouring countries since April 2015 
as of  26 Jan 2016 
241,649 
newly arrived refugees from 
Burundi in neighbouring 
countries UGANDA 
19,611 
RWANDA 
72,099 
UNITED 
REPUBLIC OF 
TANZANIA 
DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF 
THE CONGO 
20,985 
ZAMBIA 
980 TANZANIA 
RWANDA 
DRC 
UGANDA 
ZAMBIA 53% 
30% 
9% 
8% 
0.4% 
20km 127,974 
LEGEND 
Capital city 
Town of interest 
Refugee camp Refugee settlement Refugee reception/transit centre New arrivals from Burundi 
International boundary 
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. 
©UNHCR,	  UNCS,	  Author:	  UNHCR	  Regional	  Service	  Centre	  Nairobi.	  Source:	  h;p://data.unhcr.org/burundi/regional.php 	  (see	  secAon	  Maps) . BURUNDI 
38 Annexes Annex IVList of projects examined
Initial FinalItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Primary Aid Type
Geographical area
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Contract signature 
date
Starting date
End date 
Duration
Imple-menting 
partners
Continued 
subsequent year
Visits on the spot
1 Regional 2014 UNAssistance to refugees in Uganda, 
Rwanda, Burundi and TanzaniaFood Security Regional 42 106 807 1 000  000 2.4 % 25 514 479 4 400  000 17. 2  % 8.5.2014 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 months Y YSettlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 
and Tanzania, 2015 project
2 Burundi 2011 UNProtection, soins et entretien des réfugiés 
au BurundiProtection Burundi 2 500  000 1 500  000 60.0 % 2 831 287 1 500  000 53.0 % 23.6.2011 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 months Y Y (a)
3 Burundi 2013 IOMOrderly Return and Pilot Reintegration 
Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 
From Tanzania to BurundiSupport to spe -
cial operationsTanzania, 
Burundi2 168 407 1 200  000 55.3  % 1 940 056 1 125 795 58.0 % 21.2.2013 1.11.2012 31.12.2013 14 months Y N
4 Uganda 2011 UNProtection and Mixed Solutions for Inter -
nally Displaced Persons in UgandaNFI/Shelter Uganda 6 220 201 2 000  000 32.2  % 2 706 444 2 000  000 73.9  % 23.5.2011 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 months Y N
5 Tanzania 2012 UNFood Assistance for Refugees in the 
NorthwestFood Security Tanzania 15 377  015 2 000  000 13.0 % 12 444 048 2 000  000 16.1  % 17 .2.2012 1.1.2012 31.12.2012 12 months Y Y (a)
6 Tanzania 2013 ONGEmergency Assistance to Refugees in 
Nyarugusu camp, TanzaniaHealth care Tanzania 1 000  000 1 000  000 100.0 % 1 450 000 1 450 000 100.0 % 25.3.2013 1.1.2013 30.6.2014 18 months Y N
7 Regional 2014 UNProtection and multi sectoral assistance to 
refugees, returnees and asylum seekers in 
the Great LakesProtection Regional 18 884  661 1 000  000 5.3 % 21 456 513 6 500  000 30.3 % 12.5.2014 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 months Y YSettlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 
and Tanzania, 2015 project
8 DRC 2014 ONGEducation in Emergencies (EiE) for Chil -
dren Affected by Conflict in the Democratic 
Republic of CongoEducation North Kivu 470 588 400  000 85.0 % 470 587 400  000 85.0 % 26.8.2014 1.9.2014 30.9.2015 13 months N N
9 DRC 2014 ONGEmergency Food Security Response to 
Movement of PopulationsFood Security North Kivu 1 919 227 1 600  000 83.4  % 2 619 227 2 300 000 87. 8  % 20.5.2014 16.4.2014 30.4.2015 1.5 months N Y
10 DRC 2014 ONGAppui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse 
aux mouvements des populations au KivuFood Security South Kivu 1 500  000 1 500  000 100.0 % 2 000  000 2 000  000 100.0 % 25.3.2014 1.4.2014 30.6.2015 15 months N N
39 Annexes
List of projects examined
Initial FinalItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Primary Aid Type
Geographical area
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Contract signature 
date
Starting date
End date 
Duration
Imple-menting 
partners
Continued 
subsequent year
Visits on the spot
1 Regional 2014 UNAssistance to refugees in Uganda, 
Rwanda, Burundi and TanzaniaFood Security Regional 42 106 807 1 000  000 2.4 % 25 514 479 4 400  000 17. 2  % 8.5.2014 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 months Y YSettlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 
and Tanzania, 2015 project
2 Burundi 2011 UNProtection, soins et entretien des réfugiés 
au BurundiProtection Burundi 2 500  000 1 500  000 60.0 % 2 831 287 1 500  000 53.0 % 23.6.2011 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 months Y Y (a)
3 Burundi 2013 IOMOrderly Return and Pilot Reintegration 
Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 
From Tanzania to BurundiSupport to spe -
cial operationsTanzania, 
Burundi2 168 407 1 200  000 55.3  % 1 940 056 1 125 795 58.0 % 21.2.2013 1.11.2012 31.12.2013 14 months Y N
4 Uganda 2011 UNProtection and Mixed Solutions for Inter -
nally Displaced Persons in UgandaNFI/Shelter Uganda 6 220 201 2 000  000 32.2  % 2 706 444 2 000  000 73.9  % 23.5.2011 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 months Y N
5 Tanzania 2012 UNFood Assistance for Refugees in the 
NorthwestFood Security Tanzania 15 377  015 2 000  000 13.0 % 12 444 048 2 000  000 16.1  % 17 .2.2012 1.1.2012 31.12.2012 12 months Y Y (a)
6 Tanzania 2013 ONGEmergency Assistance to Refugees in 
Nyarugusu camp, TanzaniaHealth care Tanzania 1 000  000 1 000  000 100.0 % 1 450 000 1 450 000 100.0 % 25.3.2013 1.1.2013 30.6.2014 18 months Y N
7 Regional 2014 UNProtection and multi sectoral assistance to 
refugees, returnees and asylum seekers in 
the Great LakesProtection Regional 18 884  661 1 000  000 5.3 % 21 456 513 6 500  000 30.3 % 12.5.2014 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 months Y YSettlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 
and Tanzania, 2015 project
8 DRC 2014 ONGEducation in Emergencies (EiE) for Chil -
dren Affected by Conflict in the Democratic 
Republic of CongoEducation North Kivu 470 588 400  000 85.0 % 470 587 400  000 85.0 % 26.8.2014 1.9.2014 30.9.2015 13 months N N
9 DRC 2014 ONGEmergency Food Security Response to 
Movement of PopulationsFood Security North Kivu 1 919 227 1 600  000 83.4  % 2 619 227 2 300 000 87. 8  % 20.5.2014 16.4.2014 30.4.2015 1.5 months N Y
10 DRC 2014 ONGAppui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse 
aux mouvements des populations au KivuFood Security South Kivu 1 500  000 1 500  000 100.0 % 2 000  000 2 000  000 100.0 % 25.3.2014 1.4.2014 30.6.2015 15 months N N
Final payment not yet made, amount still provisory. 
