Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds for the financial year 2009
Date: 2011-05-10
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: budgetary discharge, development aid, financial year, fund (EU), general budget (EU)













EUR-Lex - 52011BP0927(11) - EN











|



52011BP0927(11)

Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds for the financial year 2009  


Official Journal L 250 , 27/09/2011 P. 0113 - 0122 




Resolution of the European Parliamentof 10 May 2011with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds for the financial year 2009THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,having regard to the Commission’s report on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2008 financial year (COM(2010) 650) and to the Commission staff working documents accompanying that report (SEC(2010) 1437 and SEC(2010) 1438),having regard to the financial statements and revenue and expenditure accounts of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds for the financial year 2009 (COM(2010) 402 — C7-0220/2010),having regard to the Commission’s annual report of 29 April 2010 on the Financial Management of the 8th-10th European Development Funds in 2009,having regard to the financial information on the European Development Funds (COM(2010) 319),having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds (EDFs) concerning the financial year 2009, together with the Commission’s replies [1],having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2],having regard to the Special Report No 10/2008 of the Court of Auditors on EC Development Assistance to Health Services in sub-Saharan Africa,having regard to the Special Report No 18/2009 of the Court of Auditors on the Effectiveness of EDF support for Regional Economic Integration in East Africa and West Africa,having regard to the Annual Report 2009 of the European Investment Bank on the Investment Facility,having regard to the Council’s recommendations of 15 February 2011 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Funds for the financial year 2009 (05469/2011 — C7-0050/2011, 05472/2011 — C7-0049/2011, 05473/2011 — C7-0048/2011),having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 [3] and revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 [4],having regard to Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community ("Overseas Association Decision") [5], amended by Council Decision 2007/249/EC [6],having regard to Article 33 of the Internal Agreement of 20 December 1995, between the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention [7],having regard to Article 32 of the Internal Agreement of 18 September 2000, between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the Financing and Administration of Community Aid under the Financial Protocol to the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Community and its Member States signed in Cotonou (Benin) on 23 June 2000, and the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty applies [8],having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 [9] accompanying its decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2008, Section III — Commission and executive agencies, in particular paragraphs 268 to 274 thereof,having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 TFEU,having regard to Article 74 of the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development finance cooperation under the fourth ACP-EC Convention [10],having regard to Article 119 of the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th European Development Fund [11],having regard to Article 142 of Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 of 18 February 2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund [12],having regard to the answers of the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to the questions of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 25 January 2011,having regard to Rules 76 and 77, third indent of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0140/2011),A. whereas the European Development Fund (EDF) is the European Union’s most important financial instrument for development cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States,B. whereas, despite Parliament’s repeated request that the EDF be budgetised, the EDFs do not currently fall under the general budget of the European Union and the general Financial Regulation but are instead implemented in accordance with specific financial rules,C. whereas the total amount of aid channelled through the EDF will increase considerably over the coming years because the amount of Union aid under the 10th EDF for the period 2008 to 2013 has been set at EUR 22682000000 which represents a 64 % increase compared with the financial allocations under the 9th EDF; whereas there is a need for awareness of the looming problem of absorption capacity which requires full knowledge of appropriate expenditure,D. whereas the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy told the European Parliament on 2 February 2011 that the Union’s Neighbourhood Policy had failed; whereas recent events in North Africa have shown that the combination of sharp demographic increases and stagnating economies is liable to create explosive situations; whereas those events illustrate that such demographic increases require successful economies and that policy vehicles are only appropriate when they are effective on the ground and produce positive change,1. Recalls that the EDF (EUR 22682000000 for the current, 10th, EDF for 2008-2013) is not integrated in the Union budget, while being the main instrument for providing Union development aid to the people of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the overseas countries and territories (OCTs); notes that the EDF consists of several instruments: grants managed by the Commission, risk capital and loans to the private sector managed by the EIB under the Investment Facility and the FLEX mechanism, aiming at remedying the adverse effects of the instability of export earnings;EDF budgetisation2. Reiterates its support for EDF budgetisation, which will