International Aviation: Federal Efforts Help Address Safety Challenges in Africa, but Could Benefit from Reassessment and Better Coordination
Published: 2009-06-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The African continent is important to U.S. economic, strategic, and foreign policy interests, and efforts have been made to improve commerce and connectivity to benefit the two regions. However, the continent has the highest aviation accident rate in the world, which has hindered progress. Recognizing the importance of improving aviation safety in Africa, the United States and the international aviation community have worked to improve aviation safety in Africa. This congressionally requested report discusses (1) challenges in improving aviation safety in Africa, (2) key U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa and the extent to which they address the identified challenges, and (3) international efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa. To address these issues, GAO synthesized literature and aviation safety data, interviewed federal officials, and visited four African countries.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Improving aviation safety in Africa is an important goal for the United States and the international aviation community. However, achieving that goal presents several challenges. The major challenge is the relatively low priority that political leaders in many African countries have accorded aviation safety, in part because of more pressing concerns such as widespread poverty, national health care issues, and a lack of awareness about the potential benefits of an improved aviation system. This relatively low priority placed on improving safety is reflected in the other challenges that were frequently identified in the literature GAO reviewed and by the officials GAO interviewed. These challenges include weak regulatory systems, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of technical expertise and training capacity. U.S. assistance to improve aviation safety in Africa has helped to address some challenges. For instance, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA) program--created in 1998 as a presidential initiative--is the principal U.S. effort to improve aviation safety. One of the primary goals of the SSFA program is to increase the number of African countries that meet international aviation safety standards. Through memorandums of agreement, the State Department provides funding for the program and DOT manages the program. DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration work to help African countries meet international aviation safety standards by providing technical assistance and training. However, funding for the program has been inconsistent since its inception, with funding levels ranging from a high of $8.5 million from the Department of State's fiscal year 2003 appropriation to zero from its appropriations in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. DOT officials stated that current budgetary and personnel limitations hamper their ability to effectively implement the program. For example, DOT has currently limited SSFA activities to countries making tangible progress in improving safety, rather than directing activities to all participating countries. Given the potential benefits associated with improved aviation systems, two agencies that focus on economic development--the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and the Millennium Challenge Corporation--have also provided funding for aviation safety-related projects in Africa. However, coordination of U.S. efforts on the continent has not been consistent, because of differences in agency missions and program processes, resulting in potential duplication of effort and missed opportunities to leverage limited resources. Several international efforts have been implemented to assist and encourage African countries in improving their civil aviation systems. For example, in response to widespread concerns about the adequacy of aviation safety oversight on the continent, the International Civil Aviation Organization developed the Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in Africa to help African countries meet their international obligations for safety oversight. The World Bank also provides funding for African countries to address aviation needs and deficiencies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The African continent is important to U.S. economic, strategic, and foreign  policy interests, and efforts have been made to improve commerce and  connectivity to benefit the two regions. U.S. interests in Africa include  having access to natural resources, particularly petroleum reserves, and  ensuring their security and market stability; mitigating potential security  threats posed by vast uncontrolled spaces; and alleviating the effects of  sporadic humanitarian crises and armed conflicts. Furthermore, Africa has  been identified as a strategic trading partner, because the continent is a  large potential market for U.S.-manufactured products, such as aviation  safety and security equipment and aircraft. African countries have also  recognized the benefits of improved commerce and connectivity between  the United States and Africa, notably the economic benefits associated  with increased trade and tourism.
However, efforts to increase commerce and connectivity between the  United States and Africa have been hindered, in part, by the poor aviation  safety record of some African countries. The African continent has  historically had one of the highest accident rates in the world. The poor  aviation safety record of some African countries has contributed to the  limited number of direct flights between the United States and the  continent. With few exceptions, flights between the United States and  African countries bring passengers through intermediate points, often  European hubs, adding time to these flights and potentially increasing  their cost.
Recognizing the importance of aviation in advancing U.S. and African  interests, the federal government has initiated various efforts to improve  aviation safety in Africa. In particular, the Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA)  program was created in 1998 as a presidential initiative to improve  aviation safety and security and air navigation in Sub-Saharan African  countries. The State Department provides funding for the program from  its budget using economic support funds. The program is managed by the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Office of the Secretary, through  which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides technical  assistance and training to participating African countries. Currently, 10  African countries participate in the SSFA program. Concerned about the  impact that poor aviation practices in Africa can have on global aviation  safety, the international community, including the International Civil  Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Air Transportation  Association (IATA), and World Bank, has also launched a number of  initiatives to improve aviation safety in Africa.
You asked us to examine issues related to U.S. efforts to improve aviation  safety in Africa. This report discusses (1) the challenges that exist in  improving aviation safety in Africa, (2) key U.S. efforts to improve aviation  safety in Africa and the extent to which they address the identified  challenges, and (3) steps that other countries or international  organizations have taken to improve aviation safety in Africa. To address  these issues, we reviewed and synthesized literature and studies on U.S.  efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa, including the SSFA program,  comparable international aviation efforts, and Africa’s aviation markets  and safety record. We also analyzed legislation related to U.S. efforts to  improve commerce and connectivity to Africa, SSFA program documents,  and international aviation safety information. We interviewed officials at  the Departments of Transportation, State, and Defense; U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID); U.S. Trade and Development Agency  (USTDA); National Transportation Safety Board; and Millennium  Challenge Corporation (MCC) about U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety  in Africa. We also interviewed aviation specialists from the European  Commission, World Bank, ICAO, and IATA.
In addition, we conducted site visits to Cape Verde, Kenya, Senegal, and  Tanzania. We selected these countries using the following criteria: the  countries’ participation in the SSFA program, the countries’ aviation safety  record, FAA’s safety ratings for the countries, and geographic location.  These criteria enabled us to identify countries with a range of safety and  aviation experiences. However, because we selected these four countries  as part of a nonprobability sample, our findings cannot be generalized to  all African countries. During these site visits, we interviewed government  officials, civil aviation authority officials, representatives from aviation  stakeholder groups, and representatives from air carriers to obtain  information on efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa, including U.S.  efforts.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 to June 2009 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more information about  our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The African continent is the second largest continent in terms of land mass  and population, comprising 54 culturally diverse countries, many with  distinct histories and identities. The continent is about three times the size  of the United States, roughly the size of Argentina, China, India,  Kazakhstan, Mexico, and the United States combined (see fig. 1). African  countries are politically varied, ranging from dictatorships to emerging  democracies. African countries also vary in the types and quantities of  natural resources they control and in the size and strength of their  economies. For example, the gross domestic product of African countries  ranged from about $145 million to $277 billion in 2007, with countries rich  in natural resources, such as petroleum and diamonds, generally having  larger economies. In comparison, the gross domestic product of the  mparison, the gross domestic product of the  United States was almost $14 trillion in 2007.  United States was almost $14 trillion in 2007.
