Special Report No 15 // 2016#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)
Date: 2016-05-10
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, EAC countries, EU aid, Rwanda, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, project evaluation, refugee, war victim

EN 

2016 

NO 15

Special Report  Did the Commission 
effectively manage  
the Humanitarian aid 
provided to populations 
affected by conflicts  
in the African Great Lakes 
Region? 

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 
PDF 
EPUB 

ISBN 978-92-872-5012-4 
ISBN 978-92-872-5016-2 
ISBN 978-92-872-5076-6 

ISSN 1831-0834 
ISSN 1977-5679 
ISSN 1977-5679 

doi:10.2865/292235 
doi:10.2865/92371 
doi:10.2865/71466 

QJ-AB-16-014-EN-C
QJ-AB-16-014-EN-N
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.

EN 

2016 

Special Report

NO 15

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)

Audit team

02

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. 

Contents

03

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

 
Contents 

04

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms and 
abbreviations

05

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)

Executive summary

06

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.

Executive summary 

07

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.

Introduction

08

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.

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).

(6 360 people at the end of August 2015)

1 Internally Displaced People (IDP) settlement of Kibabi ‑ Kishusha, Masisi, North Kivu 
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

Source: European Court of Auditors.

 
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).

09

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).

1
x
o
B

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.

 
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 region 8.

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.

10

5 

6 

From Chapter 23 02, 
humanitarian aid, food aid and 
disaster preparation, section 3 
of the general budget of the 
EU.

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 

9 

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.

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.

Introduction 

11

1 Repartition of the HIP allocation per main areas for the period 2011‑2015
h
p
a
r
G

80

70

o
r
u
 e
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Burundi crisis: refugees in Rwanda and Tanzania

Central African Republic crisis: refugees in the North of the DRC

Assistance to refugee camps / settlements in Uganda, Rwanda,
Burundi and Tanzania

DRC non-conflict areas (response to severe acute malnutrition
and to epidemics)

DRC conflict Eastern Congo and Katanga province

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;

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.

(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.

 
Audit scope and approach

12

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

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.

Observations

13

Funding allocated to well established main priorities 
but insufficient clarity at further prioritisation stage

16  See webpage: http://www.
inform-index.org/Home

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.

Observations 

14

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:

17  HIP AGL 2015 version 4, point 
4) envisaged ECHO response, 
p. 10.

(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.

Observations 

15

2
x
o
B

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.

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.

 
Observations 

16

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).

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.

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.

Observations 

17

2 Budget of the AGL region for the period 2011‑2015
h
p
a
r
G

80

70

EU budget ad-hoc decisions

EDF ad-hoc decisions

HIP updates

HIP initial amount

o
r
u
 e
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

M23 rebellion in North Kivu

Deterioration of the situation in
Katanga due to conflicts

Deterioration of nutritional situation in
DRC and Burundi

Burundian crisis

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: European Court of Auditors.

 
Observations 

18

2 Mahama refugee camp in Rwanda, newly built area hosting Burundian refugees
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

Source: European Court of Auditors.

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.

 
19

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.

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.

20

22  Any exception should be 

justified as it was the case for 
two projects in our sample.

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.

21

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.

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.

Observations 

22

1 Timeliness of submitted reports
e
l
b
a
T

UN Agencies

International 
Organisations

NGOs

Total

Interim reports

Total number of Interim Reports submitted

Number of Interim Reports delayed

Percentage of late Interim Reports

Average delay (days)

Final reports

Total number of Final Reports submitted

Number of Final Reports delayed

Percentage of late Final Reports

Average delay (days)

5

2

40 %

32

8

8

100 %

34

3

2

67 %

17

3

2

67 %

102

7

2

29 %

9

8

3

38 %

17

15

6

40 %

19

19

13

68 %

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.

26  For the 20 projects examined, 
a total of 33 field visits were 
performed. For nine of them, 
the monitoring report 
contained limited comments.

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.

 
Observations 

23

3
x
o
B

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).

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.

 
Observations 

24

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.

Observations 

25

Overall outcomes achieved are positive but in some cases, 
the Commission’s assessment is not clearly justified

27  One was not satisfactory.

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.

4
x
o
B

Example of a successful project: Rapid response to movement of populations 
(RRMP, 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.

 
Observations 

26

Shabunda territory, South Kivu, people retrieving their goods

3 Rapid Response to Movements of Population: distribution of NFI in Lulingu, 
e
r
u
t
c
i
P

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.

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.

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.

 
Observations 

27

5
x
o
B

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.

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.).

 
Observations 

28

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.

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.

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.

Observations 

29

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.

Conclusions and 
recommendations

30

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.

Conclusions and recommendations 

31

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.

Conclusions and recommendations 

32

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.

Conclusions and recommendations 

33

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.

Conclusions and recommendations 

34

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

 
 
 
Annexes

35

I Map of the African Great Lakes Region
x
e
n
n
A

n
a
i
d
n

I

n
a
e
c
O

e
v

i

i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
A

i

e
k
a
L

a
n
a
k
r
u
T

y
r
a
d
n
u
o
b

a
b
u
J

i

b
o
r
i
a
N

a
m
o
d
o
D

e
k
a
L

a
g
o
y
K

a
l
a
p
m
a
K

e
k
a
L

t
r
e
b
A

l

a

i
r
o
t
c
V

i

e
k
a
L

i
l
a
g
K

i

e
k
a
L

d
r
a
w
d
E

a
m
o
G

e
k
a
L

u
v
K

i

u
u
v
v
a
a
k
k
u
u
B
B

a
r
u
b
m
u
u
B

j

I

A
N
A
Z
N
A
T

e
k
a
L

a
w
k
u
R

e
k
a
L

a
k

i

y
n
a
g
n
a
T

e
k
a
L

i

w
a
l
a
M

e
w
g
n
o

l
i

L

e
k
a
L

u

l

u
e
w
g
n
a
B

e
k
a
L

u
r
e
w
M

6
1
0
2
/
3
0

,

O
C
S
G
—

I

t
a
t
s
o
r
u
E

:
y
h
p
a
r
g
o
t
r
a
C

i

s
c
h
p
a
r
g
o
e
G
o
r
u
E
©

:
s
e
i
r
a
d
n
u
o
b

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
m
d
A

i

i

t
i

d
u
a

e
h
t

f
o

e
p
o
c
s

e
h
t
n

i

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
C

:

d
n
e
g
e
L

i

u
g
n
a
B

a
s
a
h
s
n
K

i

e
l
l
i
v
a
z
z
a
r
B

a
d
n
a
u
L

Atlantic Ocean

m
k
0
0
8

0
0
6

0
0
4

0
0
2

0

i

n
o
g
e
R

i

e
y
b
A

)
y
r
o
t
i
r
r
e
t
d
e
t
u
p
s

i

d
(

a
n
e
m
a
D
N

’

j

    TANZANIAMALAWIKENYASOMALIAUGANDARWANDABURUNDICHADCENTRALAFICAN REPUBLICSUDANETHIOPIAREPUBLICOF SOUTH SUDANCAMEROONCONGOGABONANGOLAZAMBIAMOZAMBIQUEDEMOCRATICREPUBLICOF THE CONGO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