(a) Continued under the regional project.
40 Annexes Annex IVInitial FinalItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Primary Aid Type
Geographical area
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Contract signature 
date
Starting date
End date 
Duration
Imple-menting 
partners
Continued 
subsequent year
Visits on the spot
11 DRC 2014 UNImprove the food security situation of 
the conflict-affected population in the 
Katanga Province.Food Security Katanga 19 600 436 2 000  000 10.2  % 9 471 094 2 000  000 21.1  % 12.6.2014 1.5.2014 31.3.2015 11 months Y Y
12 DRC 2014 ONGAssistance sanitaire aux populations 
vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 
Province du Nord KivuHealth care North Kivu 1 070 000 1 070 000 100.0 % 1 300 000 1 300 000 100.0 % 24.3.2014 1.4.2014 31.3.2015 12 months N YKibabi and Rubaya health centres, 2015 
project
13 DRC 2014 ONGRéponse intégrée aux mouvements de 
population dans le nord du KatangaHealth care Katanga 1 000  000 1 000  000 100.0 % 1 140 000 1 140 000 100.0 % 23.2.2014 1.1.2014 31.3.2015 15 months N Y
14 DRC 2014 UN Humanitarian Coordination and Advocacy Coordination All DRC 9 757 642 500 000 5.1 % 9 520 675 1 500  000 15.8  % 3.4.2014 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 months N YMeetings with representatives in Bukavu, 
Goma and Kinshasa, 2015 project
15 DRC 2014 UNRéponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 
PopulationNFI/ShelterN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga19 220 882 6 000  000 31.2  % 19 220 882 6 000  000 31.2  % 4.7. 2014 1.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 months Y Y Distribution of NFI in Lulingu, 2015 project
16 DRC 2014private 
companyECHO Flight TransportDRC, Kenya, 
Chad, Mali10 000  000 10 000  000 100.0 % 12 400  000 12 400  000 100.0 % 30.4.2014 1.5.2014 31.3.2015 11 months N/A YTransport Bukavu to Lulingu, Lulingu to 
Goma, Goma to Kinshasa, 2015 contract
17 DRC 2014 IOProtection, tracing and primary health 
care/psychosocial support programmesProtectionN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga12 482 677 1 000  000 8.0 % 13 691  333 3 000  000 21.9  % 3.4.2014 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 months Y YPsychological support, Rutshuru and 
Nyamilima, hospital for war surgery in Goma, 
North Kivu, 2015 project
18 DRC 2013 IOAssistance to conflict-affected population 
in DRC - Spontaneous Site Management 
and CoordinationProtectionEastern DRC 
with focus on 
North Kivu2 465 336 2 000  000 81.1  % 2 400 481 2 000  000 83.3  % 16.10.2013 1.9.2013 31.12.2014 16 months Y YIDP settlements in Kibabi, Kibabi-Kishusha 
and Bulengo (Goma), 2015 project
19 DRC 2014 ONGPrise en charge médicale gratuite des 
populations vulnérables et victimes 
d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud 
Kivu, DRC)Health care South Kivu 2 217 327 1 000  000 45.1  % 2 217 327 1 500  000 67.6  % 3.6.2014 2.5.2014 28.2.2015 10 months Y Y Lulingu hospital, 2015 project
20 DRC 2014 ONGMedical and Psychosocial Assistance to 
Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 
in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care 
in South KivuHealth care South Kivu 1 379 110 600  000 43.5  % 1 840 142 750 000 40.8  % 24.2.2014 1.1.2014 31.3.2015 15 months Y Y (b) Panzi hospital Bukavu, 2015 project
total list 38 370 000 55 265 795
total less ECHO Flight 28 370 000 42 865 795
41 Annexes
Initial FinalItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Primary Aid Type
Geographical area
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Total project 
amount
EU contribution
% of funding
Contract signature 
date
Starting date
End date 
Duration
Imple-menting 
partners
Continued 
subsequent year
Visits on the spot
11 DRC 2014 UNImprove the food security situation of 
the conflict-affected population in the 
Katanga Province.Food Security Katanga 19 600 436 2 000  000 10.2  % 9 471 094 2 000  000 21.1  % 12.6.2014 1.5.2014 31.3.2015 11 months Y Y
12 DRC 2014 ONGAssistance sanitaire aux populations 
vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 
Province du Nord KivuHealth care North Kivu 1 070 000 1 070 000 100.0 % 1 300 000 1 300 000 100.0 % 24.3.2014 1.4.2014 31.3.2015 12 months N YKibabi and Rubaya health centres, 2015 
project
13 DRC 2014 ONGRéponse intégrée aux mouvements de 
population dans le nord du KatangaHealth care Katanga 1 000  000 1 000  000 100.0 % 1 140 000 1 140 000 100.0 % 23.2.2014 1.1.2014 31.3.2015 15 months N Y
14 DRC 2014 UN Humanitarian Coordination and Advocacy Coordination All DRC 9 757 642 500 000 5.1 % 9 520 675 1 500  000 15.8  % 3.4.2014 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 months N YMeetings with representatives in Bukavu, 
Goma and Kinshasa, 2015 project
15 DRC 2014 UNRéponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 
PopulationNFI/ShelterN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga19 220 882 6 000  000 31.2  % 19 220 882 6 000  000 31.2  % 4.7. 2014 1.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 months Y Y Distribution of NFI in Lulingu, 2015 project
16 DRC 2014private 
companyECHO Flight TransportDRC, Kenya, 
Chad, Mali10 000  000 10 000  000 100.0 % 12 400  000 12 400  000 100.0 % 30.4.2014 1.5.2014 31.3.2015 11 months N/A YTransport Bukavu to Lulingu, Lulingu to 
Goma, Goma to Kinshasa, 2015 contract
17 DRC 2014 IOProtection, tracing and primary health 
care/psychosocial support programmesProtectionN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga12 482 677 1 000  000 8.0 % 13 691  333 3 000  000 21.9  % 3.4.2014 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 months Y YPsychological support, Rutshuru and 
Nyamilima, hospital for war surgery in Goma, 
North Kivu, 2015 project
18 DRC 2013 IOAssistance to conflict-affected population 
in DRC - Spontaneous Site Management 
and CoordinationProtectionEastern DRC 
with focus on 
North Kivu2 465 336 2 000  000 81.1  % 2 400 481 2 000  000 83.3  % 16.10.2013 1.9.2013 31.12.2014 16 months Y YIDP settlements in Kibabi, Kibabi-Kishusha 
and Bulengo (Goma), 2015 project
19 DRC 2014 ONGPrise en charge médicale gratuite des 
populations vulnérables et victimes 
d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud 
Kivu, DRC)Health care South Kivu 2 217 327 1 000  000 45.1  % 2 217 327 1 500  000 67.6  % 3.6.2014 2.5.2014 28.2.2015 10 months Y Y Lulingu hospital, 2015 project
20 DRC 2014 ONGMedical and Psychosocial Assistance to 
Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 
in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care 
in South KivuHealth care South Kivu 1 379 110 600  000 43.5  % 1 840 142 750 000 40.8  % 24.2.2014 1.1.2014 31.3.2015 15 months Y Y (b) Panzi hospital Bukavu, 2015 project
total list 38 370 000 55 265 795
total less ECHO Flight 28 370 000 42 865 795
 
(b) Project continued but with a different partner as from 2015, the implementing partner remains the same.