Area (in millionof uare mile)
World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 10, 2008. economic benefits both locally and globally. In particular, the remoteness  and size of some African countries, coupled with underdeveloped—and  sometimes unsafe—road networks, makes air transport critical for  connecting some African markets to other African markets, the United  States, and the rest of the world. Our literature synthesis suggests that safe  aviation could increase connectivity and potentially create economic and  social benefits for a country. For example, aviation can contribute to  sustainable development by facilitating tourism and trade. Such  development, in turn, generates economic growth, provides jobs, and can  improve living standards, alleviate poverty, contribute to social stability,  and increase tax revenues. Similarly, according to the literature we  reviewed, when a developing country creates additional airline  connections with other countries, it may derive potential economic  benefits in the form of increased exports, as well as tourism and business  opportunities. For example, Africa is a growing export market for U.S.- manufactured products, including aircraft and air navigation systems.  According to DOT reports, several African countries have stated their  intention to purchase aviation security equipment based on the same  technologies as equipment donated to them by the United States.
The literature we reviewed also mentions other potential benefits to  improving aviation safety in Africa, including the following:  Improved safety of the global aviation system. Aviation is a global  enterprise, and maintaining a safe system is the foundation upon which  the entire global aviation system network operates. One country’s failure  to comply with international aviation safety standards could have  disastrous consequences for other countries’ air carriers and passengers.
Improved U.S. national security. Civil aircraft traveling from some  African countries to other parts of the world potentially pose a threat to  U.S. national security because adequate safety and security measures are  not in place in those countries. In particular, African countries with weak  aviation oversight are more likely to have airports that act as transit points  for illicit activities, such as arms transfers and trafficking, encouraging  criminals to establish organizational bases in these areas.
Efforts have been made to improve connectivity as a means of creating  economic benefits for both the United States and African countries, as well as  for pursuing strategic and foreign policy interests. For example, in 2000,  Congress identified Africa as a strategic trading partner under the African  Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). AGOA provides duty-free access for  over 6,000 products from 40 Sub-Saharan African countries and has served as  the central U.S. trade and investment policy toward Sub-Saharan Africa.  AGOA is aimed at promoting open markets, expanding U.S.-Africa trade and  investment, stimulating economic growth, and facilitating Sub-Saharan  Africa’s integration into the global economy. Under AGOA, U.S. trade with  Africa has grown substantially. For example, U.S. imports under AGOA have  more than tripled for apparel—from $359.4 million in 2001 to $1.3 billion in  2007—while U.S. exports to Sub-Saharan Africa have more than doubled from  $7 billion in 2001 to over $14.4 billion in 2007. In addition, the United States  has been engaged in various strategic and foreign policy interests in Africa.  For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) maintains a small military  presence in Djibouti to provide a regional security presence related to  counterterrorism for several Horn of Africa and East African countries.  Similarly, the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership is a multiagency  U.S. effort to provide support to nine north and western African countries  relating to diplomacy, development assistance, and military activities aimed at  strengthening country and regional counterterrorism capabilities. DOD’s  plans to locate the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) on the continent are  under review, and a decision on whether or where will not be made until the  end of 2011.
However, efforts to improve connectivity and commerce between the  United States and Africa have been hindered, in part, by the overall poor  condition of African nations’ aviation systems. The African continent has  historically had a poor aviation safety record, compared with other regions  of the world. For instance, the annual average accident rate per 1 million  flights for the African region over the last 4 years is about 15 times greater  than for North America (see fig. 2). Moreover, according to federal and  other officials, the accident rate in Africa is likely to be higher than  reported because accidents involving small aircrafts are underreported.  For example, according to ICAO, on average, about 70 percent of  accidents in Africa were not reported from 1990 through 2006. However,  the accident rate among African countries varies greatly. In particular, a  few African countries have a much higher accident rate than other African  countries and contribute disproportionately to the continent’s overall  accident rate. For example, over half the total number of aviation  accidents in Africa over the last 10 years occurred in 4 of the continent’s  54 countries.
ICAO is the international body that seeks to harmonize global aviation  standards so that worldwide civil aviation can benefit from a seamless air  transportation network. ICAO members, known as contracting states,  including the United States, are not legally bound to act in accordance  with ICAO standards and recommended practices. Rather, contracting  states decide whether to transform the standards and recommended  practices into national laws or regulations. In some cases, contracting  states deviate from some of the ICAO standards and recommended  practices, or do not implement some of them at all when they find it  impracticable to do so. Contracting states are also responsible for the  establishment of a regulatory framework to provide safety oversight for  their civil aviation systems, and for developing the required aviation  infrastructure necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and sustainable  system.
FAA is responsible for regulating the safety of civil aviation in the United  States. FAA also works to advance the nation’s leadership on the  international level by engaging in dialogue with aviation counterparts  across the world, collaborating with ICAO, providing technical assistance  and training, working to harmonize global standards toward developing a  seamless air transportation network, and sharing expertise and  technologies. In 1992, FAA established the International Aviation Safety  Assessments (IASA) program based on its own and congressional  concerns that the level of safety oversight being applied by other civil  aviation authorities with air service to the United States was inadequate  and not in compliance with international safety standards. The IASA  program examines the ability of foreign countries, not individual air  carriers, to adhere to international standards and recommended practices  for aircraft operations and maintenance established by ICAO. FAA  generally conducts a safety assessment when a foreign air carrier files an  application with DOT requesting to initiate new air service to the United  States, or take part in a code-share arrangement with U.S. airlines. FAA  also conducts a safety assessment when reliable information indicates that  another country with operators providing service to the United States has  serious aviation oversight deficiencies. In conducting these assessments,  FAA meets with officials from the foreign civil aviation authority and  foreign air carrier and reviews pertinent records.