36

I
I
x
e
n
n
A

DRC Refugees at the beginning of 2016

Refugees  from  DRC  in  neighbouring  
Countries

ANNEXE  II

437.347

Demography

Male	  (48%)

9%
12%
8%
18%
1%

Age
0  -­‐  4
5  -­‐  11
12  -­‐  17
18  -­‐  59
  60  +

(52%)  Female  

9%
12%
8%
21%
1%

  DRC  Refugees  by  Country  of  Asylum

Country

Total  Population

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  
17	  Feb	  2015

Ethiopia  

30	  Jun	  2014

Sudan  

30	  Jun	  2014

202.289

Individuals

46,3%

74.820

Individuals

17,1%

55.870

Individuals

54.625

Individuals

12,8%

12,5%

15.626

Individuals

3,6%

14.628

Individuals

3,3%

12.267

Individuals

2,8%

5.342

Individuals

1,2%

966

914

Individuals

0,2%

Individuals

0,2%

Source:  http://data.unhcr.org/drc/regional.php

 
 
Annexes 

37

I Map Burundian refugees at 26 January 2016
I
I
x
e
n
n
A

Burundi Situation 
Displacement of Burundians into neighbouring countries since April 2015 

as of  26 Jan 2016 

UGANDA 

19,611 

241,649 

newly arrived refugees from 
Burundi in neighbouring 
countries 

RWANDA 

72,099 

TANZANIA 

53% 

RWANDA 

30% 

BURUNDI 

DRC 

9% 

UGANDA 

8% 

ZAMBIA 

0.4% 

UNITED 
REPUBLIC OF 
TANZANIA 

127,974 

DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF 
THE CONGO 

20,985 

LEGEND 

Capital city 

Town of interest 

Refugee camp 

Refugee settlement 

Refugee reception/transit centre 

New arrivals from Burundi 

International boundary 

ZAMBIA 

980 

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. 

20km 

©UNHCR,	  UNCS,	  Author:	  UNHCR	  Regional	  Service	  Centre	  Nairobi.	  Source:	  h;p://data.unhcr.org/burundi/regional.php	  (see	  secAon	  Maps). 

 
Annexes 

38

V List of projects examined
I
x
e
n
n
A

r
e
n
t
r
a
p
f
o
e
p
y
T

UN

UN

m
e
t
I

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

r
a
e
Y
.
c
e
D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Regional

2014

Burundi

2011

Burundi

2013

IOM

Uganda

2011

Tanzania

2012

UN

UN

Tanzania

2013

ONG

Regional

2014

UN

DRC

2014

ONG

DRC

DRC

2014

ONG

2014

ONG

e
l
t
i
t

t
c
a
r
t
n
o
C

e
p
y
T
d

i

A
y
r
a
m

i
r
P

a
e
r
a
l
a
c
i

h
p
a
r
g
o
e
G

Initial

n
o
i
t
u
b

i
r
t
n
o
c
U
E

t
c
e
j
o
r
p
l
a
t
o
T

t
n
u
o
m
a

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

f
o
%

Final

n

o

i

t

u

b

i

r

t

n

o

c

U

E

t

c

e

j

o

r

l

a

t

o

T

t

n

u

m

a

p

o

g

n

i

d

n

u

f

f

o

%

e

r

u

t

a

n

g

i

s

t

c

a

r

t

n

o

C

e

t

a

d

e

t

a

d

g

n

i

t

r

a

t

S

e

t

a

d

d

n

E

n

o

i

t

a

r

u

D

g

n

i

t

s

n

e

m

-

r

e

n

t

r

e

a

p

l

p

m

I

d

e

u

n

i

t

n

o

C

r

a

e

y

t

n

e

u

q

e

s

b

u

s

t

o

p

s

e

h

t

n

o

s

t

i

s

i

V

Assistance to refugees in Uganda, 
Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania

Protection, soins et entretien des réfugiés 
au Burundi

Orderly Return and Pilot Reintegration 
Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 
From Tanzania to Burundi

Protection and Mixed Solutions for Inter-
nally Displaced Persons in Uganda

Food Assistance for Refugees in the 
Northwest

Emergency Assistance to Refugees in 
Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania

Protection and multi sectoral assistance to 
refugees, returnees and asylum seekers in 
the Great Lakes

Education in Emergencies (EiE) for Chil-
dren Affected by Conflict in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo

Emergency Food Security Response to 
Movement of Populations

Appui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse 
aux mouvements des populations au Kivu

Food 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

Settlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 

and Tanzania, 2015 project

Protection

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 (a)

Support to spe-
cial operations

Tanzania, 
Burundi

2 168 407

1 200 000

55.3 %

1 940 056

1 125 795

58.0 %

21.2.2013

1.11.2012

31.12.2013

14 months

NFI/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

Food 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 (a)

Health 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

Protection

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

Settlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 

and Tanzania, 2015 project

Education

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

Food 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

Food 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

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

N

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes

39

List of projects examined

m

e

t

I

y

r

t

n

u

o

C

r

a

e

Y

.

c

e

D

Regional

2014

Burundi

2011

Uganda

2011

Tanzania

2012

r

e

n

t

r

a

p

f

o

e

p

y

T

UN

UN

UN

UN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Assistance to refugees in Uganda, 

Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania

Protection, soins et entretien des réfugiés 

au Burundi

Orderly Return and Pilot Reintegration 

From Tanzania to Burundi

Protection and Mixed Solutions for Inter-

nally Displaced Persons in Uganda

Food Assistance for Refugees in the 

Northwest

Emergency Assistance to Refugees in 

Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania

Protection and multi sectoral assistance to 

the Great Lakes

Education in Emergencies (EiE) for Chil-

Republic of Congo

e

l

t

i

t

t

c

a

r

t

n

o

C

e

p

y

T

d

i

A

y

r

a

m

i

r

P

a

e

r

a

l

a

c

i

h

p

a

r

g

o

e

G

Initial

n

o

i

t

u

b

i

r

t

n

o

c

U

E

t

c

e

j

o

r

l

a

t

o

T

t

n

u

m

a

p

o

g

n

i

d

n

u

f

f

o

%

Final

n
o
i
t
u
b

i
r
t
n
o
c
U
E

t
c
e
j
o
r
p
l
a
t
o
T

t
n
u
o
m
a

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

f
o
%

e
r
u
t
a
n
g

i
s
t
c
a
r
t
n
o
C

e
t
a
d

e
t
a
d
g
n

i
t
r
a
t
S

e
t
a
d
d
n
E

n
o
i
t
a
r
u
D

g
n

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

i
t
n
e
m
-
e
l
p
m

I

d
e
u
n

i
t
n
o
C

r
a
e
y
t
n
e
u
q
e
s
b
u
s

Food 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

Protection

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

Burundi

2013

IOM

Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 

2 168 407

1 200 000

55.3 %

1 940 056

1 125 795

58.0 %

21.2.2013

1.11.2012

31.12.2013

14 months

Support to spe-

cial operations

Tanzania, 

Burundi

NFI/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

Food 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

Tanzania

2013

ONG

Health 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

Regional

2014

UN

refugees, returnees and asylum seekers in 

Protection

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

DRC

2014

ONG

dren Affected by Conflict in the Democratic 

Education

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

10

2014

ONG

Food 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

Food 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

DRC

DRC

2014

ONG

Emergency Food Security Response to 

Movement of Populations

Appui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse 

aux mouvements des populations au Kivu

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y (a)

N

N

Y (a)

N

Y

N

Y

N

(a)  Continued under the regional project.

Final payment not yet made, amount still provisory.

t
o
p
s
e
h
t
n
o
s
t
i
s
i

V

Settlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 
and Tanzania, 2015 project

Settlements in Uganda, camps in Rwanda 
and Tanzania, 2015 project

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

V

I
x
e
n
n
A

m
e
t
I

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

r
a
e
Y
.
c
e
D

r
e
n
t
r
a
p
f
o
e
p
y
T

e
l
t
i
t

t
c
a
r
t
n
o
C

40

e
p
y
T
d

i

A
y
r
a
m

i
r
P

a
e
r
a
l
a
c
i

h
p
a
r
g
o
e
G

Initial

n
o
i
t
u
b

i
r
t
n
o
c
U
E

t
c
e
j
o
r
p
l
a
t
o
T

t
n
u
o
m
a

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

f
o
%

Final

n

o

i

t

u

b

i

r

t

n

o

c

U

E

t

c

e

j

o

r

l

a

t

o

T

t

n

u

m

a

p

o

g

n

i

d

n

u

f

f

o

%

e

r

u

t

a

n

g

i

s

t

c

a

r

t

n

o

C

e

t

a

d

e

t

a

d

g

n

i

t

r

a

t

S

e

t

a

d

d

n

E

n

o

i

t

a

r

u

D

g

n

i

t

s

n

e

m

-

r

e

n

t

r

e

a

p

l

p

m

I

d

e

u

n

i

t

n

o

C

r

a

e

y

t

n

e

u

q

e

s

b

u

s

t

o

p

s

e

h

t

n

o

s

t

i

s

i

V

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

DRC

2014

UN

DRC

2014

ONG

Improve the food security situation of 
the conflict-affected population in the 
Katanga Province.

Assistance sanitaire aux populations 
vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 
Province du Nord Kivu

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

Health 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

2014

ONG

Réponse intégrée aux mouvements de 
population dans le nord du Katanga

Health 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

2014

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

DRC

DRC

UN

UN

DRC

2014

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 
Population

DRC

2014

private 
company

ECHO Flight

NFI/Shelter

Transport

DRC

2014

DRC

2013

IO

IO

Protection, tracing and primary health 
care/psychosocial support programmes

Protection

Assistance to conflict-affected population 
in DRC - Spontaneous Site Management 
and Coordination

Protection

N and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga

DRC, Kenya, 
Chad, Mali

N and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga

Eastern DRC 
with focus on 
North Kivu

19 220 882

6 000 000

31.2 %

19 220 882

6 000 000

31.2 %

4.7.2014

1.5.2014

31.12.2014

8 months

Distribution of NFI in Lulingu, 2015 project

10 000 000

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

12 482 677

1 000 000

8.0 %

13 691 333

3 000 000

21.9 %

3.4.2014

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12 months

2 465 336

2 000 000

81.1 %

2 400 481

2 000 000

83.3 %

16.10.2013

1.9.2013

31.12.2014

16 months

DRC

2014

ONG

20

DRC

2014

ONG

Prise en charge médicale gratuite des 
populations vulnérables et victimes 
d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud 
Kivu, DRC)

Medical and Psychosocial Assistance to 
Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 
in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care 
in South Kivu

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

Lulingu hospital, 2015 project

Health 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 (b)

Panzi hospital Bukavu, 2015 project

total list

38 370 000

total less ECHO Flight

28 370 000

55 265 795

42 865 795

Kibabi and Rubaya health centres, 2015 

project

Meetings with representatives in Bukavu, 

Goma and Kinshasa, 2015 project

Transport Bukavu to Lulingu, Lulingu to 

Goma, Goma to Kinshasa, 2015 contract

Psychological support, Rutshuru and 

Nyamilima, hospital for war surgery in Goma, 

North Kivu, 2015 project

IDP settlements in Kibabi, Kibabi-Kishusha 

and Bulengo (Goma), 2015 project

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes

m

e

t

I

y

r

t

n

u

o

C

r

a

e

Y

.