strengthen the democratic control, the accountability, and the transparency of funding and will provide more coherence in Union policy concerning ACP countries;3. Recalls once more the statement by the Commission that it wants to propose to incorporate the EDF into the Union budget during discussions on the next financial framework and that it will keep Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control fully informed of this initiative; insists, however, that the incorporation of the EDF into the Union budget must not lead to any overall reduction in development spending with respect to the two current funding instruments;4. Urges the Council and the Member States to respond positively to the Commission’s proposal and to agree that the EDF will be fully incorporated in the Union’s budget from 2014 onwards as part of the next financial framework; believes this measure to be long overdue and that the budgetisation of the EDF should take place at the earliest possible date;Development priorities5. Recalls the Commission’s commitment [13] to ensuring that a benchmark of 20 % of its allocated assistance under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) is dedicated to basic and secondary education and basic health; calls for reporting against the same benchmark to be provided for the EDFs; calls on the Commission to prioritise support to strengthen health systems by focusing especially on targeting the poorest people, to improve the quality of learning and to help establish a policy framework which favours the poor and which is gender responsive; calls on the Commission to take full account of the recommendations by the Court of Auditors as formulated in its Special Reports No 10/2008 and 12/2010; calls on the Commission to increase this share to 25 % in the future; urges the Commission to place greater emphasis on maternal health and stresses the importance of education and awareness of sexual and reproductive health as an integral part of the women’s health agenda, since this is the Millennium Development Goal in respect of which progress has been most disappointing;6. Welcomes the record levels of commitments reached in 2009; is also satisfied by a number of other improvements in the Commission’s management of the EDF, including the strengthening of the accounting environment (new accrual-based system), better guidance to fragile states for budget support and more effective, efficient and closely monitored external audits; recognises, however, that, first and foremost, fragile States require a better defined strategy and more attention needs to be paid to particular sectors of their economies;7. Underlines once more, that the 10th EDF should focus on a limited number of areas, while involving non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that are effective at local level and that are properly audited, in order to avoid the harmful effects arising from the proliferation of objectives; calls on the Commission to make merit-based use of local- and European-based NGOs, in particular in cases where the management of projects and programmes by NGOs and international organisations (Multi-Donor Trust Funds) is more efficient and cost-effective than management by the Commission and where their activity generates projects that remain sustainable after the financial support has expired; urges the Commission to provide Parliament with clear information on the composition of NGO’s own resources for specific projects which are partly financed by the EDF and by the NGOs themselves;8. Highlights that development aid mechanisms should be also aimed at promoting wealth creation and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, since wealth creation remains a crucial tool in alleviating poverty; recalls that an estimated EUR 800000000000 is lost annually from developing countries through illicit capital flows, prevention of which could prove decisive in alleviating poverty and achieving the Millennium Development Goals;Financial management of the EDFs9. Notes that, in the Court of Auditors’ opinion, the Commission’s report on the Financial Management of the 8th-10th EDFs in 2009 "presents an accurate description of the achievement of the Commission’s operational objectives for the financial year (particularly concerning financial implementation and control activities)", despite the negative impact of the economic crisis which has hit a large number of developing countries;10. Underlines, however, that the Commission’s follow-up of observations made by the Court of Auditors in a number of cases is inadequate (for example, the management of implementing organisations should be better supported, ex-ante checks should be improved by focusing more on keys risks and "the functionalities of CRIS audit" should be developed to enable a more efficient and effective monitoring of audit); stresses that the Commission’s action on the Court of Auditors’ recommendations is an important element of accountability for the discharge authority; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament’s competent committees on the actions it has taken or plans to take to eliminate the shortcomings as mentioned by the Court of Auditors;11. Is concerned at certain weaknesses identified by the Court of Auditors, in particular regarding public procurement procedures [14], ex-ante controls in Delegations [15] and partner countries’ internal control systems [16], and urges the Commission to pursue energetically and to broaden existing training programmes for staff working in Delegations and in the offices of national authorising officers;12. Notes that the statement of assurance of the Court of Auditors does not cover the 9th and 10th EDF resources, which are managed by the EIB and for which the EIB is responsible [17]; finds it to be undesirable politically and for reasons of accountability that the Investment Facility is not covered by the Court of Auditors’ statement of assurance or by Parliament’s discharge procedure and agrees with the Court of Auditors that these provisions reduce the scope of Parliament’s powers of discharge, especially considering that EDF resources are derived from public