FAA uses a two-tier rating system for the results of the assessments:  Category 1 for countries that comply with ICAO standards and Category 2  for countries that do not. FAA uses this determination as part of its basis  for recommending whether or not DOT should allow air carriers overseen  by certain foreign civil aviation authorities to initiate, continue, or expand  air service to the United States. In particular, air carriers in foreign countries  without a Category 1 rating cannot initiate or continue service to the United  States, take part in code-share arrangements with U.S. air carriers, or  effectively increase air traffic with the United States. Currently, five  African countries have a Category 1 rating: Cape Verde, Egypt, Ethiopia,  Morocco, and South Africa. Partly because of the small number of Category  1 countries, direct connections between Africa and the United States are  currently limited. In fact, only one U.S. commercial airline provides direct  passenger service to the continent as of June 2009. Furthermore, there are  only eight direct connections between U.S. cities and an African city, and  three of these connections are provided solely by foreign air carriers   (see fig. 3).
section_title: Many Ongoing Challenges Make Improving Aviation Safety in Africa Difficult
paragraphs: According to our literature synthesis and U.S. and African officials we  interviewed, the major challenge in improving aviation safety is that the  highest levels of government in some African nations have not made it a  priority. We have previously identified leadership support as critical to  fundamental organizational changes—such as those required to prioritize  aviation safety in some African countries. According to U.S. federal  officials and ICAO representatives, making aviation a governmental  priority is critical to the successful transformation of African civil aviation  authorities. In fact, we found that in African countries that have succeeded  in improving aviation safety and generating economic benefits, like Cape  Verde (see table 1), top leadership’s clear and personal involvement has  set the direction for civil aviation officials to act upon. However, according  to U.S. government and African officials, many political leaders in African  countries have not prioritized aviation safety, in part because of more  pressing priorities, such as poverty, health care, and basic nutrition. Some  African officials told us that aviation is seen as a luxury for the affluent in  African society, and these perceptions pressure governmental leaders to  give lower priority to improving aviation safety and to use resources for  issues that affect a larger segment of the African population. These  officials further said that African political leaders often do not realize the  potential benefits, such as increased tourism, that can flow from improved  aviation safety.
The lack of priority for improving safety may create or exacerbate other  challenges frequently identified in the literature we reviewed and by  officials we interviewed, including weak aviation regulatory systems, a  lack of resources, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of human capital  expertise, and a lack of training capacity. These challenges are not  mutually exclusive, since most are affected by or contribute to the other  challenges.
Weak aviation regulatory systems. ICAO recommends that civil aviation  authorities be created as politically and financially independent bodies.  Accordingly, an authority should be independently funded and (1) have its  own financial resources, (2) have the authority needed to issue aviation  standards and regulations and conduct safety oversight of air operators;  and (3) establish requirements for the certification of air operators. These  are among the critical elements of a safety oversight system designed to  ensure the implementation of ICAO standards and recommended  practices. According to DOT officials, however, many African civil aviation  authorities do not have sufficient regulatory autonomy or stable and  reliable revenue sources to comply with ICAO standards. For example,  some officials we interviewed stated that some African civil aviation  authorities’ budgets are linked to their countries’ general treasuries or  transportation ministries, making the authorities susceptible to political  interference. Moreover, because they are not independent entities, some  civil aviation authorities can have their decisions overturned by higher- ranking government officials. For example, according to several officials  we interviewed, a decision to ground two aircraft because of safety  concerns in one African country resulted in the firing of the civil aviation  authority head. According to representatives from the United Nations’  World Food Program, a program that uses the aviation system to deliver  humanitarian aid, these weak regulatory systems allow unsafe aviation  practices—such as certifying outdated and poorly maintained aircraft in  some African countries—to go unchecked. According to DOD, the ability  of each African country to have a civil aviation authority that meets  international standards of oversight is critical for the safety of DOD’s  aviation operations on the continent and to mission success.
Lack of resources. Some African countries lack sufficient revenues to  improve the safety of their aviation systems. A World Bank official told us  that only a few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have an aviation market  with sufficient passenger traffic to generate sustained funding for aviation  safety improvements. Furthermore, aviation officials from all four of the  African countries we visited told us that obtaining adequate funding to  properly maintain their aviation system was a major challenge. For  example, according to Tanzanian civil aviation officials, they have not  been able to make needed aviation safety improvements because their  authority does not generate sufficient revenue from air traffic. Moreover,  revenue generated through such mechanisms as landing fees are not  always dedicated to the aviation system in some African countries; rather,  the governments use this revenue for other priorities. Finally, because of  the low priority placed on improving aviation safety in some African  countries, African aviation officials told us that it can be difficult to secure  additional government funding for safety improvements.
Inadequate infrastructure. Partly for lack of resources, the aviation  infrastructure in many African countries is insufficient, outdated, or in  otherwise poor condition, which can lead to safety hazards. For example,  as discussed previously, airspace in some regions of Africa is not  controlled by air navigation systems. The lack of such technology  increases the potential for midair collisions, affecting both civilian and  military aviation. For example, DOD officials told us that the lack of air  navigation systems affects military aviation operations, such as carrying  out missions and conducting training exercises, on the continent. To  reduce the risk of collisions, officials from one African airline said they fly  to certain regions only during daytime hours. African airports also  sometimes lack basic infrastructure, such as radar systems, adequate  runway surfaces, and other navigation facilities, or the infrastructure they  have is obsolete. For example, according to IATA, at many African  airports, airfield lighting is not compliant with international aviation safety  standards. Noncompliant airfield lighting contributed to a crash in Nigeria  in December 2005 that killed 108 passengers. The runway lights were off,  in part because the airport lacked the funds and resources to maintain a  stable power supply from operating generators. According to Tanzanian  airport officials, maintaining and improving airport infrastructure is the  biggest challenge they face in attempting to improve their country’s  aviation safety.