c

e

D

e

l

t

i

t

t

c

a

r

t

n

o

C

e

p

y

T

d

i

A

y

r

a

m

i

r

P

a

e

r

a

l

a

c

i

h

p

a

r

g

o

e

G

Initial

n

o

i

t

u

b

i

r

t

n

o

c

U

E

t

c

e

j

o

r

l

a

t

o

T

t

n

u

m

a

p

o

g

n

i

d

n

u

f

f

o

%

Final

n
o
i
t
u
b

i
r
t
n
o
c
U
E

t
c
e
j
o
r
p
l
a
t
o
T

t
n
u
o
m
a

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

f
o
%

e
r
u
t
a
n
g

i
s
t
c
a
r
t
n
o
C

e
t
a
d

e
t
a
d
g
n

i
t
r
a
t
S

e
t
a
d
d
n
E

n
o
i
t
a
r
u
D

DRC

2014

UN

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

DRC

2014

ONG

vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 

Health 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

2014

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

Health 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

19 220 882

6 000 000

31.2 %

19 220 882

6 000 000

31.2 %

4.7.2014

1.5.2014

31.12.2014

8 months

g
n

s
r
e
n
t
r
a
p

i
t
n
e
m
-
e
l
p
m

I

Y

N

N

N

Y

10 000 000

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

DRC

2013

in DRC - Spontaneous Site Management 

Protection

2 465 336

2 000 000

81.1 %

2 400 481

2 000 000

83.3 %

16.10.2013

1.9.2013

31.12.2014

16 months

12 482 677

1 000 000

8.0 %

13 691 333

3 000 000

21.9 %

3.4.2014

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12 months

DRC

2014

ONG

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

20

DRC

2014

ONG

Health 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

Y

Y

r

e

n

t

r

a

p

f

o

e

p

y

T

UN

UN

IO

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Improve the food security situation of 

the conflict-affected population in the 

Katanga Province.

Assistance sanitaire aux populations 

Province du Nord Kivu

2014

ONG

Réponse intégrée aux mouvements de 

population dans le nord du Katanga

DRC

DRC

DRC

2014

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 

Population

DRC

2014

ECHO Flight

private 

company

NFI/Shelter

Transport

DRC

2014

Protection, tracing and primary health 

care/psychosocial support programmes

Protection

Assistance to conflict-affected population 

and Coordination

Prise en charge médicale gratuite des 

populations vulnérables et victimes 

d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud 

Kivu, DRC)

Medical and Psychosocial Assistance to 

Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 

in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care 

in South Kivu

N and S Kivu, 

Orientale and 

Katanga

DRC, Kenya, 

Chad, Mali

N and S Kivu, 

Orientale and 

Katanga

Eastern DRC 

with focus on 

North Kivu

41

t
o
p
s
e
h
t
n
o
s
t
i
s
i

V

d
e
u
n

i
t
n
o
C

r
a
e
y
t
n
e
u
q
e
s
b
u
s

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Kibabi and Rubaya health centres, 2015 
project

Meetings with representatives in Bukavu, 
Goma and Kinshasa, 2015 project

Distribution of NFI in Lulingu, 2015 project

Transport Bukavu to Lulingu, Lulingu to 
Goma, Goma to Kinshasa, 2015 contract

Psychological support, Rutshuru and 
Nyamilima, hospital for war surgery in Goma, 
North Kivu, 2015 project

IDP settlements in Kibabi, Kibabi-Kishusha 
and Bulengo (Goma), 2015 project

Lulingu hospital, 2015 project

Y (b)

Panzi hospital Bukavu, 2015 project

total list

38 370 000

total less ECHO Flight

28 370 000

55 265 795

42 865 795

(b)  Project continued but with a different partner as from 2015, the implementing partner remains the same.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

42

V Interim and final reports examined
x
e
n
n
A

Item

Country

Dec Year

Type of 
partner

Contract title

Primary Aid 
Type

EU 
contribution

Due date

Date of 

submission

Delays in days

Due date

Date of 

submission

Delays in days

Assistance to Refugees in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania

Protection, soins et entretien des réfugiés au Burundi

Food Security

Protection

Orderly Return and Pilot Reintegration Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 
From Tanzania to Burundi

Support to spe-
cial operations

Protection and Mixed Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons in Uganda

NFI/Shelter

Food Assistance for Refugees in the Northwest

Emergency Assistance to Refugees in Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania.

Protection and multi sectoral assistance to refugees, returnees and asylum 
seekers in the Great Lakes

Education in Emergencies (EiE) for Children Affected by Conflict in the Demo-
cratic Republic of Congo

Food Security

Health care

Protection

4 400 000

1 500 000

1 200 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

1 450 000

6 500 000

N/A

N/A

N/A

30.9.2011

25.11.2011

31.3.2015

31.3.2012

21.5.2015

7.6.2012

30.6.2013

19.7.2013

31.3.2014

23.9.2014

27.10.2014

22.12.2014

31.7.2011

30.9.2012

30.9.2013

29.7.2011

28.9.2012

27.9.2013

31.3.2012

31.3.2013

30.9.2014

2.4.2012

24.4.2013

30.9.2014

Not sent

21.5.2013

N/A

4.7.2013

N/A

N/A

Partially

30.9.2014

8.10.2014

31.3.2015

22.5.2015

23.6.2015

27.7.2015

Interim report

Final report

(amounts in euro)

Sufficient 

explanations 

in partner’s 

reply

Suspension 

of payment 

request date

Date reply 

received from 

the partner

29.6.2015

6.7.2012

3.8.2015

24.9.2012

56

19

-2

-2

-3

8

0

-15

-2

N/A

N/A

15

51

68

176

2

24

0

52

35

0

0

0

6

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Education

400 000

30.6.2015

30.6.2015

31.12.2015

5.1.2016

5.00

19.1.2016

18.2.2016

Emergency Food Security Response to Movement of Populations

Food Security

2 300 000

31.1.2015

16.1.2015

31.7.2015

31.7.2015

2.9.2015

1.10.2015

Appui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse aux mouvements des populations au 
Kivu

Improve the food security situation of the conflict affected population in the 
Katanga Province.