money contributed by European taxpayers and not by the financial markets;13. Welcomes the opinion of the Court of Auditors that the final annual accounts of the 8th, 9th and 10th EDFs present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the EDFs as of 31 December 2009; notes, however, that the Court of Auditors draws attention to an understatement of the amount of guarantees received in respect of pre-financing and to an overstatement of the amount of retention guarantees disclosed in the notes to the financial statements; calls on the Commission to remedy these shortcomings without delay;14. Notes that, at the end of 2009, the financial statements regarding the on-going amount of guarantees received in respect of prefinancing included an amount of EUR 413600000 and that this amount was understated by EUR 82300000, or 19,9 %; notes also the fact that the amount of the retention guarantees in respect of the financial statements was EUR 186200000 and that this amount was overstated by EUR 58400000, or 31,4 %; calls on the Commission to explain on a case-by-case basis the reasons for these under-and overstatements;The accounting system of the EDFs15. Welcomes the introduction of the new accrual-based accounting system (ABAC-EDF) in February 2009 and underlines the fact that the 2009 annual accounts of the EDFs are the first set of accounts which have been prepared using ABAC-EDF; notes that the new accounting system reduces the number of manual adjustments needed and that it strengthens the accounting environment;16. Notes that EuropeAid’s ex-post controls identified an increased frequency of encoding errors (contract type, contract start and end dates); but recalls that, at the end of 2009, EuropeAid’s central services set up a department to monitor the quality of information encoded in CRIS, which should further improve the reliability of the data used to prepare the annual accounts; wishes to be kept informed of progress made in this respect;Regularity of transactions17. Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors considers that the revenue, commitments and payments underlying the accounts of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds for the year ended 31 December 2009 are in all material respects legal and regular (statement of assurance, paragraph VIII); regrets, however, that the Court of Auditors had to draw special attention to the high frequency of non-quantifiable errors affecting commitments and payments but not included in the estimation of total error; recalls, even if the supervisory and control systems of EuropeAid have significantly improved year after year, that, overall, the Court of Auditors assessed EuropeAid’s supervisory and control systems as only partially effective; expects, consequently, from the Commission, a constant follow-up and requests a report on the measures taken to remedy the abovementioned problems;18. Notes that the errors that were detected concerned compliance with tendering rules, legal deadlines for the signature of contracts and provisions regarding mandatory guarantees; notes that, as regards budget support commitments, the Court of Auditors found that, in the context of the Commission’s dynamic interpretation of the Cotonou Agreement [18], EuropeAid acted in compliance with that agreement’s requirements; takes note of the fact that, according to the Commission, no payment was made without being covered by financial guarantees;19. Notes that the main types of quantifiable errors detected on project payments were the following: (a) accuracy: calculation errors; (b) occurrence: absence of invoices or other supporting documents for services rendered or goods supplied; (c) eligibility: expenditure incurred outside the implementation period or related to items not foreseen in the contract, undue payment of VAT or non-application of mandatory penalties; notes that the non-quantifiable errors mainly concerned non-compliance with applicable rules on bank guarantees and incorrect calculations of the reimbursement of advances from contractors; notes, however, the remark of the Commission which pointed out that all the errors in calculating the reimbursement of advances were rectified before the end of the contract; despite this, calls on the Commission to enhance ex-ante controls to prevent this type of error and possible losses as a result of non-compliance with the bank guarantee rules;Monitoring of implementing organisations20. Welcomes the efforts of EuropeAid and of the Delegations in addressing the various weaknesses which still exist in the financial procedures and controls of implementing organisations, supervisors and National Authorising Officers (NAOs); invites EuropeAid to strengthen its efforts in these areas in future; recalls also the recommendations of the Court of Auditors that EuropeAid should continue its efforts to ensure that the Delegations record data in the CRIS Audit in a comprehensive and timely manner [19];21. Is deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ finding that the monitoring and supervision by Delegations is only partially effective; deplores the lack of capacity of most NAOs in beneficiary countries, which results in poorly documented and ineffective checks, as well as the shortcomings in the financial procedures and controls instituted by implementing organisations and supervisors; shares the Court of Auditors’ view that Delegations are subject to resource constraints which often limit their capacity to perform certain activities; calls on the Commission to address this problem without delay;Special Report No 18/2009 of the Court of Auditors22. Welcomes the Special Report No 18/2009 of the Court of Auditors on the Effectiveness of EDF support for Regional Economic Integration in East Africa and West Africa and the thorough analysis carried out by the Court of Auditors, and deplores the unsatisfactory situation revealed therein; stresses nevertheless its concern at the lack of complementarity between the Commission’s regional and national cooperation strategies and emphasises that bringing regional and national strategies in line with one another is essential to increase