Lack of human capital expertise. According to several U.S. and African  officials, the lack of qualified aviation personnel, such as pilots, air traffic  controllers, maintenance technicians, and flight inspectors, has been a  major challenge for African countries. These officials stated that many  African civil aviation authorities and air carriers find it difficult to attract  and retain qualified personnel, primarily because of the low wages they  pay. This problem becomes especially acute for some African civil aviation  authorities trying to retain qualified inspectors, because their salaries are  tied to the governmental pay structure, which is not competitive with the  private sector. According to U.S. and African officials, aviation personnel  leave African civil aviation authorities and air carriers for more lucrative  positions, frequently with foreign air carriers in the Middle East and Asia,  after gaining a few years’ experience in Africa—a phenomenon these  officials referred to as “brain drain.” As a result, critical aviation positions,  such as airworthiness inspection positions, go unfilled, leaving the country  noncompliant with international aviation safety standards. We and others  have identified the importance of a competent aviation inspector  workforce to improve safety and compliance with safety standards.
Lack of training capacity. Improving aviation safety in Africa has been  hindered by the lack of training capacity in some African countries. Having  inadequate financial resources and competing primary needs, many  African countries do not have sufficient means to fund training for  personnel in technical, management, and leadership disciplines. Two of  the four countries we visited had training centers to train aviation  personnel in various disciplines, such as air traffic control, flight  operations, and airport security. However, the training center officials said  they lacked important training capacity because of funding constraints.  For example, officials said the centers had insufficient numbers of  teachers and classrooms and lacked up-to-date training materials and  equipment. Because they lack training capacity, many African civil  aviation authorities send personnel to other countries, including the  United States, for training, which can be costly and time-consuming.
section_title: U.S. Assistance Has Helped Address Some Challenges but Could Benefit from Better Coordination
subsections: section_title: DOT Provides Assistance to African Countries Primarily through the SSFA Program
paragraphs: DOT’s SSFA program has been the principal U.S. aviation safety assistance  program for African countries since its inception in 1998 as a presidential  initiative. The program was established to promote sustainable  improvements in aviation safety and security in Africa and to foster  aviation growth between the United States and Africa. The program was  designated in 2003 as the vehicle to support the goals of the 2003 East  Africa Counterterrorism presidential initiative to advance the  administration’s regional security strategy. According to DOT officials,  the program was also incorporated into the administration’s strategy for  working with Sub-Saharan African countries in 2007. DOT’s 2008  strategic plan describes the SSFA program as advancing the Department’s  mission and objective of international outreach and global connectivity.  Furthermore, according to FAA’s business plan, the program serves to  coordinate and advance FAA’s international leadership objectives and  activities in Africa.
The SSFA program has three main goals: (1) increase the number of Sub- Saharan African countries that meet the ICAO aviation safety standards,  (2) improve aviation security at a number of African airports, and (3)  improve regional air navigation services in Africa by using modern  satellite-based navigation aids and modern communications technology.  DOT works to achieve these goals by providing training and technical  assistance to the participating countries, including direct assistance from  FAA. For example, DOT has provided training to over 1,200 aviation  personnel from Africa through the SSFA program. Similarly, DOT and FAA  collaborated with ICAO to formally develop model civil aviation  regulations to provide countries participating in SSFA with a cohesive set  of guidance materials to use in developing their own set of technical  regulations and guidance materials. DOT’s Office of the Secretary manages  the SSFA program, including identifying the program’s objectives,  activities, and project time frames, as well as documenting the program’s  results. FAA provides the technical expertise and other in-kind services to  participating African countries, especially in technical areas such as safety  oversight. For all participating SSFA countries, DOT works with FAA to  conduct a baseline safety and security assessment, develop an action plan  to remedy the identified deficiencies, and outline an assistance plan to  guide the country’s efforts to address its aviation safety and security  issues. The participating SSFA countries bear the primary responsibility  for funding the improvements recommended by DOT. Currently, 10  African countries participate in the SSFA program (see fig. 4).
A recent focus of the SSFA program is encouraging African countries to  take a regional approach to address aviation safety challenges. DOT  officials told us that a regional approach to safety allows countries to  address resource, human capital, and training challenges by pooling and  leveraging expertise and sharing costs. For example, rather than each  country establishing individual training centers, countries can band  together to establish regional training centers that could serve aviation  personnel from all of the participating countries. Such an approach allows  the countries to provide the necessary training, but with less money and  fewer teachers than they would need to establish multiple, country- specific training centers. In 2007, as part of the SSFA program’s  regionalism effort, three East African Community (EAC) countries (Kenya,  Tanzania, and Uganda)  established the first operational regional safety  and security oversight organization in Africa—the Civil Aviation Safety  and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA)—to be responsible for, among  other things, ensuring the development of a safe and secure civil aviation  system, including uniform operating regulations that meet the  international standards and standardized procedures for licensing,  approving, certificating and supervising civil aviation activities. CASSOA  was fashioned after aspects of ICAO’s regional safety oversight  organizations, as discussed later in this report. According to FAA officials,  one of the main focuses of CASSOA will be to assist in developing a pool  of qualified, transnational inspectors who can be used in any of the EAC  countries as needed.
In addition to the SSFA program, DOT has other efforts to assist foreign  countries, including African countries, in developing their civil aviation  systems and improving aviation safety. In particular, FAA provides  aviation safety technical assistance and training to countries across the  globe. According to FAA, a key component of the agency’s technical  assistance efforts is its technical reviews. A technical review is an  evaluation of a country’s compliance with ICAO standards for aviation  safety oversight. In these reviews, FAA technical teams apply the same  criteria used in an IASA program audit and identify areas of  noncompliance and work with the country to develop an action plan in  order to implement the proposed corrective actions. The goal of the  technical review is to provide a baseline for a country in order to help the  country eventually meet ICAO standards and, potentially, IASA  requirements. According to DOT, FAA has conducted technical reviews of  seven African civil aviation authorities, in both SSFA and non-SSFA  countries. For example, in July 2007, FAA conducted a technical review of  the safety oversight capability of the civil aviation authority in Nigeria, a  non-SSFA country. FAA also provides aviation-related training to the  international community and supports ICAO contracting states and  regional aviation organizations. For example, in July 2007, FAA helped  South Africa review its aviation law and regulations prior to an IASA  reassessment scheduled for later that year.