Food Security

2 000 000

31.12.2014

29.12.2014

30.9.2015

30.9.2015

3.11.2015

23.11.2015

Food Security

2 000 000

30.6.2015

4.8.2015

18.9.2015

13.10.2015

Assistance sanitaire aux populations vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 
Province du Nord Kivu

Health care

Réponse intégrée aux mouvements de population dans le nord du Katanga

Health care

1 300 000

1 140 000

1.1.2015

16.1.2015

30.6.2015

6.7.2015

31.7.2015

19.8.2015

30.6.2015

30.6.2015

31.7.2015

31.8.2015

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Regional

Burundi

Burundi

Uganda

Tanzania

Tanzania

Regional

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

2014

2011

2013

2011

2012

2013

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

UN

UN

IOM

UN

UN

ONG

UN

ONG

ONG

ONG

UN

ONG

ONG

 
Annexes

43

Interim and final reports examined

Item

Country

Dec Year

Type of 

partner

Contract title

Primary Aid 

Type

EU 

contribution

Due date

Date of 
submission

Delays in days

Due date

Date of 
submission

Delays in days

Interim report

Final report

Suspension 
of payment 
request date

Date reply 
received from 
the partner

(amounts in euro)

Sufficient 
explanations 
in partner’s 
reply

Assistance to Refugees in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania

Protection, soins et entretien des réfugiés au Burundi

Orderly Return and Pilot Reintegration Assistance to Burundian Former Refugees 

Support to spe-

From Tanzania to Burundi

Protection and Mixed Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons in Uganda

NFI/Shelter

Food Assistance for Refugees in the Northwest

Emergency Assistance to Refugees in Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania.

Protection and multi sectoral assistance to refugees, returnees and asylum 

Food Security

Protection

cial operations

Food Security

Health care

Protection

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Regional

Burundi

Burundi

Uganda

Tanzania

Tanzania

Regional

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

2014

2011

2013

2011

2012

2013

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

UN

UN

IOM

UN

UN

ONG

UN

ONG

ONG

ONG

UN

ONG

ONG

seekers in the Great Lakes

cratic Republic of Congo

Kivu

Katanga Province.

Province du Nord Kivu

4 400 000

1 500 000

1 200 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

1 450 000

6 500 000

1 300 000

1 140 000

N/A

N/A

N/A

30.9.2011

25.11.2011

30.6.2013

19.7.2013

31.7.2011

30.9.2012

30.9.2013

29.7.2011

28.9.2012

27.9.2013

30.9.2014

8.10.2014

Education in Emergencies (EiE) for Children Affected by Conflict in the Demo-

Education

400 000

30.6.2015

30.6.2015

Emergency Food Security Response to Movement of Populations

Food Security

2 300 000

31.1.2015

16.1.2015

Appui alimentaire d'urgence en réponse aux mouvements des populations au 

Food Security

2 000 000

31.12.2014

29.12.2014

Improve the food security situation of the conflict affected population in the 

Food Security

2 000 000

Assistance sanitaire aux populations vulnérables affectées par le conflit dans la 

Health care

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Réponse intégrée aux mouvements de population dans le nord du Katanga

Health care

1.1.2015

16.1.2015

56

19

-2

-2

-3

8

0

-15

-2

N/A

N/A

15

31.3.2015

31.3.2012

21.5.2015

7.6.2012

31.3.2014

23.9.2014

31.3.2012

31.3.2013

30.9.2014

2.4.2012

24.4.2013

30.9.2014

31.3.2015

22.5.2015

51

68

176

2

24

0

52

29.6.2015

6.7.2012

3.8.2015

24.9.2012

27.10.2014

22.12.2014

Not sent

21.5.2013

N/A

N/A

4.7.2013

N/A

23.6.2015

27.7.2015

31.12.2015

5.1.2016

5.00

19.1.2016

18.2.2016

31.7.2015

31.7.2015

30.9.2015

30.9.2015

30.6.2015

4.8.2015

30.6.2015

30.6.2015

30.6.2015

6.7.2015

0

0

35

0

6

2.9.2015

1.10.2015

3.11.2015

23.11.2015

18.9.2015

13.10.2015

31.7.2015

31.8.2015

31.7.2015

19.8.2015

Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

Partially

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Annexes 

V
x
e
n
n
A

Item

Country

Dec Year

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

2014

2014

2014

2014

2013

2014

2014

44

Contract title

Primary Aid 
Type

EU 
contribution

Due date

Date of 

submission

Delays in days

Due date

Date of 

submission

Delays in days

Type of 
partner

UN

UN

Private 
company

ECHO Flight

Humanitarian Coordination and Advocacy

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de Population

Coordination

NFI/Shelter

1 500 000

6 000 000

Transport

12 400 000

IO

IO

ONG

ONG

Protection, tracing and primary health care/psychosocial support programs

Protection

Assistance to conflict-affected population in DRC - Spontaneous Site Manage-
ment and Coordination

Protection

3 000 000

2 000 000

Prise en charge médicale gratuite des populations vulnérables et victimes 
d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)

Medical and Psychosocial Assistance to Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 
in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care in South Kivu

Health care

1 500 000

2.12.2014

31.10.2014

2.6.2015

2.6.2015

17.7.2015

17.8.2015

Health care

750 000

30.9.2015

3.10.2015

30.6.2015

10.8.2015

24.9.2015

21.10.2015

Interim report

Final report

30.9.2014

30.9.2014

N/A

N/A

31.3.2015

31.3.2015

7.4.2015

30.4.2015

The 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. 

30.9.2014

24.9.2014

31.3.2015

20.3.2015

N/A

N/A

31.5.2014

16.6.2014

31.3.2015

29.4.2015

1.6.2015

25.6.2015

Partially

(amounts in euro)

Sufficient 

explanations 

in partner’s 

reply

Suspension 

of payment 

request date

Date reply 

received from 

the partner

N/A

N/A

10.6.2015

10.7.2015

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

Yes

7

30

-11

29

0

41

0

N/A

-6

16

-32

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes

45

Item

Country

Dec Year

Type of 

partner

Contract title

Primary Aid 

Type

EU 

contribution

Due date

Date of 
submission

Delays in days

Due date

Date of 
submission

Delays in days

Interim report

Final report

Suspension 
of payment 
request date

Date reply 
received from 
the partner

(amounts in euro)

Sufficient 
explanations 
in partner’s 
reply

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

DRC

2014

2014

2014

2014

2013

2014

2014

UN

UN

IO

IO

ONG

ONG

Humanitarian Coordination and Advocacy

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de Population

Private 

company

ECHO Flight

Coordination

NFI/Shelter

1 500 000

6 000 000

Transport

12 400 000

30.9.2014

30.9.2014

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

31.3.2015

31.3.2015

7.4.2015

30.4.2015

7

30

N/A

N/A

10.6.2015

10.7.2015

N/A

Yes

The 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. 