the effectiveness of the aid provided;23. Is deeply concerned about the insufficient absorption capacity of regional organisations; urges the Commission, during the mid-term review of the regional strategies foreseen for the first half of 2011, to take account of the regional cooperation situation and to pay special attention to the possibility of revising the amounts allocated;24. Finds it nevertheless unacceptable that the Court of Auditors, through a lack of proper reporting, was "unable to assess" a number of projects financed;25. Takes the view that the Union should be represented in each Regional Organisation by a specifically assigned Head of Delegation and that Union Delegations should be mandated to discuss the aligning of membership in different regional groupings;26. Underlines that, in its Special Report No 18/2009, the Court of Auditors assessed EDF support for regional economic integration in East Africa and West Africa, to which a considerable proportion — over 50 % — of EDF funding was allocated, as only partially effective; asks the Commission to inform Parliament about the measures being taken following the requests formulated by Parliament in its resolution of 5 May 2010 [20] accompanying its Decision on discharge to the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th EDFs, before the start of the discharge procedure 2010; would also welcome a complete overview showing which of these measures have been implemented effectively in the regions concerned;27. Acknowledges that regional economic integration can create growth and jobs in developing countries and thereby contribute to reducing poverty; welcomes, accordingly, the fact that EDF funding in this area has more than doubled over the financial period in question;28. Regrets that EDF support for regional integration has not yet been wholly effective, mainly owing to lack of capacity on the part of the African authorities, the overlapping membership of African regional economic organisations leading to the duplication of efforts and dispersion of resources, and inadequate support and coordination from Commission Delegations, principally due to lack of resources;29. Calls, accordingly, on the Commission to step up capacity-building for East African and West African regional economic organisations and their institutions, including support for national parliaments and local civil society, and to encourage convergence between regional blocs with a view to eliminating overlapping membership over time, whilst taking care to respect partner countries’ ownership of the process;30. Calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service to allocate more resources in order to enable Union Delegations to manage regional integration processes more effectively, and to ensure greater coordination and more coherence between regional and national programmes;31. Insists that the Union should not pressure African states to sign up to Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) any faster or which cover a greater range of issues than they want to, and that the Union should avoid undermining existing regional groupings by agreeing EPAs with individual countries;32. Insists that smaller states’ fund allocation, especially for the least-developed countries, should be more focused on sustainable economic development, such as through wealth creation mechanisms, so as to reduce the dependency on regional economic "giants", such as Nigeria in West Africa; calls on the Commission to continue its funding for regional programmes, otherwise known as Intra-ACP Programmes, which cover several or all countries in a particular region;Use of accrued interest33. Does not agree with the use of accrued interest on EDF treasury accounts (including transfers from the period 2001-2007), which is estimated at EUR 34000000, to cover staff expenditure but considers that it should only be used for expenditure for projects and programmes; asks the Commission to explain what the policy in the past was and, if necessary, to make proposals to amend the regulation in force in line with this principle without delay;Budget support34. Recalls that Parliament’s assessment of budget support should not focus on the risks only but also on the benefits, as well as on the risks and benefits of alternative aid delivery; asks the Commission to provide information concerning those cases in which the goals set for EU budget support were accomplished and concerning recipient countries in which specific problems were encountered;35. Is aware that budget support is a controversial development tool offering the advantage of low transaction costs, increased ownership and enhanced dialogue between partners and donors, while at the same time, involving the risk of misappropriation and unwanted use of funds when public finance management by recipient countries does not prove sufficiently transparent, accountable and effective; stresses that budget support is not the right answer to every situation and should not be perceived to be the sole option;36. Recalls that, in accordance with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council [21], budget support may be granted if the partner country’s management of public spending is sufficiently transparent, reliable and effective; in that context, expresses its concern at the risks of inefficient and ineffective public spending that are entailed by the Commission’s "dynamic" interpretation of the eligibility criteria; calls on the Commission to continue its efforts to substantiate its decisions concerning the eligibility of budget support and to ensure that all financing agreements provide a comprehensive and clear basis for the assessment of compliance with payment conditions;37. Regrets the high level of errors in budget support payments (35 %); reiterates its call for more transparent and objective eligibility criteria for budget support, and supports the Court of Auditors’ recommendation for the Commission to "clearly specify the indicators, targets, calculation methods and verification sources" [22]; calls on the Commission to intensify audits and supervisory and control systems and to monitor and report back on the extent to which these criteria are being met, in line with the provisions of Article 25(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006;38. Welcomes the publication of the green paper on the future of EU budget support to third countries (COM(2010) 586) but deplores the fact that, despite previous calls by Parliament, the Commission has failed to draw up an annual report on the use of budget support, including useful, comprehensive, reliable, analytical and evaluative information on planned and disbursed budget support, achievement of expected results as set out by donor objectives and country strategies, existence and quality of complementary conditions, the effectiveness of the dialogue, the state of donor harmonisation, the complementary capacity building which has taken place and the effect of that capacity building, achievement of improved country systems, accountability institutions, public finance management institutions, monitoring and evaluation institutions, the amount and rate of irregular expenditure, and an analysis of the typology of irregularities (systemic and non-systemic) brought to light by controls and audits and remedial action taken;39. Recalls that Parliament’s role as regards budget support is to hold the Commission accountable for the results of spending, and that budget support is an aid instrument which requires a paradigm shift in oversight behaviour, moving from mere control over inputs to the checking of results against indicators, thus ensuring that support spending benefits the population of the recipient country;40. Considers, within the scope of the revision of the guidelines on budgetary support by the Commission, that particular attention must be given to supervisory and control systems; expects the Commission to strengthen the monitoring and annual reporting on the compliance with the eligibility criteria; recalls that capacity building projects within the scope of budgetary support operations are subject to the same supervisory and control system as any other project, which includes audits;41. Recalls that under the 10th EDF, as compared with the 8th and 9th EDFs, there was a significant increase in the share of cumulative financing decisions accounted for by budget support and structural adjustment; expresses its concern about this development;42. Recalls that the Court of Auditors found in its Annual Report on the EDFs, concerning the financial year 2009 that budget support payments were affected by a high frequency of non-quantifiable errors and that "[t]he main explanation was that the Delegations’ public finance management assessment reports did not explain the criteria against which progress had to be assessed […], the progress made and the reasons why the reform programme may not have been implemented according to the recipient Government’s plan" [23]; urges the Commission to evaluate the budget support payments with even greater rigour and to tighten up its payment procedures from now on;43. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the specific conditions for performance-based variable tranches clearly specify the indicators, targets, calculation methods and verification sources and that Delegations’ reports provide a structured and formalised demonstration of public finance management progress by clearly setting the criteria against which progress was to be assessed, the progress made and the reasons why the reform programme may have not been implemented according to plan;44. Calls on the Commission to take all necessary measures in order to combat corruption in the beneficiary states, through maintaining a close dialogue with partner governments on corruption issues and, by taking a pro-active approach, to ensure that the appropriate systems are in place and that sanctions are available when necessary; believes that the provision of funds should be reconsidered if such cooperation is not forthcoming and if no guarantee as to the basic effectiveness of the systems to tackle corruption can be obtained;45. Reiterates its opinion that the involvement of national parliaments, civil society and local authorities in partner countries is indispensable in order to achieve genuine ownership of the process and repeats its call on the Commission to make every effort in order to improve dialogue with these bodies at all the different stages of the programming process;46. Urges the Commission to help partner countries develop parliamentary control and audit capacities and to involve national parliaments, as well as local civil society partners, in drawing up their national development strategies;47. Invites its relevant committees to establish direct contacts with their sister committees in the parliaments of the recipient ACP countries in order to encourage and support their role in ensuring the effectiveness of aid through parliamentary oversight activities;48. Urges the Commission to ensure better visibility for Union-funded activities overseas;Disclosure statement by beneficiary countries49. Recalls once more its view that development aid in general and budget support in particular should be tied to an ex-ante disclosure statement, issued by the recipient country’s government and signed by its finance minister, concerning selected issues that affect the governance and accountability structure of a beneficiary country;Human resources50. Is extremely concerned that vacancy rates in third-country Delegations are considered as a "critical risk" [24] and that resource constraints, staff shortages and high staff turnover significantly hamper the Commission’s effective implementation of EDF funds, in particular as regards project management, training, monitoring, and reliable and timely audits; consequently expects the European External Action Service to make it a priority to equip all Delegations with adequate levels of qualified staff, notably experts in the field of development;EuropeAid51. Regrets that, although the ex-ante controls by authorising officers in EuropeAid’s central services were assessed by the Court of Auditors as effective, it concluded that EuropeAid’s supervisory and control systems were only