section_title: Resources for SSFA Program Have Been Unpredictable and Constrained
paragraphs: DOT and FAA officials told us that resources for the SSFA program and  other technical assistance efforts directed toward Africa have been  unpredictable and constrained since the program began, hampering their  efforts to carry out its objectives. The State Department provides funding  for the program from one of its appropriations—the Economic Support  Fund Account—and funding for the program has ranged from $8.5 million  from the appropriation for fiscal year 2003 to zero from the appropriations  for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (see table 2). Funds that are provided for  SSFA are available for obligation for 2 fiscal years, and in fiscal year 2008,  DOT-obligated funds carried over from fiscal year 2007, according to  DOT. Because of a continuing resolution, funds for SSFA remained  available for obligation into fiscal year 2009, and a DOT official estimated  that such funds could sustain the program for the remainder of the fiscal  year. However, to stretch the resources through this date, DOT officials  said they have limited SSFA activities, focusing only on countries that are  making tangible progress in improving safety and regional initiatives.  Other planned activities were delayed or cancelled. For example, because  of limited funding, according to DOT officials, the SSFA program was  unable to keep aviation safety personnel in Africa to provide on-site  guidance and technical assistance. According to these officials, such on- site guidance and technical assistance would help African countries  eliminate errors in implementing or interpreting aviation safety  requirements and, over time, would reduce the amount of time spent  working with them to meet international aviation safety standards. In  addition, DOT officials said that one funding priority is helping EAC  countries establish the newly created regional oversight organization.  According to a State Department official, the fiscal year 2010  congressional budget justification for the department includes $2 million  for the program.
In addition to budgetary constraints, DOT and FAA officials told us, they  have limited staff resources to work on aviation safety issues in Africa.  Most of the DOT and FAA staff working on aviation safety in Africa also  have other responsibilities that limit the amount of time they can spend on  the SSFA program and other African initiatives. All of the African  governmental officials we spoke with were appreciative of the technical  assistance and training provided under the SSFA program, but many said  additional assistance for implementing the technical advice provided by  FAA would be very helpful. For example, EAC headquarters officials said  the technical assistance through SSFA has helped EAC harmonize the civil  aviation regulations for each country. However, they said the lack of  funding and expertise will make the next step in the process— implementing regulations in each member country—difficult.
section_title: Two Economic Development-Oriented Agencies Have Funded Aviation Projects in Africa
paragraphs: In addition to the training and technical assistance provided by DOT and  FAA, USTDA and MCC have provided funding for aviation-related projects,  including safety improvements, in Africa. Neither of these agencies has an  aviation-related mission; rather the missions of these agencies focus on  promoting economic development in countries around the world.  However, given the potential economic benefits associated with improved  aviation systems, USTDA and MCC, in total, have funded over two dozen  aviation-related projects in various African countries, including the  following:    Over the past 10 years, according to USTDA, the agency has provided over  $6.1 million in funding for 26 aviation-sector projects throughout Sub- Saharan Africa. These projects typically focus on providing technical  assistance or conducting feasibility studies for African governments or  private-sector entities. For example, USTDA provided $460,000 to the  Malawian Ministry of Transport and Public Works to assist in establishing  an autonomous civil aviation authority with a supportive legal and  regulatory framework and adequate institutional capabilities. USTDA has  also funded aviation projects in several African countries in an effort to  strengthen regional air traffic management and communications  structures. For example, USTDA has provided about $1.7 million for  conducting feasibility studies for air traffic management development and  for modernizing three regional groups’ upper airspace. The benefits  expected from these efforts include improved air traffic safety and  regional coordination, and increased revenues for the member countries.  In addition, USTDA has sponsored training and seminars. For example, in  2002, USTDA provided about $84,000 for an orientation visit in which 18  delegates from nine African countries traveled to Washington, D.C., to  meet with government and private-sector representatives on project- specific opportunities in Africa, and on the role and development of air  cargo transportation in AGOA. Also, in November 2008, USTDA and DOT  partnered to sponsor a workshop in Washington, D.C., to bring together  ministers and senior officials from eastern African countries, U.S.  government officials, and private-sector representatives to discuss  transportation needs and regional solutions to transportation  infrastructure challenges in East Africa.
MCC has funded aviation-related projects for Mali and Tanzania. MCC  provides its assistance through compact agreements, or multiyear  agreements between MCC and an eligible country. Compact agreements  were signed with Mali in November 2006 and with Tanzania in February  2008. Under these agreements, MCC has provided about $183 million and  $7 million, respectively, for airport infrastructure projects.
section_title: U.S. Efforts Are Not Consistently Coordinated
paragraphs: U.S. efforts on the continent have not consistently been coordinated. The  SSFA program began as a collaborative effort between DOT and other U.S.  agencies. Throughout the program’s existence, DOT has pursued  collaborative efforts, such as regular briefings to the State Department on  program developments and formal and ad hoc discussions and meetings  with USTDA and MCC. Currently, multiple federal agencies are working to  improve aviation safety or are funding aviation-related projects in Africa.  However, these agencies’ missions do not focus specifically on improving  aviation safety. These agencies have distinct missions and, consequently,  their efforts on the continent have different purposes, but their efforts  nonetheless intersect. Recognizing the interrelatedness of their efforts,  DOT has used memorandums of agreement with several federal agencies  to coordinate aviation-related efforts in Africa to prevent duplication and  to ensure that federal funding is put to best use in the aviation sector.  DOT officials told us these memorandums of agreement are mechanisms  to provide recommendations based on international standards and  coordination with SSFA activities. In addition, USTDA and FAA jointly  formed an Interagency Committee on International Aviation Safety and  Security in 2004 to coordinate technical assistance in the areas of aviation  safety and security in developing countries. The committee was formed  to strengthen the impact of U.S. aviation and security assistance through a  strategic, governmentwide focus on priority projects, and to target U.S.  assistance to those countries that are committed to progress and capable  of both improving and maintaining their safety and security performance.