42 Annexes Annex VInterim and final reports examined
Interim report Final report(amounts in euro)
Item Country Dec YearType of 
partnerContract titlePrimary Aid 
TypeEU 
contributionDue dateDate of 
submissionDelays in days Due dateDate of 
submissionDelays in daysSuspension 
of payment 
request dateDate reply 
received from 
the partnerSufficient 
explanations 
in partner’s 
reply
1 Regional 2014 UN Assistance to Refugees in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania Food Security 4 400  000 N/A N/A N/A 31.3.2015 21.5.2015 51 29.6.2015 3.8.2015 Yes
2 Burundi 2011 UN Protection, soins et entretien des réfugiés au Burundi Protection 1 500  000 30.9.2011 25.11.2011 56 31.3.2012 7.6.2012 68 6.7. 2012 24.9.2012 Yes
3 Burundi 2013 IOMOrderly Return and Pilot Reintegration Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 
From Tanzania to BurundiSupport to spe -
cial operations1 200  000 30.6.2013 19.7.2013 19 31.3.2014 23.9.2014 176 27.10. 2014 22.12.2014 Yes
4 Uganda 2011 UN Protection and Mixed Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons in Uganda NFI/Shelter 2 000  000 31.7. 2011 29.7. 2011 -2 31.3.2012 2.4.2012 2 Not sent N/A N/A
5 Tanzania 2012 UN Food Assistance for Refugees in the Northwest Food Security 2 000  000 30.9.2012 28.9.2012 -2 31.3.2013 24.4.2013 24 21.5.2013 4.7. 2013 Partially
6 Tanzania 2013 ONG Emergency Assistance to Refugees in Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania. Health care 1 450 000 30.9.2013 27.9. 2013 -3 30.9.2014 30.9.2014 0 N/A N/A N/A
7 Regional 2014 UNProtection and multi sectoral assistance to refugees, returnees and asylum 
seekers in the Great LakesProtection 6 500  000 30.9.2014 8.10.2014 8 31.3.2015 22.5.2015 52 23.6.2015 27.7. 2015 Yes
8 DRC 2014 ONGEducation in Emergencies (EiE) for Children Affected by Conflict in the Demo -
cratic Republic of CongoEducation 400  000 30.6.2015 30.6.2015 0 31.12.2015 5.1.2016 5.00 19.1.2016 18.2.2016 Yes
9 DRC 2014 ONG Emergency Food Security Response to Movement of Populations Food Security 2 300 000 31.1.2015 16.1.2015 -15 31.7. 2015 31.7. 2015 0 2.9.2015 1.10.2015 Yes
10 DRC 2014 ONGAppui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse aux mouvements des populations au 
KivuFood Security 2 000  000 31.12.2014 29.12.2014 -2 30.9.2015 30.9.2015 0 3.11.2015 23.11.2015 Yes
11 DRC 2014 UNImprove the food security situation of the conflict affected population in the 
Katanga Province.Food Security 2 000  000 N/A N/A N/A 30.6.2015 4.8.2015 35 18.9.2015 13.10.2015 Yes
12 DRC 2014 ONGAssistance sanitaire aux populations vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 
Province du Nord KivuHealth care 1 300 000 N/A N/A N/A 30.6.2015 30.6.2015 0 31.7. 2015 31.8.2015 Yes
13 DRC 2014 ONG Réponse intégrée aux mouvements de population dans le nord du Katanga Health care 1 140 000 1.1.2015 16.1.2015 15 30.6.2015 6.7. 2015 6 31.7. 2015 19.8.2015 Yes
43 Annexes
Interim and final reports examined
Interim report Final report(amounts in euro)
Item Country Dec YearType of 
partnerContract titlePrimary Aid 
TypeEU 
contributionDue dateDate of 
submissionDelays in days Due dateDate of 
submissionDelays in daysSuspension 
of payment 
request dateDate reply 
received from 
the partnerSufficient 
explanations 
in partner’s 
reply
1 Regional 2014 UN Assistance to Refugees in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania Food Security 4 400  000 N/A N/A N/A 31.3.2015 21.5.2015 51 29.6.2015 3.8.2015 Yes
2 Burundi 2011 UN Protection, soins et entretien des réfugiés au Burundi Protection 1 500  000 30.9.2011 25.11.2011 56 31.3.2012 7.6.2012 68 6.7. 2012 24.9.2012 Yes
3 Burundi 2013 IOMOrderly Return and Pilot Reintegration Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 
From Tanzania to BurundiSupport to spe -
cial operations1 200  000 30.6.2013 19.7.2013 19 31.3.2014 23.9.2014 176 27.10. 2014 22.12.2014 Yes
4 Uganda 2011 UN Protection and Mixed Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons in Uganda NFI/Shelter 2 000  000 31.7. 2011 29.7. 2011 -2 31.3.2012 2.4.2012 2 Not sent N/A N/A
5 Tanzania 2012 UN Food Assistance for Refugees in the Northwest Food Security 2 000  000 30.9.2012 28.9.2012 -2 31.3.2013 24.4.2013 24 21.5.2013 4.7. 2013 Partially
6 Tanzania 2013 ONG Emergency Assistance to Refugees in Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania. Health care 1 450 000 30.9.2013 27.9. 2013 -3 30.9.2014 30.9.2014 0 N/A N/A N/A
7 Regional 2014 UNProtection and multi sectoral assistance to refugees, returnees and asylum 
seekers in the Great LakesProtection 6 500  000 30.9.2014 8.10.2014 8 31.3.2015 22.5.2015 52 23.6.2015 27.7. 2015 Yes
8 DRC 2014 ONGEducation in Emergencies (EiE) for Children Affected by Conflict in the Demo -
cratic Republic of CongoEducation 400  000 30.6.2015 30.6.2015 0 31.12.2015 5.1.2016 5.00 19.1.2016 18.2.2016 Yes
9 DRC 2014 ONG Emergency Food Security Response to Movement of Populations Food Security 2 300 000 31.1.2015 16.1.2015 -15 31.7. 2015 31.7. 2015 0 2.9.2015 1.10.2015 Yes
10 DRC 2014 ONGAppui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse aux mouvements des populations au 
KivuFood Security 2 000  000 31.12.2014 29.12.2014 -2 30.9.2015 30.9.2015 0 3.11.2015 23.11.2015 Yes
11 DRC 2014 UNImprove the food security situation of the conflict affected population in the 
Katanga Province.Food Security 2 000  000 N/A N/A N/A 30.6.2015 4.8.2015 35 18.9.2015 13.10.2015 Yes
12 DRC 2014 ONGAssistance sanitaire aux populations vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 
Province du Nord KivuHealth care 1 300 000 N/A N/A N/A 30.6.2015 30.6.2015 0 31.7. 2015 31.8.2015 Yes
13 DRC 2014 ONG Réponse intégrée aux mouvements de population dans le nord du Katanga Health care 1 140 000 1.1.2015 16.1.2015 15 30.6.2015 6.7. 2015 6 31.7. 2015 19.8.2015 Yes
44 Annexes Annex V Interim report Final report(amounts in euro)
Item Country Dec YearType of 
partnerContract titlePrimary Aid 
TypeEU 
contributionDue dateDate of 
submissionDelays in days Due dateDate of 
submissionDelays in daysSuspension 
of payment 
request dateDate reply 
received from 
the partnerSufficient 
explanations 
in partner’s 
reply
14 DRC 2014 UN Humanitarian Coordination and Advocacy Coordination 1 500  000 30.9.2014 30.9.2014 0 31.3.2015 7.4. 2015 7 N/A N/A N/A
15 DRC 2014 UN Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de Population NFI/Shelter 6 000  000 N/A N/A N/A 31.3.2015 30.4.2015 30 10.6.2015 10.7. 2015 Yes
16 DRC 2014Private 
companyECHO Flight Transport 12 400  000The contractor prepares monthly activity reports to summarise its performance. The activity report is issued approximately 1 month after the end of the reporting period. The final 
report was provided on time, together with the invoice.        