Protection, tracing and primary health care/psychosocial support programs

Protection

Assistance to conflict-affected population in DRC - Spontaneous Site Manage-

Protection

ment and Coordination

3 000 000

2 000 000

30.9.2014

24.9.2014

31.5.2014

16.6.2014

Prise en charge médicale gratuite des populations vulnérables et victimes 

d'urgence médico-humanitaire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)

Medical and Psychosocial Assistance to Survivors of Sexual Violence and Women 

in Need of Specialised Gynecological Care in South Kivu

Health care

1 500 000

2.12.2014

31.10.2014

Health care

750 000

30.9.2015

3.10.2015

-6

16

-32

3

31.3.2015

20.3.2015

31.3.2015

29.4.2015

2.6.2015

2.6.2015

30.6.2015

10.8.2015

-11

29

0

41

N/A

N/A

N/A

1.6.2015

25.6.2015

Partially

17.7.2015

17.8.2015

24.9.2015

21.10.2015

Yes

Yes

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

46

I Amendments to projects reviewed
V
x
e
n
n
A

EU contribution

Duration (months)

Purpose

r
e
n
t
r
a
p
f
o
e
p
y
T

UN

UN

e
l
t
i
t

t
c
a
r
t
n
o
C

l
a
c
i

a
e
r
a

h
p
a
r
g
o
e
G

l
a
i
t
i

n
I

l
a
n
i
F

e
t
a
d
g
n

i
t
r
a
t
S

1
e
t
a
d
d
n
E

l
a
i
t
i

n
I

2
e
t
a
d
d
n
E

l
a
n
i
F

Assistance to Refugees in Uganda, 
Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania

Protection, soins et entretien des 
réfugiés au Burundi

Regional

1 000 000

4 400 000

1.4.2014

31.12.2014

9

31.12.2014

9

Burundi

1 500 000

1 500 000

1.1.2011

31.12.2011

12

31.12.2011

12

t

n

e

m

d

n

e

m

A

o

N

f

i

d

o

M

f

o

e

t

a

D

t

s

e

u

q

e

r

e

t

t

n

a

e

d

m

d

n

e

m

A

e

r

u

t

a

n

g

i

s

l

a

n

o

i

t

i

d

d

A

g

n

i

d

n

u

f

n

o

i

s

n

e

t

x

E

12.6.2014

2.7.2014

X

28.11.2014

12.12.2014

m
e
t
I

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

r
a
e
Y
.
c
e
D

Regional

2014

Burundi

2011

Burundi

2013

IOM

Orderly Return and Pilot Reintegra-
tion Assistance to Burundian Former 
Refugees From Tanzania to Burundi

Tanzania, 
Burundi

1 200 000

1 125 795

1.11.2012

30.9.2013

11

30.12.2013

14

22.8.2013

30.9.2013

X external 

factors

Uganda

2011

UN

Tanzania

2012

UN

Tanzania

2013

ONG

Regional

2014

UN

DRC

2014

ONG

Protection and Mixed Solutions 
for Internally Displaced Persons in 
Uganda

Food Assistance for Refugees in the 
Northwest of TZ

Emergency Assistance to Refugees in 
Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania.

Protection and multi sectoral as-
sistance to refugees, returnees and 
asylum seekers in the Great Lakes

Education in Emergencies (EiE) for 
Children Affected by Conflict in the 
DRC

Uganda

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.1.2011

31.12.2011

12

31.12.2011

12

27.7.2011

2.12.2011

Tanzania 

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.1.2012

31.12.2012

12

31.12.2012

12

Tanzania 

1 000 000

1 450 000

1.1.2013

31.12.2013

12

30.6.2014

18

19.12.2013

27.12.2013

X

Regional

1 000 000

6 500 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.12.2014

12

25.6.2014

10.7.2014

North Kivu

400 000

400 000

1.9.2014

30.9.2015

13

30.9.2015

13

DRC

2014

ONG

Emergency Food Security Response 
to Movement of Populations

North Kivu

1 600 000

2 300 000

16.4.2014

15.1.2015

9

30.4.2015

12.5

(amounts in euro)

e

u

d

e

s

a

e

r

c

n

I

t

n

e

m

y

a

p

o

t

n

o

i

t

a

i

r

p

o

r

p

p

a

e

g

a

t

r

o

h

s

s

d

e

e

n

l

a

n

o

i

t

i

d

d

A

d

e

fi

i

t

n

e

d

i

Rationale

n

i

y

a

l

e

D

g

n

i

t

-

g

n

i

n

n

i

a

m

e

R

/

e

m

e

l

p

m

i

t

e

g

d

u

b

t

i

x

e

o

t

d

e

e

t

n

a

r

g

e

m

i

T

h

t

e

s

i

n

a

g

r

o

r

e

h

t

O

X

X

r

e

h

t

O

N/A

X

X

X

N/A

N/A

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

25.6.2014

9.7.2014

13.3.2015

15.4.2015

10.6.2014

20.6.2014

27.2.2015

11.3.2015

X

X

X external 

factors

X external 

factors

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

DRC

2014

ONG

Appui alimentaire d’urgence en 
réponse aux mouvements des 
populations au Kivu

South Kivu

1 500 000

2 000 000

1.4.2014

31.12.2014

9

30.6.2015

15

Increase 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
Increase in budget related to new/additional needs
Projects with increase in funding and/or extension in duration

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes

47

Amendments to projects reviewed

m

e

t

I

y

r

t

n

u

o

C

r

a

e

Y

.