These mechanisms have not consistently worked as intended. For  example, MCC and DOT signed a memorandum of understanding to  ensure coordination on related projects. However, circumstances  surrounding the MCC aviation project in Mali demonstrate a need for  improved coordination between the two agencies. According to FAA  officials, MCC did not have prior consultations with them on MCC’s  aviation project in Mali, even though FAA was actively working with Mali  on aviation safety issues. Rather, DOT and FAA officials said they learned  about MCC’s project through an MCC contractor. In contrast, MCC  officials told us that they did coordinate with DOT on the Mali project,  noting that DOT officials attended several meetings held prior to the  signing of the compact with Mali in which the compact was discussed.
DOT and FAA officials told us that increased collaboration is needed  among federal agencies providing aviation-related assistance to Africa to  leverage limited resources and minimize duplication of effort. The officials  pointed out that in some instances other agencies and organizations that  provide funding for aviation infrastructure, technical assistance, and  training projects may not have the aviation expertise needed to determine  whether the projects meet international aviation safety standards. As a  result, investments provided to fund projects that do not meet  international aviation safety standards may not allow African countries to  reap the potential economic benefits associated with enhancing air  connectivity with the United States.
In addition, we have previously reported on the importance of  coordinating federal efforts, especially when these efforts target the same  population, to prevent duplication and fragmentation of effort. This  potential for overlap and fragmentation underscores how important it is  for the federal government to develop the capacity to more effectively  coordinate crosscutting program efforts. Our work also indicates that  coordinating crosscutting programs is a persistent challenge for executive  branch agencies, and in addressing these challenges, agencies will need to  overcome barriers, such as disparate missions and other incompatibilities.  Agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by developing  a strategy that includes necessary elements for a collaborative working  relationship, such as defining and articulating a common outcome;  identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; agreeing on  roles and responsibilities; establishing compatible policies, procedures,  and other means to operate across agency boundaries; and developing  mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
section_title: The International Community Has Taken Steps to Address the Challenges
paragraphs: The international community also has taken steps to improve aviation safety  in Africa. Addressing issues on the continent has been elevated in  international aviation organizations, institutions that represent sovereign  nations or foreign governments, and other international organizations. Many  of these steps, such as improving aviation oversight, increasing training, and  improving infrastructure, address the challenges involved in improving  aviation safety in Africa. The following are among the international efforts  most frequently mentioned by officials we interviewed.
International Civil Aviation Organization has strengthened its focus on  the safety oversight capacity of African countries. ICAO implemented the  Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program in 1999 as an auditing tool to  determine contracting states’ capability for safety oversight by assessing  the states’ implementation of a safety oversight system and identifying  areas of concern. Findings from ICAO’s audits revealed that a number of  African countries lack the resources and regulatory framework necessary  to fulfill their safety oversight responsibilities, and vary widely in their  ability to provide safety oversight. In 2007, audits of 27 African countries  showed that, on average, these countries were not effectively  implementing over half of ICAO’s eight critical elements of a safety  oversight system, with the proportion of standards effectively  implemented ranging from about 9 percent to about 94 percent. As a  result, ICAO has been involved in several initiatives to help African  countries improve aviation safety. The first major initiative, the  Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in  Africa (AFI Plan), was developed in 2007 to address aviation safety  concerns and support African countries in meeting their international  obligations for safety oversight. The plan was intended to coordinate and  lead all of ICAO’s efforts for addressing aviation safety issues in Africa  with clearly defined objectives, outputs, activities, and metrics.
Like the SSFA program, ICAO has worked with African nations to share  aviation oversight responsibilities through regional organizations in its  Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing  Airworthiness Program (COSCAP).  Under this program, African  countries have begun to consider the benefits of coordinating aviation  oversight responsibilities to enhance the safety of air transport operations  in their respective regions. For example, eight countries in western Africa  formed the West Africa Economic and Monetary Union COSCAP. This  COSCAP established a cooperative arrangement for the member countries  to provide collaborative safety oversight for the subregion to enhance the  safety and efficiency of air transport. According to literature sources and  ICAO officials, these regional organizations will enhance the ability of civil  aviation authorities in Africa to provide safety oversight by addressing  resource, human capital, and training challenges.
ICAO has also created a database for information on aviation safety and  security assistance provided to African countries by contracting states.  The purpose of this database is to facilitate the coordination of assistance  in order to better leverage limited resources. According to ICAO officials,  assistance provided to African countries to improve aviation safety is  largely uncoordinated, creating the potential for efforts that are  duplicative or serve cross purposes. Similar to U.S. officials, ICAO officials  have noted that from an international perspective, many countries and  organizations are eager to support aviation safety efforts in African  nations, and thus offer various forms of assistance, including funding.  Furthermore, the officials noted that with limited resources, African  nations have little incentive to turn away assistance from donor countries  even if it overlaps with assistance from another country.
International Air Transport Association provides aviation operational  safety audit tools and support for members. The IATA Operational  Safety Audit (IOSA) program was initiated in 2001 and is an evaluation  system designed to assess the operational management and control  systems of an airline. Starting in 2008, IATA required that its members pass  an IOSA audit as a condition of membership. To help its members identify  operational gaps when preparing for safety audits, IATA developed a  technical assistance program for member airlines, including African  airlines. Nigeria affords an example of an African country’s participation in  ICAO and IATA programs (see table 3). IATA also provided $3.7 million to  initiate the Implementation Program for Safe Operations in Africa, which  is designed to improve aviation safety by providing African airlines with  access to IATA’s Flight Data Analysis tool. This tool monitors and collects  data from airplanes, allowing airline officials to analyze data from actual  flights to improve procedures, monitor compliance, and identify trends for  aircraft maintenance. The initiative gives up to 30 African airlines free  access to the Flight Data Analysis tool for 3 years.
IATA has been involved in several efforts related to improving airport  infrastructure as a means to improve aviation safety in Africa. For  example, IATA addresses airport deficiencies by performing on-site visits  and bringing relevant reports to the attention of the local and national  authorities. IATA also regularly organizes technical missions to African  countries. On these missions, IATA conducts airport operations  assessments and discusses issues of common interest with the civil  aviation and airport authorities, including infrastructure deficiencies,  priorities for remedial action, possibilities for cooperation between IATA  and the authorities, and future development plans. Eleven technical  missions were held in Africa in 2007.