17 DRC 2014 IO Protection, tracing and primary health care/psychosocial support programs Protection 3 000  000 30.9.2014 24.9.2014 -6 31.3.2015 20.3.2015 -11 N/A N/A N/A
18 DRC 2013 IOAssistance to conflict-affected population in DRC - Spontaneous Site Manage -
ment and CoordinationProtection 2 000  000 31.5.2014 16.6.2014 16 31.3.2015 29.4.2015 29 1.6.2015 25.6.2015 Partially
19 DRC 2014 ONGPrise en charge médicale gratuite des populations vulnérables et victimes 
d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)Health care 1 500  000 2.12.2014 31.10.2014 -32 2.6.2015 2.6.2015 0 17.7. 2015 17. 8. 2015 Yes
20 DRC 2014 ONGMedical and Psychosocial Assistance to Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 
in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care in South KivuHealth care 750 000 30.9.2015 3.10.2015 3 30.6.2015 10.8.2015 41 24.9.2015 21.10.2015 Yes
45 Annexes
Interim report Final report(amounts in euro)
Item Country Dec YearType of 
partnerContract titlePrimary Aid 
TypeEU 
contributionDue dateDate of 
submissionDelays in days Due dateDate of 
submissionDelays in daysSuspension 
of payment 
request dateDate reply 
received from 
the partnerSufficient 
explanations 
in partner’s 
reply
14 DRC 2014 UN Humanitarian Coordination and Advocacy Coordination 1 500  000 30.9.2014 30.9.2014 0 31.3.2015 7.4. 2015 7 N/A N/A N/A
15 DRC 2014 UN Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de Population NFI/Shelter 6 000  000 N/A N/A N/A 31.3.2015 30.4.2015 30 10.6.2015 10.7. 2015 Yes
16 DRC 2014Private 
companyECHO Flight Transport 12 400  000The contractor prepares monthly activity reports to summarise its performance. The activity report is issued approximately 1 month after the end of the reporting period. The final 
report was provided on time, together with the invoice.        
17 DRC 2014 IO Protection, tracing and primary health care/psychosocial support programs Protection 3 000  000 30.9.2014 24.9.2014 -6 31.3.2015 20.3.2015 -11 N/A N/A N/A
18 DRC 2013 IOAssistance to conflict-affected population in DRC - Spontaneous Site Manage -
ment and CoordinationProtection 2 000  000 31.5.2014 16.6.2014 16 31.3.2015 29.4.2015 29 1.6.2015 25.6.2015 Partially
19 DRC 2014 ONGPrise en charge médicale gratuite des populations vulnérables et victimes 
d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)Health care 1 500  000 2.12.2014 31.10.2014 -32 2.6.2015 2.6.2015 0 17.7. 2015 17. 8. 2015 Yes
20 DRC 2014 ONGMedical and Psychosocial Assistance to Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 
in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care in South KivuHealth care 750 000 30.9.2015 3.10.2015 3 30.6.2015 10.8.2015 41 24.9.2015 21.10.2015 Yes
46 Annexes Annex VIAmendments to projects reviewed
(amounts in euro)
EU contribution Duration (months) Purpose RationaleItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Geographical 
area
Initial
Final 
Starting date
End date 1
Initial
End date 2
Final 
Amendment
No
Date of Modif 
request
Amendment 
signature date
Additional 
funding
Extension
Other
Increase due 
to payment 
appropriation 
shortage
Additional needs 
identified
Delay in 
implemen-ting 
/Remaining 
budget
Time granted to 
organise the exit
Other
1 Regional 2014 UNAssistance to Refugees in Uganda, 
Rwanda, Burundi and TanzaniaRegional 1 000 000 4 400 000 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 31.12.2014 91 12.6.2014 2.7. 2014 X X
2 28.11.2014 12.12.2014 X X
2 Burundi 2011 UNProtection, soins et entretien des 
réfugiés au BurundiBurundi 1 500 000 1 500 000 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 31.12.2011 12 N/A
3 Burundi 2013 IOMOrderly Return and Pilot Reintegra -
tion Assistance to Burundian Former 
Refugees From Tanzania to BurundiTanzania, 
Burundi1 200 000 1 125 795 1.11.2012 30.9.2013 11 30.12.2013 14 1 22.8.2013 30.9.2013 X XX external 
factors
4 Uganda 2011 UNProtection and Mixed Solutions 
for Internally Displaced Persons in 
UgandaUganda 2 000 000 2 000 000 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 31.12.2011 12 1 27.7. 2011 2.12.2011 X X
5 Tanzania 2012 UNFood Assistance for Refugees in the 
Northwest of TZTanzania 2 000 000 2 000 000 1.1.2012 31.12.2012 12 31.12.2012 12 N/A
6 Tanzania 2013 ONGEmergency Assistance to Refugees in 
Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania.Tanzania 1 000 000 1 450 000 1.1.2013 31.12.2013 12 30.6.2014 18 1 19.12.2013 27.12. 2013 X X X
7 Regional 2014 UNProtection and multi sectoral as -
sistance to refugees, returnees and 
asylum seekers in the Great LakesRegional 1 000 000 6 500 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.12.2014 12 1 25.6.2014 10.7. 2014 X X
8 DRC 2014 ONGEducation in Emergencies (EiE) for 
Children Affected by Conflict in the 
DRCNorth Kivu 400 000 400 000 1.9.2014 30.9.2015 13 30.9.2015 13 N/A
9 DRC 2014 ONGEmergency Food Security Response 
to Movement of PopulationsNorth Kivu 1 600 000 2 300 000 16.4.2014 15.1.2015 9 30.4.2015 12.51 25.6.2014 9.7. 2014 X X X
2 13.3.2015 15.4.2015 XX external 
factors
10 DRC 2014 ONGAppui alimentaire d’urgence en 
réponse aux mouvements des 
populations au KivuSouth Kivu 1 500 000 2 000 000 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 30.6.2015 151 10.6.2014 20.6.2014 X X X
2 27 .2.2015 11.3.2015 XX external 
factors
Increase in budget related to new/additional needsIncrease of budget related to the payment appropriation shortage in 2014
Extension of duration in cases where funds were still available towards the end of a project
Projects with increase in funding and/or extension in duration
47 Annexes
Amendments to projects reviewed
(amounts in euro)
EU contribution Duration (months) Purpose RationaleItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Geographical 
area
Initial
Final 
Starting date
End date 1
Initial
End date 2
Final 
Amendment
No
Date of Modif 
request
Amendment 
signature date
Additional 
funding
Extension
Other
Increase due 
to payment 
appropriation 
shortage
Additional needs 
identified
Delay in 
implemen-ting 
/Remaining 
budget
Time granted to 
organise the exit
Other