c

e

D

Regional

2014

Burundi

2011

r

e

n

t

r

a

p

f

o

e

p

y

T

UN

UN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Regional

1 000 000

4 400 000

1.4.2014

31.12.2014

9

31.12.2014

9

Burundi

1 500 000

1 500 000

1.1.2011

31.12.2011

12

31.12.2011

12

Burundi

2013

IOM

tion Assistance to Burundian Former 

1 200 000

1 125 795

1.11.2012

30.9.2013

11

30.12.2013

14

Tanzania, 

Burundi

Uganda

2011

UN

for Internally Displaced Persons in 

Uganda

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.1.2011

31.12.2011

12

31.12.2011

12

Tanzania

2012

UN

Tanzania 

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.1.2012

31.12.2012

12

31.12.2012

12

Tanzania

2013

ONG

Tanzania 

1 000 000

1 450 000

1.1.2013

31.12.2013

12

30.6.2014

18

Regional

2014

UN

sistance to refugees, returnees and 

Regional

1 000 000

6 500 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.12.2014

12

DRC

2014

ONG

North Kivu

400 000

400 000

1.9.2014

30.9.2015

13

30.9.2015

13

DRC

2014

ONG

Emergency Food Security Response 

to Movement of Populations

North Kivu

1 600 000

2 300 000

16.4.2014

15.1.2015

9

30.4.2015

12.5

Assistance to Refugees in Uganda, 

Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania

Protection, soins et entretien des 

réfugiés au Burundi

Orderly Return and Pilot Reintegra-

Refugees From Tanzania to Burundi

Protection and Mixed Solutions 

Uganda

Food Assistance for Refugees in the 

Northwest of TZ

Emergency Assistance to Refugees in 

Nyarugusu camp, Tanzania.

Protection and multi sectoral as-

asylum seekers in the Great Lakes

Education in Emergencies (EiE) for 

Children Affected by Conflict in the 

DRC

Appui alimentaire d’urgence en 

populations au Kivu

10

DRC

2014

ONG

réponse aux mouvements des 

South Kivu

1 500 000

2 000 000

1.4.2014

31.12.2014

9

30.6.2015

15

EU contribution

Duration (months)

e

l

t

i

t

t

c

a

r

t

n

o

C

l

a

c

i

h

p

a

r

g

o

e

G

a

e

r

a

l

a

i

t

i

n

I

l

a

n

i

F

e

t

a

d

g

n

i

t

r

a

t

S

1

e

t

a

d

d

n

E

l

a

i

t

i

n

I

2

e

t

a

d

d

n

E

l

a

n

i

F

t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
A

o
N

f
i

d
o
M

f
o
e
t
a
D

t
s
e
u
q
e
r

t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
A

e
t
a
d
e
r
u
t
a
n
g

i
s

l
a
n
o
i
t
i

d
d
A

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

12.6.2014

2.7.2014

X

28.11.2014

12.12.2014

22.8.2013

30.9.2013

27.7.2011

2.12.2011

19.12.2013

27.12.2013

25.6.2014

10.7.2014

25.6.2014

9.7.2014

13.3.2015

15.4.2015

10.6.2014

20.6.2014

27.2.2015

11.3.2015

X

X

X

X

r
e
h
t
O

X

N/A

X

X

N/A

N/A

Purpose

n
o
i
s
n
e
t
x
E

X

X

X

X

X

X

(amounts in euro)

Rationale

n

i
y
a
l
e
D

g
n

i
t
-
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

g
n

i

n

i
a
m
e
R
/

t
e
g
d
u
b

i

X external 
factors

o
t
d
e
t
n
a
r
g
e
m
i
T

t
i
x
e
e
h
t
e
s
i

n
a
g
r
o

r
e
h
t
O

X

X

e
u
d
e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

t
n
e
m
y
a
p
o
t

n
o
i
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
a

e
g
a
t
r
o
h
s

s
d
e
e
n

l
a
n
o
i
t
i

d
d
A

d
e
fi
i
t
n
e
d

i

X

X

X

X

X

X external 
factors

X external 
factors

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

I

V
x
e
n
n
A

m
e
t
I

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

r
a
e
Y
.
c
e
D

r
e
n
t
r
a
p
f
o
e
p
y
T

11

DRC

2014

UN

12

DRC

2014

ONG

13

DRC

2014

ONG

48

EU contribution

Duration (months)

Purpose

e
l
t
i
t

t
c
a
r
t
n
o
C

l
a
c
i

a
e
r
a

h
p
a
r
g
o
e
G

l
a
i
t
i

n
I

l
a
n
i
F

e
t
a
d
g
n

i
t
r
a
t
S

1
e
t
a
d
d
n
E

Katanga

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.5.2014

31.12.2014

North Kivu

1 070 000

1 300 000

1.4.2014

31.12.2014

2
e
t
a
d
d
n
E

l
a
n
i
F

t

n

e

m

d

n

e

m

A

o

N

f

i

d

o

M

f

o

e

t

a

D

t

s

e

u

q

e

r

e

t

t

n

a

e

d

m

d

n

e

m

A

e

r

u

t

a

n

g

i

s

l

a

n

o

i

t

i

d

d

A

g

n

i

d

n

u

f

n

o

i

s

n

e

t

x

E

e

u

d

e

s

a

e

r

c

n

I

t

n

e

m

y

a

p

o

t

n

o

i

t

a

i

r

p

o

r

p

p

a

e

g

a

t

r

o

h

s

s

d

e

e

n

l

a

n

o

i

t

i

d

d

A

d

e

fi

i

t

n

e

d

i

t

i

x

e

o

t

d

e

e

t

n

a

r

g

e

m

i

T

h

t

e

s

i

n

a

g

r

o

31.3.2015

11

28.11.2014

18.12.2014

31.3.2015

12

l
a
i
t
i

n
I

8

9

(amounts in euro)

r

e

h

t

O

X

X

X

X

X

r

e

h

t

O

X

N/A

X

X

X

Rationale

n

i

y

a

l

e

D

g

n

i

t

-

g

n

i

n

n

i

a

m

e

R

/

e

m

e

l

p

m

i

t

e

g

d

u

b

X partner

X external 

factors

X partner

X external 

factors

X

X

X

X

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

6.6.2014

7.7.2014

30.12.2014

30.1.2015

7.11.2014

10.12.2014

15.12.2014

23.12.2014

23.6.2014

4.7.2014

N/A

N/A

28.10.2014

30.1.2015

23.6.2014

7.7.2014

17.12.2014

22.12.2014

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Katanga

1 000 000

1 140 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.3.2015

15

All DRC

500 000

1 500 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.12.2014

12

N and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga

DRC, Kenya, 
Chad, Mali

N and S Kivu, 
Orientale and 
Katanga

Eastern DRC 
with focus on 
North Kivu

6 000 000

6 000 000

1.5.2014

31.12.2014

8

31.12.2014

8

10 000 000

12 400 000

1.5.2014

31.1.2015

9

31.3.2015

11

1 000 000

3 000 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.12.2014

12

24.6.2014

3.7.2014

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.9.2013

1.9.2014

12

31.12.2014

16

31.7.2014

11.8.2014

South Kivu

1 000 000

1 500 000

2.5.2014

31.12.2014

8

28.2.2015

10

South Kivu

600 000

750 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.3.2015

15

25.6.2014

10.7.2014

X

X

Improve the food security situation 
of the conflict-affected population in 
the Katanga Province.