The European Union (EU) publishes a list of banned airlines to  encourage airlines to improve safety. The EU publishes a list of banned  airlines that are restricted from operating in the EU because they are  deemed to be out of compliance with international aviation safety  standards. In 2005, the EU developed the list of banned airlines in  response to several fatal aircraft crashes in 2004 and 2005. European  Commission officials told us that the list of banned air carriers is both a  preventive and a dissuasive measure—in particular, the threat of being  placed on the list encourages airlines to take the measures necessary to  improve safety within the shortest possible time. In November 2008, the  EU declared that 168 air carriers—100 of which are from African  countries—were noncompliant with international aviation safety  standards and banned them from operating at EU members’ airports.
Unlike FAA’s IASA program, which focuses on foreign countries’ aviation  regulatory framework, the EU’s approach primarily focuses on the  operational safety of individual airlines. However, the EU may ban all air  carriers from a particular country if it finds systemic safety deficiencies on  the part of air carriers certified by that country’s civil aviation authority.  For instance, the November 2008 list included all air carriers certified in  the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Sierra Leone,  Liberia, and Swaziland because previous safety audits have indicated  serious deficiencies in the capability of the civil aviation authorities of  these countries to perform their air safety oversight responsibilities.  According to European Commission officials, when an operating ban has  been imposed on an air carrier, the European Commission provides  technical assistance to the air carrier and coordinates with the respective  civil aviation authority to remedy the deficiencies that resulted in the  operational ban.
In April 2009, the European Commission and the African Union  Commission held an aviation conference in Namibia to address the critical  issue of aviation safety in Africa, among other items. An outgrowth of this  conference was the creation of the Common Strategic Framework and  Action Plan, which details areas of cooperation and agreement for  permanent strategic dialogue in aviation matters. In the area of aviation  safety, the main goals are to (1) significantly reduce accident rates in  Africa, (2) reduce the average rates of nonconformity of African states for  compliance with ICAO standards and recommended practices, and (3)  reduce the number of African airlines affected by the EU list of banned  airlines.
World Bank investments address aviation infrastructure challenges in  Africa. The World Bank and the Group of Eight, or G-8, countries have  been focusing their efforts on the continent to support economic  development in African countries, with goals beyond humanitarian relief,  and promoting development across Africa has become a global security  issue. The World Bank spends about $600 million annually on aviation  projects in Africa. Much of this funding is used for specific infrastructure  improvement projects, such as runway construction and air traffic control  improvements. For example, in 2007, the World Bank provided  international development grants of about $151 million for 23 countries for  the ongoing development of a regional air transport program, including  about $47 million to Nigeria to help finance the modernization of safety  oversight bodies and airport facilities.
World Food Program implemented requirements for contracting with  African air carriers. The World Food Program implemented an aviation  safety program in 2004, which consists of registering, evaluating, and  monitoring contract air carriers used to carry out its humanitarian efforts.  The program was developed in response to a series of fatal crashes in  Africa involving World Food Program personnel. According to World Food  Program officials, the safety program holds contractors to high standards  and has helped to improve the safety practices of small African air  carriers.
AviAssist Foundation provides assistance to African countries to  improve aviation safety. The AviAssist Foundation identifies safety  deficiencies, analyzes their causes, and works with African countries to  find practical solutions and secure funding for making necessary  improvements. AviAssist also works to promote aviation safety through  training events, workshops, and outreach. For example, AviAssist  conducted an information session for government and aviation personnel  in Zambia in November 2008 to help them prepare for their upcoming  ICAO audit. In addition, AviAssist is working with the Flight Safety  Foundation to develop plain-language informational documents on  countries’ international responsibility for aviation safety and the role of a  civil aviation authority. According to AviAssist officials, such information  is needed to help increase political leaders’ awareness of the importance  of aviation safety.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: A little more than 10 years have passed since the SSFA program was  launched in an attempt to bridge the United States and Africa via air  transport by assisting African countries in improving aviation safety. U.S.  and African officials attribute important safety advancements in Africa over  this period of time—such as the establishment of a regional regulatory  organization in East Africa—directly to this program. The program is also of  strategic importance to DOT, helping it reach out to the international  community and increasing global connectivity. Furthermore, the program  has been considered strategically important to U.S. foreign policy interests.  However, funding for the program has been inconsistent, and the future of  the SSFA program is uncertain because of resource constraints. Given this  uncertainty, it seems appropriate for DOT, FAA, and the Department of  State to reassess the government’s ability to achieve the program’s goals in  view of the level of resources being provided.
In addition, better interagency coordination through DOT for funding air  transportation-related activities in Africa would improve U.S. efforts to  assist African countries not only by preventing duplication of effort, but  also by establishing a more comprehensive strategy for achieving common  goals and objectives. Several U.S. federal agencies are involved in funding  aviation-related projects in African countries, but this assistance is  inconsistently coordinated. Such lack of coordination can lead to  duplication of effort and the potential allocation of scarce resources for  unnecessary and unwarranted projects. It also can prevent agencies from  leveraging resources and expertise across government and optimizing the  impact of their efforts. While DOT has been involved in some of these  aviation safety-related projects, the federal agencies have not collaborated  consistently, partly because the other agencies do not focus specifically on  improving aviation safety. The Interagency Committee on International  Aviation Safety and Security, formed by USTDA and FAA, could  potentially serve as a mechanism for developing a strategy to coordinate  agencies’ resources for aviation-related projects in Africa and to assist  DOT in accomplishing the SSFA program’s goals. By leading collaborative  efforts, DOT can share expertise and provide strategic direction for  aviation projects in Africa, especially through the SSFA program, helping  to ensure that the U.S. agency with the greatest aviation expertise and  technical capabilities has a leadership role in activities related to U.S.  funding of aviation safety-related efforts in Africa. Furthermore, by  encouraging coordination and collaboration, DOT may be able to work  with all agencies involved to more consistently focus cumulative efforts on  deliverable targets, leverage resources, and achieve tangible results.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following  two actions:    Lead a collaborative effort with the Administrator of FAA and the  Secretary of State to reassess the SSFA program’s goals and identify the  level of budgetary and human capital resources necessary to achieve those  goals, including identifying the implications of reduced resource levels on  DOT’s ability to achieve the program’s goals.
Develop a comprehensive strategy to lead efforts to coordinate the  governmentwide resources available to accomplish the SSFA program’s  goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT, the State Department, DOD,  USAID, USTDA, and MCC for review and comment. DOT and USTDA  generally agreed with the report’s findings, conclusions, and  recommendations and provided technical clarifications, which we  incorporated, as appropriate. Based on DOT’s comments, we clarified the  intent of the recommendations to provide a better focus on the desired  results to be achieved. MCC provided clarifications to information related  to MCC in the report, which we incorporated as appropriate, and MCC’s  review provided no opinion on the larger content of the report, including  its findings, conclusions, or recommendations. The State Department,  DOD, and USAID did not comment on the report.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other  interested congressional committees and members; the Secretary of  Transportation; the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense; the  Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development; the Director,  U.S. Trade and Development Agency; the Chief Executive Officer,  Millennium Challenge Corporation; the Director, Office of Management  and Budget; and others. The report is also available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our objectives, we reviewed and synthesized reports and  studies on U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa, the Department  of Transportation’s (DOT) Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA) program, and  Africa’s aviation markets and safety records. Specifically, we reviewed  GAO and Congressional Research Service reports that included general  background information on a variety of related issues on the African  continent, such as the safety and security of foreign airports and U.S.  airlines’ code-share partnerships with foreign carriers. We searched  databases, such as ProQuest, Nexis, and TRIS, for information on the  SSFA program, U.S. trade and investment interests in Africa, challenges to  improving aviation safety in Africa, and comparable international aviation  efforts. Furthermore, we reviewed SSFA program documentation that  included information on the program’s selection criteria, eligibility,  objectives and goals, accomplishments, and funding information. We also  reviewed the DOT Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 – 2011, the  Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Flight Plan 2008 – 2012, and  FAA’s International Aviation Business Plan Fiscal Year 2009. In  addition, we reviewed FAA guidance on the agency’s International  Aviation Safety Assessment and Code-Share Safety programs.
We also reviewed documentation and reports on efforts to improve  aviation safety in African countries from other U.S. agencies, such as the  Department of State, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and U.S. Trade  and Development Agency. For U.S. trade and investment policies for  Africa, we reviewed reports from the U.S. Trade Representative on the  implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000. To  examine international efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa, we  reviewed published reports, documentation, and regulations from the  European Commission on its list of banned carriers, and aviation safety  plans, reports, and flight statistics from the International Civil Aviation  Organization (ICAO) and International Air Transport Association (IATA).
In addition to reviewing program documentation and published literature,  we conducted semistructured interviews with department-level officials  from U.S. federal agencies and representatives of international  organizations, trade group associations, and other industry stakeholders  involved with aviation safety issues in Africa. A list of these agencies and  organizations follows:  Department of Transportation  Federal Aviation Administration  Department of Defense  Department of State  Millennium Challenge Corporation  National Transportation Safety Board  U.S. Agency for International Development  U.S. Trade and Development Agency  U.S. Trade Representative for Africa  International Civil Aviation Organization  World Bank  European Commission  European Aviation Safety Agency  MacArthur Foundation  Air Transport Association  American Association of Airport Executives  Flight Safety Foundation  International Air Transport Association  International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Association  Airbus  Boeing  Continental Airlines  Delta Airlines  Honeywell International, Inc.
To obtain additional information on aviation safety efforts in Africa, we  conducted site visits to four selected African countries. To identify the  African countries to visit, we reviewed published research on U.S. efforts to  improve aviation safety in Africa, comparable international efforts, Africa’s  aviation markets and safety record, and DOT and FAA documentation on  the SSFA program. We used the following criteria to ensure variation in the  countries chosen for site visits: (1) countries’ participation in the SSFA  program; (2) countries that have an FAA Category 1 rating, currently have  direct flights to the United States, and are not currently participating in the  SSFA program; (3) countries that have achieved an FAA Category 1 rating as  a result of the SSFA program; (4) countries that are not involved with the  SSFA program or do not have an FAA Category 1 rating, and have major  challenges and a poor safety record for aviation safety, with consideration  to geographic dispersion; and (5) countries that are involved in positive  efforts to meet international aviation safety standards and improve aviation  safety as a result of the SSFA program, such as countries that have been  involved in regional aviation safety oversight organizations to improve air  transport and aviation safety. In addition, we considered other factors, such  as recommendations from U.S. government officials and aviation experts  whom we consulted about countries to visit based on their knowledge and  experience working with African countries and their professional judgment.  Using this information, we selected Cape Verde, Kenya, Senegal, and  Tanzania for site visits. During the site visits, we conducted semistructured  interviews with government officials, including those at the Ministry level,  as well as civil aviation authority and airport authority officials; and  representatives of regional aviation organizations, African airlines, industry  groups, and aviation training schools. However, because these four  countries were selected as part of a nonprobability sample, the findings  from our interviews cannot be generalized to all African countries. A list of  the organizations we contacted in each country follows:  Cape Verde Ministry of Infrastructures, Transport, and the Sea  Cape Verde Agency for Civil Aviation  Cape Verde Airport and Air Navigation Authority  Cabo Verde TACV Airlines   Halcyon Air (airline)  U.S. Embassy, Cape Verde  ALS Ltd. (airline)  East African School of Aviation  International Air Transport Association, Eastern Africa Office  International Civil Aviation Organization, Eastern and Southern African Office  Kenya Airports Authority  Kenya Airways (airline)  Kenya Civil Aviation Authority  Kenya Ministry of Transport  United Nations World Food Program  U.S. Embassy, Kenya  African Civil Aviation Commission  Agency for Air Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar  Air Senegal International (airline)
Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Office for Africa  High Authority Airport Leopold Sedar Senghor  International Air Transport Association, Central and West Africa Office  International Civil Aviation Organization, Western and Central Africa Office  National Civil Aviation Agency of Senegal  U.S. Embassy, Senegal  East African Community (EAC)  EAC Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency  Civil Aviation Training Centre  Tanzania Airports Authority  Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority  Tanzania Ministry of Infrastructure Development  We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through June 2009  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report, Nikki Clowers, Acting Director;  Vashun Cole; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Hannah Laufe; Nitin Rao; and Amy  Rosewarne.