1 Regional 2014 UNAssistance to Refugees in Uganda, 
Rwanda, Burundi and TanzaniaRegional 1 000 000 4 400 000 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 31.12.2014 91 12.6.2014 2.7. 2014 X X
2 28.11.2014 12.12.2014 X X
2 Burundi 2011 UNProtection, soins et entretien des 
réfugiés au BurundiBurundi 1 500 000 1 500 000 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 31.12.2011 12 N/A
3 Burundi 2013 IOMOrderly Return and Pilot Reintegra -
tion Assistance to Burundian Former 
Refugees From Tanzania to BurundiTanzania, 
Burundi1 200 000 1 125 795 1.11.2012 30.9.2013 11 30.12.2013 14 1 22.8.2013 30.9.2013 X XX external 
factors
4 Uganda 2011 UNProtection and Mixed Solutions 
for Internally Displaced Persons in 
UgandaUganda 2 000 000 2 000 000 1.1.2011 31.12.2011 12 31.12.2011 12 1 27.7. 2011 2.12.2011 X X
5 Tanzania 2012 UNFood Assistance for Refugees in the 
Northwest of TZTanzania 2 000 000 2 000 000 1.1.2012 31.12.2012 12 31.12.2012 12 N/A
6 Tanzania 2013 ONGEmergency Assistance to Refugees in 
Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania.Tanzania 1 000 000 1 450 000 1.1.2013 31.12.2013 12 30.6.2014 18 1 19.12.2013 27.12. 2013 X X X
7 Regional 2014 UNProtection and multi sectoral as -
sistance to refugees, returnees and 
asylum seekers in the Great LakesRegional 1 000 000 6 500 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.12.2014 12 1 25.6.2014 10.7. 2014 X X
8 DRC 2014 ONGEducation in Emergencies (EiE) for 
Children Affected by Conflict in the 
DRCNorth Kivu 400 000 400 000 1.9.2014 30.9.2015 13 30.9.2015 13 N/A
9 DRC 2014 ONGEmergency Food Security Response 
to Movement of PopulationsNorth Kivu 1 600 000 2 300 000 16.4.2014 15.1.2015 9 30.4.2015 12.51 25.6.2014 9.7. 2014 X X X
2 13.3.2015 15.4.2015 XX external 
factors
10 DRC 2014 ONGAppui alimentaire d’urgence en 
réponse aux mouvements des 
populations au KivuSouth Kivu 1 500 000 2 000 000 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 30.6.2015 151 10.6.2014 20.6.2014 X X X
2 27 .2.2015 11.3.2015 XX external 
factors
48 Annexes Annex VI(amounts in euro)
EU contribution Duration (months) Purpose RationaleItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Geographical 
area
Initial
Final 
Starting date
End date 1
Initial
End date 2
Final 
Amendment
No
Date of Modif 
request
Amendment 
signature date
Additional 
funding
Extension
Other
Increase due 
to payment 
appropriation 
shortage
Additional needs 
identified
Delay in 
implemen-ting 
/Remaining 
budget
Time granted to 
organise the exit
Other
11 DRC 2014 UNImprove the food security situation 
of the conflict-affected population in 
the Katanga Province.Katanga 2 000 000 2 000 000 1.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 31.3.2015 11 1 28.11.2014 18.12.2014 X X partner
12 DRC 2014 ONGAssistance sanitaire aux populations 
vulnérables affectées par le conflit 
dans le Nord KivuNorth Kivu 1 070 000 1 300 000 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 31.3.2015 121 6.6.2014 7.7. 2014 X X X X
2 30.12.2014 30.1.2015 X X
13 DRC 2014 ONGRéponse intégrée aux mouvements 
de population dans le nord du 
KatangaKatanga 1 000 000 1 140 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.3.2015 151 7.11. 2014 10.12.2014 XX external 
factorsX
2 15.12.2014 23.12.2014 X X
14 DRC 2014 UNHumanitarian Coordination and 
AdvocacyAll DRC 500 000 1 500 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.12.2014 12 1 23.6.2014 4.7. 2014 X X
15 DRC 2014 UNRéponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 
PopulationN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga6 000 000 6 000 000 1.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 31.12.2014 8 N/A
16DRC 
Kenya 
Mali 
Chad2014private 
companyECHO FlightDRC, Kenya, 
Chad, Mali10 000 000 12 400 000 1.5.2014 31.1.2015 9 31.3.2015 111 N/A 28.10.2014 X
XX
2 N/A 30.1.2015 X X X
17 DRC 2014 IOProtection, tracing and primary 
health care/psychosocial support 
programmesN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga1 000 000 3 000 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.12.2014 12 1 24.6.2014 3.7. 2014 X X
18 DRC 2013 IOAssistance to conflict-affected 
population in DRC - Spontaneous 
Site Management and CoordinationEastern DRC 
with focus on 
North Kivu2 000 000 2 000 000 1.9.2013 1.9.2014 12 31.12.2014 16 1 31.7.2014 11.8.2014 X X partner
19 DRC 2014 ONGPrise en charge médicale gratuite 
des populations vulnérables et 
victimes d'urgence médico-humani -
taire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)South Kivu 1 000 000 1 500 000 2.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 28.2.2015 101 23.6.2014 7.7. 2014 X X
2 17.12. 2014 22.12.2014 XX external 
factors
20 DRC 2014 ONGMedical and Psychosocial Assistance 
to Survivors of Sexual Violence 
and Women in Need of Specialised 
Gynecological Care in South KivuSouth Kivu 600 000 750 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.3.2015 15 1 25.6.2014 10.7. 2014 X X X X X
Increase in budget related to new/additional needsIncrease of budget related to the payment appropriation shortage in 2014
Extension of duration in cases where funds were still available towards the end of a project
Projects with increase in funding and/or extension in duration
49 Annexes
(amounts in euro)
EU contribution Duration (months) Purpose RationaleItem
Country
Dec. Year
Type of partner
Contract title
Geographical 
area
Initial
Final 
Starting date
End date 1
Initial
End date 2
Final 
Amendment
No
Date of Modif 
request
Amendment 
signature date
Additional 
funding
Extension
Other
Increase due 
to payment 
appropriation 
shortage
Additional needs 
identified
Delay in 
implemen-ting 
/Remaining 
budget
Time granted to 
organise the exit
Other
11 DRC 2014 UNImprove the food security situation 
of the conflict-affected population in 
the Katanga Province.Katanga 2 000 000 2 000 000 1.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 31.3.2015 11 1 28.11.2014 18.12.2014 X X partner
12 DRC 2014 ONGAssistance sanitaire aux populations 
vulnérables affectées par le conflit 
dans le Nord KivuNorth Kivu 1 070 000 1 300 000 1.4.2014 31.12.2014 9 31.3.2015 121 6.6.2014 7.7. 2014 X X X X