Assistance sanitaire aux populations 
vulnérables affectées par le conflit 
dans le Nord Kivu

Réponse intégrée aux mouvements 
de population dans le nord du 
Katanga

14

DRC

2014

UN

Humanitarian Coordination and 
Advocacy

15

DRC

2014

UN

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 
Population

16

DRC 
Kenya 
Mali 
Chad

2014

private 
company

ECHO Flight

17

DRC

2014

18

DRC

2013

IO

IO

19

DRC

2014

ONG

20

DRC

2014

ONG

Protection, tracing and primary 
health care/psychosocial support 
programmes

Assistance to conflict-affected 
population in DRC - Spontaneous 
Site Management and Coordination

Prise en charge médicale gratuite 
des populations vulnérables et 
victimes d'urgence médico-humani-
taire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)

Medical and Psychosocial Assistance 
to Survivors of Sexual Violence 
and Women in Need of Specialised 
Gynecological Care in South Kivu

Increase 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
Increase in budget related to new/additional needs
Projects with increase in funding and/or extension in duration

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes

49

EU contribution

Duration (months)

m

e

t

I

y

r

t

n

u

o

C

r

a

e

Y

.

c

e

D

r

e

n

t

r

a

p

f

o

e

p

y

T

e

l

t

i

t

t

c

a

r

t

n

o

C

l

a

c

i

h

p

a

r

g

o

e

G

a

e

r

a

l

a

i

t

i

n

I

l

a

n

i

F

e

t

a

d

g

n

i

t

r

a

t

S

1

e

t

a

d

d

n

E

2

e

t

a

d

d

n

E

l

a

n

i

F

t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
A

o
N

f
i

d
o
M

f
o
e
t
a
D

t
s
e
u
q
e
r

t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
A

e
t
a
d
e
r
u
t
a
n
g

i
s

l
a
n
o
i
t
i

d
d
A

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

28.11.2014

18.12.2014

6.6.2014

7.7.2014

30.12.2014

30.1.2015

7.11.2014

10.12.2014

15.12.2014

23.12.2014

23.6.2014

4.7.2014

N/A

N/A

28.10.2014

30.1.2015

24.6.2014

3.7.2014

31.7.2014

11.8.2014

23.6.2014

7.7.2014

17.12.2014

22.12.2014

25.6.2014

10.7.2014

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

l

a

i

t

i

n

I

8

9

Improve the food security situation 

the Katanga Province.

Assistance sanitaire aux populations 

dans le Nord Kivu

Réponse intégrée aux mouvements 

Katanga

Advocacy

11

DRC

2014

UN

of the conflict-affected population in 

Katanga

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.5.2014

31.12.2014

31.3.2015

11

12

DRC

2014

ONG

vulnérables affectées par le conflit 

North Kivu

1 070 000

1 300 000

1.4.2014

31.12.2014

31.3.2015

12

13

DRC

2014

ONG

de population dans le nord du 

Katanga

1 000 000

1 140 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.3.2015

15

14

DRC

2014

UN

Humanitarian Coordination and 

All DRC

500 000

1 500 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.12.2014

12

15

DRC

2014

UN

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de 

Population

16

DRC 

Kenya 

Mali 

Chad

2014

private 

company

ECHO Flight

17

DRC

2014

18

DRC

2013

Protection, tracing and primary 

health care/psychosocial support 

programmes

Assistance to conflict-affected 

population in DRC - Spontaneous 

IO

IO

N and S Kivu, 

Orientale and 

Katanga

DRC, Kenya, 

Chad, Mali

N and S Kivu, 

Orientale and 

Katanga

Eastern DRC 

with focus on 

Site Management and Coordination

North Kivu

6 000 000

6 000 000

1.5.2014

31.12.2014

8

31.12.2014

8

10 000 000

12 400 000

1.5.2014

31.1.2015

9

31.3.2015

11

1 000 000

3 000 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.12.2014

12

2 000 000

2 000 000

1.9.2013

1.9.2014

12

31.12.2014

16

19

DRC

2014

ONG

South Kivu

1 000 000

1 500 000

2.5.2014

31.12.2014

8

28.2.2015

10

20

DRC

2014

ONG

South Kivu

600 000

750 000

1.1.2014

31.12.2014

12

31.3.2015

15

Prise en charge médicale gratuite 

des populations vulnérables et 

victimes d'urgence médico-humani-

taire (le Sud Kivu, DRC)

Medical and Psychosocial Assistance 

to Survivors of Sexual Violence 

and Women in Need of Specialised 

Gynecological Care in South Kivu

r
e
h
t
O

X

N/A

Purpose

n
o
i
s
n
e
t
x
E

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

e
u
d
e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

t
n
e
m
y
a
p
o
t

n
o
i
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
a

e
g
a
t
r
o
h
s

s
d
e
e
n

l
a
n
o
i
t
i

d
d
A

d
e
fi
i
t
n
e
d

i

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

(amounts in euro)

Rationale

n

i
y
a
l
e
D

g
n

i
t
-
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

g
n

i

n

i
a
m
e
R
/

t
e
g
d
u
b

i

X partner

X external 
factors

X partner

X external 
factors

o
t
d
e
t
n
a
r
g
e
m
i
T

t
i
x
e
e
h
t
e
s
i

n
a
g
r
o

r
e
h
t
O

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reply of the Commission

50

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:

(cid:127) 

one copy: 
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

(cid:127)   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:

(cid:127) 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Event

Adoption of APM/Start of audit

Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee)

Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure

Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all languages

Date

28.4.2015

15.3.2016

10.5.2016

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
COURT
OF AUDITORS