partially effective in ensuring that payments are regular;52. Reminds the Commission that:- EuropeAid should, in the context of its planned review of its overall control strategy, develop a key indicator of the estimated financial impact of the uncorrected errors after all controls have been implemented,- EuropeAid should, in the context of this review, assess the cost-effectiveness of the various controls, notably of the transactional ex-post control system, and examine the relevance and feasibility of an annual audit of a representative statistical sample of closed projects,- regarding budget support, EuropeAid should ensure that the specific conditions for payments are clearly defined and that Delegations’ reports provide a structured and formalised demonstration of progress achieved in public finance management;The Investment Facility53. Very much welcomes the fact that, during the discharge procedure for the financial year 2009, the EIB presented, for the first time, its annual report on the implementation of the Investment Facility to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and gave extensive replies to the written and oral questions from its members; requests the EIB to conclude a framework agreement with Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure for the coming years, including the information to be provided by the EIB;54. Expects the EIB to confirm that there is no overlap between projects it finances and those financed by the Commission and considers substantial improvements in coordination between the Commission and the EIB to be indispensable, as the EIB Director-General for Operations outside the European Union told the Committee on Budgetary Control on 25 January 2011; asks itself whether EIB staff should be posted to Union Delegations; expects to receive, by the end of September 2011, a combined report from both institutions on the reinforcement of their cooperation and the agreed procedures including an analysis of the possible need to post EIB staff in the Delegations;55. Calls on the EIB to carry out thorough due diligence, verifying the presence of appropriate local public consultation, on development-related aspects of projects covered by the EU guarantee, prior to project approval, including the performance of financial intermediaries in using the loan granted by the EIB on these aspects; is of the opinion that, when it comes to lending in developing countries, the EIB should apply stringent enhanced due diligence in accordance with standardised procedures, following international best practices, concerning the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism;56. Calls once more on the EIB to focus its reporting on results and to present complete, relevant and objective information as regards outcomes, objectives set, objectives achieved and reasons for possible deviation, as well as evaluations carried out and a summary of evaluation results;57. Welcomes that the EIB now seems to be more committed to focusing on reporting on results, and that in the 2010 Annual Report on the Investment Facility which is currently being finalised, there will be more focus on results, compared to 2009; considers it a positive step forward that the EIB is currently working on development result indicators which should be ready for implementation towards the second half of 2011;58. Expects the next annual report of the EIB to be less theoretical and more practical, in particular on the results obtained by the various programs and actions financed by the Investment Facility;59. Calls on the EIB to forward to it additional information on the blacklist of fraudsters, whilst preserving the customary confidentiality of open cases; welcomes the EIB’s stated aim of setting up an anti-fraud unit and expects to receive regular updates on progress made in establishing it;60. Is surprised at the EIB’s statement in which it found that no fraudulent practice exists in the context of EIB Investment Facility programmes;61. Considers it indispensable to conduct an overall audit of all projects in developing countries financed by the EIB, which should not be restricted to major projects but should also review all appropriations and guarantees the EIB must write off;62. Invites the Commission to monitor and control closely the implementation of the Investment Facility with a view to guaranteeing that it fulfils its objective as a development tool, and to inform Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control on a regular basis of its findings.[1] OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 243.[2] OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 253.[3] OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.[4] OJ L 287, 28.10.2005, p. 4.[5] OJ L 314, 30.11.2001, p. 1 and OJ L 324, 7.12.2001, p. 1.[6] OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 33.[7] OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 108.[8] OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 355.[9] OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 39.[10] OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.[11] OJ L 83, 1.4.2003, p. 1.[12] OJ L 78, 19.3.2008, p. 1.[13] Commission Declaration concerning Article 5 DCI, Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament of 24 October 2006 (COM(2006) 628).[14] Paragraph IX, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[15] Point 30, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[16] Point 5, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[17] Point 3, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[18] Points 28 and 29 of Special Report No 2/2005 of the Court of Auditors concerning EDF budget aid to ACP countries (OJ C 249, 7.10.2005, p. 1).[19] Point 54, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[20] OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 109.[21] Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41).[22] Point 55, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[23] Point 25, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.[24] Point 40, Court of Auditors’ Annual Report 2009 on the EDFs.--------------------------------------------------