2 30.12.2014 30.1.2015 X X
13 DRC 2014 ONGRéponse intégrée aux mouvements 
de population dans le nord du 
KatangaKatanga 1 000 000 1 140 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.3.2015 151 7.11. 2014 10.12.2014 XX external 
factorsX
2 15.12.2014 23.12.2014 X X
14 DRC 2014 UNHumanitarian Coordination and 
AdvocacyAll DRC 500 000 1 500 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.12.2014 12 1 23.6.2014 4.7. 2014 X X
15 DRC 2014 UNRéponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 
PopulationN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga6 000 000 6 000 000 1.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 31.12.2014 8 N/A
16DRC 
Kenya 
Mali 
Chad2014private 
companyECHO FlightDRC, Kenya, 
Chad, Mali10 000 000 12 400 000 1.5.2014 31.1.2015 9 31.3.2015 111 N/A 28.10.2014 X
XX
2 N/A 30.1.2015 X X X
17 DRC 2014 IOProtection, tracing and primary 
health care/psychosocial support 
programmesN and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga1 000 000 3 000 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.12.2014 12 1 24.6.2014 3.7. 2014 X X
18 DRC 2013 IOAssistance to conflict-affected 
population in DRC - Spontaneous 
Site Management and CoordinationEastern DRC 
with focus on 
North Kivu2 000 000 2 000 000 1.9.2013 1.9.2014 12 31.12.2014 16 1 31.7.2014 11.8.2014 X X partner
19 DRC 2014 ONGPrise en charge médicale gratuite 
des populations vulnérables et 
victimes d'urgence médico-humani -
taire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)South Kivu 1 000 000 1 500 000 2.5.2014 31.12.2014 8 28.2.2015 101 23.6.2014 7.7. 2014 X X
2 17.12. 2014 22.12.2014 XX external 
factors
20 DRC 2014 ONGMedical and Psychosocial Assistance 
to Survivors of Sexual Violence 
and Women in Need of Specialised 
Gynecological Care in South KivuSouth Kivu 600 000 750 000 1.1.2014 31.12.2014 12 31.3.2015 15 1 25.6.2014 10.7. 2014 X X X X X
50 Reply of the Commission
Executive summary
V
More formal documentation on the compliance with mandatory criteria could be useful. However the fine-tuning 
of geographical priorities is 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. Finally, the Commission 
analyses the reasonability and completeness of the overall budget structure, and its consistency with the proposed 
actions. 
VI
Due to the whole framework of communications channels and monitoring tools set by the Commission, no system -
atic link can be established between late submission of a report and late identification of problems. 
VII
With regards to the justification for time extensions and additional budgets, the Commission points out that, for 
each project amendment, the FichOp1 contains a justification for extending the project duration in line with appli -
cable procedures.
VIII
While recognising that it remains a priority, 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. 
Observations
17
As of 2016, education in emergencies has become a priority for humanitarian aid interventions worldwide with an 
allocation of 4 % of the overall budget. 
Insufficient transparency at the project selection stage
The Commission considers that the issue is insufficient formal documentation rather than insufficient transparency. 
1 The FichOp (‘fiche opérationnelle’) is a tool used by DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO) which documents all main aspects of the 
operational analysis and follow-up made by Field Experts, Desk Officers, Desk Assistants and Financial Officers on the humanitarian actions all 
along the action’s cycle and serves – at a later stage –for statistical purposes and audit trail. It is mentioned in paragraph 28 of this report.
Reply of the Commission 51
26
The fine-tuning of geographical priorities is done on a constant basis through the presence of our field experts in all 
humanitarian coordination fora. In addition there are weekly written updates of the humanitarian situation, which 
feed information with the latest situation updates into the programming exercise.
Considering the Commission's presence on the field, close coordination with other actors, and clear entry criteria for 
the Commission's interventions (population displaced as a result of armed conflict resulting in acute humanitarian 
needs), there is no doubt that projects selected fall into top priority areas. However, all projects submitted under 
a priority area are not systematically selected if any other mandatory criteria are not fulfilled and/or because of lack 
of funding.
In addition the Commission is increasingly selecting partners for emergency preparedness and response in widely-
defined geographical areas in order to account for all the ‘hotspot’ areas that develop in the East of RDC during the 
year. 
29
The FichOp guidelines, approved by Management in March 2016, provide guidance on proposal analysis in order to 
substantiate the conclusions to be reported.
With regards to general principles which were not systematically assessed, the Commission underlines that gender 
and age/resilience markers were only introduced recently, and are mandatory respectively since July 2014 and Janu -
ary 2015. Yet the sample taken by the Court (all except for one project launched before 1 July 2014) corresponds to 
a period where these markers were not yet established. 
As far as protection is concerned, in only very few cases the component was not explicitly assessed in the request 
appraisal. 
30
Concerning the level of detail of the budgets provided with the funding requests, the Commission considers that 
the level of detail of the budget provided by partners is sufficient to assess reasonability of the proposed costs. The 
level of detail is determined in the General Conditions and in the FPA guidelines, as well as in the FAFA.
The Commission analyses, inter alia, the overall budget structure and consistency with the action proposed. The 
Commission services analyse the reasonability and completeness of the budget (and its breakdown) and its consist -
ency with the actions proposed, using historical benchmarks, when available, or local market information.
31
Please see the Commission's reply to paragraph 30 above. 
Reply of the Commission 52
33 (b)
The Commission would like to add that almost half of the audited projects had been monitored twice.
36
The late submission of interim reports does not systematically curtail the Commission's ability to address any prob -
lems identified. Indeed, and as results of other communication channels and monitoring tools, no systematic link 
can be established between late submission of a report and addressing problems that can be identified even before 
the reception of the interim reports.
The Commission has an overall monitoring framework which includes field visits. These regular field visits per -
formed by humanitarian experts constitute the most important tool to assess whether expected activities/results 
are effectively taking place according to plans (reality check). These field visits are complemented by continued dia -
logue at field level with partners. Through this presence in the field, any problem is rapidly identified and followed 
up with the partner.
39
Financial data are not always available at field level during field visits carried out by Commission staff. This explains 
why ‘financial implementation’ is most of the time not reported upon in the FichOp. The Commission will reflect on 
how to address this issue.
Box 3 ‑  Examples of lack of analysis of the implications of detected issues in field visit 
reports
In the case of the multi-donor UN food security project in Katanga, budget monitoring of the action is done at 
national level, and not at provincial level. The UN agency launches a funding appeal along the entire year. Contribu -
tions from other donors are ongoing and evolving regularly along the year so it is only at the end of the year that 
the partner can share the overall budget of the action when all contributions are recorded. Therefore, financial data 
were not available during the field visit carried out by Commission staff and therefore it was not possible to reach 
any conclusion on that aspect.
Furthermore, in a multi-donor action, the provisions of the FAFA are applicable. In such cases, the total eligible costs 
of the action referred to in the Special Conditions is considered as an estimation that can evolve during the imple -
mentation of the action, i.e., if the contribution expected from other donors does not materialise. Modifications in 
the overall action budget will not themselves trigger any change in the Commission's contribution. For this reason, 
the partner did not formally inform the Commission of the changes in the overall action budget and was not bound 
to submit a modification request. For multi-donor actions with IOs or UN bodies, the partner may update the figures 
unilaterally at the next reporting stage to reflect the budget change.
40
The current audit strategy expired at the end of 2015, and a new audit strategy for the period 2016-20 (including 
a new sampling methodology) is in the course of being approved by ECHO senior management. The new methodol -
ogy seeks indeed to have more synergies with the monitoring framework, in particular by taking into account the 
risk analysis on partners and actions made by the operational units.
Reply of the Commission 53
42
An evaluation was foreseen for DRC in 2016 and it became no longer a priority as a result of the ongoing perfor -
mance audit. It is likely to be added to the 2017 evaluation programme. 
44
This is clearly an issue that would need some adaptations to the current information system (APPEL), and the Com -
mission will explore possibilities to address this weakness.
47
The Fiche Op guidelines approved in March 2016 by the Commission should indeed contribute to improve consist -
ency on the level of information contained in the assessment.
48
The procedure to reduce the Commission's contribution as a result of poor/partial/late implementation has been 
seldom used. 
It is challenging to assess with precision and accuracy whether unsatisfactory results are the consequence of poor 
performance or are contextually related (change of context, lack of access, security and logistical constraints).
The provisions of the new 2014 FPA sets up that the Commission may reduce the grant if the action is not imple -
mented or is implemented poorly, partially or late. The Commission has reinforced and clarified the internal proce -
dures to ensure that any reduction is legally sound and proportionate to the gravity and scope of the failing. When 
the results have not been achieved, the certified correct provided by the AOSD includes an annex justifying the 
reduction of the contribution for underperformance or a justification based on ‘ force majeure ’ arguments. 
However, there is very little risk that the use of the underperformance procedure could result in the loss of budg -
eted funds as possible disengaged amounts can be made available for other projects within the implementation 
time of the related HIP (24 months). The capacity of reutilisation of possible disengaged funds is testified by the 
implementation rate of ECHO, stable at around 98 % over the years.
Box 5 ‑  Spontaneous Site Management and Coordination in the DRC (n°18)
The amount of 57.300 euros was calculated based on the total costs of the result 3 (572.998 euros), result partially 
achieved due to delay in the implementation. The Commission has applied an under-performance rate of 10 % in 
addition to the ineligible costs deducted. 
The partner was indeed contracted the subsequent year, as it is the mandated partner for Camp Coordination and 
Camp Management (CCCM) at national level and therefore is key partner in dealing with population displacement 
issues in conflict areas. The Commission decided however to reduce its contribution but to maintain some support 
for strategic reasons.
Reply of the Commission 54
51
The fact that the caseload of refugees had significantly decreased over the years (from 250,000 to less than 70,000 
people) pushed the Commission to rationalise its support through the leading agency (decrease of caseload, hence 
decrease in the number of partners funded).
However, as Commission support had already been granted for several years to the partner for this action, a smooth 
exit strategy/hand over with the lead agency was desirable to limit the negative impact it could have on beneficiar -
ies (ensuring continuity of basic health services). In this sense a modification extending the contract for 6 additional 
months, with additional funding of 450,000€, was granted on the 2013 HIP , using available funds. 
52
The extension of the duration of the action mentioned was primarily driven by the prioritised needs and vulnerabili -
ties. The drivers for accepting these extensions have always been related to beneficiaries' needs – in giving addi -
tional time to the partner, the Commission has clearly prioritized the fulfilment of immediate beneficiaries needs. 
Choosing recovery or reallocation to other projects would have taken too much time and left unfulfilled current 
needs. This was not seen as a realistic option.
53
The Commission's Humanitarian and Development DGs are closely cooperating in exploring all options possible for 
ensuring LRRD and usually share information concerning the humanitarian situation in the different areas of the 
DRC. It remains a priority at Commission level but constraints associated to the implementation of LRRD are signifi -
cant in the context of DRC.
As far as DRC is concerned, the Commission's development works in the spirit of the Cotonou agreement, where 
DRC Government is in the driving seat and defines priorities. The only focal sector with a theoretical potential 
link with the Commission's humanitarian aid is health. The Government has a policy of focusing development and 
bilateral aid to neglected areas in non-conflict areas, because they appear abandoned by international actors when 
compared to the conflict affected areas in the East. It is a natural reaction from the perspective of development 
actors and national authorities to focus on these areas, because they offer stability and security and do not present 
risks regarding projects being abandoned due to violence. Investing in stable areas is therefore more likely to have 
some impact on poverty reduction. In addition, the conflict areas in the East (where the Commission's humanitarian 
aid is focused) are perceived - rightly so, as benefiting from the presence of the bulk of the humanitarian com -
munity (NGOs), whereas very few organizations are present in the rest of the country to work with structural prob -
lems and chronic poverty. The Commission cannot be expected to launch LRRD discussions in areas that present 
a medium term risk of projects being abandoned or severely affected due to an emergency. In the last 5 years, the 
only area in the East that has witnessed a relative stability has been the ex-LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) affected 
areas in Haut Uele and Bas Uele (north part of Province Orientale), which is exactly the place where a successful 
LRRD transition has been negotiated between Commission services. In the rest of the areas of Eastern DRC where 
the Commission's humanitarian aid is present, instability continues and we cannot show a single area on the map 
that has been without activity of armed groups, killings and/or displacement for more than a year at a time.
Opportunities are therefore limited by nature in such context but when conditions are met geographically (areas 
becoming stable), fit with Government priorities/focal sectors (health) and priority areas (Kasaï Oriental, Lomami, 
Kasaï Central, North Kivu, Ituri, Haut Uelé, Kongo Central), LRRD is strongly encouraged. This scenario has indeed 
occurred once during the timeframe of the audit (see above) 
Reply of the Commission 55
More recently, DEVCO and ECHO engagement in discussing the transfer of support to Panzi Hospital in South Kivu 
province has materialised in a DEVCO project of 3 million EUR (funded under the Global Public Goods and Chal -
lenges programme). This action will aim at aligning the centre to the standards of the general hospitals supported 
by the EDF national health programme in order to allow for a potential future inclusion in it.
Other LRRD initiatives are taking place in non-conflict areas (in the sector of food insecurity in Kasai provinces and 
in health and water sectors in cholera affected areas).
54
Taking into account the prevailing situation in Eastern DRC, particularly in security terms, it was not possible to 
implement more than one LRRD project so far (health). The Commission will nevertheless continue to seize any 
existing opportunity for LRRD (for example: initiative in South Kivu to support Panzi hospital or mission to North 
Kivu considered by the EU Delegation in DRC). A health specialist has been recruited by the Commission to continue 
exploring all possible LRRD avenues.
In regards to Uganda, the Commission points out that the Government of Uganda has designed a development plan 
in which refugees are included and through which Humanitarian and Development actors are brought together to 
look at long-term solutions for the refugees involving the host communities.
55
The fact that this issue is not being resolved and comes back every year as a priority suggests that there are a num -
ber of constraints/challenges that keeps it from happening.
Several generations of experienced development and humanitarian experts have tried hard to get around that 
issue, without much success. Even MONUSCO, with a dedicated Stabilisation Unit, have been making plans and run -
ning meetings for the last two years on ‘stabilizing’ areas liberated from the M23 rebellion, and do not have a single 
project to show for, not to mention that the ex-M23 areas are today part of the least safe places for aid workers (and 
even less appropriate for development actors that has a lower risk-taking threshold).
The underlying problems that stop progress on LRRD are the same that have been identified by the different 
services of the Commission; a context of conflict, insecurity and population displacement that is not conducive to 
development actions. LRRD can take place only when a minimum of conditions are met and in the conflict areas 
where ECHO has been working, these conditions do not exist.
Reply of the Commission 56
Conclusions and recommendations
57
The Commission considers that the issue is insufficient formal documentation rather than insufficient transparency.
Recommendation 1
The Commission accepts the recommendation. It considers that the issue is insufficient formal documentation 
rather than insufficient transparency.
The Commission has already taken steps in this regard through the adoption of the FichOp Guidelines in March 
2016. A continued training programme will also be designed to ensure that staff is familiar and able to follow these 
guidelines.
59
The level of detail of the budget provided by partners is determined in the General Conditions and in the FPA guide -
lines. This level of detail is considered as sufficient to assess reasonability of the proposed costs. Increasing the level 
of information would not have a real added value.
Recommendation 2
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
On the one hand, the Commission notes that the budget, as per its definition included in the General Conditions 
and in the Guidelines for FPA and FAFA partners, is sufficiently detailed so as to make an assessment of the reasona -
bleness of the costs needed to achieve the results. The Commission services do already analyse the reasonability, 
completeness and consistency of the budget (and its breakdown) with the actions proposed, using historical bench -
marks, when available, or local market information.
On the other hand, a checklist to document this analysis, or short guidelines on appraisal, may be needed. 
60
The late submission of information by partners does not systematically hinder its ability to address, quickly, any 
issues raised and to learn lessons for future programming. Thanks to the communication and monitoring framework 
established by the Commission with its partners, no systematic link can be established between late submission of 
a report and any difficulty in the early identification of problems. Regular field visits by Commission staff constitute 
a tool to assess whether expected activities/results are effectively taking place according to plans (reality check). 
These field visits are complemented by continued dialogue at field level with partners.
Reply of the Commission 57
Recommendation 3
The Commission accepts the recommendation and will explore ways to improve the internal reporting system in 
that respect.
Recommendation 4
The Commission accepts the recommendation that monitoring visits should result in a systematic assessment of key 
issues. The FichOp Guidelines that have been introduced in March 2016 contain a section on monitoring providing 
guidance to Commission staff performing monitoring visits. It is envisaged to organise training sessions in order to 
promote and ensure the systematic use of these Guidelines. However, the introduction of a checklist is considered 
to be redundant.
61
An evaluation was foreseen for DRC in 2016, but it became no longer a priority a result of the ongoing performance 
audit. It is likely to be added to the 2017 evaluation programme. 
Recommendation 5
The Commission accepts the recommendation and will look at options that would serve the purpose of the recom -
mendation, taking into account the efficiency of the overall reporting architecture.
Recommendation 6
The Commission accepts this recommendation and considers that it has already taken steps in this regard through 
the adoption of the FichOp Guidelines in March 2016. The Guidelines should indeed contribute to improve consist -
ency on the level of information contained in the assessment and to establish the required link between the results 
achieved and the overall conclusion. 
Recommendation 7
The Commission accepts that clear justification for additional funding and time extensions is needed. In fact, an 
adequate framework is already in place. All time extensions and additional funding for projects are approved on 
a basis of a justification provided by the partner. The justification's assessment, done by field and HQ staff, is ulti -
mately recorded in the FichOp for approval by management.
Recommendation 8
The Commission accepts the recommendation on prioritising linking relief, rehabilitation and development, and will 
pursue its multiple efforts to put this into concrete actions.
While the Commission continues to keep this overall objective high in its agenda, the specificities of the DRC con -
text make this objective extremely difficult to reach as constraints can hardly be overcome.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
 one copy:  
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Event Date
Adoption of APM/Start of audit 28.4.2015
Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee) 15.3.2016
Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure 10.5.2016
Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all languages 2.6.2016
The auditors conclude that humanitarian aid to the 
populations affected by conflicts in the African Great Lakes 
area was generally managed effectively by the 
Commission. 
The funding was allocated to well-established main 
priorities, but there was insufficient clarity at a later stage 
when further specifying priorities and selecting projects. It 
was not possible to determine whether the most suitable 
projects had been selected. 
Overall, the Commission’s monitoring was appropriate, 
although it could have made better use of the information 
it obtained. Finally, taking into account the particular 
challenges faced in the region, most of the projects 
examined delivered satisfactory results.
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS