annual activity report 2013 - european commission

Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid

AnnualActivityReport

2013‐ANNEXES‐

Directorate‐General for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid

198

Table of Contents

ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF THE RESOURCES DIRECTOR ........................................................................................... 198 ANNEX 2: HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 200 ANNEX 3A: DRAFT ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE GENERAL BUDGET ......................................... 203 ANNEX 3B: DRAFT ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE EDF ........................................................... 218 ANNEX 4: MATERIALITY CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 436 ANNEX 5: INTERNAL CONTROL TEMPLATE(S) FOR BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (ICTS) .................................................. 438 ANNEX 6: IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC‐SECTOR BODIES AND BODIES GOVERNED BY PRIVATE LAW WITH A PUBLIC SECTOR MISSION ......................................................................................................... 462 ANNEX 7A: THE AAR OF EDUCATION, AUDIOVISUAL & CULTURE EXECUTIVE AGENCY .................................................. 492 ANNEX 7B: THE EAMRS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION DELEGATIONS AND THE DETAILED TABLES OF KPI VALUES BY DELEGATION (IN ELECTRONIC VERSION ONLY) .............................................................................................................. 600 ANNEX 8: DECENTRALISED AGENCIES (NA FOR DEVCO) ...................................................................................... 603 ANNEX 9: PERFORMANCE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN EVALUATIONS ...................................................................... 604 ANNEX 10: ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAID KPI FOR YEAR 2013 ..................................................................................... 625 ANNEX 11: SPECIFIC ANNEXES RELATED TO "ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS" (PART 3): .................................................................................................................................................... 649

199

ANNEX 1: Statement of the Resources Director

“I declare that in accordance with the Commission’s communication on clarification of the

responsibilities of the key actors in the domain of internal audit and internal control in the

Commission1, I have reported my advice and recommendations to the Director‐General on the

overall state of internal control in the DG.

I hereby certify that the information provided in Parts 2 and 3 of the present AAR and in its

annexes is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and exhaustive.”

Brussels, 31 March 2014

‐signed‐

Luc Bagur

1 SEC(2003)59 of 21.01.2003.

200

ANNEX 2: Human and Financial resources

DG Activity

Establishment Plan posts

External Personnel

Total

EUROPEA

ID

19 02 Cooperation with third countries in the area of migration and asylum

7 1 8

19 04 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

12 31 43

19 06 Crisis response and global threats to security

21 21 42

19 08 European Neighbourhood Policy and relations with Russia

228 453 681

19 09 Relations with Latin America 75 146 221

19 10 Relations with Asia, Central Asia and Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

141 328 469

19 11 Policy strategy and coordination for the ‘External relations’ policy area

24 8 32

21 02 Food security 12 55 67

21 03 Non‐State actors in development 18 57 75

21 04 Environment and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy

15 49 64

21 05 Human and social development 13 55 68

21 06 Geographical cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

24 35 59

21 07 Development cooperation actions and ad‐hoc programmes

3 2 5

21 08

Policy strategy and coordination for the ‘Development and relations with ACP States’ policy area

6 5 11

21 AWBL‐01 Administrative support for the ‘EuropeAid Development and Co‐operation’ Directorate‐General

116 475 591

21 AWBL‐02 Administrative support for the EuropeAid Cooperation Office

17 2 19

XX 01 European Development Fund 540 978 1,518

TOTAL 1,272 2,701 3,973

201

Financial Resources by ABB activity (€ million) implementation of Commitment Appropiations (CA)

Code ABB activity ABB activity Operational expenditure

Administrative expenditure

Total

19 02 Cooperation with third countries in the area of migration and asylum 58,000,000.00

60,633,660.38 1,358,538,178.96 19 09 Relations with Latin America 382,064,000.00

19 10 Relations with Asia, Central Asia and Middle East 857,840,518.58

19 01 linked to 19 02, 19 09, 19 10 Administrative expenditure of the ‘External relations’ policy area

21 02 Food security 258,629,000.00

46,438,260.03 1,293,545,038.56

21 03 Non‐State actors in development 244,400,000.00


217,149,999.53

21 05 Human and social development 195,545,000.00

21 06 Geographical cooperation with Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States 331,382,779.00

21 01 linked to 21 02, 21 03, 21 04, 21 05, 21 06

Administrative expenditure of the ‘Development and relations with ACP States’ policy area

19 04 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 128,165,000.00 138,706,000.00

19 01 linked to 19 04 Administrative expenditure of the ‘External relations’ policy area 10,541,000.00

19 08 European Neighbourhood Policy and relations with Russia 2,486,700,489.89 2,545,274,479.51


21 07 Development cooperation actions and ad‐hoc programmes 32,885,932.33 33,160,932.33

21 01 linked to 21 07 Administrative expenditure of the ‘Development and relations with ACP States’ policy area

275,000.00

19 06 Crisis response and global threats to security 127,076,000.00132,763,122.00


19 11 Policy strategy and coordination for the 'External relations' policy area 16,330,000.00 16,330,000.00

21 08 Policy strategy and coordination for the 'Development and relations with ACP States' policy area

20,325,000.00

20,595,000.00 21 01 linked to 21 08

Administrative expenditure of the ‘Development and relations with ACP States’ policy area

270,000.00

05 10 EDF administrative 4,683,773,594 62,317,557.63 4,746,091,152

TOTAL EDF AND BUDGET 10,040,267,313.73 244,736,589.66 10,285,003,903.39

202

EuropeAid Implementation of the Global Envelope 2013

Budget line 21.010211

Budget Lines Budget Line Description

Appropriations 2013 (C1) Appropriations carried over from 2012 (C8)

Appropriations Commitments Payments Appropriations Implementation

% Implementation

on Appropriations

21.01.10 Mission expenses 4,338,910.00 4,353,910.00 3,638,258.62 1,137,214.84 924,620.63 81.31%

21.01.30 Representation expenses 20,000.00 18,000.00 13,934.59 5,397.84 4,350.84 80.60%

21.02.20 Meeting costs 92,450.00 122,450.00 93,245.07 11,715.23 10,967.87 93.62%

21.02.40 Conference costs 100,000.00 38,500.00 32,872.62 2,946.82 2,738.33 92.92%

21.03 Meeting of committees 200,000.00 160,000.00 133,138.69 3,628.46 3,258.66 89.81%

21.04 Studies and consultations 105,000.00 146,000.00 0.00 199,911.32 177,856.04 88.97%

21.05 Development of management and information systems

956,023.00 956,023.00 0.00 1,081,000.00 1,076,417.87 99.58%

21.06 Further training and management training 262,928.00 240,945.54 28,783.38 287,554.93 267,172.36 92.91%

TOTAL 6,075,311.00 6,035,828.54 3,940,232.97 2,729,369.44 2,467,382.60 90.40%

203

ANNEX 3A: Draft annual accounts and financial reports for the General Budget

Table 1 : Commitments

Table 2 : Payments

Table 3 : Commitments to be settled

Table 4 : Balance Sheet

Table 5 : Economic Outturn Account

Table 6 : Average Payment Times

Table 7 : Income

Table 8 : Recovery of undue Payments

Table 9 : Ageing Balance of Recovery Orders

Table 10 : Waivers of Recovery Orders

Table 11 : Negotiated Procedures (excluding Building Contracts)

Table 12 : Summary of Contracts (excluding Building Contracts)

Table 13 : Building Contracts

Table 14 : Contracts declared Secret

204

TABLE 1 : OUTTURN ON COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in € million)

Commitment appropriations authorised

Commitments made

%

1 2 3=2/1

Title 19: External relations

19

19 01 Administrative expenditure of the `External relations‐ policy area 136.03 135.78 99.82 %

19 02 Cooperation with third countries in the area of migration and asylum 62.03 60.85 98.09 %

19 04 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) 129.46 129.37 99.93 %

19 06 Crisis response and global threats to security 127.34 127.08 99.79 %

19 08 European Neighbourhood Policy and relations with Russia 2,433.61 2,401.83 98.69 %

19 09 Relations with Latin America 393.84 391.97 99.53 %

19 10 Relations with Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

910.48 905.02 99.40 %

19 11 Policy strategy and coordination for the `External relations‐ policy area

16.33 16.33 100.00 %

19 49 Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977

0.00 0.00

Total Title 19 4,209.12 4,168.22 99.03%

Title 21: Development and relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

21

21 01 Administrative expenditure of the `Development and relations with ACP States‐ policy area

142.45 141.23 99.14 %

21 02 Food security 281.42 261.49 92.92 %

21 03 Non‐State actors in development 249.58 246.35 98.71 %


218.30 217.35 99.56 %

21 05 Human and social development 198.88 198.05 99.58 %


333.83 333.45 99.89 %

21 07 Development cooperation actions and ad‐hoc programmes 34.21 32.89 96.14 %

21 08 Policy strategy and coordination for the `Development and relations with ACP States ‐ policy area

20.52 20.33 99.05 %

21 49 Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with the former Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977

0.00 0.00

Total Title 21 1,479.19 1,451.14 98.10%

Title XX

XX XX 01 73.57 73.57 100.00 %

Total Title XX 73.57 73.57 100.00%

Total DG EuropeAid 5,761.88 5,692.92 98.80 %

* Commitment appropriations authorised include, in addition to the budget voted by the legislative authority, appropriations carried over from the previous exercise, budget amendments as well as miscellaneous commitment appropriations for the period (e.g. internal and external assigned revenue).

205

TABLE 2 : OUTTURN ON PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in € million)

Chapter

Payment appropriations authorised *

Payments made

%

1 2 3=2/1


19

19 01 Administrative expenditure of the `External relations‐ policy area

147.36 131.33 89.13 %

19 02 Cooperation with third countries in the area of migration and asylum

39.23 39.11 99.70 %

19 04 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

110.56 110.36 99.82 %

19 06 Crisis response and global threats to security 96.77 96.57 99.79 %

19 08 European Neighbourhood Policy and relations with Russia 1,342.97 1,322.93 98.51 %

19 09 Relations with Latin America 280.70 280.06 99.77 %

19 10 Relations with Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

576.43 574.30 99.63 %

19 11 Policy strategy and coordination for the `External relations‐policy area

12.43 12.43 100.00 %

19 49 Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977

0.00 0.00

Total Title 19 2,606.45 2,567.08 98.49%


21

21 01 Administrative expenditure of the `Development and relations with ACP States‐ policy area

154.18 136.58 88.58 %

21 02 Food security 202.16 202.02 99.93 %

21 03 Non‐State actors in development 212.74 212.43 99.85 %


133.55 133.55 100.00 %

21 05 Human and social development 108.47 107.85 99.43 %


290.86 290.74 99.96 %

21 07 Development cooperation actions and ad‐hoc programmes 30.24 30.23 99.97 %

21 08 Policy strategy and coordination for the `Development and relations with ACP States‐ policy area

13.91 13.85 99.52 %

21 49 Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with the former Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977

0.00 0.00

Total Title 21 1,146.10 1,127.24 98.35%

Title XX

XX XX 01 73.60 73.47 99.82 %

Total Title XX 73.60 73.47 99.82%

Total DG EuropeAid 3,826.14 3,767.79 98.47 %

* Payment appropriations authorised include, in addition to the budget voted by the legislative authority, appropriations carried over from the previous exercise, budget amendments as well as miscellaneous payment appropriations for the period (e.g. internal and external assigned revenue).

206

TABLE 3 : BREAKDOWN OF COMMITMENTS TO BE SETTLED AT 31/12/2013 (in € million)

Chapter

2013 Commitments to be settled Commitments to be settled

from Total of commitments to be settled at end

Commitments 2013

Payments 2013

RAL 2013

% to be settled

Financial years previous to

2013

of financial year 2013

(incl. corrections)

of financial year 2012

(incl. corrections)

1 2 3=1‐2 4=1‐2/1 5 6=3+5 7


19

19 01

Administrative expenditure of the `External relations‐ policy area

135.77 121.25 14.53 10.70 % 0.00 14.53 11.33

19 02

Cooperation with third countries in the area of migration and asylum

60.85 0.00 60.85 100.00 % 101.97 162.81 147.28

19 04

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)

129.37 13.24 116.13 89.77 % 193.96 310.09 300.67

19 06 Crisis response and global threats to security

127.08 15.56 111.51 87.75 % 293.86 405.37 384.38

19 08

European Neighbourhood Policy and relations with Russia

2,401.83 378.34 2,023.49 84.25 % 4,098.87 6,122.36 5,246.75

19 09 Relations with Latin America

391.97 9.57 382.40 97.56 % 920.15 1,302.55 1,211.37

19 10

Relations with Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

905.02 8.03 896.99 99.11 % 2,325.58 3,222.57 2,937.47

19 11

Policy strategy and coordination for the `External relations‐ policy area

16.33 0.17 16.16 98.96 % 15.34 31.50 27.60

19 49

Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977

0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0 0.00 0.00 5.25

Total Title 19 4,168.22 546.15 3,622.07 86.90% 7,949.72 11,571.79 10,272.11


21

21 01

Administrative expenditure of the `Development and relations with ACP States‐ policy area

141.23 130.06 11.17 7.91 % 4.21 15.38 11.73

21 02 Food security 261.49 14.33 247.17 94.52 % 527.82 774.98 764.12

21 03 Non‐State actors in development

246.35 5.88 240.47 97.61 % 483.65 724.12 702.93

21 04

Environment and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy

217.35 13.24 204.11 93.91 % 405.13 609.24 547.80

21 05 Human and social development

198.05 40.90 157.15 79.35 % 196.22 353.38 269.58

21 06

Geographical cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)

333.45 0.00 333.45 100.00 % 785.72 1,119.18 1,086.59

207

States

21 07

Development cooperation actions and ad‐hoc programmes

32.89 25.17 7.72 23.46 % 2.34 10.06 7.40

21 08

Policy strategy and coordination for the `Development and relations with ACP States‐ policy area

20.33 0.00 20.33 100.00 % 21.16 41.48 35.48

21 49

Expenditure on administrative management of programmes committed in accordance with the former Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977

0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0 0.00 0.00 0.49

Total Title 21 1,451.14 229.57 1,221.57 84.18% 2,426.25 3,647.82 3,426.13

Title XX :

XX XX 01 73.57 73.45 0.11 0.15 % 0.00 0.11 0.03

Total Title XX 73.57 73.45 0.11 0.15% 0.00 0.11 0.03

Total DG EuropeAid 5,692.92 849.18 4,843.74 85.08 % 10,375.98 15,219.72 13,698.27

208

TABLE 4 : BALANCE SHEET

BALANCE SHEET 2013 2012

A.I. NON CURRENT ASSETS 45,392,863,331 51,052,361,500

A.I.1. Intangible Assets 78,225,433 60,559,629

A.I.2. Property, plant and equipment 2,887,989,695 2,488,041,024

A.I.3. Invstmnts Accntd For Using Equity 405,329,796 391,670,707

A.I.4. Non‐Current Financial Assets 3,492,476,553 3,029,592,245

A.I.5. LT Pre‐Financing 37,999,599,269 44,487,822,921

A.I.6. LT Receivables 529,242,585 594,674,974

A.II. CURRENT ASSETS 42,821,458,715 36,897,879,606

A.II.1. Inventories 85,333,155 84,657,193

A.II.2. Short‐term Pre‐Financing 21,247,528,381 13,148,332,686

A.II.3.2. Current Receivables and Recove 13,090,849,580 13,921,585,496

A.II.3. Current Financial Assets 855,068,514 472,696,640

A.II.5. Cash and Cash Equivalents 7,542,679,084 9,270,607,592

ASSETS 88,214,322,046 87,950,241,106

P.I. NET ASSETS/LIABILITIES ‐2,266,205,542 ‐2,228,849,191

P.I.1. Reserves ‐2,266,205,542 ‐2,228,849,191

P.II. NON CURRENT LIABILITIES ‐45,906,856,747 ‐42,693,879,210

P.II.1. Employee Benefits ‐45,061,167,791 ‐41,620,014,957

P.II.2. Long‐term provisions ‐1,303,427,946 ‐1,237,479,368

P.II.3. Long‐term financial liabilities 20,678,390 20,678,390

P.II.4. Other long‐term Liabilities 437,060,599 142,936,724

P.III. CURRENT LIABILITIES ‐91,713,985,017 ‐90,195,311,820

P.III.2. Short‐term provisions ‐488,814,793 ‐714,374,170

P.III.4. Accounts Payable ‐91,225,170,225 ‐89,480,937,650

LIABILITIES ‐139,887,047,307 ‐135,118,040,221

NET ASSETS (ASSETS less LIABILITIES) ‐51,672,725,260 ‐47,167,799,115.18

P.I.2. Accumulated Surplus / Deficit 48,234,117,212 75,776,032,945

Non‐allocated central (surplus)/deficit* 3,438,608,048 ‐28,608,233,830

TOTAL 0.00 0.00

It should be noted that the balance sheet and economic outturn account presented in Annex 3 to this Annual Activity Report, represent only the (contingent) assets, (contingent) liabilities, expenses and revenues that are under the control of this Directorate General. Significant amounts such as own resource revenues and cash held in Commission bank accounts are not included in this Directorate General's accounts since they are managed centrally by DG Budget, on whose balance sheet and economic outturn account they appear. Furthermore, since the accumulated result of the Commission is not split amongst the various Directorates General, it can be seen that the balance sheet presented here is not in equilibrium.

Additionally, the figures included in tables 4 and 5 are provisional since they are, at this date, still subject to audit by the Court of Auditors. It is thus possible that amounts included in these tables may have to be adjusted following this audit.

209

TABLE 5 : ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT

ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT 2013 2012

II.1 SURPLUS/ DEF. FROM OPERATING ACTIVT ‐1,792,704,201 ‐3,930,315,502

II.1.1. OPERATING REVENUES ‐145,640,186,112 ‐134,159,295,253

II.1.1.1. Own resource and contributions ‐138,156,112,912 ‐128,075,577,679

II.1.1.2. Other operating revenue ‐7,484,073,200 ‐6,083,717,574

II.1.2. OPERATING EXPENSES 143,847,481,911 130,228,979,750

II.1.2.1. Administrative Expenses 5,106,954,409 5,221,249,283

II.1.2.2. Operating Expenses 138,740,527,502 125,007,730,467

II.2. SURPLUS/DEF. NON OPERATING ACTIVIT 5,231,312,249 8,952,328,092

II.2.1. FINANCIAL OPERATIONS 14,132,514 ‐173,426,495

II.2.1.1. Financial revenue ‐283,244,891 ‐411,158,960

II.2.1.2. Financial expenses 297,377,405 237,732,464

II.2. OTHER NON OPERATING ACTIVITIES 5,217,179,735 9,125,754,587

II.2.1. Movement in empl. benefits liabi 4,664,916,338 8,635,788,275

II.2.2. Share of surplus associates & JV ‐18,666,767 ‐9,213,861

II.2.3. Share of deficit associates & JV 570,930,163 499,180,173

V. SAP/PS Accounts 0 0



ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT 3,438,608,048 5,022,012,589



210

TABLE 6 : AVERAGE PAYMENT TIMES FOR 2013 ‐ DG EUROPEAID Legal Times

Maximum Payment Time

(Days)

Total Number of Payments

Nbr of Payments within Time

Limit

Percentage

Average Payment Times (Days)

Nbr of Late Payments

Percentage Average Payment

Times (Days)

26 1 1 100.00 % 13.0

30 2,857 2,328 81.48 % 14.9 529 18.52 % 50.1

38 2 1 50.00 % 28.0 1 50.00 % 50.0

40 2 1 50.00 % 11.0 1 50.00 % 41.0

42 2 1 50.00 % 27.0 1 50.00 % 54.0

45 6,573 5,341 81.26 % 21.7 1,232 18.74 % 91.0

60 281 243 86.48 % 23.7 38 13.52 % 104.3

76 1 1 100.00 % 33.0

78 2 2 100.00 % 50.5

79 1 1 100.00 % 26.0

81 7 6 85.71 % 25.2 1 14.29 % 134.0

82 2 2 100.00 % 18.5

83 2 2 100.00 % 27.5

84 2 2 100.00 % 20.5

85 1 1 100.00 % 48.0

86 3 2 66.67 % 43.0 1 33.33 % 138.0

87 5 5 100.00 % 38.0

88 2 2 100.00 % 72.5

90 129 124 96.12 % 25.6 5 3.88 % 174.0

99 6 2 33.33 % 63.5 4 66.67 % 241.5


9,881 8,068 81.65 % 1,813 18.35 %

Average Payment Time

30.9 19.9 79.9

Target Times

Target Payment Time (Days)


Nbr of Payments within

Target Time

Percentage

Average Payment Times (Days)


Percentage Average Payment

Times (Days)

20 2,207 1,420 64.34 % 10.5 787 35.66 % 36.8

26 1 1 100.00 % 13.0

30 6,863 4,303 62.70 % 17.2 2,560 37.30 % 64.9

45 8 7 87.50 % 33.4 1 12.50 % 52.0

60 119 106 89.08 % 25.3 13 10.92 % 83.8

75 24 21 87.50 % 27.1 3 12.50 % 137.0


9,222 5,858 63.52 % 3,364 36.48 %


31.4 15.8 58.5

Suspensions

Average Report Approval Suspension

Days

Average Payment Suspension

Days

Number of Suspended Payments

% of Total Number


Amount of Suspended Payments

% of Total Amount

Total Paid Amount

18 62 2,383 24.12 % 9,881 840,920,024 25.00 % 3,363,322,694

211

Late Interest paid in 2013

DG GL Account Description Amount (€)

AGRI 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 541.85

BEPA 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 273.97

CLIMA 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 3,480.15

CNECT 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 8,772.54

COMM 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 995.49

COMP 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 3,652.27

EuropeAid 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 21,763.07

DGT 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 996.26

DIGIT 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 12,719.71

DIGIT 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 23,858.90

EAC 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 0.00

EAC 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 13,805.62

EACEA 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 1,559.89

EACEA 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 19,246.08

EACI 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 116,381.22

ECHO 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 210.00

ECHO 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 212,510.67

ELARG 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 10,295.86

EMPL 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 1,570.92

EMPL 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 69,779.09

ENER 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 5,113.66

ENTR 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 1,812.99

ENV 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 2,737.08

ENV 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 19,238.74

ERCEA 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 489.04

ESTAT 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 519.22

FPI 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 409.20

FPI 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 302.72

HOME 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 5,826.07

HR 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 419.93

JRC 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 1,384.69

JRC 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 8,063.68

JUST 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 5,144.25

MARE 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 615.82

MARE 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 4,994.22

MARKT 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 11,203.88

MOVE 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 379.37

OIB 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 8,948.66

OIB 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR ‐3,492.86

OIL 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 617.90

OLAF 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 412.37

OP 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 287.96

PHEA 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 2,048.73

212

REA 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 26,255.10

REGIO 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 269.96

RTD 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges ‐208.15

RTD 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 24,145.92

SANCO 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 1,781.04

SCIC 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 2,593.53

TRADE 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 291.95

655,020.23

TABLE 7 : SITUATION ON REVENUE AND INCOME IN 2013

Chapter Revenue and income recognized Revenue and income cashed from Outstanding

Current year RO

Carried over RO

Total Current Year

RO Carried over

RO Total balance

1 2 3=1+2 4 5 6=4+5 7=3‐6

Total DG

213

TABLE 8 : RECOVERY OF UNDUE PAYMENTS(Number of Recovery Contexts and corresponding Transaction Amount)

INCOME BUDGET RECOVERY ORDERS ISSUED

IN 2013 Error Irregularity OLAF Notified TOTAL Qualified

TOTAL RC(incl. non‐qualified)

% Qualified/Total RC

Year of Origin (commitment)

Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO

Amount

2004 1 82,114.70 4 194,538.64 5 276,653.34 6 316,304.97 83.33% 87.46%

2005 5 133,763.17 26 2,737,323.61 2 461,177.84 33 3,332,264.62 54 8,144,309.43 61.11% 40.92%

2006 10 646,369.77 16 828,817.34 1 66,750.94 27 1,541,938.05 58 22,750,766.53 46.55% 6.78%

2007 14 595,428.41 21 1,593,763.54 2 18,849.89 37 2,208,041.84 74 25,347,835.93 50.00% 8.71%

2008 15 418,793.92 32 2,093,399.54 47 2,512,193.46 107 12,070,831.05 43.93% 20.81%

2009 26 514,780.83 36 1,381,486.96 3 464,299.00 65 2,360,566.79 124 6,873,186.10 52.42% 34.34%

2010 9 149,958.37 23 1,366,939.56 32 1,516,897.93 107 28,023,134.15 29.91% 5.41%

2011 8 184,703.68 11 593,560.32 19 778,264.00 71 6,105,826.47 26.76% 12.75%

2012 1 460.00 4 58,303.93 5 58,763.93 28 876,732.28 17.86% 6.70%

2013 1 141.55 1 32,472.91 2 32,614.46 3 34,096.10 66.67% 95.65%

No Link 3 238,347.75 12 1,350,632.14 3 311,595.95 18 1,900,575.84 101 149,110,893.21 17.82% 1.27%

Sub‐Total 93 2,964,862.15 186 12,231,238.49 11 1,322,673.62 290 16,518,774.26 733 259,653,916.22 39.56% 6.36%

EXPENSES BUDGET Error Irregularity OLAF Notified TOTAL Qualified TOTAL RC(incl. non‐

qualified) % Qualified/Total

RC

Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount Nbr Amount

INCOME LINES IN INVOICES

NON ELIGIBLE IN COST CLAIMS

184 5,177,482.12 234 52,578,235.06 418 57,755,717.18 633 157,120,603.78 66.03% 36.76%

CREDIT NOTES 143 1,078,780.40 140 2,232,757.82 283 3,311,538.22 382 4,998,509.65 74.08% 66.25%

Sub‐Total 327 6,256,262.52 374 54,810,992.88 701 61,067,255.40 1015 162,119,113.43 69.06% 37.67%

GRAND TOTAL 420 9,221,124.67 560 67,042,231.37 11 1,322,673.62 991 77,586,029.66 1748 421,773,029.65 56.69% 14.48%

214

TABLE 9 : AGEING BALANCE OF RECOVERY ORDERS AT 31/12/2013 FOR EUROPEAID

Number at 01/01/2013


Evolution Open Amount (€) at

01/01/2013 Open Amount (€) at 31/12/2013

Evolution

1997 1 1 0.00 % 405,000.00 405,000.00 0.00 %

1999 1 1 0.00 % 132,080.00 132,080.00 0.00 %

2000 1 ‐100.00 % 7,600.00 ‐100.00 %

2001 1 ‐100.00 % 7,220.00 ‐100.00 %

2002 2 1 ‐50.00 % 157,421.07 37,741.07 ‐76.03 %

2003 1 1 0.00 % 93,000.00 93,000.00 0.00 %

2005 11 9 ‐18.18 % 2,153,896.17 1,980,968.86 ‐8.03 %

2006 2 2 0.00 % 771,200.00 771,200.00 0.00 %

2007 15 15 0.00 % 3,812,716.13 3,812,716.13 0.00 %

2008 29 28 ‐3.45 % 27,560,568.12 27,262,178.72 ‐1.08 %

2009 42 36 ‐14.29 % 64,622,315.44 64,299,733.01 ‐0.50 %

2010 39 32 ‐17.95 % 51,751,384.47 51,524,421.66 ‐0.44 %

2011 47 34 ‐27.66 % 38,752,720.92 37,665,034.18 ‐2.81 %

2012 151 50 ‐66.89 % 81,365,808.64 67,968,998.10 ‐16.46 %

2013 168 54,804,416.86

343 378 10.20 % 271,592,930.96 310,757,488.59 14.42 %

TABLE 10 : RECOVERY ORDER WAIVERS IN 2013 >= € 100.000

Waiver Central

Key Linked RO Central Key

RO Accepted Amount (€)

LE Account Group

Commission Decision

Comments

1 3233130058 3241111620 ‐103,857.96

2 3233130059 3241111621 ‐110,978.16

3 3233130186 3240407312 ‐119,680.00

4 3233130199 3241002114 ‐272,315.70

Total DG ‐606,831.82

Number of RO waivers 4

TABLE 11 : CENSUS OF NEGOTIATED PROCEDURES ‐ DG EUROPEAID ‐ 2013

External Actions > €20,000

Negotiated Procedure Legal base Number of Procedures Amount (€)

Art. 242 1a) 3 446,678.30

Art. 242 1b) 1 261,177.00

Art. 242 1c) 10 3,116,079.07

Art. 242 1d) 3 9,998,282.00

Art. 244 1d) 4 3,339,807.26

Art. 266.1(a) 8 4,747,789.00

Art. 266.1(b) 23 38,492,607.60

Art. 266.1(c) 5 4,205,308.00

Art. 266.1(d) 3 6,212,386.00

Art. 266.1(f) 7 9,868,113.05

Art. 268.1(a) 1 451,484.55

Art. 268.1(b) 1 1,217,700.00

Art. 268.1(d) 6 5,846,943.94

Art. 270.1(c) 1 296,275.00

Art. 270.1(e) 1 290,057.00

Total 77 88,790,687.77

Procurement > €60,000

Negotiated Procedure Legal base Number of Procedures Amount (€)

215

Art. 134.1(c) 3 6,149,010.72

Total 3 6,149,010.72

216

TABLE 12 : SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES OF DG EUROPEAID EXCLUDING BUILDING CONTRACTS

External Procedures > € 20,000

Procedure Type Count Amount (€)

Competitive Dialogue (Art. 132 RAP) 1 607,340.87

(Ext. act) Service ‐ Competitive Negot.Proc. with at least three candidates without pub. (Art. 241.1(b) & 3)

5 578,990.14

(Ext. act) Service ‐ Competitive Negot.Proc. with at least three candidates without pub.(Art. 265.1(b) & 3 RAP)

50 5,846,960.36

(Ext. act) Service ‐ Exceptional Negotiated Procedure with a single offer (Art. 266 RAP) 48 64,067,210.65

(Ext. act) Service ‐ International Open Procedure with prior publication (Art. 265(1)(a)(ii) RAP) 1 1,885,000.00

(Ext. act) Service ‐ International Restricted Procedure with prior publication (Art. 265.1(a)(i) & 2 RAP)

89 192,438,479.75

(Ext. act) Service ‐ International Restr.Proc. with four to eight tenderers after prior pub (Art. 241.1(a)&2IR)

56 92,263,060.37

(Ext. act) Service ‐ Negotiated Procedure with a single offer (Art. 242 IR) 17 13,822,216.37

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ Competitive Negot.Proc. with at least three candidates without pub.(Art.267.1(b)(ii)&2 RAP)

2 123,610.00

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ Exceptional Negotiated Procedure with a single offer (Art. 268 RAP) 8 7,516,128.49

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ International Open Procedure after publication of a contract notice (Art. 243.1(a) IR)

18 5,602,175.41

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ International Open Procedure after publication of a contract notice (Art. 267.1(a) RAP)

50 30,993,443.86

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ Local Open Procedure after publication of a contract notice (Art.243.1(b) IR) 1 138,566.95

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ Local open procedure with prior publication (Art. 267.1(b)(i) RAP) 3 553,275.80

(Ext. act) Supply ‐ Negotiated Procedure with a single offer (Art. 244 IR) 4 3,339,807.26

(Ext. act) Works ‐ Competitive Negot.Proc. with at least three candidates without pub. (Art. 269.1(c) & 2 RAP)

3 548,335.48

(Ext. act) Works ‐ Exceptional Negotiated Procedure with a single offer (Art. 270 RAP) 2 586,332.00

(Ext. act) Works International Open Procedure with prior publication (Art. 269.1(a)(i) RAP) 2 6,204,767.58

(Ext. act) Works ‐ Local Open Procedure after publication of a contract notice (Art. 245.1(b) IR) 3 4,539,030.78

(Ext. act) Works ‐ Local Open Procedure with prior publication (Art.269.1(b) RAP) 15 4,237,416.98

TOTAL 378 435,892,149.10

Internal Procedures > € 60,000


Exceptional Negotiated Procedure without publication of a contract notice (Art. 134 RAP) 3 6,149,010.72

Open Procedure (Art. 122.2 IR) 1 2,249,095.53

Open Procedure (Art. 127.2 RAP) 1 997,500.00

Restricted Procedure(Art. 122.2 IR) 1 532,000,000.00

Restricted Procedure (Art. 127.2 RAP) 1 1,377,500.00

TOTAL 7 542,773,106.25

TABLE 13 : BUILDING CONTRACTS

Total number of contracts :

Total amount :

Legal base Contract Number Contractor Name Description Amount (€)

TABLE 14 : CONTRACTS DECLARED SECRET

Total Number of Contracts :

Total amount :

Legal base Contract Number Contractor Name Type of contract Description Amount (€)

218

ANNEX 3B: Draft annual accounts and financial reports for the EDF

Provisional Annual Accounts of the 8th, 9th And 10th European Development Funds – Financial Year 2013

Table of Contents

Implementing And Accounting For The Edf Resources 199

Part I ‐ Edf Annual Accounts: Funds Managed By The European Commission 202

1. Financial Statements Of The 8th, 9th And 10th European Development Funds 202

1.1 8th, 9th And 10th Edfs: Aggregated Balance Sheet, Economic Outturn Account, Cash Flow Table And Statement Of Changes In Net Assets

202

1.2 8th Edf: Balance Sheet, Economic Outturn Account And Statement Of Changes In Net Assets

204


205


206

1.5 Notes To The Financial Statements Of The 8th, 9th And 10th Edfs 208

2. Report On Financial Implementation 232

2.1 Allocations

2.2 Aggregated Accounts

2.3. Other Management Information

Part Ii ‐ Edf Annual Accounts: Financial Statements Of The Investment Facility 245

3. Financial Statements Of The Investment Facility 247

3.1. Statement Of Financial Position As At 31 December 2013 247

3.2. Statement Of Profit Or Loss And Other Comprehensive Income For The Year Ended 31 December 2013

248

3.3 Statement Of Changes In Contributors’ Resources For The Year Ended 31 December 2013

249

3.4 Statement Of Cash Flows For The Year Ended 31 December 2013 250

3.5 Notes To The Financial Statements As At 31 December 2013 251

Annex To Part 1 – Chapter 2 (Report On The Financial Implementation): Situation By Country And By Instrument

296

219

Implementing and Accounting for the EDF Resources

1. Background

The European Union has cooperative development relations with a large number of developing countries. The main purpose is to promote economic and social development with a particular focus on reducing and alleviating poverty in the long‐term, by providing beneficiary countries with development aid and technical assistance. To achieve this, the Union draws up, jointly with the partner countries, cooperation strategies and mobilises the financial resources to implement them. These Union resources allocated to development come from three sources:

• The European Union budget

• The European Development Fund

• The European Investment Bank

The European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for providing Union aid for development cooperation to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). The 1957 Treaty of Rome made provision for its creation with a view to granting technical and financial assistance, initially limited to African countries which at that time were still colonised and with which some Member States had historical links.

The EDF is not funded by the European Union's budget. It is funded by the Member States, subject to its own financial regulation and managed by a specific committee. The European Commission is responsible for the financial implementation of the operations carried out with EDF resources and the European Investment Bank (EIB) manages the Investment Facility.

During the period 2008‐2013, the geographic aid granted to ACP States and OCTs continued to be mainly funded by the EDF. Each EDF is usually concluded for a period of around five years. Each EDF is governed by its own Financial Regulation which imposes the preparation of financial statements for each individual EDF. Accordingly, financial statements are prepared separately for each EDF in respect of the part that is managed by the European Commission. These financial statements are also presented in an aggregated way so as to provide a global view of the financial situation of the resources for which the European Commission is responsible.

Within the framework of the Cotonou agreement, the Investment Facility was established. This Investment Facility is managed by the European Investment Bank and is used to support private sector development in the ACP States by financing essentially – but not exclusively – private investments. The Facility is designed as a renewable fund, so that loan repayments can be reinvested in other operations, thus resulting in a self‐renewing and financially independent Facility. As the Investment Facility is not managed by the European Commission, it is not consolidated in the first part of the annual accounts – the financial statements of the 8th, 9th and 10th EDFs and the related report on financial implementation. The financial statements of the Investment Facility are included as a

220

separate part of the annual accounts (part II) to provide a full picture of the development aid of the EDF. The 10th EDF covers the period from 2008 to 2013 and has an overall budget of €22,682 million. Of this amount, €21,966 million is allocated to the ACP countries, €286 million to the OCTs and €430 million to the Commission as support expenditure for programming and implementation of the EDF2.

2. How is the EDF funded?

The European Council of 15‐16 December 2005 adopted the financial perspectives for 2007‐2013. In this context it was decided that geographical cooperation with the ACP States would not be integrated into the European Union budget (budgetised), but would continue to be funded through the existing inter‐governmental EDF for the period 2008‐2013.

The European Union budget is annual and according to the budgetary principle of annuality, expenditure and revenue are planned and authorised for one year. Unlike the European Union, the EDF is a fund operating on the basis of multiannuality. Each EDF is concluded through an internal agreement between Member States, which establishes an overall fund to implement development cooperation during a period of usually five years. As resources are allocated on a multiannual basis, the allocated funds may be used over the period of the EDF. The lack of budget annuality is highlighted in the budgetary reporting, where the budgetary implementation of the EDFs is measured against the total funds.

The EDF resources are “ad hoc” contributions from the EU Member States. Approximately every five years, Member State representatives meet at intergovernmental level to decide on an overall amount that will be allocated to the fund and to oversee its implementation The Commission then manages the fund in accordance with the EU Development Policy it proposes and which the Council adopts. Since Member States have their own development and aid policies in parallell to the Union policy, the Member States must coordinate their policies with the EU to ensure they are complementary.

In addition to the above mentioned contributions, it is also possible for Member States to enter into co‐financing arrangements or to make voluntary financial contributions to the EDF.

3. Year‐End Reporting

3.1 Annual accounts

It is the Accounting Officer's responsibility to prepare the annual accounts and ensure that they present a true and fair view of the financial position of the EDF.

The annual accounts are presented as follows:

• Part I: Funds managed by the European Commission

2 OJ L 247 of 09.09.2006

221

o Financial statements of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds

o Report on financial implementation of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds

• Part II: Funds managed by the European Investment Bank

o Financial statements of the Investment Facility

The financial statements of the Investment Facility are included as a separate part of the annual accounts so as to provide a full picture of the development aid of the EDF.

Following audit by the Court of Auditors, the annual accounts are adopted by the Commission by 31 July of the subsequent year and presented to the Council and Parliament for discharge.

4. Audit and Discharge

4.1 Audit

The EDF annual accounts and resource management are overseen by its external auditor, the European Court of Auditors, which draws up an annual report for the Council and the European Parliament.

4.2 Discharge

The final control is the discharge of the financial implementation of the EDF resources for a given financial year. The European Parliament is the discharge authority of the EDF. This means that following the audit and finalisation of the annual accounts it falls to the Council to recommend and then to the Parliament to decide whether to grant discharge to the Commission for the financial implementation of the EDF resources for the preceding financial year. This decision is based on a review of the accounts and the annual report of the Court of Auditors (which includes an official statement of assurance) and replies of the Commission, and also following questions and further information requests to the Commission.

The discharge represents the political aspect of the external control of budget implementation and is the decision by which the European Parliament, acting on a Council recommendation, "releases" the Commission (and other EU bodies) from its responsibility for management of a given budget by marking the end of that budget's existence. This discharge procedure may produce one of three outcomes: the granting, postponement or the refusal of the discharge. Integral part of the annual budgetary discharge procedure in the European Parliament are the hearings with Commissioners who are questioned by the Members of the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee regarding the policy areas under their responsibility. The final discharge report including specific request to the Commission for action is adopted in Plenary. The Council discharge recommendation is adopted by ECOFIN. Both, the European Parliament's discharge report as well as the Council discharge recommendations are subject to an annual follow up report in which the Commission outlines the concrete actions it has taken to implement the requests made by

222

the European Parliament and the Council’s recommendations.

Part I ‐ EDF Annual Accounts: Funds Managed by the European Commission3

1. Financial Statements of the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds

1.1 8th, 9th And 10th EDFs: Aggregated Balance Sheet, Economic Outturn Account, Cash Flow Table and Statement of changes in Net Assets

Aggregated Balance Sheet of the 8th, 9th And 10th EDFs

€ millions

Note 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

NON‐CURRENT ASSETS

Pre‐financing 2.1 424 438

CURRENT ASSETS

Pre‐financing 2.2 1 286 1 334

Receivables 2.3 84 70

Cash and cash equivalents 2.5 759 690

TOTAL ASSETS 2 553 2 532

NON‐CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 2.6 (25) (40)

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 2.7 (1 214) (1 057)

TOTAL LIABILITIES (1 239) (1 097)

NET ASSETS 1 313 1 435

FUNDS & RESERVES

Called fund capital 2.8 32 529 29 579

Other reserves 2.9 2 252 2 252

Economic outturn carried forward from previous years (30 396) (27 374)

Economic outturn of the year (3 072) (3 023)


3 All figures are rounded into millions of euros (€). It should be noted that due to the rounding of figures, some financial data in the

tables may not add up. Amounts shown as 0 represent figures of less than €500 000. Amounts that equal to zero are shown as a dash (‐).

223

Aggregated Economic Outturn Account Of The 8th, 9th And 10th Edfs

€ millions

Note 2013 2012

OPERATING REVENUE 3.1 123 124

OPERATING EXPENSES

Operating expenses 3.2 (3 027) (3 017)

Administrative expenses 3.3 (167) (107)

DEFICIT FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES (3 072) (3 001)

Financial revenue 3.4 0 (22)

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES 0 (22)

ECONOMIC OUTTURN OF THE YEAR (3 072) (3 023)

Aggregated Cashflow Table Of The 8th, 9th And 10th Edfs

€ millions

Note 2013 2012


OPERATING ACTIVITIES 4.2

Ordinary contributions from Member States 2 961 2 606

Co‐financing contributions 18 19

(Reversal of) impairment losses on receivables (2) 4

(Increase)/decrease in non‐current pre‐financing 14 (58)

(Increase)/decrease in current pre‐financing 48 (159)

(Increase)/decrease in current receivables4 (7) 31

Increase/(decrease) in non‐current liabilities (15) 40

Increase/(decrease) in current liabilities5 123 6

NET CASH FLOW 69 (534)

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 69 (534)

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year 2.5 690 1 224

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year 2.5 759 690

4 Current receivables excluding receivables relating to ordinary contributions and co‐financing. 5 Current liabilities excluding liabilities relating to ordinary contributions and co‐financing.

224

Aggregated Statement Of Changes In Net Assets Of The 8th, 9th And 10th Edfs

1.2 8th EDF: Balance Sheet, Economic Outturn Account And Statement Of Changes In Net Assets

Balance Sheet Of The 8th Edf

€ millions

Note 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

CURRENT ASSETS


Receivables 2.3 2 1

Liaison accounts 2.4 290 345

TOTAL ASSETS 297 384

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 2.7 (28) (22)

TOTAL LIABILITIES (28) (22)

NET ASSETS 270 361

FUNDS & RESERVES


Other reserves 2.9 (2 456) (2 354)


Economic outturn of the year 10 7

NET ASSETS 270 361

Economic Outturn Account Of The 8th Edf

€ millions

Note 2013 2012


OPERATING EXPENSES 3.2 (53) (49)

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES 11 9



€ millions

Fund Capital (a)

Uncalled funds (b)

Called fund capital

(c)=(a)‐(b)

Cumulative reserves

(d)

Other reserves

(e)

Total Net Assets

(c)+(d)+(e)

BALANCE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011 45 691 18 712 26 979 (27 374) 2 252 1 858

Capital increase – ordinary contributions

‐ (2 600) 2 600 ‐ ‐ 2 600

Economic outturn of the year ‐ ‐ ‐ (3 023) ‐ (3 023)


Capital increase – ordinary contributions ‐ (2 950) 2 950 ‐ ‐ 2 950



225

ECONOMIC OUTTURN OF THE YEAR 10 7

Statement Of Changes In Net Assets Of The 8th Edf


Balance Sheet Of The 9th Edf

€ millions

Note 31.12.2013 31.12.2012



CURRENT ASSETS



Liaison accounts 2.4 1 323 1 919

Cash and cash equivalents 2.5 ‐ ‐


CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 2.7 (263) (375)

TOTAL LIABILITIES (263) (375)


FUNDS & RESERVES


Other reserves 2.9 3 756 4 126


Economic outturn of the year (331) (827)

€ millions

Fund Capital (a)

Uncalled funds (b)

Called fund capital

(c)=(a)‐(b)

Cumulative reserves

(d)

Other reserves

(e)

Total Net Assets

(c)+(d)+(e)

BALANCE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011

12 840 ‐ 12 840 (10 132) (2 276) 432


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Transfers to/from the 10th EDF ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (78) (78)

Economic outturn of the year ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ 7


12 840 ‐ 12 840 (10 125) (2 354) 361


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Economic outturn of the year ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ 10


12 840 12 840 (10 114) (2 456) 270

226


Economic Outturn Account Of The 9th EDF

€ millions

Note 2013 2012


OPERATING EXPENSES

Operating expenses 3.2 (362) (856)

Administrative expenses 3.3 0 (1)

DEFICIT FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES (328) (809)

Financial revenue 3.4 (3) (18)

DEFICIT FROM FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES (3) (18)

ECONOMIC OUTTURN OF THE YEAR (331) (827)

Statement Of Changes In Net Assets Of The 9th EDF

€ millions

Fund Capital (a)

Uncalled funds (b)

Called fund capital

(c)=(a)‐(b)

Cumulative reserves

(d)

Other reserves

(e)

Total Net Assets

(c)+(d)+(e)

BALANCE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011 11 699 ‐ 11 699 (12 830) 4 227 3 096


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Economic outturn of the year ‐ ‐ ‐ (827) ‐ (827)



‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Economic outturn of the year ‐ ‐ ‐ (331) ‐ (331)


227


Balance Sheet Of The 10th EDF

€ millions

Note 31.12.2013 31.12.2012



CURRENT ASSETS

Pre‐financing 2.2 1 021 849


Cash and cash equivalents 2.5 759 690


NON‐CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 2.6 (25) (40)

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 2.7 (923) (660)

Liaison accounts 2.4 (1 613) (2 264)

TOTAL LIABILITIES (2 561) (2 963)

NET ASSETS (423) (1 095)

FUNDS & RESERVES


Other reserves 2.9 952 479



NET ASSETS (423) (1 095)

Economic Outturn Account Of The 10th EDF

€ millions

Note 2013 2012


OPERATING EXPENSES

Operating expenses 3.2 (2 612) (2 112)

Administrative expenses 3.3 (167) (106)

DEFICIT FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES (2 754) (2 201)




228

Statement Of Changes In Net Assets Of The 10th EDF

1.5 Notes to the Financial Statements of the 8th, 9th and 10th EDFs

1.5.1. Significant Accounting Policies

a) Legal Provisions And The Financial Regulation

The financial statements are drawn up in accordance with the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th EDF. In accordance with the provisions of Article 121 of this regulation, the financial statements are prepared respecting the principles of accrual accounting.

These financial statements have been drafted in conformity with the accounting rules and methods of the EDF, themselves drawn up on the basis of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) as issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standard Board (IPSASB). The accounting rules adopted by the Accounting Officer of the EDF have been applied in respect of the part of the EDF resources for which the European Commission is responsible for financial management.

The EDF Accounting Officer must submit the provisional accounts to the Court of Auditors for audit by 31 March of the following year. The Court of Auditors shall in turn make its observations on the accounts known to the Commission by 15 June (Article 125). On the basis of these observations, the Commission approves the final accounts by 31 July and sends them to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors. The accounts are then published in the Official Journal by 15 November, together with the statement of assurance given by the Court of Auditors in respect of the part of the EDF resources for which the Commission is responsible for the financial management.

€ millions

Fund Capital (a)

Uncalled funds (b)

Called fund capital

(c)=(a)‐(b)

Cumulative reserves

(d)

Other reserves

(e)

Total Net Assets

(c)+(d)+(e)

BALANCE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011 21 152 18 712 2 440 (4 411) 301 (1 670)


‐ (2 600) 2 600 ‐ ‐ 2 600

Transfers from the 8th and the 9th EDF ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 178 178


BALANCE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2012 21 152 16 112 5 040 (6 614) 479 (1 095)


‐ (2 950) 2 950 ‐ ‐ 2 950

Transfers from/to the 8th and the 9th EDF

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 473 473


BALANCE AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2013 21 152 13 162 7 990 (9 365) 952 (423)

229

b) Accounting Principles

The objective of the financial statements is to provide information about the financial position, performance and cash flows of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users. For a public sector entity such as the EDF, the objectives are more specifically to provide information useful for decision making, and to demonstrate the accountability of the entity for the resources entrusted to it.

If they are to present a true and fair view, financial statements must not only supply relevant information to describe the nature and range of an organisation’s activities, explain how it is financed and supply definitive information on its operations, but do so in a clear and comprehensible manner which allows comparisons between financial years. It is with these goals in mind that the present document has been drawn up.

The accounting system of the EDF comprises general accounts and budget accounts. The budget accounts give a detailed picture of the implementation of the budget. They are based on the cash accounting principle. The general accounts allow for the preparation of the financial statements as they show all expenses and income for the financial year based on accrual accounting rules and are designed to establish the financial position in the form of a balance sheet at 31 December.

Article 120 of the 10th EDF Financial Regulation sets out the accounting principles to be applied in drawing up the financial statements:

• going concern basis;

• prudence;

• consistent accounting methods;

• comparability of information;

• materiality;

• no netting;

• reality over appearance;

• accrual‐based accounting.

c) Basis Of Preparation

• Functional and reporting currency

The financial statements are presented in millions of euros (€), the euro being the functional and reporting currency of the EDF.

• Currency and basis for conversion

230

Foreign currency transactions are translated into euros using the exchange rates prevailing on the dates of the transactions. Foreign exchange gains and losses resulting from the settlement of foreign currency transactions and from the translation at year‐end exchange rates of monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are recognised in the economic outturn account.

Year‐end balances of monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are converted into euros on the basis of the below exchange rates applying on 31 December:

Currency 31.12.2013 31.12.2012 Currency 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

XOF 655.957 655.957 KES 117.270 113.460

XAF 655.957 655.957 BIF 2107.95 2037.95

NGN 212.376 206.074 SLL 6013.08 5709.56

PGK 3.38524 2.76702 TZS 2166.71 2077.48

HTG 60.7227 56.2987 UGX 3423.24 3508.51

GNF 9616.41 9250.40 MGA 3092.68 2981.70

MWK 595.810 439.917 SZL 14.5660 11.1727

• Use of estimates

In accordance with IPSAS and generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements necessarily include amounts based on estimates and assumptions by management based on the most reliable information available. Significant estimates include, but are not limited to, amounts for provisions, impairment losses on accounts receivable and accrued charges. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Changes in estimates are reflected in the period in which they become known.

a) Balance Sheet

• Pre‐financing amounts

Pre‐financing is a payment intended to provide the beneficiary with a cash advance, i.e. a float. It may be split into a number of payments over a period defined in the particular pre‐financing agreement. The float or advance is repaid or used for the purpose for which it was provided during the period defined in the agreement. If the beneficiary does not incur eligible expenditures, he/she has to return the pre‐financing advance to the EDF. The amount of the pre‐financing is reduced (wholly or partially) by the acceptance of eligible costs and amounts returned.

At year‐end, outstanding pre‐financing amounts are valued at the original amount(s) paid less: amounts returned, eligible amounts cleared, estimated eligible amounts not yet cleared at year‐end and value reductions.

231

Interest on pre‐financing is recognised as it is earned in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement. An estimate of the accrued interest revenue, based on the most reliable information, is made at year‐end.

• Receivables

Receivables are carried at original amount less write‐down for impairment. A write‐down for impairment of receivables is established when there is objective evidence that the full amount due cannot be collected according to the original terms of the receivable. The amount of the write‐down is the difference between the asset’s carrying amount and the recoverable amount, being the present value of expected future cash flows, discounted at the market rate of interest for similar borrowers. Also recognised is a general write‐down for outstanding recovery orders not already subject to a specific write‐down. This general write‐down is based on the historical loss rates. The amount of the write‐down is recognised in the economic outturn account.

• Cash and cash equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents are financial instruments and are defined as current assets. They include cash at hand, deposits held at call with banks and other current highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less.

• Payables

A significant amount of the payables of the EDF are not related to the purchase of goods or services – instead they are unpaid cost claims from beneficiaries of grants or other funding. They are recorded as payables for the requested amount when the cost claim is received and, after verification, accepted as eligible by the relevant financial agents. At this stage they are valued at the accepted and eligible amount.

Payables arising from the purchase of goods and services are recognised at invoice reception for the original amount and corresponding expenses are entered in the accounts when the supplies or services are delivered and accepted.

• Provisions

Provisions are recognised when the EDF has a present legal or constructive obligation towards third parties as a result of past events; it is more likely than not that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, and the amount can be reliably estimated. The amount of the provision is the best estimate of the expenditures expected to be required to settle the present obligation at the reporting date.

• Accrued and deferred income and charges

232

A critical element in accrual accounting is the exercise of ensuring that transactions are recorded in the accounting year to which they relate. This exercise is referred to as the cut‐off exercise. In particular, an assessment has to be made concerning eligible expenses incurred by beneficiaries of EDF funds but not yet reported to the EDF (accrued charges). Conversely, some payments made in the current year relate to subsequent periods (deferred charges) and these have to be identified and included in the subsequent period(s).

According to the EDF accounting rules, transactions and events are recognised in the financial statements in the period to which they relate. At the end of the accounting period, accrued expenses are recognised based on an estimated amount of the transfer obligation of the period. The calculation of the accrued expenses is made in accordance with detailed operational and practical guidelines issued by the Commission which aim at ensuring that the financial statements reflect a true and fair view.

Revenue is also accounted for in the period to which it relates. At year‐end, if an invoice is not yet issued but the service has been rendered, the supplies have been delivered by the EDF or a contractual agreement exists (i.e. by reference to a treaty), an accrued income will be recognised in the financial statements.

In addition, at year‐end, if an invoice is issued but the services have not yet been rendered or the goods supplied have not yet been delivered, the revenue will be deferred and recognised in the subsequent accounting period.

b) Economic Outturn Account

• Revenue

There is no revenue budgeted for the European Development Fund the ordinary contributions from Member States are treated as fund capital. Revenue comprises recovery of expenses and interest income.

Recovery of expenses

For operations giving rise to reimbursement of expenditures previously paid by the EDF to a final beneficiary or third country, recovery orders and deductions from subsequent payments are established and accounted for as follows:

• Recovery of expenses: the recovery order issued results in a receivable with the corresponding entry being income in the economic outturn account for that year; or,

• Recovery of pre‐financing amounts: in this case the amount is included under the pre‐financing heading on the balance sheet.

Interest income

233

Interest income is recognised in the economic outturn account using the effective interest method. The interest income comprises interest received or receivable on cash balances and demandable deposits held with commercial banks and on late payment of entitlements to the EDF. Interest income is recognised as it accrues.

• Expense

Exchange expenses arising from the purchase of goods and services are recognised when the supplies are delivered and accepted. They are valued at original invoice cost.

Non‐exchange expenses account for the majority of the EDF's expenditure. They relate to transfers to beneficiaries and can be of three types: entitlements, transfers under agreement and discretionary grants, or contributions and donations.

Transfers are recognised as expenses in the period during which the events giving rise to the transfer occurred, as long as the nature of the transfer is allowed by regulation (Financial Regulation or other) or a contract has been signed authorising the transfer; any eligibility criteria have been met by the beneficiary; and a reasonable estimate of the amount can be made.

When any request for payment or cost claim is received and meets the recognition criteria, it is recognised as an expense for the eligible amount. At year‐end, incurred eligible expenses already due to the beneficiaries but not yet reported are estimated and recorded as accrued expenses.

Interest expense

Interest expense is recognised in the economic outturn account using the effective interest method. The interest expense comprises interest paid or payable and is recognised as it accrues.

c) Contingent Assets And Liabilities

• Contingent assets

A contingent asset is a possible asset that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non‐occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the EDF. A contingent asset is disclosed when an inflow of economic benefits or service potential is probable.

Contingent assets are assessed at each balance sheet date to ensure that developments are appropriately reflected in the financial statements. If it has become virtually certain that an inflow of economic benefits or service potential will arise and the asset’s value can be measured reliably, the asset and the related revenue are recognised in the financial statements of the period in which the change

234

occurs.

Guarantees are possible assets that arise from past events and whose existence will be confirmed by the occurrence or non‐occurrence of the object of the guarantee. Guarantees can thus qualify as contingent assets. A guarantee is settled when the object of the guarantee no longer exists. It is crystallised when the conditions are fulfilled for calling for a payment from the guarantor.

• Contingent liabilities

A contingent liability is a possible obligation that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non‐occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the EDF; or a present obligation that arises from past events but is not recognised because: it is not probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits or service potential will be required to settle the obligation or, in the rare circumstances where the amount of the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability. A contingent liability is disclosed unless the possibility of an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits or service potential is remote.

Contingent liabilities are assessed at each balance sheet date to determine whether an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits or service potential has become probable. If it becomes probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits or service potential will be required for an item dealt with as contingent liability, a provision is recognised in the financial statements of the period in which the change of probability occurs.

235

2. Notes to the Balance Sheet

Non‐Current Assets

2.1 Pre‐Financing

€ millions

8th EDF 9th EDF 10th EDF TOTAL

31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Pre‐financing ‐ 90 334 424 438

TOTAL ‐ 90 334 424 438

Many contracts provide for payments of advances before the commencement of works, deliveries of supplies or the provision of services. Sometimes the payment schedules of contracts foresee payments on the basis of progress reports. Pre‐financing is normally paid in the currency of the country or territory where the project is executed.

The timing of the recoverability or utilisation of the pre‐financing governs whether it is disclosed as a current or a non‐current pre‐financing asset. The utilisation is defined by the project's underlying agreement. Any repayments or utilisation due within twelve months of the reporting date are disclosed as current pre‐financing. As many of the EDF projects are long‐term in nature, it is necessary that the related advances are available for more than one year. Thus these pre‐financing amounts are shown as non‐current assets.

Current Assets

2.2 Pre‐Financing

€ millions


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Pre‐financing (gross) 39 832 3 059 3 931 3 593

Less estimated clearing of pre‐financing (34) (573) (2 038) (2 645) (2 259)

TOTAL 5 259 1 021 1 286 1 334

2.2.1 Guarantees received in respect of pre‐financing

Guarantees are held to secure pre‐financing and are released when the final claim under a project is paid. A guarantee has two different values referred to as the “nominal” and the “on‐going” values. For the “nominal” value, the generating event is linked to the existence of the guarantee. For the “on‐going” value, the guarantee’s generating event is the pre‐financing payment and/or subsequent clearings.

236

At 31 December 2013 the "nominal" value of guarantees received by the EDF in respect of pre‐financing amounts to €303 million. The "on‐going" value of those guarantees amounts to €151 million.

In 2013 an in‐depth review of the guarantees has been performed. Following this review, guarantees with a “nominal” value of €333 million have been written‐off as not belonging to the EDF. Had the 2012 comparatives been updated, the “nominal” value would have decreased from €566 million to €349 million and the “on‐going” value would have decreased € 391 million to €185 million.

2.3 Receivables

€ millions

Note 8th EDF 9th EDF 10th EDF

TOTAL 31.12.2013

TOTAL 31.12.2012

Receivables from customers 2.3.1 2 9 12 24 10

Receivables from Member States 2.3.2 ‐ ‐ 3 3 3

Accrued income and deferred charges 2.3.3 ‐ 48 9 57 57

TOTAL 2 58 24 84 70

2.3.1 Receivables from customers

€ millions


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Receivables from customers 6 19 13 38 26

‐Write‐down (3) (10) (1) (14) (16)

TOTAL 2 9 12 24 10

The movements in open recovery orders during the period are detailed below:

€ millions

8th EDF 9th EDF 10th EDF TOTAL 2013 TOTAL 2012

Open recovery orders at beginning of year 5 19 3 26 25

Recovery orders issued 3 40 133 176 139

Recovery orders closed (2) (40) (123) (165) (138)

Cashed (1) (27) (103) (131) (97)

Waived (art 73 FR) (0) (1) (0) (1) (1)

Cancelled (0) (6) (0) (6) (4)

Offset (1) (7) (19) (27) (36)

Open recovery orders at end of year 6 19 13 38 26

237

2.3.2 Receivables from Member States

The €3 million receivable from Member States in the 10th EDF comprises cofinancing contributions from United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden.

2.3.3 Accrued income and deferred charges

Accrued income and deferred charges include primarily accrued interest on pre‐financing amounts. Additionally, accrued interest income on late payment of contributions is included under this heading.

2.4 Liaison Accounts

€ millions


31.12.2013

Liaison accounts 290 1,323 (1,613) 0

TOTAL 290 1,323 (1,613) 0

For reasons of efficiency, the single treasury covering all the EDFs is allocated to the 10th EDF; this leads to operations between the various EDFs, which are balanced out in the liaison accounts between the various EDF balance sheets.

2.5 Cash And Cash Equivalents6

€ millions


TOTAL 31.12.2013

TOTAL 31.12.2012

Special accounts ‐ financial institutions of Member States ‐ ‐ ‐ 719 719 633

Current accounts – commercial banks ‐ ‐ ‐ 39 39 54

STABEX security accounts 2.5.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

Democratic Republic Congo special fund7 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 1

TOTAL ‐ ‐ 759 759 690

6 In accordance with Article 153 of the 10th EDF Financial Regulation, the treasury is presented in the balance sheet of the 10th EDF. The

nature of the various bank accounts is outlined in chapter 6, Financial Risk Management. 7 This balance represents the amounts available for the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with the provisions of Council

Decision 2003/583/EC7. These funds are earmarked for a specific purpose and beneficiary state.

238

2.5.1 STABEX Security accounts

€ millions

Balance at 31.12.2013

Balance at 31.12.2012

Ivory Coast ‐ 2

Other countries ‐ 0

TOTAL ‐ 2

STABEX is the acronym for a European Union compensatory finance scheme to stabilise export earnings of the ACP countries.

In addition to these funds, there are other STABEX funds held by beneficiary ACP States. Once the Commission and the beneficiary (ACP) State reach agreement on how the STABEX funds are to be utilised, a transfer convention is signed by both parties. In accordance with the provisions of Article 211 of the Lomé IV Agreement8 (as revised), the funds are transferred into an interest bearing double signature account (European Commission and Beneficiary State) opened in the name of the ACP State. The funds remain in these double signature accounts until a FMO (Framework of Mutual Obligations) justifies a transfer for a project.

The Commission's Authorising Officer retains the power of signature over the account in order to ensure that the funds are disbursed as intended. The funds in the double signature accounts are the property of the ACP State and are consequently not recorded as assets in the EDF accounts. The transfers to these accounts are recorded as STABEX payments. See also note 3.1.2 for more information.

Non‐Current Liabilities

2.6 Payables

€ millions


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Co‐financing ‐ payables ‐ ‐ 25 25 40

TOTAL ‐ ‐ 25 25 40

Co‐financing payables at the end of 2013 relate to the 10th EDF.

Co‐financing contributions received are presented as payables to Member States and non‐Member States as they fulfill the criteria of revenues from non‐exchange transactions under condition. The EDF is required to use the contributions to deliver services to third parties or

8 OJ L 156 of 29.05.1998 pp. 3‐106

239

is otherwise required to return the assets (the contributions received) to the Member States. The outstanding payable for co‐financing agreements represents the co‐financing contribution received less the expenses incurred related to the project. The effect on net assets is nil.

The increase in the total co‐financing payables is explained in the note 2.7.1.2.

Current Liabilities

2.7 Payables

€ millions


TOTAL 31.12.2013

TOTAL 31.12.2012

Current payables 2.7.1 1 61 260 322 209

Accrued charges 2.7.2 26 202 359 588 555

Deferred fund capital contribution

2.7.3 ‐ ‐ 304 304 293

TOTAL 28 263 923 1 214 1 057

2.7.1 Current payables

€ millions


TOTAL 31.12.2013

TOTAL 31.12.2012

Suppliers and other 2.7.1.1 1 61 182 244 152

Co‐financing payables 2.7.1.2 ‐ 0 75 75 46

Sundry payables 2.7.1.3 0 0 3 3 12

TOTAL 1 61 260 322 209

Payables include cost statements received by the EDF relating to the grant activity. They are recorded for the amount being claimed from the moment the demand is received. The same procedure applies to invoices and credit notes received under procurement activities. The cost claims concerned have been taken into account for the year‐end cut‐off procedures. Following the cut‐off entries, estimated eligible amounts have been recognised in the economic outturn account.

2.7.1.1 Suppliers and other

Included under this heading are amounts owed to suppliers as well as amounts payable to public bodies and third states.

The increase of €93 million compared to the previous reporting period relates primarly to a EUR 74 million increase in payables to third states.

240

2.7.1.2 Co‐financing payables

The total non‐current and current co‐financing payables increased by €14 million. In 2013, new co‐financing contributions were received from Sweden (€9 million), France (€5 million), Australia (€2 million), UK (€2 million) and other countries.

The co‐financing payables were decreased by €8 million to recognise revenue related to the co‐financing projects (see 3.1.3 and 3.2.2).

2.7.1.3 Sundry payables

Sundry payables mainly comprise unallocated cash receipts and returned amounts.

2.7.2 Accrued charges

€millions


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Accrued charges 26 202 359 588 555

TOTAL 26 202 359 588 555

At year‐end, an assessment is made concerning eligible expenses incurred by beneficiaries of EDF funds but not yet reported. Following these cut‐off calculations, estimated eligible amounts are recorded as accrued charges.

Estimated utilisation of pre‐financing amounts is presented as an estimated clearing of pre‐financing (see 2.2).

2.7.3 Deferred fund capital contribution

€ millions


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

United Kingdom ‐ ‐ 296 296 274

Ireland ‐ ‐ 5 5 9

Lithuania ‐ ‐ 2 2 ‐

Hungary ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10

TOTAL ‐ ‐ 304 304 293

This comprises Member States' contributions paid in advance at year‐end.

Net Assets

241

2.8 Called Fund Capital

€ millions


Fund Capital 12 840 11 699 21 152 45 691

Uncalled fund capital ‐ ‐ (16 112) (16 112)

Called fund capital 31.12.2012 12 840 11 699 5 040 29 579

Fund Capital 12 840 11 699 21 152 45 691

Uncalled fund capital ‐ ‐ (13 162) (13 162)

Called fund capital 31.12.2013 12 840 11 699 7 990 32 529

The fund capital represents the total amount of contributions from Member States for the relevant EDF fund as laid down in each of the Internal Agreements.

The uncalled funds represent the initial allocation not yet called up from Member States.

The called fund capital represents the amount of the initial allocations which has been called up for transfer to the treasury accounts by the Member States in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 16 of the 10th EDF Financial Regulation.

The capital of the 8th and the 9th EDF has been called up and received in its entirety.

Called and uncalled fund capital by Member State

€ millions

Contributions % uncalled 10th

EDF 31.12.2012

called up in 2013

uncalled 10th EDF

31.12.2013

Austria 2.41 (388) 71 (317)

Belgium 3.53 (569) 104 (465)

Denmark 2.00 (322) 59 (263)

Finland 1.47 (237) 43 (193)

France 19.55 (3 150) 577 (2 573)

Germany 20.50 (3 303) 605 (2 698)

Greece 1.47 (237) 43 (193)

Ireland 0.91 (147) 27 (120)

Italy 12.86 (2 072) 379 (1 693)

Luxemburg 0.27 (44) 8 (36)

Netherlands 4.85 (781) 143 (638)

Portugal 1.15 (185) 34 (151)

Spain 7.85 (1 265) 232 (1 033)

Sweden 2.74 (441) 81 (361)

United Kingdom 14.82 (2 388) 437 (1 951)

Cyprus 0.09 (15) 3 (12)

Czech Republic 0.51 (82) 15 (67)

Estonia 0.05 (8) 1 (7)

242

Hungary 0.55 (89) 16 (72)

Lithuania 0.12 (19) 4 (16)

Latvia 0.07 (11) 2 (9)

Malta 0.03 (5) 1 (4)

Poland 1.30 (209) 38 (171)

Slovenia 0.18 (29) 5 (24)

Slovakia 0.21 (34) 6 (28)

Bulgaria 0.14 (23) 4 (18)

Romania 0.37 (60) 11 (49)

TOTAL 100,00 (16 112) 2 950 (13 162)

2.9 OTHER RESERVES

€ millions


Balance at 31.12.2011 (2 276) 4 227 301 2 252

Transfer of decommited amounts to the 10th EDF from the 8th and 9th EDFs

(78) (300) 378 0

Transfer from the 10th to the 9th EDF to allocate funds to Southern Sudan following Council Decision 2010/406/EU

‐ 200

(200) 0

Balance at 31.12.2012 (2 354) 4 126 479 2 252

Transfer of decommited amounts to the 10th EDF from the 8th and 9th EDFs (102)

(371)

473 0

Balance at 31.12.2013 (2 456) 3 756 952 2 252

The balance at 31.12.2013 includes:

‐ Funds allocated to Southern Sudan ‐ 350 ‐ 350

Since the entry into force of the 10th EDF in 2008, all decommitted funds of previous EDFs are transferred to the reserve of the 10th EDF. This reserve may be committed only under the conditions set out in Article 1.4 of the Internal Agreement of the 10th EDF.

In 2013, EUR 102 million and €371 million of decommitted funds from the 8th and 9th EDFs respectively were transferred to the performance reserve of the 10th EDF.

3. NOTES TO THE ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT

3.1 OPERATING REVENUE

€ millions


Recovery of expenses 1 11 1 13 17

Recovery of STABEX funds 61 ‐ ‐ 61 49

Exchange gains 2 23 16 41 51

Operating income co‐financing ‐ ‐ 8 8 8

TOTAL 64 34 25 123 124

243

3.1.1 Recovery of expenses

This heading represents the recovery orders issued by the EDF and the deduction from subsequent payments recorded in the EDF accounting system, to recover expenditures previously paid out, based on controls, audits or eligibility analysis. It should be noted that recovery of pre‐financing amounts is not included as revenue, but credited to the pre‐financing heading on the balance sheet.

Recovery of undue payments

In 2013, recovery orders for €23 million were issued in respect of undue payments, compared to €27 million in 2012. Of these, €6 million related to the recovery of expenses and were thus recorded as operating revenue. €17 million represented recoveries of pre‐financing amounts paid and were credited to the pre‐financing asset on the balance sheet.

The nature of the recovery of undue payments can be summarised as follows:

€ millions

Revenue Pre‐

financing TOTAL 2013

Revenue Pre‐

financing TOTAL 2012

Error 2 4 6 1 1 2

Irregularity 4 12 16 9 15 25

OLAF Notified ‐ 1 1 1 ‐ 1

TOTAL 6 17 23 11 16 27

3.1.2 Recovery of STABEX funds

In 2013, €61 million was returned to the EDF from double signature accounts in ACP countries following Article 1.4 of the Internal Agreement of the 10th EDF9. These funds were transferred mainly from Soudan (€36 million), Ivory Coast (€7 million), the Salomon Islands (€5 million), Papua New Guinea (€3 million), Sierra Leone (€2 million), Zimbabwe (€2 million) and Mauritania (€2 million). These revenues are included in operating income (recovery of STABEX funds) in the economic outturn account of the 8th EDF.

3.1.3 Operating income co‐financing

The operating income relating to co‐financing represents the contributions used (see 3.2.2). As these contributions fulfil the

criteria of revenues from non‐exchange transactions under condition, the contribution is recognised in accordance with the implementation of the co‐financing project.

9 OJ L 247 of 09.09.2006

244

3.2 OPERATING EXPENSES

€ millions

Note 8th EDF 9th EDF 10th EDF TOTAL 2013

TOTAL 2012

Operating expenses – aid instruments

3.2.1 49 330 2 578 2 957 2 938

Operating expenses co‐financing 3.2.2 ‐ ‐ 8 8 8

Foreign exchange losses ‐ 4 31 25 60 66

Write‐down of receivables ‐ 0 1 1 1 6

TOTAL 53 362 2 612 3 027 3 017

3.2.1 Operating expenses – aid instruments

€ millions

8th EDF 9th EDF 10th EDF TOTAL 2013

TOTAL2012

Programmable aid 42 (2) 1 678 1 719 1 476

Macro‐economic support ‐ 21 ‐ 21 8

Sectoral policy 0 225 (2) 222 326

Interest rate subsidies 0 ‐ ‐ 0 5

Intra ACP projects ‐ 57 588 645 720

Emergency aid ‐ 17 253 270 333

Refugee aid 1 ‐ ‐ 1 6

Risk capital 0 ‐ ‐ 0 1

STABEX (1) ‐ ‐ (1) 4

Other aid programmes related to former EDFs

‐ 5 ‐ 5 10

Institutional support ‐ 1 61 62 32

Compensation export receipts 7 6 ‐ 13 18

Total 49 330 2 578 2 957 2 938

The EDF operating expenditure covers the various aid instruments and takes different forms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed.

3.2.2 Operating expenses co‐financing

These are the expenses incurred on co‐financing projects in 2013. As the co‐financing contributions received fulfil the criteria of revenues from non‐exchange transactions under condition, a corresponding amount of contributions has been recognised as operating revenue (see 3.1.3).

3.3 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

245

€ millions


Administrative expenses ‐ 0 167 167 107

TOTAL ‐ 0 167 167 107

This heading includes support expenditure, i.e. the administrative costs related to the programming and implementation of the EDFs. This includes expenses for preparation, follow‐up, monitoring, and evaluation of projects as well as expenses for computer networks, technical assistance etc.

3.4 FINANCIAL REVENUE

€ millions


Interest income ‐ European banks ‐ 0 0 0 9

Interest on pre‐financing 0 (3) 3 0 (32)

TOTAL 0 (3) 3 0 (22)

Interest on pre‐financing is recognised in accordance with the provisions of article 7 paragraph 3 and article 8 of the 10th EDF Financial Regulation. The negative interest revenue in the 9th EDF is caused by fluctuations in the foreign currency exchange rate (USD/EUR).

4. NOTES TO THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT

4.1 PURPOSE AND PREPARATION OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT

Cash flow information is used to provide a basis for assessing the ability of the EDF to generate cash and cash equivalents, and its needs to utilise those cash flows.

The cash flow statement is prepared using the indirect method. This means that the net surplus or deficit for the financial year is adjusted for the effects of transactions of a non‐cash nature and any deferrals or accruals of past or future operating cash receipts or payments.

Cash flows arising from transactions in a foreign currency are recorded in the EDF's reporting currency (euro €), by applying to the foreign currency amount the exchange rate between the euro and the foreign currency at the date of the cash flow.

4.2 OPERATING ACTIVITIES

246

The EDF cash flow statement only shows cash flows from operating activities as the EDF does not have investment or financing activities. The objective of the operating activities is to participate in the achievement of policy targeted outcomes.

5. CONTINGENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND OTHER DISCLOSURES

5.1 CONTINGENT ASSETS

€ millions


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Performance guarantees 4 63 49 116 304

Retention guarantees 2 40 14 56 188

TOTAL 6 103 62 171 492

5.1.1 Performance guarantees

Performance guarantees are sometimes requested to ensure that beneficiaries of EDF funding meet the obligations of their contracts with the EDF.

In 2013 an in‐depth review of the guarantees has been performed. Following this review, guarantees with a value of €188 million has been written‐off as not belonging to the EDF. Had the 2012 comparatives been updated, the value would have decreased from €304 million to €177 million.

5.1.2 Retention guarantees

Retention guarantees concern only works contracts. Typically, 10% of the interim payments to beneficiaries are withheld to ensure that the contractor fulfils his/her obligations. These withheld amounts are reflected as amounts payable. Subject to the approval of the contracting authority, the contractor may instead submit a retention guarantee which replaces the amounts withheld on interim payments. These received guarantees are disclosed as contingent assets.

In 2013 an in‐depth review of the guarantees has been performed. Following this review, guarantees with a value of €105 million has been written‐off as not belonging to the EDF. Had the 2012 comparatives been updated, the value would have decreased from €188 million to €98 million.

5.2 OTHER DISCLOSURES

5.2.1 Budgetary commitments not yet expensed

€ millions

247


31.12.2013 TOTAL

31.12.2012

Outstanding budgetary commitments not yet paid

74 611 5 340 6 025 5 642

Related amounts included in the economic outturn account

(28) (215) (540) (782) (714)

TOTAL 47 396 4 800 5 243 4 928

Outstanding budgetary commitments represent open commitments for which payments and/or decommitments have not yet been made. This is a normal consequence of the existence of multiannual programmes. At 31 December 2013 the outstanding budgetary commitments totalled €6,025 million. The amount disclosed as a future commitment to be funded is this outstanding budgetary commitment less related amounts that have been included as expenses in the 2013 economic outturn account, giving a total of €5,243 million.

6. FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

The following disclosures with regard to the financial risk management of the European Development Fund relate to the treasury operations carried out by the European Commission on behalf of the European Development Fund in order to implement its resources.

6.1 RISK MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES

The rules and principles for the management of the EDF's treasury operations are laid down in Council Regulation 215/2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th EDF, and in the Internal Agreement.

As a result of the above regulation, the following main principles apply:

• The EDF contributions are paid by Member States in special accounts opened with the bank of issue of each Member State or the financial institution designated by it. The amounts of the contributions shall remain in those special accounts until the payments of EDF need to be made.

• EDF contributions are paid by Member States in EUR, while the EDF's payments are denominated in EUR and in other currencies, including less well‐known ones.

• Bank accounts opened by the Commission on behalf of the EDF may not be overdrawn.

In addition to the special accounts, other bank accounts are opened by the Commission in the name of the EDF, with financial institutions (central banks and commercial banks), for the purpose of executing payments and receiving receipts other than the Member State contributions to the budget.

Treasury and payment operations are highly automated and rely on modern information

248

systems. Specific procedures are applied to guarantee system security and to ensure segregation of duties in line with the Financial Regulation, the Commission’s internal control standards, and audit principles.

A written set of guidelines and procedures regulate the management of the treasury and payment operations with the objective of limiting operational and financial risk and ensuring an adequate level of control. They cover the different areas of operation, and compliance with the guidelines and procedures is checked regularly.

6.2 MARKET RISK 6.2.1 Currency risk

All contributions are held in euro (€), and other currencies are purchased only when they are needed for the execution of payments. As a result the EDF's treasury operations are not exposed to currency risk.

6.2.2 Interest rate risk

The EDF does not borrow monies and as a consequence it is not exposed to interest rate risk.

It however earns interest on balances it holds on its different banks accounts. The Commission, on behalf of the EDF, has therefore put in place measures to ensure that interest earned regularly reflect market interest rates as well as their possible fluctuation.

Overnight balances held on commercial bank accounts are remunerated on a daily basis. The remuneration of balances on such accounts is based on variable market rates to which a contractual margin (positive or negative) is applied. For most of the accounts the interest calculation is linked to the EONIA (Euro Over Night Index Average), and is adjusted to reflect any fluctuations of this rate. For some other accounts the interest calculation is linked to the ECB rate (the one used for the ECB refinancing operations). As a result no risk is taken by the EDF that its balances be remunerated at rates lower than market rates.

6.3 CREDIT RISK (COUNTERPARTY RISK)

Most of the EDF's treasury resources are kept, in accordance with Council Regulation 215/2008, in the "special accounts" opened by Member States for the payment of their contributions. The majority of such accounts are held with Member States' treasuries or national central banks. These institutions carry the lowest counterparty risk for the EDF (exposure is with its Member States).

For the part of the EDF's treasury resources kept with commercial banks in order to cover the execution of payments, replenishment of these accounts is executed on a just‐in‐time basis and is automatically managed by the Commission treasury's cash management system. Minimum cash levels, proportional to the average amount of daily payments made from it,

249

are kept on each account. As a consequence the amounts kept overnight on these accounts remain constantly at low levels which ensure the EDF's risk exposure is limited.

In addition, specific guidelines are applied for the selection of commercial banks in order to further minimise counterparty risk to which the EDF is exposed.

All commercial banks are selected by call for tenders. The minimum short‐term credit rating required for admission to the tendering procedures is Moody's P‐1 or equivalent (S&P A‐1 or Fitch F1). A lower level may be required in specific and duly justified circumstances.

6.4 LIQUIDITY RISK

Budget principles applied to the EDF ensure that overall cash resources for the budgetary period are always sufficient for the execution of all related payments. Indeed the total Member States' contributions equal the overall amount of payment appropriations for the relevant budgetary period.

Member States contributions to EDF, however, are paid in three instalments per year, while payments are subject to certain seasonality.

In order to ensure that treasury resources are always sufficient to cover the payments to be executed in any given month, information on the treasury situation is regularly exchanged between the Commission' treasury and the relevant spending departments in order to ensure that payments executed in any given period do not exceed the available treasury resources.

In addition to the above, in the context of the EDF's daily treasury operations, automated cash management tools ensure that sufficient liquidity is available on each of the EDF's bank accounts, on a daily basis.

7. RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURES

To be completed by DEVCO.

8. EVENTS AFTER THE BALANCE SHEET DATE

At the date of transmission of these accounts, no material issues had come to the attention of the Accounting Officer of the EDF or were reported to him that would require separate disclosure under this section. The annual accounts and related notes were prepared using the most recently available information and this is reflected in the information presented above.

9. RECONCILIATION ECONOMIC OUTTURN ‐ BUDGET OUTTURN

The economic outturn of the year is calculated on the basis of accrual accounting principles. The budget outturn is however based on cash accounting rules. As both are the result of the

250

same underlying transactions, it is a useful control to ensure that they are reconcilable. The table below shows this reconciliation, highlighting the key reconciling amounts, split between revenue and expenditure items.

€ millions

2013 2012


REVENUE

Entitlements not affecting the budget outturn (68) (47)

Entitlements established in the current year but not yet collected (6) (8)

Entitlements established in previous years and collected in the current year 10 14

Net effect of pre‐financing 71 62

Net accrued revenue 19 (40)

EXPENDITURE

Expenses of the current year not yet paid 90 38

Expenses of previous years paid in the current year (53) (101)

Payment cancellations 13 7

Net effect of pre‐financing (431) (316)

Net accrued expenses 464 204

BUDGET OUTTURN OF THE YEAR (2 963) (3 209)

9.1 Reconciling items – Revenue

The budgetary revenue of a financial year corresponds to the revenue collected from entitlements established in the course of the year and amounts collected from entitlements established in previous years.

The entitlements not affecting the budget outturn are recorded in the economic outturn but from a budgetary perspective cannot be considered as revenues as the cashed amount is transferred to reserves and cannot be recommitted without a Council decision.

The entitlements established in the current year but not yet collected are to be deducted from the economic outturn for reconciliation purposes as they do not form part of budgetary revenue. On the contrary, the entitlements established in previous years and collected in the current year must be added to the economic outturn for reconciliation purposes.

The net effect of pre‐financing is the clearing of the recovered pre‐financing amounts. This is a cash receipt which has no impact on the economic outturn.

The net accrued revenue mainly consists of accruals made for year‐end cut‐off purposes. Only the net effect, i.e. the accrued revenue of the current year less the reversal of accrued revenue of the previous year, is taken into consideration.

9.2 Reconciling items – Expenditure

251

Expenses of the current year not yet paid are to be added for reconciliation purposes as they are included in the economic outturn but do not form part of budgetary expenditure. On the contrary, the expenses of previous years paid in the current year must be deducted from the economic outturn for reconciliation purposes as they are part of the current year's budgetary expenditure but have either no effect on the economic outturn or they decrease the expenses in case of corrections.

The cash receipts from payment cancellations do not affect the economic outturn whereas they impact the budget outturn.

The net effect of pre‐financing is the combination of the new pre‐financing amounts paid in the current year (recognised as budgetary expenditure of the year) and the clearing of pre‐financing paid in the current year or previous years through the acceptance of eligible costs. The latter represents an expense in accrual terms but not in the budgetary accounts since the payment of the initial pre‐financing had already been considered as a budgetary expenditure at the time of its payment.

The net accrued expenses mainly consist of accruals made for year‐end cut‐off purposes, i.e. eligible expenses incurred by beneficiaries of EDF funds but not yet reported to the EDF. Only the net effect, i.e. the accrued expenses of the current year less the reversal of accrued expenses of the previous year, is taken into consideration.

252

2. REPORT ON FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION ‐2013

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

Previous EDFs

• As the 6th EDF was closed in 2006 and the 7th DF was closed in 2008, the annual accounts no longer contain implementation tables for these EDFs. However, implementation of the transferred balances can be found in the 9th EDF.

• As in past years, to ensure transparency in the presentation of the accounts for 2013, the tables set out separately for the 8th EDF the part used for Lomé Convention programming and the part used for programming under the Cotonou Agreement

• In accordance with article 1(2)(b) of the Internal Agreement of the 9th EDF, balances of the EDFs previous to the 9th EDF have been transferred to the 9 th EDF, and, during the life ot the 9th EDF, has been committed as 9th funds.

10th EDF

The ACP‐EC Partnership Agreement signed on 23 June 2000 in Cotonou by the Member States of the European Community and the States of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP States) entered into force on 1 April 2003. The Cotonou Agreement was amended twice, firstly by the agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, secondly by the agreement signed in Ouagadougou on 22 june 2010.

The EU Council Decision of 27 November 2001 (2001/822/EC) on the association of the overseas countries and territories (OCT) with the European Union entered into force on 2 December 2001. This Decision was amended on 19 March 2007 (Decision 2007/249/EC).

The Internal Agreement on the financing of Community aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008‐2013 in accordance with the revised Cotonou Agreement, adopted by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Community on 17 July 2006, entered into force on 1 July 2008.

Under the Cotonou Agreement, the second period (2008‐2013) of Community aid to the ACP States and OCTs is funded by the 10th EDF to the tune of €22 682 million, of which:

• €21 966 million is allocated to the ACP countries in accordance with the multiannual financial framework set out in Annex Ib to the revised Cotonou Agreement, of which €20 466 million is managed by the European Commission;

• €286 million is allocated to the OCTs in accordance with Annex IIAa of the revised Council Decision on the association of the OCTs with the European Community, of which €256 million is managed by the European Commission;

• €430 million is for the Commission to finance the costs arising from the programming and implementation of 10th EDF resources, in accordance with Article 6 of the Internal Agreement.

253

Since the date of entry into force of the 10th EDF, the initial amount allocated to the 10th EDF has been supplemented by decommitments from previous EDF's, interest income and unused cash balances resulting from the system to guarantee the stabilisation of export earnings from primary agricultural products (STABEX) under the Funds prior to the 9th EDF. All funds are managed in accordance with their specific rules as foreseen in the revised Cotonou Agreement and the Internal Agreement.

31 December 2013 was an important target , the "Sunset clause" of the 10 th EDF. This clause sets a clear cut‐off date for commitments under the 10th EDF (articles 1(4) and 1(5) of the 10th EDF Internal Agreement). During the whole year, every effort has been made in order to commit the maximum of the funds available from the 10th EDF.

‐ 10th EDF non‐mobilisable performance reserve

Since the 10th EDF came into force on 1 July 2008, the remaining balances and the amounts decommitted from projects under the 9th and previous EDFs are transferred to the performance reserve of the 10th EDF, with the exception of Stabex funds and 9th EDF administrative envelope.

€ million

ACP 10th EDF non‐mobilisable performance reserve at 31/12/2013 924.1

OCT 10th EDF non‐mobilisable performance reserve at 31/12/2013 14.1

Total 10th EDF non‐mobilisable performance reserve at 31/12/2013 938.2

In accordance with article 1.4 of the 10th EDF Internal Agreement, the Council has, on 12 December 2013, decided to use these funds for the Bridging Facility.

‐ 10th EDF uncommitted funds

On 31/12/2013, the total amount of uncommitted funds resulted as:

€ million

ACP (Bilateral, Regional Intra‐ACP, Reserve NIP/RIP) 74.5

OCT 0.08

Total 10th EDF uncommitted funds at 31/12/2013 74.6

These funds have also been transferred to the Bridging Facility.

‐ Bridging Facility

The Internal Agreement establishing the eleventh European Development Fund (11th EDF) was signed by the Member States, meeting within the Council, in June 2013. This Internal

254

Agreement will only enter into force after ratification by all Member States.

Pending the entry into force of the 11th EDF, the Commission has proposed transitional measures, the "Bridging Facility", to ensure the availability of funds for cooperation with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and with Overseas Countries and Territories, as well as for support expenditure, between January 2014 and the entry into force of the Internal Agreement establishing the 11th EDF.

This Bridging Facility has been adopted on 12 December 2013 (Decision 2013/759/EU), and is financed from the following sources:

• funds decommitted from 8th and 9th EDF 10 up to 31/12/2013,

• uncommitted balances from the 10th EDF at 31/12/2013,

• funds decommitted from the 10th and previous EDFs as from 01/01/2014.

At 31/12/2013, the total funds available for the bridging facility amount to €998.6 milion for ACP, and €14.2 milion for OCT, not taking interests into accounts. These funds are accounted for the 11th EDF.

‐ 10th EDF Stabex reserve

Following the closure of Stabex accounts, unused/decommitted funds are transferred to the 10th EDF Stabex A Envelope reserve (10th EDF Internal Agreement Art. 1(4)) and then to the national indicative programmes of the countries concerned. As of 31 december 2013, the total amount of de‐committed Stabex funds, transferred to the 10th EDF for 33 countries reached €165.3 million.

‐ 10th EDF Co‐financings

Under the 10th EDF, transfer agreements for co‐financings from Member States were signed, and commitment appropriations were opened for a total amount of €134.4 million, while payment appropriations were opened for the cashed amounts totalling €110.6 million.

The situation of co‐financing appropriations at 31.12.2012 is shown in the table below (€ million):

Commitments appropriations

Payment appropriations

Co‐financing ‐ A Envelope 118.1 95.3

Co‐financing ‐ Intra ACP 12.1 12.1

255

Co‐financing – Administrative expenses 4.2 3.2

134.4 110.6

The following tables, concerning the amounts decided, contracted and paid, show net figures.

The tables presenting the situation by country and by instrument are annexed.

256

2.1 ALLOCATIONS

TABLE 1.1

8th EDF ‐ EVOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS: 31 December 2013ANALYSIS OF CREDITS PER INSTRUMENT

€ million

INSTRUMENT INITIAL

APPROPRIATION

INCREASES/DECREASES IN CUMULATIVE RESOURCES AT

31 DECEMBER 2012

INCREASE OR DECREASE IN

RESOURCES IN 2013 Notes

CURRENT APPROPRIATION

ACP

Lomé

Total indicative programmes 7 562 (2 473) ( 69) (1) 5 020

Interest‐rate subsidies 370 ( 287) 83

Emergency aid 140 ( 4) 136

Aid for refugees 120 ( 17) (1) 103

Risk capital 1 000 37 ( 17) 1 019

Stabex 1 800 (1 077) 0 (1) 724

Sysmin 575 ( 474) 101

Structural adjustment 1 400 97 ( 0) 1 497

Heavily indebted poor countries 1 060 ( 1) 1 059

Use of interest income 36 ( 1) 35

Cotonou

A envelope 419 ( 1) (1) 418

B envelope 252 ( 14) (1) 238

TOTAL ACP 12 967 (2 431) ( 104) 10 432

OCT

Total indicative programmes 115 ( 78) ( 0) 37

Interest‐rate subsidies 9 ( 7) 1

Emergency aid 3 ( 3)

Aid for refugees 1 ( 1)

Risk capital 30 ( 24) 6

Stabex 6 ( 4) 1

Sysmin 3 ( 0) 2

TOTAL OCT 165 ( 117) ( 0) 48

257

TOTAL 8th EDF 13 132 (2 548) ( 104) 10 481

(1) all decreases are decommitments transferred to the non‐mobilisable performance reserve 10th EDF

TABLE 1.2

9th EDF ‐ EVOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS: 31 December 2013ANALYSIS OF CREDITS PER INSTRUMENT

€ million

INSTRUMENT INITIAL

APPROPRIATION


31 DECEMBER 2012

INCREASE OR DECREASE IN

RESOURCES IN 2013 Notes

CURRENT LEVEL APPROPRIATIO

N

ACP

A Envelope 5 318 3 867 ( 195) (1) 8 990

B Envelope 2 108 ( 824) ( 19) 1 265

National allocations reserve 1 224 (1 224)

CDE, CTA and Parliamentary Assembly 164 ( 4) ( 3) 158

Long term development reserve 258 ( 258) 0

Regional allocations 904 ( 23) ( 22) (1) 859

Intra ACP 300 2 856 ( 66) (1) 3 091

Implementation costs 125 54 ( 0) (2) + (3) 179

Interests and other revenue 67 ( 4) 63

Special allocation R.D. Congo 105 105

Special allocation Sudan 147 (2) 147

Special allocation South Sudan 194 (3) 194

Transfers from 6th EDF ‐ Lomé 21 ( 0) (1) 21

Transfers from 7th EDF ‐ Lomé 723 ( 27) (1) 696

Voluntary contribution Peace facility 39 39

TOTAL ACP 10 401 5 741 ( 336) 15 806

OCT

A Envelope 0 248 ( 0) 248

B Envelope/ Use of C reserve 0 7 7

Long term development reserve 144 ( 144)

258

Regional allocations 8 41 (1) 49

Technical assistance envelope 2 ( 1) 1

Transfers from 6th EDF ‐ Lomé 0 0

Transfers from 7th EDF ‐ Lomé 3 3

TOTAL OCT 154 154 ( 0) 308

TOTAL 9th EDF 10 555 5 895 ( 336) 16 114

(1) all decreases are decommitments transferred to the non‐mobilisable performance reserve 10th EDF

(2) following Council Decision 2010/406/EU 150 million was added from non‐mobilisable performance reserve 10th EDF for Sudan (147 million to special allocation Sudan and 3 million to implementation costs)

(2) following Council Decision 2011/315/EU 200 million was added from non‐mobilisable performance reserve 10th EDF for Sudan (194 million to special allocation South Sudan and 6 million to implementation costs)

TABLE 1.3

10th EDFEVOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS: 31 December 2013

ANALYSIS OF CREDITS PER INSTRUMENT

€ million

INSTRUMENT INITIAL

APPROPRIATION


31 DECEMBER 2012

INCREASE OR DECREASE IN RESOURCES IN

2013

Notes CURRENT LEVEL APPROPRIATION

ACP

A Envelope 13 744 ( 92) (2) + (4) 13 652

A Envelope reserve 13 500 (13 345) ( 155) (2) 0

B Envelope 1 948 89 (2) 2 037

B Envelope reserve 1 800 (1 800) 0 (2) 0

Regional allocations 1 797 190 (2) 1 987

Regional allocations reserve 1 783 (1 783) 0

National Allocation Reserve Enveloppe A Stabex 13 ( 13) (4) ( 0)

NIP/RIP reserve 683 ( 664) 6 (2) 25

Intra‐ACP 2 895 0 (2) 2 895

Intra‐ACP Reserve 2 700 (2 700) 0 (2) 0

Implementation costs 430 0 0 430

Interests and other receipts 65 13 77

Cofinancing 99 36 (3) 135

259

Non‐mobilisable reserve ACP 457 467 (1) 924

TOTAL ACP 20 896 725 541 22 162

OCT

A Envelope 140 56 (2) 196

A Envelope reserve 195 ( 140) ( 55) (2) 0

B Envelope 7 8 15

B Envelope reserve 15 ( 7) ( 8) 0

Regional allocations reserve 40 ( 40) 0

Regional allocations 40 40

Studies/technical assistance OCT 6 0 6

Non‐mobilisable reserve OCT 8 6 14

TOTAL OCT 256 8 7 271

TOTAL 10th EDF 21 152 733 548 22 433

(1) transfer in decommitments from projects of the 9th and previous EDF's to the non mobilisable performance reserve for 377 million less transfer out of reserves to South Sudan for 200 million (to 9th EDF). year to date the total of the non‐mobilisable reserve ACP created was 807 million, of which 350 million has been used (150 million for Sudan, 200 million for South Soudan, both transferred to 9th EDF). (2) transfers in / from the 10th EDF reserves. (3) for the cofinancings, the table only presents the commitment appropriations. (4) Stabex ‐ balance of 13 is cash receipts following closure of stabex accounts (art 1.4 of 10th EDF internal agreement) for 47 Million minus transfer out to A envelope for 34 million.

260

2.2 AGGREGATED ACCOUNTS

TABLE 2.1

(EUR million)

8th EDF 9th EDF 10th EDF8th, 9th and

10th EDF

5 057 5 0574 733 4 733

720 720 35 35

0

418 9 242 13 848 23 508 238 1 269 2 052 3 559

907 2 027 2 9343 091 2 895 5 986 158 158

Special allocation Congo, Council Dec. 2003/583/EC 105 105Special allocation Sudan, Council Dec. 2010/406/EU 147 147Special allocation South Sudan, Council Dec. 2011/315/EU 194 194Voluntary contribution Peace facility 39 39Co-financing (commitment credits) 135 135

242 513 756NIP/RIP reserve 25 25Regional allocations reserve 0 0

0 0Country reserve 0 0Stabex - NIP Reserve A Envelope 0 0Non-mobilisable performance reserve 938 938

10 481 16 114 22 433 49 028

AT 31/12/13 % of allocation 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

DECISIONS8 10 478 100% ( 211) ( 53) ( 42) ( 45) ( 60) ( 64) ( 98)9 16 084 100% 3 455 775 ( 54) ( 116) ( 9) ( 297) ( 72)

10 21 351 91% 4 766 3 501 2 349 3 118 3 524 4 093TOTAL 47 914 3 244 5 488 3 405 2 187 3 049 3 163 3 923

ASSIGNED FUNDS8 10 437 100% 35 55 ( 42) 8 ( 13) ( 46) ( 11)9 15 408 96% 3 317 3 163 997 476 9 ( 187) ( 96)

10 15 565 69% 130 3 184 2 820 2 514 3 460 3 457TOTAL 41 410 3 352 3 348 4 140 3 304 2 509 3 226 3 350

PAYMENTS8 10 363 99% 483 323 152 158 90 15 189 14 795 92% 2 294 3 253 1 806 1 304 906 539 230

10 10 222 46% 90 1 111 1 772 1 879 2 655 2 715TOTAL 35 380 2 777 3 666 3 069 3 233 2 874 3 209 2 963

* Negative figures represent decommitments

EDF AGGREGATED ACCOUNTS AT 31.12.2013:PROGRESS REPORT

Sundry revenue

TOTAL

Cot

onou

Implementation costs and interest.

Transfers from other funds

A envelope

Annual figuresAggregate total

Intra-ACP reserve

CDE, CTA and Joint Assembly

FED

Intra ACP allocation Regional allocationB envelope

ALLOCATION

Lom

é

Programmable aidNon-programmable aid

261

TABLE 2.2

% % % %(1) (1) (1) (1)

PROGRAMMABLE AID (NIP)

Appropriations 5 057 5 057

Decisions 5 057 100% 5 057 100%

Assigned funds 5 020 99% 5 020 99%

Payments 4 978 98% 4 978 98%

NON-PROGRAMMABLE AID

Appropriations 4 733 4 733

Decisions 4 730 100% 4 730 100%

Assigned funds 4 728 100% 4 728 100%

Payments 4 704 99% 4 704 99%

TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS

Appropriations 720 720

Decisions 720 100% 720 100%

Assigned funds 689 96% 689 96%

Payments 671 93% 671 93%

SUNDRY REVENUE

Appropriations 35 35

Decisions 35 99% 35 99%

Assigned funds 35 99% 35 99%

Payments 35 99% 35 99%

TOTAL

Appropriations 9 826 720 10 545

Decisions 9 822 100% 720 100% 10 542 100%

Assigned funds 9 784 100% 689 96% 10 473 99%

Payments 9 717 99% 671 93% 10 388 99%

A envelopeAppropriations 418 9 242 13 848 23 508Decisions 418 100% 9 197 100% 13 827 100% 23 442 100%Assigned funds 417 100% 9 009 97% 9 840 71% 19 266 82%Payments 417 100% 8 780 95% 6 021 43% 15 218 65%B envelope Appropriations 238 1 269 2 052 3 559Decisions 238 100% 1 269 100% 2 044 100% 3 551 100%Assigned funds 236 99% 1 238 98% 1 706 83% 3 181 89%Payments 229 96% 1 208 95% 1 401 68% 2 837 80%CDE, CTA and Joint AssemblyAppropriations 158 158Decisions 158 100% 158 100%Assigned funds 154 97% 154 97%Payments 154 97% 154 97%Regional allocationAppropriations 907 2 027 2 934Decisions 903 100% 1 988 98% 2 891 99%Assigned funds 844 93% 1 163 57% 2 007 68%Payments 739 82% 644 32% 1 383 47%Intra-ACP allocation Appropriations 3 091 2 895 5 986Decisions 3 089 100% 2 874 99% 5 963 100%Assigned funds 3 015 98% 2 292 79% 5 307 89%Payments 2 845 92% 1 669 58% 4 513 75%Voluntary contribution Peace FacilityAppropriations 39 39Decisions 25 63% 25 63%Assigned funds 24 62% 24 62%Payments 24 62% 24 62%Special allocation Congo Council Dec.2003/583/ECAppropriations 105 105Decisions 105 100% 105 100%Assigned funds 105 100% 105 100%Payments 105 100% 105 100%Special allocation Sudan Council Dec.2010/406/EUAppropriations 147 147Decisions 110 75% 110 75%Assigned funds 48 32% 48 32%Payments 25 17% 25 17%Special allocation South Sudan Council Dec.2011/315/EUAppropriations 194 194Decisions 267 137% 267 137%Assigned funds 43 22% 43 22%Payments 12 6% 12 6%Implementation costs and interestAppropriations 242 513 756Decisions 242 100% 507 99% 750 99%Assigned funds 240 99% 487 95% 728 96%Payments 233 96% 467 91% 700 93%

TOTALAppropriations 656 15 394 21 335 37 385Decisions 656 100% 15 365 100% 21 241 100% 37 261 100%Assigned funds 654 100% 14 719 96% 15 489 73% 30 861 83%Payments 646 99% 14 124 92% 10 201 48% 24 971 67%

NIP/RIP RESERVE 25 25REGIONAL ALLOCATIONS RESERVE 0 0INTRA-ACP RESERVE 0 0Stabex - NIP Reserve A Envelope 0COUNTRIES RESERVE 0 0

Co-financingAppropriations 135 135Decisions 110 82% 110 82%Assigned funds 76 57% 76 10%Payments 21 16% 21 3%

Non-mobilisable performance reserve 938 938

TOTALAppropriations 10 481 16 114 22 433 49 028Decisions 10 478 100% 16 084 100% 21 351 95% 47 914 98%Assigned funds 10 437 100% 15 408 96% 15 565 69% 41 410 84%Payments 10 363 99% 14 795 92% 10 222 46% 35 380 72%

(1) % of appropriations

Lomé

Cotonou

EDF aggregated accounts at 31.12.2013CLASS OF AID

8th EDF TOTAL9th EDF 10th EDF

262

TABLE 2.3

(EUR million)

DECISIONS ASSIGNED FUNDS PAYMENTSAGG. TOTAL ANNUAL % AGG. TOTAL. ANNUAL % AGG. TOTAL ANNUAL %

(1) (2) (2) : (1) (3) (3) : (2) (4) (4) : (3)ACP

Total indicative programmes 5 020 5 020 ( 62) 100% 4 985 ( 13) 99% 4 943 4 99%

Total non-programmable aid 4 757 4 755 ( 20) 100% 4 753 3 100% 4 728 6 99%Interest-rate subsidies 83 83 100% 83 ( 0) 99% 69 83%Emergency aid 136 136 100% 136 100% 136 100%Aid for refugees 103 101 ( 2) 98% 100 ( 0) 98% 100 ( 0) 99%Risk capital 1 019 1 019 ( 17) 100% 1 018 99% 1 011 0 99%Stabex 723 722 0 100% 722 3 99% 720 6 100%Sysmin 101 101 100% 101 98% 101 100%Structural adjustment 1 497 1 497 100% 1 497 100% 1 497 100%Heavily indebted poor countries 1 060 1 060 100% 1 060 100% 1 060 100%Utilisation of interest income 35 35 ( 1) 99% 35 0 98% 35 0 100%

TOTAL 9 777 9 774 ( 82) 100% 9 737 ( 10) 100% 9 671 10 99%

A Envelope 418 418 ( 1) 100% 417 ( 1) 99% 417 ( 0) 100%

B Envelope 238 238 ( 14) 100% 236 ( 0) 78% 229 8

TOTAL 656 656 ( 16) 200% 654 ( 1) 177% 646 8 100%

TOTAL ACP (a) 10 433 10 430 ( 98) 100% 10 391 ( 11) 100% 10 317 18 99%

OCT Total indicative programmes 37 37 ( 0) 100% 35 ( 0) 93% 35 0 100%

Total non-programmable aid 11 11 0 100% 11 100% 11 0 100%Interest-rate subsidies 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%Emergency aidAid for refugeesRisk capital 6 6 100% 6 100% 6 100%Stabex 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%Sysmin 2 2 100% 2 99% 2 0 100%

TOTAL OCT (b) 48 48 ( 0) 100% 46 ( 0) 95% 46 0 100%

TOTAL (a) + (b) 10 481 10 478 ( 98) 100% 10 437 ( 11) 100% 10 363 18 99%

EDF AGGREGATED ACCOUNTS AT 31.12.2013:ANALYSIS BY INSTRUMENT

Cotonou

ACP + OCT - 8th EDF

APPROPRIATIONS

Lomé

263

TABLE 2.4

(EUR million)

DECISIONS ASSIGNED FUNDS PAYMENTSAGG. TOTAL ANNUAL % AGG. TOTAL. ANNUAL % AGG. TOTAL ANNUAL %

(1) (2) (2) : (1) (3) (3) : (2) (4) (4) : (3)ACP

A Envelope 8 994 8 951 ( 181) 100% 8 767 ( 54) 98% 8 545 78 97%Macroeconomic support 2 204 ( 35) 2 210 11 2 197 3Sectorial Policies 6 748 ( 146) 6 557 ( 65) 6 348 75B Envelope 1 265 1 265 ( 11) 100% 1 234 ( 7) 98% 1 204 14 98%Compensation export receipts 170 ( 0) 162 0 150 4Emergency aid 1 084 ( 11) 1 061 ( 7) 1 043 10Heavily indebted poor countries 11 0 11 0 11 0Regional allocation 859 855 ( 26) 100% 797 ( 34) 93% 695 15 87%Intra-ACP allocation 3 091 3 089 ( 62) 100% 3 015 ( 39) 98% 2 845 86 94%Other 158 158 ( 3) 100% 154 ( 5) 97% 154 ( 0) 100%Implementation costs/Administrative 178 178 6 100% 177 9 99% 170 4 96%Interests and other revenue 63 63 ( 1) 100% 63 ( 0) 99% 63 0 100%Special allocation Congo 105 105 100% 105 ( 0) 100% 105 ( 0) 100%Special allocation Sudan 147 110 36 75% 48 25 43% 25 8 51%Special allocation South Sudan 194 267 201 137% 43 16 16% 12 9 29%Voluntary contribution Peace Facility 39 25 63% 24 ( 0) 99% 24 100%Transfers from 6th EDF - Lomé 21 21 ( 0) 100% 20 ( 0) 98% 20 0 100%Transfers from 7th EDF - Lomé 696 696 ( 25) 100% 666 ( 6) 96% 648 2 97%

TOTAL ACP (a) 15 809 15 783 ( 66) 100% 15 112 ( 96) 96% 14 508 217 96%

OCT A Envelope 249 245 ( 3) 99% 241 ( 0) 98% 234 11 97%Macroeconomic support 14 ( 1) 14 ( 0) 14 0Sectorial Policies 232 ( 2) 227 0 220 11B Envelope 4 4 ( 3) 100% 4 0 100% 4 0 100%Regional allocation 48 48 ( 1) 100% 46 ( 0) 97% 44 2 96%Studies/Technical assistance 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%Transfers from 6th EDF - Lomé 0 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%Transfers from 7th EDF - Lomé 3 3 ( 0) 100% 3 0 100% 3 0 100%

TOTAL OCT (b) 305 302 ( 6) 99% 296 ( 0) 98% 287 13 97%

TOTAL (a) + (b) 16 114 16 084 ( 72) 100% 15 408 ( 96) 96% 14 795 230 96%

ACP + OCT - 9th EDF

APPROPRIATIONS

EDF AGGREGATED ACCOUNTS AT 31.12.2013:ANALYSIS BY INSTRUMENT

265

PART II ‐ EDF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTMENT FACILITY

266

EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK CA/472/14

13 March 2014

Document 14/108

B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

INVESTMENT FACIL ITY

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2013

Statement of financial position

Statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income

Statement of changes in contributors’ resources

Statement of cash flows

Notes to the financial statements

Independent auditor’s report

ORG.: E

267

3. Financial Statements Of The Investment Facility

3.1. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2013

(In EUR’000)

Notes 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents 5 599 515 466 568

Derivative financial instruments 6 1 024 115

Loans and receivables 7 1 222 199 1 146 280

Available‐for‐sale financial assets 8 331 699 333 001

Amounts receivable from contributors 9/15 ‐ 87 310

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets 10 102 562 99 029

Other assets 11 148 224

Total Assets 2 257 147 2 132 527

LIABILITIES AND CONTRIBUTORS' RESOURCES

LIABILITIES

Derivative financial instruments 6 3 545 7 035

Deferred income 12 35 083 37 808

Amounts owed to third parties 13 331 235 312 086

Other liabilities 14 2 572 1 153

Total Liabilities 372 435 358 082

CONTRIBUTORS' RESOURCES

Member States Contribution called 15 1 661 309 1 561 309

Fair value reserve 78 191 68 434

Retained earnings 145 212 144 702

Total Contributors' resources 1 884 712 1 774 445

Total Liabilities and Contributors' resources 2 257 147 2 132 527

The accompanying notes form an integral part of these financial statements.

268

3.2. STATEMENT OF PROFIT OR LOSS AND OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2013

(In EUR’000)

Notes

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

Interest and similar income 17 68 270 67 503

Interest and similar expenses 17 ‐1 175 ‐1 114

Net interest and similar income 67 095 66 389

Fee and commission income 18 4 051 1 934

Fee and commission expenses 18 ‐43 ‐292

Net fee and commission income 4 008 1 642

Fair value change of derivative financial instruments 4 399 5 348

Net realised gains on available‐for‐sale financial assets 19 5 294 1 045

Net foreign exchange loss ‐6 925 ‐10 575

Net result on financial operations 2 768 ‐4 182

Change in impairment on loans and receivables, net of reversal

7 ‐27 334 597

Impairment on available‐for‐sale financial assets 8 ‐8 176 ‐8 927

Impairment on other assets 20 ‐ ‐337

General administrative expenses 21 ‐37 851 ‐36 202

Profit for the year 510 18 980

Other comprehensive income:

Items that are or may be reclassified to profit or loss:

Available‐for‐sale financial assets – Fair value reserve 8

1. Net change in fair value of available‐for‐sale financial assets

12 350 18 551

2. Net amount transferred to profit or loss ‐2 593 8 133

Total available‐for‐sale financial assets 9 757 26 684

Total other comprehensive income 9 757 26 684

Total comprehensive income for the year 10 267 45 664


269

3.3 STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN CONTRIBUTORS’ RESOURCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2013

(In EUR’000)


Contribution called

Fair value reserve

Retained earnings Total

At 1 January 2013 Notes 1 561 309 68 434 144 702 1 774 445

Member States contribution called during the year 15 100 000 ‐ ‐ 100 000

Profit for the year 2013 ‐ ‐ 510 510

Total other comprehensive income for the year ‐ 9 757 ‐ 9 757

Changes in contributors’ ressources 100 000 9 757 510 110 267

At 31 December 2013 1 661 309 78 191 145 212 1 884 712

Contribution called

Fair value reserve

Retained earnings Total

At 1 January 2012 Notes 1 281 309 41 750 125 722 1 448 781

Member States contribution called during the year 15 280 000 ‐ ‐ 280 000

Profit for the year 2012 ‐ ‐ 18 980 18 980

Total other comprehensive income for the year ‐ 26 684 ‐ 26 684

Changes in contributors’ ressources 280 000 26 684 18 980 325 664

At 31 December 2012 1 561 309 68 434 144 702 1 774 445

270

3.4 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2013

(In EUR’000)

Notes

From 01.01.2013 to

31.12.2013

From 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012

OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Profit for the financial year 510 18 980

Adjustments made for:

Impairment on available‐for‐sale financial assets 8 176 8 927

Net change in impairment on loans and receivables 27 334 ‐597

Interest capitalised on loans and receivables 7 ‐10 363 ‐9 622

Change in accrued interest and amortised cost on loans and receivables ‐249 ‐1 407

Change in accrued interest and amortised cost on held‐to‐maturity financial assets

733 ‐751

Change in deferred income ‐2 725 4 805

Effect of exchange rate changes on loans 30 402 16 044

Effect of exchange rate changes on available‐for‐sale financial assets ‐1 154 ‐1 204

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash held ‐378 ‐389

Profit on operating activities before changes in operating assets and liabilities

52 286 34 786

Loan disbursements 7 ‐242 203 ‐233 018

Repayments of loans 7 119 160 115 480

Change in accrued interest on cash and cash equivalent ‐1 389

Fair value changes on derivatives ‐4 399 ‐5 348

Increase in held‐to‐maturity financial assets 10 ‐680 635 ‐98 278

Maturities of held‐to‐maturity financial assets 10 676 369

Increase in available‐for‐sale financial assets 8 ‐34 700 ‐81 981

Repayments/Sales of available‐for‐sale financial assets 8 38 737 19 601

Decrease in other assets 76 192

Increase in other liabilities 1 419 40

(Decrease)/Increase in amounts payable to the European Investment Bank ‐6 539 6 876

Net cash flows from operating activities ‐80 430 ‐241 261

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Contribution received from Member States 187 310 236 345

Amounts received from Member States with regard to interest subsidies 50 000 43 655

Amounts paid on behalf of Member States with regard to interest subsidies

‐24 312 ‐24 450

Net cash flows from financing activities 212 998 255 550

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 132 568 14 289

Summary statement of cash flows:

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of financial year 466 561 451 882

Net cash from:

Operating activities ‐80 430 ‐241 261

Financing activities 212 998 255 550

Effects of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents 378 389

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the financial year 599 507 466 561

Cash and cash equivalents are composed of:

271

Cash in hand 194 107 10 588

Term deposits (excluding accrued interest) 405 400 455 973

599 507 466 561


3.5 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2013

1 General information

The Investment Facility (“the Facility” or “IF”) has been established within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement (the “Agreement”) on co‐operation and development assistance negotiated between the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (the “ACP States”) and the European Union and its Member States on 23 June 2000, revised on 25 June 2005 and 23 June 2010.

The Facility is not a separate legal entity and the European Investment Bank (“EIB” or “the Bank”) manages the contributions on behalf of the Member States (“Donors”) in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and acts as an administrator of the Facility.

Financing under the Agreement is provided from EU Member States’ budgets and is disbursed according to financial protocols defined for successive five‐ to six‐year periods. Within the framework of the Agreement and following the entry into force of a second financial protocol on 1 July 2008 (covering the period 2008‐2013), referred to as the 10th European Development Fund (“EDF”), the EIB is entrusted with the management of:

• the Facility, a €3 185.5 million risk‐bearing revolving fund geared to fostering private sector investment in ACP countries of which €48.5 million are allocated to Overseas Countries and territories (“OCT countries”);

• grants for the financing of interest rate subsidies worth €400 million for ACP countries and €1.5 million for OCT countries. Up to 15% (10% up the end of 2012) of these subsidies can be used to fund project‐related technical assistance.

The present financial statements cover the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013.

On a proposal from the Management Committee of EIB, the Board of Directors of EIB adopted the Financial Statements on 13 March 2014, and authorised their submission to the Board of Governors for approval by 29 April 2014.

2 Significant accounting policies 2.1 Basis of preparation – Statement of compliance

The Facility’s financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adopted by the European Union.

2.2 Significant accounting judgments and estimates

272

The preparation of financial statements requires the use of accounting estimates. It also requires the European Investment Bank’s Management to exercise its judgment in the process of applying the Investment Facility’s accounting policies. The areas involving a higher degree of judgment or complexity, or areas where assumptions and estimates are significant to the financial statements are disclosed hereafter.

The most significant use of judgments and estimates are as follows:

Measurement of fair values of financial instruments

Fair values of financial assets and financial liabilities that are traded in active markets are based on quoted market prices or broker price quotations. Where the fair values cannot be derived from active markets, they are determined using a variety of valuation techniques that include the use of mathematical models. The input to these models is taken from observable markets where possible, but where this is not feasible, a degree of judgement is required in establishing fair values. The valuations are categorised into different levels in the fair value hierarchy based on the inputs used in the valuation techniques as described and disclosed in Notes 2.4.3 and 4.

These valuation techniques may include net present value and discounted cash flow models, comparison to similar instruments for which market observable prices exist, Black‐Scholes and polynomial option pricing models and other valuation models. Assumptions and inputs used in valuation techniques include risk‐free and benchmark interest rates, credit spreads used in estimating discount rates, bond and equity prices, foreign currency exchange rates, equity and equity index prices and expected price volatilities and correlations.

The objective of valuation techniques is to arrive at a fair value measurement that reflects the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

The Facility uses widely recognised valuation models for determining the fair value of common and more simple financial instruments, like interest rate and currency swaps that use only observable market data and require limited management judgement and estimation. Observable prices and model inputs are usually available in the market for listed debt and equity securities, exchange traded derivatives and simple over the counter derivatives like interest rate swaps. Availability of observable market prices and model inputs reduces the need for management judgement and estimation and also reduces the uncertainty associated with determination of fair values. Availability of observable market prices and inputs varies depending on the products and markets and is prone to changes based on specific events and general conditions in the financial markets.

For more complex instruments, the Facility uses own valuation models, which are developed from recognised valuation models. Some or all of the significant inputs into these models may not be observable in the market, and are derived from market prices or rates or are estimated based on assumptions. Example of instruments involving significant unobservable inputs includes certain loans and guarantees for which there is no active market. Valuation models that employ significant unobservable inputs require a higher degree of management judgement and estimation in the determination of fair value. Management judgement and estimation are usually required for

273

selection of the appropriate valuation model to be used, determination of expected future cash flows on the financial instrument being valued, determination of probability or counterparty default and prepayments and selection of appropriate discount rates.

The Facility has an established control framework with respect to the measurement of fair values. This framework includes the EIB’s Investment Bank’s Risk Management and Market Data Management functions. These functions are independent of front office management and are responsible for verifying significant fair value measurements. Specific controls include:

• Verification of observable pricing;

• A review and approval process for new valuation models and changes to existing models;

• Calibration and back testing of models against observed market transactions;

• Analysis and investigation of significant valuation movements;

• Review of significant unobservable inputs and valuation adjustments.

Where third‐party information such as broker quotes or pricing services are used to measure fair value, the Facility verifies that such valuations meet the requirements of IFRS. This includes the following:

• Determining where broker quote or pricing service pricing is appropriate;

• Assessing whether a particular broker quote or pricing service is reliable;

• Understanding how the fair value has been arrived at and the extent to which it represents actual market transactions;

• When prices for similar instruments are used to measure fair value, how these prices have been adjusted to reflect the characteristics of the instrument subject to measurement.

Impairment losses on loans and receivables

The Facility reviews its loans and receivables at each reporting date to assess whether an allowance for impairment should be recorded in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. In particular, judgment by the European Investment Bank’s Management is required in the estimation of the amount and timing of future cash flows when determining the level of allowance required. Such estimates are based on assumptions about a number of factors and actual results may differ, resulting in future changes to the allowance. In addition to specific allowances against individually significant loans and receivables, the Facility may also book a collective impairment allowance against exposures which have not been individually identified as impaired and have a greater risk of default than when originally granted.

In principle, a loan is considered as impaired when payment of interest and principal are past due by 90 days or more and, at the same time, the European Investment Bank’s Management considers that there is an objective indication of impairment.

274

Valuation of unquoted available‐for‐sale equity investments

Valuation of unquoted available‐for‐sale equity investments is normally based on one of the following:

• recent arm’s length market transactions;

• current fair value of another instrument that is substantially the same;

• the expected cash flows discounted at current rates applicable for items with similar terms and risk characteristics;

• adjusted net assets method; or

• other valuation models.

The determination of the cash flows and discount factors for unquoted available‐for‐sale equity investments requires significant estimation. The Facility calibrates the valuation techniques periodically and tests them for validity using either price from observable current market transactions in the same instrument or from other available observable market data.

Impairment of available‐for‐sale financial assets

The Facility treats available‐for‐sale equity investments as impaired when there has been a significant or prolonged decline in the fair value below its cost or where other objective evidence of impairment exists. The determination of what is “significant” or “prolonged” requires judgment. The Facility treats “significant” generally as 30% or more and “prolonged” greater than 12 months. In addition, the Facility evaluates other factors, including normal volatility in share price for quoted equities and the future cash flows and the discount factors for unquoted equities.

2.3 Changes in accounting policies

Except for the changes below, the Facility has consistently applied the accounting policies set out in Note 2.4 to all periods presented in these financial statements. The Facility has adopted the following new standards and amendments to standards.

Standard adopted

The following standards, amendments to standards and interpretations were adopted in the preparation of these financial statements:

Amendments to IAS 1 Presentation of items of Other comprehensive income (OCI)

275

As a result of the amendments to IAS 1, the Facility has modified the presentation of items of OCI in its statement of profit or loss and OCI, to present separately items that would be reclassified to profit or loss from those that would never be. Comparative information has been re‐presented accordingly.

IFRS 13 Fair value measurement

This standard establishes a single framework for measuring fair value and making disclosures about fair value measurements when such measurements are required or permitted by other IFRSs. It unifies the definition of fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It replaces and expands the disclosure requirements about fair value measurements in other IFRSs, including IFRS 7. As a result, the Facility has included additional disclosures in this regard. In accordance with the transitional provisions of IFRS 13, the Facility has applied the new fair value measurement guidance prospectively and has not provided any comparative information for new disclosures.

IFRS 13 refers to a number of valuation adjustments which the Facility has considered in the valuations of its derivatives, namely:

• credit value adjustments (CVA), reflecting the counterparties credit risk embedded in the fair value of derivatives;

• debit value adjustments (DVA), reflecting the Facility’s own credit embedded in the fair value of derivatives.

CVA per counterparty is calculated on the potential future exposure (PFE) and expected positive exposure (EPE) measures, per net counterparty exposure. The probabilities of default per counterparty are then modelled using market‐available CDS spreads. For counterparties without available CDS spreads, spreads of banks of similar size and rating in similar jurisdictions are used.

The adoption of this standard resulted in the recognition of a loss of €184k in the current period statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, as described in Note 4.

Standards issued but not yet effective

The following standards, amendments to standards and interpretations are effective for annual periods beginning after 1 January 2013, and have not been applied in preparing these Financial Statements. Those of which may be relevant for the Facility are set out below. The Facility does not plan to adopt these standards early.

IFRS 9 Financial instruments

The first step in a three part project by the IASB to replace IAS 39 Financial instruments, this standard redefines the categories of financial assets and liabilities and their accounting treatment.

276

The standard remains a ‘work in progress’ and it will eventually replace IAS 39 in its entirety. The current effective date of the standard is no earlier than 1 January 2017. IFRS 9 has not yet been endorsed by the European Union. The Facility does not plan to adopt this standard early and the extent of the impact has not yet been determined.

The following three standards were issued in 2012 and have been endorsed by the European Union being effective for annual periods beginning after 1 January 2014. The impact of the adoption of these standards on the Facility’s financial statements has not yet been determined.

IFRS 10 Consolidated financial statements

This standard establishes the principles for the presentation and preparation of consolidated financial statements when an entity controls one or more other entities.

IFRS 11 Joint arrangements

This standard sets up a framework for determining the type of joint arrangements that an entity has with another entity.

IFRS 12 Disclosure of interests in other entities

The objective of this standard is to require the disclosure of information that enables users of financial statements to evaluate the nature of, and risks associated with, its interests in other entities and the effects of those interests on its financial position, financial performance and cash flows.

2.4 Summary of significant accounting policies

The statement of financial position represents assets and liabilities in decreasing order of liquidity and does not distinguish between current and non‐current items.

2.4.1 Foreign currency translation

The Facility uses the Euro (€) for presenting its financial statements, which is also the functional currency. Except as otherwise indicated, financial information presented in € has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

Foreign currency transactions are translated, at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the transaction.

277

Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in currencies other than Euro are translated into Euro at the exchange rate prevailing at the balance sheet date. The gain or loss arising from such translation is recorded in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income.

Non‐monetary items that are measured in terms of historical cost in a foreign currency are translated using the exchange rates at the dates of the initial transactions. Non‐monetary items measured at fair value in a foreign currency are translated using the exchange rates at the date when the fair value was determined.

Exchange differences arising on the settlement of transactions at rates different from those at the date of the transaction, and unrealised foreign exchange differences on unsettled foreign currency monetary assets and liabilities, are recognised in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income.

The elements of the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income are translated into Euro on the basis of the exchange rates prevailing at the end of each month.

2.4.2 Cash and cash equivalents

The Facility defines cash and cash equivalents as current accounts, short‐term deposits or commercial papers with original maturities of three months or less.

2.4.3 Financial assets other than derivatives

Financial assets are accounted for using the settlement date basis.

Fair value of financial instruments

Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date in the principal, or in its absence, the most advantageous market to which the Facility has access at that date.

When applicable, the EIB on behalf of the Facility measures the fair value of an instrument using the quoted price in an active market for that instrument. A market is regarded as active if transactions for the asset or liability take place with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an on‐going basis.

Where the fair values of financial assets and financial liabilities recorded on the balance sheet cannot be derived from active markets, they are determined using a variety of valuation techniques that include the use of mathematical models. The input to these models is taken from observable markets where possible, but where this is not feasible, a degree of judgement is required in establishing fair values. The chosen valuation technique incorporates all the factors that market participants would take into account in pricing a transaction.

The EIB measures fair values using the following fair value hierarchy that reflects the significance

278

of the inputs used in making the measurements:

• Level 1: inputs that are unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for identical instruments to which the Facility has access.

• Level 2: inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable either directly (i.e. as prices) or indirectly (i.e. derived from prices). This category includes instruments valued using quoted market prices in active markets for similar instruments, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are considered less than active or other valuation techniques where all significant inputs are directly or indirectly observable from market data.

• Level 3: inputs that are not observable. This category includes all instruments where the valuation technique includes inputs not based on observable data and the unobservable inputs have a significant effect on the instrument’s valuation. This category includes instruments that are valued based on quoted prices for similar instruments where significant unobservable adjustments or assumptions are required to reflect differences between the instruments.

The Facility recognises transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy as of the end of the reporting period during which the change has occurred.

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets comprise quoted bonds with the intention of holding them to maturity.

Those bonds are initially recorded at their fair value plus any directly attributable transaction cost. The difference between entry price and redemption value is amortised in accordance with the effective interest method over the remaining life of the bond.

The Facility assesses at each balance sheet date whether there is any objective evidence that a financial asset or a group of financial assets is impaired. A financial asset or a group of financial assets is deemed to be impaired if, and only if, there is objective evidence of impairment as a result of one or more events that has occurred after the initial recognition of the asset (an incurred “loss event”) and that loss event (or event) has an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial asset or the group of financial assets that can be reliably estimated. Impairment loss is recognised in profit and loss and the amount of the loss is measured as the difference between the carrying value and the present value of estimated future cash flows discounted at the instrument’s original effective interest rate.

Loans

Loans originated by the Facility are recognised in the assets of the Facility when cash is advanced to borrowers. They are initially recorded at cost (net disbursed amounts), which is the fair value of the cash given to originate the loan, including any transaction costs, and are subsequently measured at amortised cost, using the effective yield method, less any provision for impairment or uncollectability.

279

Available‐for‐sale financial assets

Available‐for‐sale financial assets are those which are designated as such or do not qualify to be classified as designated at fair value through profit or loss, held‐to‐maturity or loans and receivables. They include direct equity investments and investments in venture capital funds.

After initial measurement, available‐for‐sale financial assets are subsequently carried at fair value. Note the following details for the fair value measurement of equity investments, which cannot be derived from active markets:

a. Venture capital funds

The fair value of each venture capital fund is based on the latest available Net Asset Value (NAV), reported by the fund, if calculated based on international valuation guidelines recognised to be in line with IFRS (for example: the International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation guidelines, IPEV Guidelines, as published by the European Venture Capital Association). The Facility may however decide to adjust the NAV reported by the fund if there are issues that may affect the valuation.

b. Direct equity investments

The fair value of the investment is based on the latest set of financial statements available, re‐using, if applicable, the same model as the one used at the acquisition of the participation.

Unrealised gains or losses on venture capital funds and direct equity investments are reported in contributors’ resources until such investments are sold, collected or disposed of, or until such investments are determined to be impaired. If an available‐for‐sale investment is determined to be impaired, the cumulative unrealised gain or loss previously recognised in equity is transferred to the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income.

For unquoted investment, the fair value is determined by applying recognised valuation techniques (for example adjusted net assets, discounted cash flows or multiple). These investments are accounted for at cost when the fair value cannot be reliably measured. To be noted that in the first 2 years of the investments, they are recognised at cost.

The participations acquired by the Facility typically represent investments in private equity or venture capital funds. According to industry practice, such investments are generally investments jointly subscribed by a number of investors, none of whom is in a position to individually influence the daily operations and the investment activity of such fund. As a consequence, any membership by an investor in a governing body of such fund does not in principle entitle such investor to influence the day‐to‐day operations of the fund. In addition, individual investors in a private equity or a venture capital fund do not determine policies of a fund such as distribution policies on dividends or other distributions. Such decisions are typically taken by the management of a fund on the basis of the shareholders agreement governing the rights and obligations of the management and all shareholders of the fund. The shareholders’ agreement also generally prevents individual investors from bilaterally executing material transactions with the fund, interchanging managerial personnel or obtaining privileged access to essential technical information. The Facility’s investments are executed in line with the above stated industry

280

practice, ensuring that the Facility neither controls nor exercises any form of significant influence within the meaning of IAS 27 and IAS 28 over any of these investments, including those investments in which the Facility holds over 20 % of the voting rights.

Guarantees

At initial recognition, the financial guarantees are recognised at fair value corresponding to the Net Present Value (NPV) of expected premium inflows. This calculation is performed at the starting date of each transaction and is recognised on balance sheet as “Financial guarantees” under “other assets” and “other liabilities”.

Subsequent to initial recognition, the Facility’s liabilities under such guarantees are measured at the higher of:

• the best estimate of expenditure required to settle any financial obligation arising as a result of the guarantee, which is estimated based on all relevant factors and information existing at the date of the statement of financial position.

• the amount initially recognised less cumulative amortisation. The amortisation of the amount initially recognised is done using the actuarial method.

Any increase or decrease in the liability relating to financial guarantees is taken to the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income under “fee and commission income”.

The Facility’s assets under such guarantee are subsequently amortized using the actuarial method and tested for impairment.

In addition, when a guarantee agreement is signed, it is presented as a contingent liability for the Facility and when the guarantee is engaged, as a commitment for the Facility.

2.4.4 Impairment of financial assets

The Facility assesses at each balance sheet date whether there is any objective evidence that a financial asset is impaired. A financial asset or a group of financial assets is deemed to be impaired if, and only if, there is objective evidence of impairment as a result of one or more events that has occurred after the initial recognition of the asset (an incurred “loss event”) and that loss event has an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial asset or the group of financial assets that can be reliably estimated. Evidence of impairment may include indications that the borrower or a group of borrowers is experiencing significant financial difficulty, default or delinquency in interest or principal payments, the probability that they will enter into bankruptcy or other financial reorganisation and where observable data indicate that there is a measurable decrease in the estimated future cash flows, such as changes in arrears or economic conditions that correlate with defaults.

For the loans outstanding at the end of the financial year and carried at amortised cost, impairments are made when presenting objective evidence of risks of non‐recovery of all or part

281

of their amounts according to the original contractual terms or the equivalent value. If there is objective evidence that an impairment loss has been incurred, the amount of the loss is measured as the difference between the assets carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows. The carrying amount of the asset is reduced through the use of an allowance account and the amount of the loss is recognised in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. Interest income continues to be accrued on the reduced carrying amount based on the effective interest rate of the asset. Loans together with the associated allowance are written off when there is no realistic prospect of future recovery. If, in a subsequent year, the amount of the estimated impairment loss increases or decreases because of an event occurring after the impairment was recognised, the previously recognised impairment loss is increased or reduced by adjusting the allowance account.

The Facility conducts the credit risk assessments based on each individual operation and does not consider a collective impairment.

For the available‐for‐sale financial assets, the Facility assesses at each balance sheet date whether there is objective evidence that an investment is impaired. Objective evidence would include a significant or prolonged decline in the fair value of the investment below its costs. Where there is evidence of impairment, the cumulative loss (measured as the difference between the acquisition cost and the current fair value, less any impairment loss on that investment previously recognised in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income) is removed from contributors’ resources and recognised in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. Impairment losses on available‐for‐sale financial assets are not reversed through the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income; increases in their fair value after impairment are recognised directly in contributors’ resources.

The European Investment Bank’s Risk Management reviews financial assets for impairment at least once a year. Resulting adjustments include the unwinding of the discount in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income over the life of the asset, and any adjustments required in respect of a reassessment of the initial impairment.

2.4.5 Derivative financial instruments

Derivatives include cross currency swaps, cross currency interest rate swaps, short term currency swaps and interest rate swaps.

In the normal course of its activity, the Facility may enter into swap contracts with a view to hedge specific lending operations or into currency forward contract with a view to hedge its currency positions, denominated in actively traded currencies other than the Euro, in order to offset any gain or loss caused by foreign exchange rate fluctuations.

The Facility does not use any of the hedge possibilities under IAS 39. All derivatives are measured at fair value through the profit or loss and are reported as derivative financial instruments. Fair values are derived primarily from discounted cash‐flow models, option‐pricing models and from third party quotes.

Derivatives are recorded at fair value and carried as assets when their fair value is positive and as liabilities when their fair value is negative. Changes in the fair value of derivative financial

282

instruments are shown in the income statement under “Fair value change of derivative financial instruments”.

Derivatives are initially recognised using the trade date basis.

2.4.6 Contributions

Contributions from Member States are recognised as receivables in the statement of financial position on the date of the Council Decision fixing the financial contribution to be paid by the Member States to the Facility.

The Member States contributions meet the following conditions and are consequently classified as equity:

• as defined in the contribution agreement, they entitle the Member States to decide on the utilisation of the Facility’s net assets in the events of the Facility’s liquidation;

• they are in the class of instruments that is subordinate to all other classes of instruments;

• all financial instruments in the class of instruments that is subordinate to all other classes of instruments have identical features;

• the instrument does not include any features that would require classification as a liability; and

• the total expected cash flows attributable to the instrument over its life are based substantially on the profit or loss, the change in the recognised net assets or the change in the fair value of the recognised and unrecognised net assets of the Facility over the life of the instrument.

2.4.7 Interest income on loans

Interest on loans originated by the Facility is recorded in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income (‘Interest and similar income’) and on the statement of financial position (‘Loans and receivables’) on an accrual basis using the effective interest rate, which is the rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the loan to the net carrying amount of the loan. Once the recorded value of a loan has been reduced due to impairment, interest income continues to be recognised using the original effective interest rate applied to the new carrying amount.

2.4.8 Interest subsidies and technical assistance

As part of its activity, the Facility manages interest subsidies and technical assistance (“TA”) on behalf of the Member States.

The part of the Member States contributions allocated to the payment of interest subsidies and TA

283

is not accounted for in the Facility’s contributors’ resources but is classified as amounts owed to third parties. The Facility operates the disbursement to the final beneficiaries and then decreases the amounts owed to third parties.

When amounts contributed with regard to interest subsidies and TA are not fully granted, they are reclassified as contribution to the Facility.

2.4.9 Interest income on cash and cash equivalents

Interest income on cash and cash equivalents is recognised in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income of the Facility on an accrual basis.

2.4.10 Fees, commissions and dividends

Fees received in respect of services provided over a period of time are recognised as income as the services are provided. Commitment fees are deferred and recognised in income using the effective interest method over the period from disbursement to repayment of the related loan.

Dividends relating to available‐for‐sale financial assets are recognised when received.

2.4.11 Taxation

The Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, appended to the treaty on the European Union and the treaty of the functioning of the European Union, stipulates that the assets, revenues and other property of the Institutions of the Union are exempt from all direct taxes.

3 Risk Management

This note presents information about the Facility’s exposure to and its management and control of credit and financial risks, in particular the primary risks associated with its use of financial instruments. These are:

• credit risk – the risk of loss resulting from client or counterparty default and arising on credit exposure in all forms, including settlement risk;

• liquidity risk – the risk that an entity will encounter difficulty in meeting obligations associated with financial liabilities that are settled by delivering cash or another financial asset;

• market risk – exposure to observable market variables such as interest rates, foreign exchange rates and equity market prices.

284

3.1 Risk management organisation

The European Investment Bank adapts its risk management on an ongoing basis.

The Risk Management of EIB independently identifies, assesses, monitors and reports the credit and equity price risks to which the Facility is exposed. Within a framework whereby the segregation of duties is preserved, the Risk Management is independent of the Front Offices. The Director General of Risk Management reports for risk matters, to the designated Vice‐President of the European Investment Bank. The designated Vice‐President meets regularly with the Audit Committee to discuss topics relating to risks. He is also responsible for overseeing risk reporting to the European Investment Bank’s Management Committee and the Board of Directors.

3.2 Credit risk

Credit risk is the potential loss that could result from client or counterparty default and arising on credit exposure in all forms, including settlement.

3.2.1. Credit risk policy

In carrying out the credit analysis on loan counterparts, EIB assesses credit risk with a view to quantify and pricing it. The Facility has developed an Internal Rating Methodology (IRM) for corporates or financial institutions to determine the Internal Ratings of its main borrower/guarantor beneficiary counterparts. The methodology is based on a system of scoring sheets tailored for each major credit counterpart type (e.g. Corporates, Banks, Public Sector Entities, etc). Taking into consideration both, best banking practice and the principles set under the Basel International Capital Accord (Basel II), all counterparts that are material to the credit profile of a specific transaction are classified into internal rating categories using the IRM for the specific counterpart type. Each counterpart is initially assigned to an Internal Rating reflecting the counterpart’s long‐term foreign currency rating (or local currency equivalent when required) following an in‐depth analysis of the counterpart’s risk profile and its country risk operating context.

The credit assessment of project finance and other structured limited recourse operations is not subject to IRM and is using credit risk tools relevant for the sector, focused mainly on cash flow availability and debt service capacity. These tools include the analysis of projects’ contractual framework, counterpart’s analysis and cash flow simulations. Similarly to corporates and financial institutions, each project is assigned to an internal risk rating and an expected loss.

All non‐sovereign (or non sovereign guaranteed/assimilated) operations are subject to specific transaction‐level and counterpart size limits. The maximum nominal amount of each transaction is capped by a limit which depends on the transaction expected loss. Counterpart limits are applied to consolidated exposures. Such limits typically reflect the size of counterparts own funds as well as their total external long‐term funding.

285

In order to mitigate credit risk the Facility uses various credit enhancements which are:

• project related securities (e.g., pledge over the shares; pledge over the assets; assignment of rights; pledge over the accounts); or/and

• guarantees, generally provided by the sponsor of the financed project (e.g., completion guarantees, first demand guarantees).

In addition, the Facility uses seldom credit enhancements which are not immediately correlated to the project risk, like collaterals or bank guarantees.

The Facility does not use any credit derivatives to mitigate credit risk.

3.2.2. Maximum exposure to credit risk without taking into account any collateral and other credit enhancements

The following table shows the maximum exposure to credit risk for the components of the statement of financial position, including derivatives. The maximum exposure is shown gross, before the effect of mitigation through the use of collateral.

Maximum exposure (in EUR’000) 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents 599 515 466 568

Derivative financial instruments 1 024 115

Loans and receivables 1 222 199 1 146 280

Amounts receivable from contributors ‐ 87 310

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets 102 562 99 029

Other assets 148 224

Total Assets 1 925 448 1 799 526

OFF BALANCE SHEET

Contingent liabilities

‐ Guarantees undrawn 25 000 20 000

Commitments

‐ Undisbursed loans 889 866 749 044

‐ Guarantees drawn 4 414 6 224

Total Off balance sheet 919 280 775 268

Total credit exposure 2 844 728 2 574 794

3.2.3. Credit risk on loans and receivables

3.2.3.1 Credit risk measurement for loans and receivables

Each and every lending transaction undertaken by the Facility benefits from a comprehensive risk assessment and quantification of expected loss estimates that are reflected in a Loan Grading (“LG”). LGs are established according to generally accepted criteria, based on the quality of the borrower, the maturity of the loan, the guarantee and, where appropriate, the guarantor.

286

The loan grading (LG) system comprises the methodologies, processes, databases and IT systems supporting the assessment of credit risk in lending operations and the quantification of expected loss estimates. It summarises a large amount of information with the purpose of offering a relative ranking of loans’ credit risks. LGs reflect the present value of the estimated level of the “expected loss”, this being the product of the probability of default of the main obligors, the exposure at risk and the loss severity in the case of default. LGs are used for the following purposes:

• as an aid to a finer and more quantitative assessment of lending risks;

• as help in distributing monitoring efforts;

• as a description of the loan’s portfolio quality at any given date;

• as one input in risk‐pricing decisions based on the expected loss.

The following factors enter into the determination of an LG:

• The borrower’s creditworthiness: RM independently reviews borrowers and assesses their creditworthiness based on internal methodologies and external data. In line with the Basel II Advanced Approach chosen, the Bank has developed an internal rating methodology (IRM) to determine the internal ratings of borrowers and guarantors. This is based on a set of scoring sheets specific to defined counterparty types.

• The default correlation: it quantifies the chances of simultaneous financial difficulties arising for both the borrower and the guarantor. The higher the correlation between the borrower and the guarantor’s default probabilities, the lower the value of the guarantee and therefore the lower the LG.

• The value of guarantee instruments and of securities: this value is assessed on the basis of the combination of the issuer’s creditworthiness and the type of instrument used.

• The contractual framework: a sound contractual framework will add to the loan’s quality and enhance its internal grading.

• The loan’s duration: all else being equal, the longer the loan, the higher the risk of incurring difficulties in the servicing of the loan.

A loan’s expected loss is computed by combining the five elements discussed above. Depending on the level of this loss, a loan is assigned to one of the following LG classes listed below:

A. Prime quality loans: there are three sub‐categories. A comprises all EU sovereign risks, i.e. loans granted to or fully, explicitly and unconditionally guaranteed by Member States, where no repayment difficulties are expected and for which an unexpected loss of 0% is allocated. A+ denotes loans granted to (or guaranteed by) entities other than Member States, with no expectation of deterioration over their duration. A‐ includes those lending operations where there is some doubt about the maintenance of their current status (for instance because of a long maturity, or for the high volatility of the future price of an otherwise excellent collateral), but where any downside is expected to be quite limited.

287

B. High quality loans: these represent an asset class with which the bank feels comfortable, although a minor deterioration is not ruled out in the future. B+ and B‐ are used to denote the relative likelihood of the possibility of such deterioration occurring.

C. Good quality loans: an example could be unsecured loans to solid banks and corporates with a 7‐year bullet, or equivalent amortising, maturity at disbursement.

D. This rating class represents the borderline between “acceptable quality” loans and those that have experienced some difficulties. This watershed in loan grading is more precisely determined by the sub‐classifications D+ and D‐. Loans rated D‐ require heightened monitoring.

E. This LG category includes loans with a risk profile greater than generally accepted. It also includes loans which in the course of their lives have experienced severe problems and their sliding into a situation of loss cannot be excluded. For this reason, the loans are subject to close and high monitoring. The sub‐classes E+ and E‐ differentiate the intensity of this special monitoring process, with those operations graded E‐ being in a position where there is a strong possibility that debt service cannot be maintained on a timely basis and therefore some form of debt restructuring is required, possibly leading to an impairment loss.

F. F (fail) denotes loans representing unacceptable risks. F‐ graded loans can only arise out of outstanding transactions that have experienced, after signature, unforeseen, exceptional and dramatic adverse circumstances. All operations where there is a loss of principal to the Facility are graded F and a specific provision is applied.

Generally, loans internally graded D‐ or below are placed on the Watch List. However, if a loan was originally approved with a risk profile of D‐ or weaker, it will only be placed on the Watch List as a result of a material credit event causing a further deterioration of its LG classification.

The table in section 3.2.3.3 shows the credit quality analysis of the Facility’s loan portfolio based on the various LG classes as described above.

3.2.3.2 Analysis of lending credit risk exposure

The following table shows the maximum exposure to credit risk on loans signed and disbursed by nature of borrower taking into account guarantees provided by guarantors:

At 31.12.2013 In EUR’000

Guaranteed Other credit

enhancements Not

guaranteed Total % of Total

Banks 18 341 112 178 338 464 468 983 38%

Corporates 26 315 94 365 417 990 538 670 44%

Public institutions 29 120 ‐ 31 29 151 2%

States ‐ 5 322 180 073 185 395 16%

Total disbursed 73 776 211 865 936 558 1 222 199 100%

Signed not disbursed 14 966 117 758 757 142 889 866

288

At 31.12.2012 In EUR’000

Guaranteed Other credit

enhancements Not

guaranteed Total % of Total

Banks 12 630 136 695 207 582 356 907 31%

Corporates 20 077 78 171 478 358 576 606 50%

Public institutions 30 462 ‐ 18 30 480 3%

States ‐ 5 819 176 468 182 287 16%

Total disbursed 63 169 220 685 862 426 1 146 280 100%

Signed not disbursed 14 091 142 963 591 990 749 044

The Facility’s loans events affecting its borrowers and guarantors are continually monitored by Ops B, the EIB’s operational directorate for operations outside the EU. In particular, contractual rights are assessed on a case by case basis in case of a rating deterioration and/or contractual default. Mitigation measures are pursued, whenever necessary in accordance with the credit risk guidelines. Also, in case of renewals of bank guarantees received for its loans, it is ensured that these are replaced or action is taken in a timely manner.

As an immediate response to the developments in the financial markets that have taken place since September 2008, the Facility has acted to reinforce its arrangements for the monitoring and management of risks. To this end, in April 2011, Ops B has created a monitoring division reporting directly to the Director General, tasked with the responsibility of performing loan financial and contractual monitoring. Its purpose is to promote the exchange of information among departments and to suggest reporting and operational management procedures for use at times of financial crisis with the objective of rapid reaction if required.

3.2.3.3 Credit quality analysis per type of borrower

The tables below show the credit quality analysis of the Facility’s loan portfolio as at 31 December 2013 and 31 December 2012 by the Loan Grading applications, based on the exposure signed (disbursed and undisbursed):

At 31.12.2013 In EUR’000

High Grade

Standard Grade

Min. Accept. Risk

High Risk No

grading Total

% of Total

A to B‐ C D+ D‐ and below

Borrower

Banks 65 571 15 434 97 478 689 905 404 129 1 272 517 60%

Corporates 6 773 15 970 5 691 520 048 ‐ 548 482 26%

Public institutions

‐ ‐ ‐ 69 151 ‐ 69 151 3%

States ‐ ‐ ‐ 221 915 ‐ 221 915 11%

Total 72 344 31 404 103 169 1 501 019 404 129 2 112 065 100%

At 31.12.2012 In EUR’000

High Grade

Standard Grade

Min. Accept. Risk

High Risk No

grading Total

% of Total

A to B‐ C D+ D‐ and below

Borrower Banks 50 000 24 342 21 864 529 325 337 014 962 545 51%

289

Corporates 7 466 8 006 ‐ 605 672 ‐ 621 144 33%

Public institutions

‐ ‐ ‐ 70 480 ‐ 70 480 4%

States ‐ ‐ ‐ 241 155 ‐ 241 155 12%

Total 57 466 32 348 21 864 1 446 632 337 014 1 895 324 100%

3.2.3.4 Risk concentrations of loans and receivables

3.2.3.4.1 Geographical analysis

Based on the country of borrower, the Facility’s loan portfolio can be analysed by the following geographical regions (in EUR‘000):

Country of borrower 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Uganda 144 816 140 833

Kenya 131 384 131 566

Mauritius 108 511 119 228

Regional‐ACP 101 863 95 636

Mauritania 93 455 73 602

Ethiopia 75 962 81 666

Nigeria 73 469 14 383

Cameroon 70 154 72 525

Jamaica 68 000 71 027

Dominican Republic 64 015 67 991

Togo 50 319 52 644

Congo (Democratic Republic) 39 047 28 415

Cape Verde 27 470 27 073

Mozambique 26 202 28 298

Tanzania 26 121 ‐

French Polynesia 13 994 2 631

Senegal 13 063 13 762

Burkina Faso 8 944 10 727

Samoa 8 872 8 759

Congo 8 649 10 431

Mali 7 717 7 931

Rwanda 6 439 9 641

Zambia 6 412 18 772

Angola 6 380 10 009

Ghana 6 365 5 642

Haiti 5 511 4 654

Vanuatu 5 028 6 263

Malawi 3 999 4 950

New Caledonia 3 708 4 198

Lesotho 3 417 3 827

Niger 3 020 4 146

Grenada 2 243 2 477

Palau 2 224 2 566

Saint Lucia 2 102 2 916

Tonga 1 416 2 199

290

Fiji 1 032 1 619

Gabon 512 1 011

Liberia 364 4

Belize ‐ 13

Djibouti ‐ 762

Trinidad and Tobago ‐ 1 483

Total 1 222 199 1 146 280

3.2.3.4.2 Industry sector analysis

The table below analyses the Facility’s loan portfolio by industry sector of the borrower. Operations which are first disbursed to a financial intermediary before being disbursed to the final beneficiary are reported under global loans (in EUR’000):

Industry sector of borrower 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Global loans and agency agreements 337 482 251 797

Electricity, coal and others 234 106 255 031

Urban development, renovation and transport 216 244 215 642

Basic material and mining 176 909 185 200

Tertiary and other 148 875 116 414

Roads and motorways 38 880 40 565

Airports and air traffic management systems 29 116 30 462

Materials processing, construction 20 884 24 154

Telecommunications 11 746 18 428

Paper chain 4 540 4 747

Investment goods/consumer durables 3 417 3 827

Airlines and aircraft manufacture ‐ 13

Total 1 222 199 1 146 280

3.2.3.5 Arrears on loans

Amounts in arrears are identified, monitored and reported according to the procedures defined into the bank wide “Finance Monitoring Guidelines and Procedures”. These procedures are in line with best banking practices and are adopted for all loans managed by the EIB.

Loans in arrears are monitored by the Operational Reporting and Arrears Unit of EIB’s Transaction Management and Restructuring Directorate. This ensures that (i) potential arrears are properly detected and reported to the services in charge; (ii) critical cases are promptly escalated to the right operational and decision level; (iii) regular reporting is provided on the overall status of arrears and on the recovery measures already taken or to be taken.

Regular reports on loans in arrears are sent to the European Commission. Twice a year the EIB management committee and the Board of Directors receive a summary analysis of arrears for loans overdue.

The arrears of payments on concerned loans can be analysed as follows (in EUR’000):

291

Notes

Loans and receivables 31.12.2013

Loans and receivables 31.12.2012

Carrying amount 1 222 199 1 146 280

Individually impaired

Gross amount 227 007 105 154

Allowance for impairment 7 ‐70 791 ‐45 145

Carrying amount individually impaired 156 216 60 009

Collectively impaired

Gross amount ‐ ‐

Allowance for impairment ‐ ‐

Carrying amount collectively impaired ‐ ‐

Past due but not impaired

Past due comprises

30‐60 days 1 561 12

60‐90 days ‐ ‐

90‐180 days ‐ ‐

more 180 days ‐ ‐

Carrying amount past due but not impaired 1 561 12

Carrying amount neither past due nor impaired 1 064 422 1 086 259

Total carrying amount loans and receivables 1 222 199 1 146 280

3.2.4. Credit risk on cash and cash equivalents

Available funds are invested in accordance with the Facility’s schedule of contractual disbursement obligations. As of 31 December 2013, investments were in the form of bank deposits.

The authorized banks have a rating similar to the short‐ and long‐term ratings required for the EIB’s own treasury placements. The minimum short term rating required for authorised banks is P‐1/A‐1/F1 (Moody’s, S&P, Fitch). In case of different ratings being granted by more than one credit rating agency, the lowest rating governs. The maximum authorized limit for each authorised bank is currently €50,000,000 (fifty million euro).

All investments have been done with authorised entities with a maximum tenor of three months from trading date and up to the credit exposure limit. As at 31 December 2013 and 31 December 2012 all treasury deposits held by the treasury portfolio of the Facility had a minimum rating of P‐1 (Moody’s equivalent) at settlement day.

The following table shows the situation of bank cash accounts and deposits including accrued interest (in EUR’000):

Minimum short‐term rating

(Moody’s term)

Minimum long‐term rating

(Moody’s term) 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

P‐1 Aa1 48 130 8% 43 400 9%

292

P‐1 Aa3 50 000 8% 130 901 28%

P‐1 A1 106 572 18% 83 500 18%

P‐1 A2 394 765 66% 208 729 45%

P‐1 Aa2 48 0% 38 0%

Total 599 515 100% 466 568 100%

3.2.5. Credit risk on derivatives

3.2.5.1 Credit risk policy of derivatives

The credit risk with respect to derivatives is represented by the loss which a given party would incur where the other counterparty to the deal would be unable to honour its contractual obligations. The credit risk associated with derivatives varies according to a number of factors (such as interest and exchange rates) and generally corresponds to only a small portion of their notional value.

In the normal course of its activity, the Facility may enter into swap contracts with a view to hedge specific lending operations or into currency forward contracts, with a view to hedge its currency positions denominated in actively traded currencies other than the Euro. All the swaps are executed by the European Investment Bank with an external counterpart. The swaps are disciplined by the same Master Swap Agreements and Credit Support Annexes signed between the European Investment Bank and its external counterparts.

3.2.5.2 Credit risk measurement for derivatives

All the swaps executed by the European Investment Bank that are related to the Facility are treated within the same contractual framework and methodologies applied for the derivatives negotiated by the European Investment Bank for its own purposes. In particular, eligibility of swap counterparts is determined by the European Investment Bank based on the same eligibility conditions applied for its general swap purposes.

The European Investment Bank measures the credit risk exposure related to swaps and derivatives transactions using the Net Market Exposure (“NME”) and Potential Future Exposure (“PFE”) approach for reporting and limit monitoring. The NME and the PFE fully include the derivatives related to the Investment Facility.

The following table shows the maturities of cross currency swaps and cross currency interest rate swaps, sub‐divided according to their notional amount and fair value:

Swap contracts at 31.12.2013 less than 1 year 5 years more than Total 2013

In EUR’000 1 year to 5 years to 10 years to 10 years

Notional amount 2 453 2 584 13 491 ‐ 18 528

Fair Value (i.e. net discounted value) 19 ‐ 62 ‐1 892 ‐ ‐1 935

293

Swap contracts at 31.12.2012 less than 1 year 5 years more than Total 2012

In EUR’000 1 year to 5 years to 10 years to 10 years

Notional amount 1 480 9 833 15 253 ‐ 26 566

Fair Value (i.e. net discounted value) 71 ‐528 ‐3 529 ‐ ‐3 986

The Facility enters into foreign exchange short term currency swaps (“FX swaps”) contracts in order to hedge currency risk on loan disbursements in currencies different from EUR. FX swaps have a maturity of maximum three months and are regularly rolled‐over. The notional amount of FX swaps stood at €700 million at 31 December 2013 against €649 million at 31 December 2012. The fair value of FX swaps amounts to €‐1.5 million at 31 December 2013 against €‐2.9 million at 31 December 2012.

The Facility enters into interest rate swap contracts in order to hedge the interest rate risk on loans disbursed. As at 31 December 2013 there are two interest rate swaps outstanding with a notional amount of €43.3 million (2012: €19.6 million) and a fair value of €0.92 million (2012: €0.03 million).

3.2.6. Credit risk on held‐to‐maturity financial assets

The following table shows the situation of the held‐to‐maturity portfolio entirely composed of T‐Bills issued by Belgium, France, Italy and Spain with remaining maturities of less than three months. EU Member States are eligible issuers. The maximum authorized limit for each authorised issuer is €50,000,000 (fifty million euro). Investments in medium and long‐term bonds could also be eligible, according to the investment guidelines and depending on liquidity requirements:

Minimum short‐term rating

(Moody’s term)

Minimum long‐term rating

(Moody’s term) 31.12.2013 31.12.2012

P‐1 Aa2 16 199 16% ‐ ‐

P‐1 Aa3 39 399 38% ‐ ‐

P‐2 Baa2 ‐ ‐ 50 143 51%

P‐3 Baa3 46 964 46% 48 886 49%

Total 102 562 100% 99 029 100%

3.3 Liquidity risk

Liquidity risk refers to an institution’s ability to fund increases in assets and meet obligations as they come due, without incurring unacceptable losses. It can be split into funding liquidity risk and market liquidity risk. Funding liquidity risk is the risk that an institution will not be able to meet efficiently both expected and unexpected current and future cash flow needs without affecting its daily operations or its financial condition. Market liquidity risk is the risk that an institution cannot easily offset or eliminate a position at the market price because of inadequate market depth or market disruption.

3.3.1 Liquidity risk management

294

The Facility is primarily funded by annual contributions from Member States (9th and 10th EDF resources) as well as by reflows stemming from the Facility’s operations. The Facility manages its funding liquidity risk primarily by planning of its net liquidity needs and the required Member States annual contributions.

Each year, the EC, taking into account EIB’s forecasts concerning the management and operations of the Facility, shall establish and communicate to the Council by 15 October a statement of the commitments, payments and the annual amount of the calls for contributions (interest subsidies included) to be made in the current and the following budget years.

In order to calculate Member States annual contributions, disbursement pattern of the existing and pipelined portfolio is analysed and followed up throughout the year. Special events, such as early reimbursements, sales of shares or default cases are taken into account to correct annual liquidity requirements.

To further minimize the liquidity risk, the Facility maintains a liquidity reserve sufficient to cover at any point in time forecasted cash disbursements, as communicated periodically by EIB’s Lending Department. Funds are invested on the money market and bond markets in the form of interbank deposits and other short term financial instruments by taking into consideration the Facility’s cash disbursement obligations. The Facility’s liquid assets are managed by the Bank’s Treasury Department with a view to maintain appropriate liquidity to enable the Facility to meet its obligations.

In accordance with the principle of segregation of duties between the Front and Back Office, settlement operations related to the investment of these assets are under the responsibility of the EIB’s Planning and Settlement of Operations Department. Furthermore, the authorisation of counterparts and limits for treasury investments, as well as the monitoring of such limits, are the responsibility of the Bank’s Risk Management Directorate.

3.3.2 Liquidity risk measurement

The tables in this section analyse the financial liabilities of the Facility by maturity on the basis of the period remaining between the balance sheet date and the contractual maturity date (based on undiscounted cash flows).

In terms of non‐derivative financial liabilities, the Facility holds commitments in form of undisbursed portions of the credit under signed loan agreements, of undisbursed portions of signed capital subscription/investment agreements, of loan guarantees granted, or of committed interest rate subsidies and technical assistance (“TA”).

The table representing the maturity profile of non‐derivative financial liabilities as at 31 December 2012 has been restated due to the application of an updated methodology. In the 2012 financial statements, the breakdown of maturities has been prepared using forecasted rather than contractual maturity dates, primarily due to the uncertainty in the timing of cash flows. In the updated methodology, the maturity profile of non‐derivative financial liabilities depicts the cash outflows based on their contractual maturity date.

295

Loans under the IF have a disbursement deadline. However, disbursements are made at times and in amounts reflecting the progress of underlying investment projects. Moreover, the IF’s loans are transactions performed in a relatively volatile operating environment, hence their disbursement schedule is subject to a significant degree of uncertainty.

Capital investments become due when and as soon as equity fund managers issue valid calls for capital, reflecting the progress in their investment activities. The drawdown period is usually of 3 years, with frequent prolongation by one or two years. Some disbursement commitments usually survive the end of the drawdown period until full disposal of the fund’s underlying investments, as the fund’s liquidity may be insufficient from time to time to meet payment obligations arising in respect of fees or other expenses.

Loan guarantees are not subject to specific disbursement commitments unless a guarantee is called by its beneficiary. The amount of guarantee outstanding is reduced alongside the repayment schedule of each guaranteed loan.

Committed interest subsidies’ cash outflows occur generally in the case of subsidized loans financed by the Bank’s own resources. Therefore, reported outflows represent only commitments related to these loans rather than the total amount of committed undisbursed interest subsidies which was reflected in the 2012 financial statements. As in the case of loans, their disbursement schedule is uncertain.

Committed TA “gross nominal outflow” in the “Maturity profile of non‐derivative financial liabilities” table refers to the total undisbursed portion of signed TA contracts. The disbursement time pattern is subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. Cash outflows classified in the “3 months or less” bucket represent the amount of outstanding invoices received by the reporting date.

Commitments for non‐derivative financial liabilities for which there is no defined contractual maturity date are classified under “Maturity Undefined”. Commitments, for which there is a recorded cash disbursement request at the reporting date, are classified under the relevant time bucket.

In terms of derivative financial liabilities, the maturity profile represents the contractual undiscounted gross cash flows of swap contracts including cross currency swaps (CCS), cross currency interest rate swaps (CCIRS), short term currency swaps and interest rate swaps.

Maturity profile of non‐derivative financial liabilities 3 months

or less

More than 3 months to 1 year

More than 1 year to 5

years

More than 5 years

Maturity Undefined

Gross nominal outflow In EUR’000 as at 31.12.2013

Outflows for committed but un‐disbursed loans

363 ‐ ‐ ‐ 889 503 889 866

Outflows for committed investment funds and share subscription

1 689 ‐ ‐ ‐ 175 132 176 821

Others (issued guarantees, drawn guarantees)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 29 414 29 414

Outflows for committed interest subsidies

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 191 760 191 760

Outflows for committed TA 759 ‐ ‐ ‐ 14 707 15 466

296

Total 2 811 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 300 516 1 303 327

Maturity profile of non‐derivative financial liabilities 3 months

or less


More than 1 year to 5

years

More than 5 years

Maturity Undefined

Gross nominal outflow In EUR’000 as at 31.12.2012

Outflows for committed but un‐disbursed loans

3 882 ‐ ‐ ‐ 745 162 749 044

Outflows for committed investment funds and share subscription

430 ‐ ‐ ‐ 216 640 217 070

Others (issued guarantees, drawn guarantees)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 26 224 26 224

Outflows for committed interest subsidies

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 179 108 179 108

Outflows for committed TA 1 867 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21 753 23 620

Total 6 179 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 188 887 1 195 066

Maturity profile of derivative financial liabilities

In EUR’000 as at 31.12.2013

3 monthsor less


More than 1 year to 5 years

More than 5 years

Gross nominal inflow/outflow

CCS and CCIRS – Inflows 506 5 183 11 476 2 731 19 896

CCS and CCIRS – Outflows ‐539 ‐5 858 ‐12 894 ‐2 819 ‐22 110

Short term currency swaps – Inflows 700 000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 700 000

Short term currency swaps – Outflows ‐701 490 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐701 490

Interest Rate Swaps – Inflows 232 1 053 6 341 5 720 13 346

Interest Rate Swaps – Outflows ‐ ‐1 874 ‐6 385 ‐3 773 ‐12 032

Total ‐1 291 ‐1 496 ‐1 462 1 859 ‐2 390

Maturity profile of derivative financial liabilities

In EUR’000 as at 31.12.2012

3 months or less


More than 1 year to 5 years

More than 5 years

Gross nominal inflow/outflow

CCS and CCIRS – Inflows 1 238 7 364 14 498 5 350 28 450

CCS and CCIRS – Outflows ‐1 286 ‐8 428 ‐17 218 ‐5 894 ‐32 826

Short term currency swaps – Inflows 649 000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 649 000

Short term currency swaps – Outflows ‐652 451 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐652 451

Interest Rate Swaps – Inflows 65 511 3 274 2 117 5 967

Interest Rate Swaps – Outflows ‐ ‐753 ‐3 537 ‐1 577 ‐5 867

Total ‐3 434 ‐1 306 ‐2 983 ‐4 ‐7 727

3.4 Market risk

Market risk represents the risk that changes in market prices and rates, such as interest rates, equity prices and foreign exchange rates will affect an entity’s income or the value of its holdings in financial instruments.

297

3.4.1. Interest rate risk

Interest rate risk arises from the volatility in the economic value of, or in the income derived from, the Facility’s interest rate bearing positions due to adverse movements in interest rates. Exposure to interest rate risk occurs when there are differences in repricing and maturity characteristics of the different assets and liabilities.

The Facility measures the sensitivity of its loan portfolio and micro hedging swaps to interest rate risk via a Basis Point Value (BPV) calculation. Micro hedging swaps include CCS, CCIRS and interest rate swaps which are associated with the hedging of specific lending operations.

The BPV measures the gain or loss in the net present value of the relevant portfolio, due to a 1 basis point (0.01%) increase in interest rates tenors ranging within a specified time bucket “money market – up to one year”, “very short – 2 to 3 years”, “short – 4 to 6 years”, “medium – 7 to 11 years”, “long – 12 to 20 years” or “extra‐long – more than 21 years”.

To determine the net present value (NPV) of the loans’ cash flows denominated in EUR, the Facility uses the EIB’s EUR base funding curve (EUR swap curve adjusted with EIB’s global funding spread). The EIB’s USD funding curve is used for the calculation of the NPV of loan’s cash flows denominated in USD. The NPV of the loans’ cash flows denominated in currencies for which a reliable and sufficiently complete discount curve is not available, is determined by using EIB’s EUR base funding curve as a proxy.

To calculate the net present value of the micro hedging swaps, the facility uses the EUR swap curve for cash flows denominated in EUR and the USD swap curve for cash flows denominated in USD.

As shown in the following table the net present value of the loan portfolio including related micro‐hedging swaps as at 31 December 2013 would decrease by EUR 344k (as at 31 December 2012: decrease by EUR 341k) if all relevant interest rates curves are simultaneously shifted upwards in parallel by 1 basis point.

Basis point value In EUR’000

Money Market

Very Short

Short Medium Long Extra Long

Total

As at 31.12.2013 1 year 2 to 3 years

4 to 6 years

7 to 11 years

12 to‐20 years

21 years

Total sensitivity of loans and micro hedging swaps

‐25 ‐57 ‐90 ‐124 ‐48 ‐ ‐344

Basis point value In EUR’000

Money Market

Very Short

Short Medium Long Extra Long

Total

As at 31.12.2012 1 year 2 to 3 years

4 to 6 years

7 to 11 years

12 to‐20 years

21 years

Total sensitivity of loans and micro hedging swaps

‐25 ‐47 ‐90 ‐117 ‐62 ‐ ‐341

3.4.2. Foreign exchange risk

298

Foreign exchange (“FX”) risk is the volatility in the economic value of, or in the income derived from, the Facility’s positions due to adverse movements of foreign exchange rates.

The Facility is exposed to foreign exchange risk whenever there is a currency mismatch between its assets and liabilities. Foreign exchange risk also comprises the effect of unexpected and unfavourable changes in the value of future cash flows due to fluctuations in exchange rates.

3.4.2.1 Foreign exchange risk and treasury assets

The IF’s treasury assets are denominated either in EUR or USD.

FX risk is hedged by means of FX spot or forward transactions, FX swaps or cross‐currency swaps. The EIB’s Treasury Department can, where deemed necessary and appropriate, use any other instrument, in line with the Bank’s policy, that provide protection against market risks incurred in connection with the IF’s financial activities.

3.4.2.2 Foreign exchange risk and operations financed or guaranteed by the IF

Member States’ IF contributions are received in EUR. The operations financed or guaranteed by the IF as well as Interest Rate Subsidies can be denominated in EUR, USD or any other authorized currency.

A foreign exchange risk exposure (against the EUR reference currency) arises whenever transactions denominated in currencies other than the EUR are left un‐hedged. The IF’s foreign exchange risk hedging guidelines are set out below.

3.4.2.2.1. Hedging of operations denominated in currencies other than EUR or USD

• IF loans disbursed in currencies other than EUR and USD shall be hedged through cross‐currency swap contracts with the same financial profile as the underlying Loan, provided that a swap market is operational.

• For disbursements under IF Operations made in a currency other than EUR and USD, and for which a long‐term hedging operation is not undertaken, the Treasury Department shall enter into a foreign exchange transaction two business days prior to the disbursement. The FX conversion rate applied to IF Operations shall correspond to the market exchange rate obtained by the Treasury Department. Similarly, for repayments received in a currency other than EUR and USD, the Treasury Department shall undertake an FX operation where necessary to convert the currencies received.

• Uncalled guarantees are not subject to any FX hedging. Guarantee calls in currencies other than EUR and USD will be hedged.

• Operations in currencies other than EUR and USD for which no FX hedging operation can be undertaken by the Treasury Department shall be left un‐hedged. This also includes

299

(synthetic) operations denominated in local currency but settled in EUR or USD. The IF shall remain exposed to the FX risk incurred thereby.

3.4.2.2.2. Hedging of operations denominated in USD

• The total outstanding amount of all IF Operations (except uncalled Guarantees) denominated in USD shall be hedged by means of USD/EUR FX swaps, rolled over on a periodic basis. At the beginning of each period, the cash flows to be received or paid in USD during the next period shall be estimated on the basis of planned or expected reflows/disbursements. Subsequently, the maturing FX swaps shall be rolled over, their amount being adjusted to cover at least the USD liquidity needs projected over the next period.

• A periodic calculation of the overall USD exposure as per the accounting records will be undertaken to adjust, if necessary, the hedge on the next FX swap roll.

• If deemed operationally convenient by the Treasury Department, cross‐currency swaps can also be used to hedge specific USD Loans.

• Within a roll‐over period, unexpected USD liquidity deficits shall be covered by means of ad hoc FX swap operations while liquidity surpluses shall either be invested in treasury assets or swapped into EUR.

300

3.4.2.3 Foreign exchange position

The following tables show the Facility’s foreign exchange position (in EUR’000):

At 31 December 2013 EUR USD KES ACP/OCT Currencies

Total

ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents 542 373 57 142 ‐ ‐ 599 515

Derivative financial instruments 3 168 ‐2 144 ‐ ‐ 1 024

Loans and receivables 488 249 572 346 66 111 95 493 1 222 199

Available‐for‐sale financial assets 70 299 252 668 ‐ 8 732 331 699

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets 102 562 ‐ ‐ ‐ 102 562

Other assets ‐ ‐ ‐ 148 148

Total assets 1 206 651 880 012 66 111 104 373 2 257 147

LIABILITIES AND CONTRIBUTORS’ RESOURCES

Liabilities

Derivative financial instruments ‐715 945 719 490 ‐ ‐ 3 545

Deferred income 34 880 203 ‐ ‐ 35 083

Amounts owed to third parties 331 235 ‐ ‐ ‐ 331 235

Other liabilities 2 428 2 ‐ 142 2 572

Total liabilities ‐347 402 719 695 ‐ 142 372 435

Contributors’ resources

Member States Contribution called 1 661 309 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 661 309

Fair value reserve 2 632 69 082 ‐ 6 477 78 191

Retained earnings 145 212 ‐ ‐ ‐ 145 212

Total Contributors’ resources 1 809 153 69 082 ‐ 6 477 1 884 712

Total liabilities and Contributors’ resources 1 461 751 788 777 ‐ 6 619 2 257 147

Currency position as at 31 December 2013 ‐255 100 91 235 66 111 97 754 ‐

As at 31 December 2013:

COMMITMENTS

Un‐disbursed loans and available‐for‐sale financial assets

896 655 170 032 ‐ ‐ 1 066 687

Guarantees drawn ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 414 4 414

Interest subsidies and TA 222 588 ‐ ‐ ‐ 222 588

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Guarantees undrawn 25 000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 000

301

At 31 December 2012 EUR USD KES ACP/OCT Currencies

Total

ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents 424 647 41 921 ‐ ‐ 466 568

Derivative financial instruments 1 064 ‐949 ‐ ‐ 115

Loans and receivables 513 231 508 412 60 348 64 289 1 146 280

Available‐for‐sale financial assets 66 509 259 694 ‐ 6 798 333 001

Amounts receivable from contributors 87 310 ‐ ‐ ‐ 87 310

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets 99 029 ‐ ‐ ‐ 99 029

Other assets ‐ ‐ ‐ 224 224

Total assets 1 191 790 809 078 60 348 71 311 2 132 527

LIABILITIES AND CONTRIBUTORS’ RESOURCES

Liabilities

Derivative financial instruments ‐675 814 682 849 ‐ ‐ 7 035

Deferred income 37 560 248 ‐ ‐ 37 808

Amounts owed to third parties 312 040 46 ‐ ‐ 312 086

Other liabilities 905 19 14 215 1 153

Total liabilities ‐325 309 683 162 14 215 358 082

Contributors’ resources

Member States Contribution called 1 561 309 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 561 309

Fair value reserve 5 366 59 144 ‐ 3 924 68 434

Retained earnings 144 702 ‐ ‐ ‐ 144 702

Total Contributors’ resources 1 711 377 59 144 ‐ 3 924 1 774 445

Total liabilities and Contributors’ resources 1 386 068 742 306 14 4 139 2 132 527

Currency position as at 31 December 2012 ‐194 278 66 772 60 334 67 172 ‐

As at 31 December 2012:

COMMITMENTS

Un‐disbursed loans and available‐for‐sale financial assets

794 475 171 639 ‐ ‐ 966 114

Guarantees drawn ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 224 6 224

Interest subsidies and TA 228 175 ‐ ‐ ‐ 228 175

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Guarantees undrawn 20 000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 000

3.4.2.4 Foreign exchange sensitivity analysis (in EUR’000)

As at the reporting date the most significant net foreign currency exposure is the USD net exposure. As at 31 December 2013 a +/‐ 10 percent change in the USD conversion rate would result in a change of contributors’ resources amounting to EUR 9 123 respectively EUR ‐9 123 (31 December 2012: EUR 6 677 respectively EUR ‐6 677).

302

3.4.2.5 Conversion rates

The following conversion rates were used for establishing the balance sheet at 31 December 2013 and 31 December 2012:

31 December 2013 31 December 2012

Non‐EU currencies

Dominican Republic Pesos (DOP) 58.3329 53.1220

Fiji Dollars (FJD) 2.5655 2.3417

Haitian Gourde (HTG) 60.1459 55.7265

Kenya Shillings (KES) 118.73 113.68

Mauritania Ouguiyas (MRO) 398.7 393.99

Mauritius Rupees (MUR) 41.27 40.19

Rwanda Francs (RWF) 926.86 811.83

Tanzania Shillings (TZS) 2 179.05 n/a

Uganda Shillings (UGX) 3 476 3 549

United States Dollars (USD) 1.3791 1.3194

Franc CFA Francs (XAF/XOF) 655.957 655.957

South Africa Rand (ZAR) 14.566 11.1727

3.4.3. Equity price risk (in EUR’000)

Equity price risk refers to the risk that the fair values of equity investments decrease as the result of changes in the levels of equity prices and/or the value of equity investments.

The IF is exposed to equity price risk via its investments in direct equity and venture capital funds.

The value of non‐listed equity positions is not readily available for the purpose of monitoring and control on a continuous basis. For such positions, the best indications available include prices derived from any relevant valuation techniques.

The effects on the Facility’s contributors’ resources (as a result of a change in the fair value of the available‐for‐sale equity portfolio) due to a 10% decrease in the value of individual direct equity and venture capital investments, with all other variables held constant is EUR ‐33 170 as at 31 December 2013 and EUR ‐33 300 as at 31 December 2012.

303

4 Fair values of financial instruments

4.1 Accounting classifications and fair values

The following table shows the carrying amounts and fair values of financial assets and financial liabilities, including their levels in the fair value hierarchy. These do not include fair value information for financial assets and financial liabilities not measured at fair value if the carrying amount is a reasonable approximation of fair value.

At 31 December 2013 In EUR’000

Carrying amount Fair value

Held for trading

Available‐for‐sale

Loan and receivables

Held to maturity

Other financial liabilities

Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total

Financial assets measured at fair value:

Derivative financial instruments 1 024 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 024 ‐ 1 024 ‐ 1 024

Venture Capital Fund ‐ 269 252 ‐ ‐ ‐ 269 252 ‐ ‐ 269 252 269 252

Direct Equity Investment ‐ 62 447 ‐ ‐ ‐ 62 447 6 844 ‐ 55 603 62 447

Total 1 024 331 699 ‐ ‐ ‐ 332 723 6 844 1 024 324 855 332 723

Financial assets not measured at fair value:

Cash and cash equivalents ‐ ‐ 599 515 ‐ ‐ 599 515

Loans and receivables ‐ ‐ 1 222 199 ‐ ‐ 1 222 199 ‐ 1 351 244 ‐ 1 351 244

Bonds ‐ ‐ ‐ 102 562 ‐ 102 562 102 549 ‐ ‐ 102 549

Other assets ‐ ‐ 148 ‐ ‐ 148

Total ‐ ‐ 1 821 862 102 562 ‐ 1 924 424 102 549 1 351 244 ‐ 1 453 793

Total financial assets 1 024 331 699 1 821 862 102 562 ‐ 2 257 147

Financial liabilities measured at fair value:

Derivative financial instruments ‐3 545 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐3 545 ‐ ‐3 545 ‐ ‐3 545

Total ‐3 545 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐3 545 ‐ ‐3 545 ‐ ‐3 545

Financial liabilities not measured at fair value:

Amounts owed to third parties ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐331 235 ‐331 235

Other liabilities ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐2 572 ‐2 572

Total ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐333 807 ‐333 807

Total financial liabilities ‐3 545 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐333 807 ‐337 352

304

4 Fair values of financial instruments (continued)

4.1 Accounting classifications and fair values (continued)

At 31 December 2012 In EUR’000

Carrying amount Fair value

Held for trading

Available‐for‐sale

Loan and receivables

Held to maturity

Other financial liabilities

Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total

Financial assets measured at fair value:

Derivative financial instruments 115 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 115 ‐ 115 ‐ 115

Venture Capital Fund ‐ 265 301 ‐ ‐ ‐ 265 301 ‐ ‐ 265 301 265 301

Direct Equity Investment ‐ 67 700 ‐ ‐ ‐ 67 700 11 001 ‐ 56 699 67 700

Total 115 333 001 ‐ ‐ ‐ 333 116 11 001 115 322 000 333 116

Financial assets not measured at fair value:

Cash and cash equivalents ‐ ‐ 466 568 ‐ ‐ 466 568

Loans and receivables ‐ ‐ 1 146 280 ‐ ‐ 1 146 280 ‐ 1 226 409 ‐ 1 226 409

Amounts receivable from contributors ‐ ‐ 87 310 ‐ ‐ 87 310

Bonds ‐ ‐ ‐ 99 029 ‐ 99 029 98 805 ‐ ‐ 98 805

Other assets ‐ ‐ 224 ‐ ‐ 224

Total ‐ ‐ 1 700 382 99 029 ‐ 1 799 411 98 805 1 226 409 ‐ 1 325 214

Total financial assets 115 333 001 1 700 382 99 029 ‐ 2 132 527

Financial liabilities measured at fair value:

Derivative financial instruments ‐7 035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐7 035 ‐ ‐7 035 ‐ ‐7 035

Total ‐7 035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐7 035 ‐ ‐7 035 ‐ ‐7 035

Financial liabilities not measured at fair value:

Amounts owed to third parties ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐312 086 ‐312 086

Other liabilities ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1 153 ‐1 153

Total ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐313 239 ‐313 239

Total financial liabilities ‐7 035 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐313 239 ‐320 274

305

4.2 Measurement of fair values

4.2.1 Valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs

The table below sets out information about the valuation techniques and unobservable inputs used in measuring financial instruments, categorised as levelthe fair value hierarchy:

Valuation technique Significant unobservable inputs Relations

inpum

Financial instruments measured at fair value

Derivative financial instruments

Discounted cash flow: Future cash flows are estimated based on forward exchange/interest rates (from observable forward exchange rates and yield curves at the end of the reporting period) and contract forward/interest rates, discounted at a rate that reflects the credit risk of various counterparties.

Not applicable. Not applic

Venture Capital Fund (VCF)

Adjusted net assets method: The fair value is determined by applying either the Facility’s percentage ownership in the underlying vehicle to the net asset value reflected in the most recent report adjusted for cash flows or, where available, the precise share value at the same date, submitted by the respective Fund Manager. In order to bridge the interval between the last available Net assets value (NAV) and the year‐end reporting, a subsequent event review procedure is performed and if necessary the reported NAV is adjusted.

Adjustment for time elapsed between the last reporting date of the VCF and the measurement date, taking into account: operating expenses and management fees, subsequent changes in the fair value of the VCF’s underlying assets, additional liabilities incurred, market changes or other economic condition changes.

The longebetween tmeasuremlast reporthe highetime elaps

Direct Equity Investment

Adjusted net assets.

Adjustment for time elapsed between the last reporting date of the investee and the measurement date, taking into account: operating expenses, subsequent changes in the fair value of the investee’s underlying assets, additional liabilities incurred, market changes or other economic condition changes, capital Increase, sale/ change of control.

The longebetween tmeasuremlast reporinvestee, adjustmen

Discount for lack of marketability (liquidity) determined by reference to previous transaction prices for similar equities in the country/region, ranging from 5 to 30%.

The highediscount, value.

Financial instruments not measured at fair value

Loans and receivables

Discounted cash flows: The valuation model uses contractual cash flows that are conditional upon the non‐occurrence of default by the debtor and do not take into account any collateral values or early repayments’ scenarios. To obtain the Net Present Value (NPV) of the loans, the model retained discounts the contractual cash flows of each loan using an adjusted market discount curve. The individual loan NPV is then adjusted to take into consideration the relevant associated Expected Loss. The

Not applicable. Not applic

306

results are then summed to obtain the fair value of Loans and receivables.

Amounts owed to third parties

Discounted cash flows. Not applicable. Not applicable.

Other liabilities

Discounted cash flows. Not applicable. Not applicable.

With the application of IFRS 13, valuation adjustments are included in the fair value of derivatives at 31 December 2013, namely:

• Credit valuation adjustments (CVA), reflecting counterparty credit risk on derivative transactions, amounting to a loss of EUR 184k.

• Debit valuation adjustments (DVA), reflecting own credit risk on derivative transactions, were estimated at nil.

The Facility’s policy is to recognise the transfers between Levels as of the date of the event or change in circumstances that caused the transfer.

4.2.2 Transfers between Level 1 and 2

In 2013 the Facility did not make transfers from Level 1 to 2 or Level 2 to 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

4.2.3 Level 3 fair values

Reconciliation of Level 3 fair values

The following tables present the changes in Level 3 instruments for the year ended 31 December 2013 and 31 December 2012:

In EUR'000 Available‐for‐sale financial assets

Balance at 1 January 2013 322 000

Gains or losses included in profit or loss:

‐ net realised gains on available‐for‐sale financial assets 5 294

‐ impairment on available‐for‐sale financial assets ‐2 701

Total 2 593

Gains or losses included in other comprehensive income:

‐ net change in fair value of available‐for‐sale financial assets 4 299

Total 4 299

Disbursements 34 700

Repayments ‐38 737

Balance at 31 December 2013 324 855

307

In EUR'000 Available‐for‐sale financial assets

Balance at 1 January 2012 236 446

Total gains or losses included in profit or loss 8 133

Total gains or losses included in other comprehensive income 15 041

Disbursements 81 981

Repayments ‐19 601

Balance at 31 December 2012 322 000

In 2013 the Facility did not make transfers out or to Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Sensitivity analysis

A +/‐ 10 percent change at the reporting date to one of the significant unobservable inputs used to measure the fair values of the Venture Capital Funds and Direct Equity Investments, holding other inputs constant, would have the following effects on the other comprehensive income:

At 31 December 2013(in EUR’000)

Increase Decrease

Venture Capital Funds 20 ‐20

Direct Equity Investments 141 ‐141

Total 161 ‐161

5 Cash and cash equivalents (in EUR’000)

Cash and cash equivalents can be broken down between amounts received from the Member States and not yet disbursed and amounts from the Facility’s operational and financial activities.

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Member states contributions received and not yet disbursed 36 624 117 622

Amounts from the Facility’s financial and operational activities 562 891 348 946

Cash and cash equivalents in the statement of financial position 599 515 466 568

Accrued interest ‐ 8 ‐ 7

Cash and cash equivalents in the cash flow statement 599 507 466 561

6 Derivative financial instruments (in EUR’000)

The main components of derivative financial instruments, classified as held for trading, are as follows:

At 31 December 2013 Fair Value Notional

amount Assets Liabilities

Cross currency swaps 56 ‐ 2 067

Cross currency interest rate swaps 44 ‐2 035 16 461

308

Interest rate swaps 924 ‐ 43 335

FX swaps ‐ ‐1 510 700 000

Total derivative financial instruments 1 024 ‐3 545 761 863

At 31 December 2012 Fair Value Notional

amount Assets Liabilities

Cross currency swaps 87 ‐102 7 062

Cross currency interest rate swaps ‐ ‐3 971 19 504

Interest rate swaps 28 ‐ 19 568

FX swaps ‐ ‐2 962 649 000

Total derivative financial instruments 115 ‐7 035 695 134

309

7 Loans and receivables (in EUR’000)

The main components of loans and receivable are as follows:

Global loans

(*) Senior loans

Subordinated loans

Total

Nominal as at 1 January 2013 254 686 789 970 133 780 1 178 436

Disbursements 150 513 91 690 ‐ 242 203

Write offs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Repayments ‐51 595 ‐55 865 ‐11 700 ‐119 160

Interest capitalised ‐ ‐342 10 705 10 363

Foreign exchange rates differences ‐11 491 ‐19 446 ‐1 153 ‐32 090

Nominal as at 31 December 2013 342 113 806 007 131 632 1 279 752

Impairment as at 1 January 2013 ‐6 494 ‐14 296 ‐24 355 ‐45 145

Impairment recorded in statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income

‐1 341 ‐ ‐27 081 ‐28 422

Write offs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Reversal of impairment ‐ 1 088 ‐ 1 088

Foreign exchange rates differences 160 474 1 054 1 688

Impairment as at 31 December 2013 ‐7 675 ‐12 734 ‐50 382 ‐70 791

Amortised Cost ‐2 109 ‐3 883 ‐66 ‐6 058

Interest 5 154 10 536 3 606 19 296

Loans and receivables as at 31 December 2013

337 482 799 926 84 790 1 222 199

(*) including agency agreements

Global loans

(*) Senior loans

Subordinated loans

Total

Nominal as at 1 January 2012 225 365 716 350 128 679 1 070 394

Disbursements 79 015 154 003 ‐ 233 018

Write offs ‐947 ‐1 206 ‐ ‐2 153

Repayments ‐39 967 ‐71 368 ‐4 145 ‐115 480

Interest capitalised ‐ ‐117 9 739 9 622

Foreign exchange rates differences ‐8 780 ‐7 692 ‐493 ‐16 965

Nominal as at 31 December 2012 254 686 789 970 133 780 1 178 436

Impairment as at 1 January 2012 ‐7 609 ‐16 372 ‐24 835 ‐48 816

Impairment recorded in statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income

‐835 ‐292 ‐ ‐1 127

Write offs 947 1 206 ‐ 2 153

Reversal of impairment 910 814 ‐ 1 724

Foreign exchange rates differences 93 348 480 921

Impairment as at 31 December 2012 ‐6 494 ‐14 296 ‐24 355 ‐45 145

Amortised Cost ‐1 641 ‐3 984 ‐82 ‐5 707

Interest 5 246 9 244 4 206 18 696

Loans and receivables as at 31 December 2012

251 797 780 934 113 549 1 146 280

(*) including agency agreements

310

8 Available‐for‐sale financial assets (in EUR’000)

The main components of available‐for‐sale financial assets are as follows:

Venture

Capital Fund Direct Equity Investment

Total

Cost as at 1 January 2013 220 710 61 830 282 540

Disbursements 33 600 1 100 34 700

Repayments / sales ‐36 322 ‐2 415 ‐38 737

Foreign exchange rates differences on repayments / sales 922 ‐ 398 524

Cost as at 31 December 2013 218 910 60 117 279 027

Unrealised gains and losses as at 1 January 2013 59 321 9 113 68 434

Net change in unrealised gains and losses 13 290 ‐3 533 9 757

Unrealised gains and losses as at 31 December 2013 72 611 5 580 78 191

Impairment as at 1 January 2013 ‐14 730 ‐3 243 ‐17 973

Impairment recorded in statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income during the year

‐8 105 ‐71 ‐8 176

Foreign exchange rates differences on impairment 566 64 630

Impairment as at 31 December 2013 ‐22 269 ‐3 250 ‐25 519

Available‐for‐sale financial assets as at 31 December 2013

269 252 62 447 331 699

Venture

Capital Fund Direct Equity Investment

Total

Cost as at 1 January 2012 182 692 36 565 219 257

Disbursements 56 007 25 974 81 981

Repayments / sales ‐19 570 ‐31 ‐19 601

Foreign exchange rates differences on repayments / sales 1 581 ‐678 903

Cost as at 31 December 2012 220 710 61 830 282 540

Unrealised gains and losses as at 1 January 2012 29 781 11 969 41 750

Net change in unrealised gains and losses 29 540 ‐2 856 26 684

Unrealised gains and losses as at 31 December 2012 59 321 9 113 68 434

Impairment as at 1 January 2012 ‐6 887 ‐2 460 ‐9 347

Impairment recorded in statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income during the year

‐7 976 ‐951 ‐8 927

Foreign exchange rates differences on impairment 133 168 301

Impairment as at 31 December 2012 ‐14 730 ‐3 243 ‐17 973

Available‐for‐sale financial assets as at 31 December 2012

265 301 67 700 333 001

311

9 Amounts receivable from contributors (in EUR’000)

The main components of amounts receivable from contributors are as follows:

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Member states contribution called but not paid ‐ 87 310

Total amounts receivable from contributors ‐ 87 310

10 Held‐to‐maturity financial assets (in EUR’000)

The held‐to‐maturity portfolio is composed of quoted bonds which have a remaining maturity of less than three months at reporting date. The following table shows the movements of the held‐to‐maturity portfolio:

Balance as at 1 January 2013 99 029

Acquisitions 680 635

Maturities ‐676 369

Change in amortisation of premium/discount 228

Change in accrued interest ‐961

Balance as at 31 December 2013 102 562

Balance as at 1 January 2012 ‐

Acquisitions 98 278

Change in amortisation of premium/discount ‐210

Change in accrued interest 961

Balance as at 31 December 2012 99 029

11 Other assets (in EUR’000)

The main components of other assets are as follows:

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Amount receivable from EIB 6 7

Financial guarantees 142 217

Amounts receivable with regard to TA disbursements 337 337

Impairment on amounts receivable with regard to TA disbursements (Note 20)

‐337 ‐337

Total other assets 148 224

12 Deferred income (in EUR’000)

The main components of deferred income are as follows:

312

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Deferred interest subsidies 34 787 37 387

Deferred commissions on loans and receivables 296 421

Total deferred income 35 083 37 808

13 Amounts owed to third parties (in EUR’000)

The main components of amounts owed to third parties are as follows:

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Net general administrative expenses payable to EIB 37 851 36 202

Other amounts payable to EIB 716 8 904

Interest subsidies not yet disbursed owed to Member States

292 668 266 980

Total amounts owed to third parties 331 235 312 086

14 Other liabilities (in EUR’000)

The main components of other liabilities are as follows:

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Loan repayments received in advance 1 827 215

Deferred income from interest subsidies 603 723

Financial guarantees 142 215

Total other liabilities 2 572 1 153

15 Member States Contribution called (in EUR’000)

Member States Contribution

to the Facility

Contribution to interest subsidies

Total contributed

Called and not paid (*)

Austria 44 025 11 493 55 518 ‐

Belgium 65 123 17 001 82 124 ‐

Denmark 35 552 9 281 44 833 ‐

Finland 24 587 6 419 31 006 ‐

France 403 698 105 387 509 085 ‐

Germany 388 082 101 310 489 392 ‐

Greece 20 766 5 421 26 187 ‐

Ireland 10 300 2 689 12 989 ‐

Italy 208 328 54 385 262 713 ‐

Luxembourg 4 818 1 258 6 076 ‐

Netherlands 86 720 22 638 109 358 ‐

Portugal 16 115 4 207 20 322 ‐

Spain 97 020 25 327 122 347 ‐

313

Sweden 45 355 11 840 57 195 ‐

United Kingdom 210 820 55 035 265 855 ‐

Total as at 31 December 2013 1 661 309 433 691 2 095 000 ‐

Total as at 31 December 2012 1 561 309 383 691 1 945 000 87 310

(*) On 20 November 2012, the Council fixed the amount of financial contributions to be paid by each Member State by 21 January 2013.

16 Contingent liabilities and commitments (in EUR’000)

31.12.2013 31.12.2012

Commitments

Undisbursed loans 889 866 749 044

Undisbursed commitment in respect of available‐for‐sale financial assets

176 821 217 070

Guarantees drawn 4 414 6 224

Subsidies and TA 222 588 228 175

Contingent liabilities

Guarantees undrawn 25 000 20 000

Total contingent liabilities and commitments 1 318 689 1 220 513

17 Interest and similar income and expenses (in EUR’000)

The main components of interest and similar income are as follows:

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

Cash and cash equivalents 273 1 678

Held‐to‐maturity financial assets 461 36

Loans and receivables 63 189 64 060

Interest subsidies 4 347 1 729

Total interest and similar income 68 270 67 503

The main component of interest and similar expenses is as follows:

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

Derivative financial instruments ‐1 175 ‐1 114

Total interest and similar expenses ‐1 175 ‐ 1 114

18 Fee and commission income and expenses (in EUR’000)

The main components of fee and commission income are as follows:

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

314

Fee and commission on loans and receivables 3 896 1 710

Fee and commission on financial guarantees 145 191

Other 10 33

Total fee and commission income 4 051 1 934

The main component of fee and commission expenses is as follows:

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

Commission paid to third parties with regard to available‐for‐sale financial assets

‐43 ‐292

Total fee and commission expenses ‐43 ‐292

19 Net realised gains on available‐for‐sale financial assets (in EUR’000)

The main components of net realised gains on available‐for‐sale financial assets are as follows:

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

Net proceeds from available‐for‐sale financial assets 2 688 70

Dividend income 2 606 975

Net realised gains on available‐for‐sale financial assets

5 294 1 045

20 Impairment on other assets (in EUR’000)

During 2012 the Facility made a technical assistance payment amounting to EUR 638 which due to fraudulent behaviour of the counterparty did not reach the final beneficiary. Following legal interventions, the Facility could recover EUR 301 and the remaining amount outstanding was recorded as a receivable. As at the reporting date the likelihood that the Facility will ever recover the outstanding amount is estimated to be low and the outstanding amount of EUR 337 was recorded as impairment in the Facility’s comprehensive income.

21 General administrative expenses (in EUR’000)

General administrative expenses represent the actual costs incurred by the EIB for managing the Facility less income generated from standard appraisal fees directly charged by the EIB to clients of the Facility.

From 01.01.2013 From 01.01.2012

to 31.12.2013 to 31.12.2012

Actual cost incurred by the EIB ‐40 966 ‐38 390

Income from appraisal fees directly charged to 3 115 2 188

315

clients of the Facility

General administrative expenses ‐37 851 ‐36 202

Following the entry in force of the revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement on the 1st of July 2008, general administrative expenses are not covered anymore by the Member States.

22 Subsequent events

There have been no material post balance sheet events which could require disclosure or adjustment to the 31 December 2013 financial statements.

316

ANNEX TO PART 1 – CHAPTER 2 (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION): SITUATION BY COUNTRY AND BY INSTRUMENT

317

Notes to the tables:

• The figure "0.00" indicates that the corresponding amount is between EUR –4999 and EUR 4999. Where no figure is given, the amount is zero. Countries with a nil balance in all columns are not listed in the tables.

• The heading "All ACP/OCT countries" refers to projects which cover a number of countries but are not financed by regional cooperation.

• The heading "Financial and administrative expenses" represents projects financed by EDF interest or the envelope covering administrative expenditure.

318

Table 3.1.1

Overall situation by country (EUR million)

Lomé

Cotonou TOTAL 8th EDF NIP Total indicative programmes Non PIN

cumulative 2013

Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP

Decisions % du NIP Payments % du NIP Decisions Decisions Assigned funds

Payments

Angola 77.11 77.11 100% 71.50 93% 27.06 35% 26.37 34% 0.00 104.16 100.83 97.88

Benin 111.99 111.99 100% 111.99 100% 59.53 53% 59.49 53% 0.00 171.52 171.52 171.47

Botswana 31.27 31.27 100% 31.27 100% 2.21 7% 1.40 4% 31.44 64.92 64.71 63.91

Burkina Faso 171.09 171.09 100% 170.19 99% 104.07 61% 104.07 61% 117.83 392.99 392.49 391.92

Burundi 13.06 13.06 100% 13.06 100% 53.86 413% 51.36 393% 0.00 66.91 66.91 64.41

Cameroon 102.67 102.67 100% 102.40 100% 130.03 127% 130.03 127% 0.00 232.70 232.66 232.44

Cape Verde 29.68 29.43 99% 29.10 98% 25.99 88% 25.99 88% 0.00 55.42 55.12 55.09

Central African Republic 54.86 54.86 100% 54.69 100% 29.61 54% 29.61 54% 0.00 84.47 84.30 84.30

Chad 143.01 143.01 100% 142.42 100% 68.57 48% 68.57 48% 0.00 211.58 210.99 210.99

Comoros 10.46 10.46 100% 10.46 100% 5.66 54% 5.60 54% 0.00 16.12 16.12 16.07

Congo (Brazzaville) 9.50 9.50 100% 9.12 96% 3.63 38% 3.63 38% 0.00 13.13 13.01 12.75

Democratic Republic of Congo 19.38 19.38 100% 18.96 98% 27.96 144% 27.61 142% 0.00 47.34 46.92 46.57

Djibouti 15.68 15.68 100% 15.68 100% 11.00 70% 11.00 70% 0.00 26.68 26.68 26.68

Equatorial Guinea 3.63 3.63 100% 3.15 87% 0.79 22% 0.79 22% 0.00 4.42 4.05 3.95

Eritrea 0.08 0.08 100% 0.08 100% 17.93 21705% 17.93 21705% 0.00 18.01 18.01 18.01

Ethiopia 143.00 143.00 100% 136.85 96% 193.85 136% 184.54 129% 0.04 336.89 332.57 321.43

Gabon 37.39 37.39 100% 37.10 99% 39.91 107% 39.91 107% 35.00 112.30 111.83 109.79

Gambia 17.03 17.03 100% 15.70 92% 13.53 79% 13.53 79% 0.00 30.56 29.23 29.23

Ghana 121.58 121.58 100% 121.58 100% 95.62 79% 95.62 79% 39.49 256.69 256.69 256.69

Guinea Bissau 41.89 41.89 100% 40.85 98% 5.07 12% 5.07 12% 34.25 81.21 80.83 80.15

Guinea (Conakry) 93.85 93.85 100% 93.74 100% 21.36 23% 21.36 23% 0.00 115.20 115.10 115.10

Ivory Coast 53.19 53.19 100% 53.16 100% 104.08 196% 102.86 193% 0.00 157.27 157.19 156.01

319

Kenya 67.00 67.00 100% 62.80 94% 116.23 173% 116.23 173% 0.00 183.23 179.89 179.03

Lesotho 48.64 48.64 100% 48.40 100% 15.87 33% 15.87 33% 0.00 64.51 64.43 64.27

Liberia 24.86 24.09 0.00 24.86 24.86 24.09

Madagascar 161.05 161.05 100% 161.05 100% 113.05 70% 113.05 70% 55.00 329.10 329.10 329.10

Malawi 184.23 184.23 100% 183.87 100% 73.33 40% 73.47 40% 24.86 282.42 282.41 282.20

Mali 200.43 200.43 100% 198.17 99% 119.77 60% 119.77 60% 0.00 320.20 317.93 317.93

Mauritania 57.42 57.42 100% 57.42 100% 75.56 132% 76.00 132% 37.09 170.07 170.07 169.73

Mauritius 30.07 30.07 100% 30.07 100% 25.16 84% 10.73 36% 0.00 55.23 55.23 40.80

Mozambique 170.67 170.67 100% 167.51 98% 229.96 135% 229.96 135% 142.03 542.67 539.99 539.50

Namibia 48.93 48.93 100% 48.93 100% 22.89 47% 22.89 47% 0.00 71.82 71.82 71.82

Niger 111.35 111.35 100% 111.25 100% 39.86 36% 39.86 36% 55.57 206.78 205.78 201.49

Nigeria 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Rwanda 94.60 94.60 100% 94.60 100% 81.39 86% 81.39 86% 0.00 175.99 175.99 175.99

Sao Tome & Principe 8.52 8.52 100% 8.52 100% 3.71 43% 3.71 43% 0.00 12.23 12.23 12.23

Senegal 95.01 95.01 100% 94.78 100% 141.90 149% 141.90 149% 0.00 236.91 236.68 236.68

Seychelles 5.46 5.46 100% 5.46 100% 1.77 32% 1.77 32% 0.00 7.23 7.23 7.23

Sierra Leone 64.52 64.52 100% 62.16 96% 35.79 55% 35.79 55% 0.00 100.30 98.11 97.94

Somalia 50.00 50.00 100% 48.29 97% 0% 0% 0.00 50.00 48.67 48.29

Sudan 112.26 124.27 0.00 112.26 111.96 124.27

Swaziland 21.25 21.25 100% 21.24 100% 45.19 213% 32.97 155% 3.54 69.98 62.69 57.47

Tanzania 198.68 198.68 100% 189.89 96% 277.34 140% 277.34 140% 0.00 476.02 475.88 467.23

Togo 9.71 9.71 0.00 9.71 9.71 9.71

Uganda 194.01 194.01 100% 194.00 100% 223.48 115% 223.23 115% 0.00 417.48 417.48 417.23

Zambia 136.24 136.24 100% 136.24 100% 282.78 208% 283.46 208% 0.00 419.02 419.68 419.70

Zimbabwe 86.63 86.63 100% 86.63 100% 18.30 21% 18.69 22% 0.00 104.94 104.91 105.32

* Total Africa 3 336.09 3 335.84 100% 3 294.35 99% 3 136.47 94% 3 107.47 93% 576.16 7 048.47 7 015.48 6 969.09

320

Table 3.1.1. (continued)


Lomé


cumulative 2013 Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP

Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP

Decisions Decisions Assigned funds

Payments

Antigua & Barbuda 0.64 0.64 100% 0.50 77% 0% 0% 0.00 0.64 0.61 0.50

Bahamas 2.20 2.20 100% 2.20 100% 0% 0% 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20

Barbados 4.47 4.47 100% 3.51 79% 2.71 61% 2.71 61% 0.00 7.18 6.69 6.22

Belize 10.36 10.36 100% 10.36 100% 8.70 84% 7.54 73% 0.13 19.19 19.19 18.03

Dominica 6.47 6.47 100% 6.24 96% 31.87 493% 31.96 494% 0.00 38.34 38.12 38.20

Dominican Republic 94.03 94.03 100% 94.03 100% 40.35 43% 32.38 34% 0.00 134.38 134.38 126.40

Grenada 0.48 0.48 100% 0.48 100% 2.85 587% 2.89 596% 0.00 3.33 3.33 3.38

Guyana 30.32 30.32 100% 28.82 95% 29.80 98% 27.62 91% 0.00 60.12 58.00 56.44

Haiti 63.98 63.98 100% 62.80 98% 14.80 23% 14.80 23% 0.00 78.78 78.23 77.60

Jamaica 52.65 52.65 100% 52.65 100% 86.43 164% 86.43 164% 26.85 165.93 165.93 165.93

Saint Kitts & Nevis 2.72 2.72 100% 2.72 100% 4.00 147% 4.00 147% 0.00 6.72 6.72 6.72

Saint Lucia 1.31 1.31 100% 1.26 96% 48.69 3708% 50.21 3824% 0.00 50.00 49.88 51.48

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 1.68 1.68 100% 1.60 96% 32.47 1935% 32.81 1955% 0.00 34.15 34.11 34.41

Suriname 19.19 19.19 100% 19.19 100% 0.20 1% 0.20 1% 0.00 19.39 19.39 19.39

Trinidad & Tobago 6.60 6.60 100% 6.60 100% 7.78 118% 4.78 72% 0.00 14.38 14.38 11.38

* Total Caribbean 297.10 297.10 100% 292.97 99% 310.66 105% 298.33 100% 26.98 634.73 631.16 618.27

Fiji 16.91 16.91 100% 16.91 100% 2.41 14% 2.41 14% 0.00 19.32 19.32 19.32

Kiribati 9.01 9.01 100% 9.01 100% 0.78 9% 0.78 9% 0.00 9.79 9.79 9.79

Papua New Guinea 40.51 40.51 100% 39.49 97% 11.08 27% 11.17 28% 44.00 95.59 94.85 93.86

Solomon Islands 13.86 13.86 100% 13.52 98% 76.82 554% 76.82 554% 0.00 90.68 90.34 90.34

Tonga 5.03 5.03 100% 5.03 100% 0.47 9% 0.47 9% 0.00 5.50 5.49 5.50

Tuvalu 1.90 1.90 100% 1.90 100% 0.50 26% 0.50 26% 0.00 2.40 2.40 2.40

321

Vanuatu 10.23 10.23 100% 10.23 100% 5.54 54% 5.54 54% 5.26 21.03 20.99 20.99

Western Samoa 14.07 14.07 100% 14.07 100% 5.03 36% 5.03 36% 3.43 22.53 22.53 22.53

* Total Pacific 111.52 111.52 100% 110.16 99% 102.65 92% 102.74 92% 52.68 266.85 265.73 264.74

Caribbean Region 41.64 41.64 100% 40.16 96% 19.68 47% 13.79 33% 0.00 61.32 60.21 53.95

Central Africa Region 77.04 77.04 100% 76.78 100% 0% 0% 0.00 77.04 76.78 76.78

East Africa Region 161.91 161.91 100% 158.91 98% 0% 0% 0.00 161.91 161.91 158.91

Indian Ocean Region 11.47 11.47 100% 11.47 100% 0% 0% 0.00 11.47 11.47 11.47

Intra ACP Allocations 685.00 685.00 100% 663.23 97% 0% 0% 0.00 685.00 679.54 663.23

Multiregional PALOP 10.83 10.83 100% 10.20 94% 0% 0% 0.00 10.83 10.29 10.20

Pacific Region 32.73 32.73 100% 32.73 100% 0% 0% 0.00 32.73 32.73 32.73

Southern Africa Region 57.20 57.20 100% 57.20 100% 0% 0% 0.00 57.20 57.20 57.20

West Africa Region 197.36 197.36 100% 194.46 99% 28.81 15% 28.81 15% 0.00 226.17 225.64 223.27

* Total regional cooperation ACP 1 275.16 1 275.16 100% 1 245.14 98% 48.49 4% 42.60 3% 0.00 1 323.66 1 315.76 1 287.73

Administrative and financial expenditure 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91 34.91

All ACP countries 1 121.38 1 141.87 1 121.38 1 128.02 1 141.87

* Total ACP 5 019.88 5 019.63 100% 4 942.61 98% 4 754.56 95% 4 727.92 94% 655.81 10 430.00 10 391.06 10 316.63

Anguilla 0.80 0.80 100% 0.80 100% 0% 0% 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.80

British Virgin Islands 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51

Montserrat 1.60 1.60 100% 1.60 100% 0% 0% 0.00 1.60 1.60 1.60

Saint Helena 0.06 0.06 100% 0.06 100% 0% 0% 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06

Turks & Caicos Islands 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

* Total British OCT 2.45 2.45 100% 2.45 100% 3.51 143% 3.51 143% 0.00 5.97 5.97 5.97

Aruba 0.40 0.40 100% 0.40 100% 0% 0% 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40

Netherlands Antilles 3.66 3.66 100% 3.66 100% 0% 0% 0.00 3.66 3.66 3.66

* Total Dutch OCT 4.06 4.06 100% 4.06 100% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 4.06 4.06 4.06

French Polynesia 10.10 10.10 100% 10.10 100% 3.29 33% 3.29 33% 0.00 13.39 13.39 13.39

Mayotte 0.85 0.85 100% 0.85 100% 1.18 140% 1.18 140% 0.00 2.03 2.03 2.03

New Caledonia 7.49 7.49 100% 7.45 99% 2.83 38% 2.79 37% 0.00 10.31 10.24 10.24

322

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 3.47 3.47 100% 3.47 100% 0% 0% 0.00 3.47 3.47 3.47

Wallis & Futuna 1.45 1.45 100% 1.45 100% 0% 0% 0.00 1.45 1.45 1.45

* Total French OCT 23.36 23.36 100% 23.32 100% 7.30 31% 7.27 31% 0.00 30.66 30.59 30.59

EDF PTF REGIONAL Projects 4.92 4.92 100% 4.92 100% 0% 0% 0.00 4.92 4.92 4.92

EDF PTN REGIONAL Projects 1.00 1.00 100% 0.46 45% 0% 0% 0.00 1.00 0.46 0.46

EDF PTU REGIONAL Projects 1.64 1.64 100% 0.12 7% 0% 0% 0.00 1.64 0.12 0.12

* Total regional cooperation OCT 7.56 7.56 100% 5.49 73% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 7.56 5.49 5.49

* Total OCT 37.42 37.42 100% 35.32 94% 10.81 29% 10.78 29% 0.00 48.24 46.10 46.10

* Total ACP + OCT 5 057.30 5 057.05 100% 4 977.93 98% 4 765.38 94% 4 738.70 94% 655.81 10 478.24 10 437.16 10 362.73

Table 3.1.2

Situation by instrument and by country (EUR million)

Lomé


annual 2013

Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP

Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP


Payments

Angola 77.11 ( 3.30) ‐4% ( 0.05) 0% 0.00 0% 0.02 0% 0.00 ( 3.30) ( 3.34) ( 0.02)

Benin 111.99 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Botswana 31.27 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 ( 0.04) ( 0.04)

Burkina Faso 171.09 ( 2.71) ‐2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 2.71) ( 0.82) 0.00

Burundi 13.06 0.00 0% 0.00 0% ( 0.02) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.02) 0.00 0.00

Cameroon 102.67 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 ( 0.04) 0.00

Cape Verde 29.68 ( 0.34) ‐1% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.34) ( 0.03) 0.00

Central African Republic 54.86 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 ( 0.06) 0.00

Chad 143.01 ( 4.22) ‐3% ( 0.05) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 4.22) ( 0.45) ( 0.05)

323

Comoros 10.46 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Congo (Brazzaville) 9.50 ( 1.80) ‐19% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 1.80) ( 0.19) 0.00

Democratic Republic of Congo 19.38 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Djibouti 15.68 ( 0.79) ‐5% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.79) 0.00 0.00

Equatorial Guinea 3.63 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eritrea 0.08 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ethiopia 143.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.41 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41

Gabon 37.39 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 ( 0.09) 1.80

Gambia 17.03 0.00 0% 0.00 0% ( 0.04) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.04) 0.00 0.00

Ghana 121.58 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% ( 0.51) ( 0.51) ( 0.26) 0.11

Guinea Bissau 41.89 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% ( 0.75) ( 0.75) ( 0.02) 0.00

Guinea (Conakry) 93.85 ( 0.90) ‐1% 4.73 5% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.90) ( 0.21) 4.73

Ivory Coast 53.19 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kenya 67.00 0.00 0% ( 0.03) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( 0.03)

Lesotho 48.64 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Liberia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Madagascar 161.05 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Malawi 184.23 ( 1.39) ‐1% 0.38 0% 0.00 0% 1.04 1% ( 0.20) ( 1.59) ( 0.54) 1.41

Mali 200.43 ( 0.30) 0% ( 0.07) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.30) ( 0.60) ( 0.07)

Mauritania 57.42 ( 0.26) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% ( 7.91) ( 8.17) 0.00 0.00

Mauritius 30.07 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.02 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

Mozambique 170.67 0.00 0% ( 0.10) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 ( 1.29) ( 0.10)

Namibia 48.93 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Niger 111.35 ( 0.28) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.28) 1.62 5.90

Nigeria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rwanda 94.60 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sao Tome & Principe 8.52 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Senegal 95.01 ( 0.77) ‐1% ( 0.01) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.77) ( 0.06) ( 0.01)

324

Seychelles 5.46 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sierra Leone 64.52 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 ( 0.11) 0.00

Somalia 50.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sudan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Swaziland 21.25 ( 2.23) ‐10% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% ( 0.46) ( 2.68) ( 0.28) ( 0.00)

Tanzania 198.68 ( 0.85) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.85) 0.00 0.00

Togo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uganda 194.01 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Zambia 136.24 ( 0.77) ‐1% ( 0.00) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.77) 0.00 ( 0.00)

Zimbabwe 86.63 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Total Africa 3 336.09 ( 20.90) ‐1% 4.81 0% ( 0.06) 0% 1.49 0% ( 9.82) ( 30.77) 0.00 14.07

Table 3.1.2 (continued)


Lomé


annual 2013

Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP

Decisions % du NIP

Payments % du NIP


Payments

Antigua & Barbuda 0.64 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bahamas 2.20 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barbados 4.47 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Belize 10.36 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dominica 6.47 0% ( 0.00) 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.08

Dominican Republic 94.03 ( 0.14) 0% ( 0.00) 0% 0% 0% ( 0.14) ( 0.00) ( 0.00)

Grenada 0.48 ( 0.09) ‐18% 0% 0% 0% ( 0.09) 0.00 0.00

Guyana 30.32 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 ( 0.49) 0.00

Haiti 63.98 ( 0.17) 0% 0% 0% 0% ( 0.17) ( 0.13) 0.00

325

Jamaica 52.65 ( 0.01) 0% 0% 0% 0% ( 0.01) 0.00 0.00

Saint Kitts & Nevis 2.72 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saint Lucia 1.31 0% 0% 0% 4.34 331% 0.00 0.00 4.34

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 1.68 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Suriname 19.19 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trinidad & Tobago 6.60 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Total Caribbean 297.10 ( 0.42) 0% ( 0.00) 0% 0.00 0% 4.34 1% 0.00 ( 0.42) 0.00 4.42

Fiji 16.91 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kiribati 9.01 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Papua New Guinea 40.51 ( 2.24) ‐6% 0% 0% 0.00 0% ( 6.00) ( 8.24) ( 1.58) 0.01

Solomon Islands 13.86 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tonga 5.03 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.10 2% 0.00 0.00 0.10

Tuvalu 1.90 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0%

Vanuatu 10.23 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0%

Western Samoa 14.07 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0%

* Total Pacific 111.52 ( 2.24) ‐2% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.10 0% ( 6.00) ( 8.24) ( 1.58) 0.11

Caribbean Region 41.64 ( 0.61) ‐1% 0.00 0% 0% 0% ( 0.61) 0.00 0.00

Central Africa Region 77.04 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

East Africa Region 161.91 ( 0.33) 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0% ( 0.33) 0.00 0.00

Indian Ocean Region 11.47 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Intra ACP Allocations 685.00 ( 33.52) ‐5% ( 0.12) 0% 0% 0% ( 33.52) ( 2.50) ( 0.12)

Multiregional PALOP 10.83 0.00 0% ( 0.02) 0% 0% 0% 0.00 ( 0.10) ( 0.02)

Pacific Region 32.73 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

Southern Africa Region 57.20 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00

West Africa Region 197.36 ( 3.81) ‐2% ( 0.22) 0% 0% 0% ( 3.81) ( 1.89) ( 0.22)

* Total regional cooperation ACP 1 275.16 ( 38.28) ‐3% ( 0.36) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 38.28) ( 4.49) ( 0.36)

Administrative and financial expenditure ( 0.92) ( 0.92)

All ACP countries ( 18.99) ( 0.20) ( 18.99) 2.89 ( 0.20)

326

* Total ACP 5 019.88 ( 61.83) ‐1% 4.44 0% ( 19.97) 0% 5.73 2% ( 15.82) ( 97.61) ( 10.61) 18.04

Anguilla 0.80 0% 0% 0% 0%

British Virgin Islands

Montserrat 1.60 0% 0% 0% 0%

Saint Helena 0.06 0% 0% 0% 0%

Turks & Caicos Islands

* Total British OCT 2.45 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Aruba 0.40 0% 0% 0% 0%

Netherlands Antilles 3.66 0% 0% 0% 0%

* Total Dutch OCT 4.06 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

French Polynesia 10.10 0% 0% 0% 0%

Mayotte 0.85 0% 0% 0% 0%

New Caledonia 7.49 0% 0% 0% 0%

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 3.47 0% 0% 0% 0%

Wallis & Futuna 1.45 0% 0% 0% 0%

* Total French OCT 23.36 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EDF PTF REGIONAL Projects 4.92 ( 0.07) ‐1% 0% 0% 0% ( 0.07)

EDF PTN REGIONAL Projects 1.00 0% 0% 0% 0%

EDF PTU REGIONAL Projects 1.64 0% 0% 0% 0%

* Total regional cooperation OCT 7.56 ( 0.07) ‐1% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.07) 0.00 0.00

* Total OCT 37.42 ( 0.07) 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 ( 0.07) 0.00 0.00

* Total ACP + OCT 5 057.30 ( 61.90) ‐1% 4.44 0% ( 19.97) 0% 5.73 0% ( 15.82) ( 97.69) ( 10.61) 18.04

Table 3.1.3


Lomé Cotonou

Total state 8th EDF NIP NON NIP Total Interest Total

327

Grants

NON‐NIP

A Envelope B Envelope Total Decisions cumulative 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital

Stabex Sysmin Structural adjustmen

t

Heavily indebted poor

countries

Angola 77.11 11.18 15.88 27.06 104.16 104.16

Benin 111.99 5.76 1.02 52.76 59.53 171.52 171.52

Botswana 31.27 2.10 0.11 2.21 33.48 3.88 27.56 31.44 64.92

Burkina Faso 171.09 1.01 13.92 1.54 87.60 104.07 275.15 117.83 117.83 392.99

Burundi 13.06 25.00 19.63 9.23 53.86 66.91 66.91

Cameroon 102.67 68.62 17.41 43.99 130.03 232.70 232.70

Cape Verde 29.43 2.58 4.77 0.66 17.98 25.99 55.42 55.42

Central African Republic 54.86 0.40 6.31 22.90 29.61 84.47 84.47

Chad 143.01 2.05 15.55 50.98 68.57 211.58 211.58

Comoros 10.46 0.71 4.94 5.66 16.12 16.12

Congo (Brazzaville) 9.50 3.63 3.63 13.13 13.13

Democratic Republic of Congo

19.38 1.91 21.35 4.69 27.96 47.34 47.34

Djibouti 15.68 2.00 9.00 11.00 26.68 26.68

Equatorial Guinea 3.63 0.79 0.79 4.42 4.42

Eritrea 0.08 9.55 8.37 17.93 18.01 18.01

Ethiopia 143.00 3.36 6.64 66.00 5.25 112.60 193.85 336.85 0.04 0.04 336.89

Gabon 37.39 32.85 0.45 6.60 39.91 77.30 35.00 35.00 112.30

Gambia 17.03 4.49 9.04 13.53 30.56 30.56

Ghana 121.58 17.05 78.57 95.62 217.20 39.49 39.49 256.69

Guinea Bissau 41.89 3.29 0.37 1.41 5.07 46.95 34.25 34.25 81.21

Guinea (Conakry) 93.85 21.36 21.36 115.20 115.20

Ivory Coast 53.19 0.33 82.05 21.70 104.08 157.27 157.27

Kenya 67.00 8.09 4.23 35.86 51.05 17.00 116.23 183.23 183.23

328

Lesotho 48.64 1.10 14.77 15.87 64.51 64.51

Liberia 4.96 19.90 24.86 24.86 24.86

Madagascar 161.05 1.71 45.81 20.81 44.73 113.05 274.10 55.00 55.00 329.10

Malawi 184.23 1.39 10.71 11.43 49.80 73.33 257.56 24.86 24.86 282.42

Mali 200.43 4.66 35.70 79.41 119.77 320.20 320.20

Mauritania 57.42 3.92 0.22 25.78 18.56 0.15 26.92 75.56 132.98 37.09 37.09 170.07

Mauritius 30.07 12.23 12.93 25.16 55.23 55.23

Mozambique 70.67 5.24 93.51 131.21 229.96 400.63 142.03 142.03 542.67

Namibia 48.93 17.36 1.11 4.23 0.20 22.89 71.82 71.82

Niger 111.35 0.28 0.14 39.44 39.86 151.21 0.99 54.58 55.57 206.78

Nigeria 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Rwanda 94.60 25.99 55.40 81.39 175.99 175.99

Sao Tome & Principe 8.52 3.71 3.71 12.23 12.23

Senegal 95.01 4.12 45.94 38.70 0.46 52.68 141.90 236.91 236.91

Seychelles 5.46 1.77 1.77 7.23 7.23

Sierra Leone 64.52 5.39 30.40 35.79 100.30 100.30

Somalia 50.00 ‐ 50.00 50.00

Sudan 19.22 93.05 112.26 112.26 112.26

Swaziland 21.25 8.43 36.76 45.19 66.44 3.54 3.54 69.98

Tanzania 198.68 3.50 102.14 34.81 136.89 277.34 476.02 476.02

Togo 9.71 9.71 9.71 9.71

Uganda 194.01 1.60 92.03 35.57 94.27 223.48 417.48 417.48

Zambia 136.24 3.64 102.56 85.87 90.70 282.78 419.02 419.02

Zimbabwe 86.63 3.25 14.93 0.13 18.30 104.94 104.94

* Total Africa 3

335.84 65.50 75.17 107.60 878.50 504.45 87.50 1 417.74 ‐ 3 136.47 ‐ 6 472.31 382.43 193.72 576.16 7 048.47

329



Lomé Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total Grants A Envelope B Envelope Total Decisions

cumulative 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital

Stabex Sysmin Structural adjustment


countries

Antigua & Barbuda

0.64 ‐ 0.64 ‐ 0.64

Bahamas 2.20 ‐ 2.20 ‐ 2.20

Barbados 4.47 2.71 2.71 7.18 ‐ 7.18

Belize 10.36 8.70 8.70 19.06 0.13 0.13 19.19

Dominica 6.47 2.78 29.10 31.87 38.34 ‐ 38.34

Dominican Republic

94.03 8.85 0.17 30.98 0.34 40.35 134.38 ‐ 134.38

Grenada 0.48 2.85 2.85 3.33 ‐ 3.33

Guyana 30.32 6.61 12.50 10.69 29.80 60.12 ‐ 60.12

Haiti 63.98 3.10 11.70 14.80 78.78 ‐ 78.78

Jamaica 52.65 6.41 27.54 9.48 43.00 86.43 139.09 26.85 26.85 165.93

Saint Kitts & Nevis 2.72 4.00 4.00 6.72 ‐ 6.72

Saint Lucia 1.31 0.84 ‐ 47.85 48.69 50.00 ‐ 50.00

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines

1.68 0.28 32.19 32.47 34.15 ‐ 34.15

Suriname 19.19 0.20 0.20 19.39 ‐ 19.39

Trinidad & Tobago 6.60 0.78 7.00 7.78 14.38 ‐ 14.38

* Total Caribbean 297.10 20.08 0.17 ‐ 87.61 124.56 12.84 65.39 ‐ 310.66 ‐ 607.76 26.98 ‐ 26.98 634.73

Fiji 16.91 0.41 2.00 2.41 19.32 ‐ 19.32

330

Kiribati 9.01 0.50 0.28 0.78 9.79 ‐ 9.79

Papua New Guinea

40.51 0.08 0.65 0.48 9.88 11.08 51.59 44.00 44.00 95.59

Solomon Islands 13.86 74.64 2.18 76.82 90.68 ‐ 90.68

Tonga 5.03 0.47 0.47 5.50 ‐ 5.50

Tuvalu 1.90 0.50 0.00 0.50 2.40 ‐ 2.40

Vanuatu 10.23 0.14 3.00 0.81 1.59 5.54 15.77 5.26 5.26 21.03

Western Samoa 14.07 5.00 0.03 5.03 19.10 3.43 3.43 22.53

* Total Pacific 111.52 ‐ 0.64 ‐ 11.00 76.89 0.48 13.64 ‐ 102.65 ‐ 214.17 8.68 44.00 52.68 266.85

Caribbean Region 41.64 19.68 19.68 61.32 ‐ 61.32

Central Africa Region

77.04 ‐ 77.04 ‐ 77.04

East Africa Region 161.91 ‐ 161.91 ‐ 161.91

Indian Ocean Region

11.47 ‐ 11.47 ‐ 11.47

Intra ACP Allocations

685.00 ‐ 685.00 ‐ 685.00

Multiregional PALOP

10.83 ‐ 10.83 ‐ 10.83

Pacific Region 32.73 ‐ 32.73 ‐ 32.73

Southern Africa Region

57.20 ‐ 57.20 ‐ 57.20

West Africa Region

197.36 1.71 27.10 28.81 226.17 ‐ 226.17

* Total regional cooperation ACP

1 275.16 1.71 ‐ ‐ 46.78 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48.49 ‐ 1 323.66 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

323.66

Administrative and financial expenditure

‐ 34.91 34.91 ‐ 34.91

All ACP countries ( 4.29) 60.27 ( 6.65) ( 4.54) 16.58 ‐ ‐ 1 060.00 1 121.38 1 121.38 ‐ 1

121.38

* Total ACP 5 019.63 83.00 136.25 100.95 1 019.36 722.49 100.82 1 496.78 1 060.00 4 719.65 34.91 9 774.19 418.09 237.72

655.81 10

430.00

Anguilla 0.80 ‐ 0.80 ‐ 0.80

331


0.51 0.51 0.51 ‐ 0.51

Montserrat 1.60 ‐ 1.60 ‐ 1.60

Saint Helena 0.06 ‐ 0.06 ‐ 0.06


3.00 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00

* Total British OCT

2.45 0.51 ‐ ‐ 3.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.51 ‐ 5.97 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.97

Aruba 0.40 ‐ ‐ 0.40 ‐ 0.40

Netherlands Antilles

3.66 ‐ 3.66 ‐ 3.66

* Total Dutch OCT 4.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.06

French Polynesia 10.10 0.29 3.00 3.29 13.39 ‐ 13.39

Mayotte 0.85 1.18 1.18 2.03 ‐ 2.03

New Caledonia 7.49 0.33 2.49 2.83 10.31 ‐ 10.31

Saint Pierre & Miquelon

3.47 ‐ 3.47 ‐ 3.47

Wallis & Futuna 1.45 ‐ 1.45 ‐ 1.45

* Total French OCT

23.36 0.63 ‐ ‐ 3.00 1.18 2.49 ‐ ‐ 7.30 ‐ 30.66 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30.66

EDF PTF Regional Projects

4.92 ‐ 4.92 4.92

EDF PTN Regional Projects

1.00 ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00

EDF PTU Regional Projects

1.64 ‐ 1.64 ‐ 1.64

* Total regional cooperation OCT

7.56 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.56 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.56

* Total OCT 37.42 1.14 ‐ ‐ 6.00 1.18 2.49 ‐ ‐ 10.81 ‐ 48.24 ‐ ‐ ‐ 48.24

* Total ACP + OCT 5 057.05 84.14 136.25 100.95 1 025.36 723.68 103.31 1 496.78 1 060.00 4 730.46 34.91 9 822.43 418.09 237.72 655.81 10

478.24

332


Lomé Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total Grants A Envelope B Envelope Total Decisions

annual 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Angola ( 3.30) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.30) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.30)

Benin ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Botswana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Burkina Faso ( 2.71) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.71) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.71)

Burundi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ ( 0.02) ( 0.02) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.02)

Cameroon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cape Verde ( 0.34) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.34) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.34)

Central African Republic

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Chad ( 4.22) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 4.22) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 4.22)

Comoros ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Congo (Brazzaville)

( 1.80) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.80) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.80)


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Djibouti ( 0.79) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.79) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.79)

Equatorial Guinea

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Eritrea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ethiopia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

333

Gabon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Gambia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04)

Ghana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.51) ( 0.51) ( 0.51)

Guinea Bissau ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.75) ‐ ( 0.75) ( 0.75)

Guinea (Conakry)

( 0.90) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.90) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.90)

Ivory Coast ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Kenya ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Lesotho ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Liberia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Madagascar ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Malawi ( 1.39) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.39) ( 0.20) ‐ ( 0.20) ( 1.59)

Mali ( 0.30) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.30) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.30)

Mauritania ( 0.26) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.26) ‐ ( 7.91) ( 7.91) ( 8.17)

Mauritius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mozambique ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Namibia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Niger ( 0.28) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.28) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.28)

Nigeria ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Rwanda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sao Tome & Principe

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Senegal ( 0.77) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.77) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.77)

Seychelles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sierra Leone ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Somalia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sudan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Swaziland ( 2.23) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.23) ( 0.46) ‐ ( 0.46) ( 2.68)

Tanzania ( 0.85) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.85) ‐ ( 0.85)

334

Togo ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Uganda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Zambia ( 0.77) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.77) ‐ ( 0.77)

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Africa ( 20.90) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ( 20.96) ( 1.40) ( 8.42) ( 9.82) ( 30.77)



Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope B Envelope Total Decisions annual 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Antigua & Barbuda

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Bahamas ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominican Republic

( 0.14) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.14) ‐ ( 0.14)

Grenada ( 0.09) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ( 0.09)

Guyana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Haiti ( 0.17) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.17) ‐ ( 0.17)

Jamaica ( 0.01) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01)

335

Saint Kitts & Nevis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Lucia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Suriname ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Trinidad & Tobago

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Caribbean ( 0.42) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.42) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.42)

Fiji ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Kiribati ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Papua New Guinea

( 2.24) ‐ ( 2.24) ( 6.00) ( 6.00) ( 8.24)

Solomon Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Tonga ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Tuvalu ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Vanuatu ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Western Samoa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Pacific ( 2.24) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.24) ‐ ( 6.00) ( 6.00) ( 8.24)

Caribbean Region ( 0.61) ‐ ( 0.61) ( 0.61)


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

East Africa Region ( 0.33) ‐ ( 0.33) ‐ ( 0.33)

Indian Ocean Region

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


( 33.52) ‐ ( 33.52) ‐ ( 33.52)

Multiregional PALOP

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Pacific Region ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

West Africa Region

( 3.81) ‐ ( 3.81) ‐ ( 3.81)

336


( 38.28) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 38.28) ‐ ( 38.28)


‐ ( 0.92) ( 0.92) ‐ ( 0.92)

All ACP countries ( 1.66) ( 17.35) 0.01 ( 18.99) ( 18.99) ‐ ( 18.99)

* Total ACP ( 61.83) ‐ ‐ ( 1.66) ( 17.35) 0.01 ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ( 19.05) ( 0.92) ( 81.79) ( 1.40) ( 14.42) ( 15.82) ( 97.61)

Anguilla ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Montserrat ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Helena ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total British OCT

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aruba ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Dutch OCT

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

French Polynesia ‐ ‐ ‐

Mayotte ‐ ‐ ‐

New Caledonia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wallis & Futuna ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total French OCT

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

EDF PTF REGIONAL Projects

( 0.07) ‐ ( 0.07) ‐ ( 0.07)

EDF PTN REGIONAL Projects

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

337

EDF PTU REGIONAL Projects

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07)

* Total OCT ( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07)

* Total ACP + OCT

( 61.90) ‐ ‐ ( 1.66) ( 17.35) 0.01 ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ( 19.05) ( 0.92) ( 81.87) ( 1.40) ( 14.42) ( 15.82) ( 97.69)


Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope

B Envelope

Total Assigned funds

cumulative 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Angola 73.77 11.18 15.88 27.06 100.83 ‐ 100.83

Benin 111.99 5.76 1.02 52.76 59.53 171.52 ‐ 171.52

Botswana 31.27 2.10 0.11 2.21 33.48 3.67 27.56 31.24 64.71

Burkina Faso 170.72 1.01 13.92 1.54 87.60 104.07 274.78 117.70 117.70 392.49

Burundi 13.06 25.00 19.63 9.23 53.86 66.91 ‐ 66.91

Cameroon 102.63 68.62 17.41 43.99 130.03 232.66 ‐ 232.66

Cape Verde 29.12 2.58 4.77 0.66 17.98 25.99 55.12 ‐ 55.12


54.69 0.40 6.31 22.90 29.61 84.30 ‐ 84.30

Chad 142.42 2.05 15.55 50.98 68.57 210.99 ‐ 210.99

Comoros 10.46 0.71 4.94 5.66 16.12 ‐ 16.12

Congo (Brazzaville)

9.38 3.63 3.63 13.01 ‐ 13.01

Democratic 18.96 1.91 21.35 4.69 27.96 46.92 ‐ 46.92

338

Republic of Congo

Djibouti 15.68 2.00 9.00 11.00 26.68 ‐ 26.68

Equatorial Guinea

3.26 0.79 0.79 4.05 ‐ 4.05

Eritrea 0.08 9.55 8.37 17.93 18.01 ‐ 18.01

Ethiopia 138.67 3.36 6.64 66.00 5.24 112.60 193.85 332.52 0.04 0.04 332.57

Gabon 37.12 32.85 0.45 6.60 39.91 77.02 34.80 34.80 111.83

Gambia 15.70 4.49 9.04 13.53 29.23 ‐ 29.23

Ghana 121.58 17.05 78.57 95.62 217.20 39.49 39.49 256.69

Guinea Bissau 41.53 3.29 0.37 1.41 5.07 46.60 34.23 34.23 80.83

Guinea (Conakry)

93.74 21.36 21.36 115.10 ‐ 115.10

Ivory Coast 53.16 0.33 82.04 21.67 104.03 157.19 ‐ 157.19

Kenya 63.65 8.09 4.23 35.86 51.05 17.00 116.23 179.89 ‐ 179.89

Lesotho 48.57 1.10 14.77 15.87 64.43 ‐ 64.43

Liberia 4.96 19.90 24.86 24.86 ‐ 24.86

Madagascar 161.05 1.71 45.81 20.81 44.73 113.05 274.10 55.00 55.00 329.10

Malawi 184.23 1.39 10.71 11.42 49.80 73.33 257.56 24.86 24.86 282.41

Mali 198.17 4.66 35.70 79.41 119.77 317.93 ‐ 317.93

Mauritania 57.42 3.92 0.22 25.78 18.56 0.15 26.92 75.55 132.98 37.09 37.09 170.07

Mauritius 30.07 12.23 12.93 25.16 55.23 ‐ 55.23

Mozambique 168.00 5.24 93.51 131.21 229.96 397.96 142.03 142.03 539.99

Namibia 48.93 17.36 1.11 4.23 0.20 22.89 71.82 ‐ 71.82

Niger 111.25 0.28 0.14 39.44 39.86 151.12 0.99 53.68 54.67 205.78

Nigeria 5.00 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00

Rwanda 94.60 25.99 55.40 81.39 175.99 ‐ 175.99

Sao Tome & Principe

8.52 3.71 3.71 12.23 ‐ 12.23

339

Senegal 94.78 4.12 45.94 38.69 0.46 52.68 141.90 236.68 ‐ 236.68

Seychelles 5.46 1.77 1.77 7.23 ‐ 7.23

Sierra Leone 62.32 5.39 30.40 35.79 98.11 ‐ 98.11

Somalia 48.67 ‐ 48.67 ‐ 48.67

Sudan 19.22 92.74 111.96 111.96 ‐ 111.96

Swaziland 21.24 8.43 29.76 38.19 59.43 3.26 3.26 62.69

Tanzania 198.54 3.50 102.14 34.81 136.89 277.34 475.88 ‐ 475.88

Togo 9.71 9.71 9.71 ‐ 9.71

Uganda 194.00 1.60 92.03 35.57 94.27 223.48 417.48 ‐ 417.48

Zambia 136.24 3.64 102.56 86.53 90.70 283.44 419.68 ‐ 419.68

Zimbabwe 86.63 3.25 14.90 0.13 18.28 104.91 ‐ 104.91

* Total Africa 3 311.34 65.50 75.17 107.60 871.50 504.09 88.16 1 417.71 ‐ 3 129.73 ‐ 6 441.07 381.79 192.63 574.41 7 015.48



Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope

B Envelope

Total Assigned funds

cumulative 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Antigua & Barbuda

0.61 ‐ 0.61 ‐ 0.61

Bahamas 2.20 ‐ 2.20 ‐ 2.20

Barbados 3.98 2.71 2.71 6.69 ‐ 6.69

Belize 10.36 8.70 8.70 19.06 0.13 0.13 19.19

Dominica 6.24 2.78 29.10 31.87 38.12 ‐ 38.12

Dominican 94.03 8.85 0.17 30.98 0.34 40.35 134.38 ‐ 134.38

340

Republic

Grenada 0.48 2.84 2.84 3.33 ‐ 3.33

Guyana 28.86 6.61 11.84 10.69 29.14 58.00 ‐ 58.00

Haiti 63.43 3.10 11.70 14.80 78.23 ‐ 78.23

Jamaica 52.65 6.41 27.54 9.48 43.00 86.43 139.09 26.85 26.85 165.93

Saint Kitts & Nevis

2.72 4.00 4.00 6.72 ‐ 6.72

Saint Lucia 1.30 0.84 ‐ 47.74 48.58 49.88 ‐ 49.88


1.66 0.28 32.16 32.44 34.11 ‐ 34.11

Suriname 19.19 0.20 0.20 19.39 ‐ 19.39

Trinidad & Tobago

6.60 0.78 7.00 7.78 14.38 ‐ 14.38

* Total Caribbean

294.32 20.08 0.17 ‐ 87.61 124.42 12.18 65.39 ‐ 309.86 ‐ 604.18 26.98 ‐ 26.98 631.16

Fiji 16.91 0.41 2.00 2.41 19.32 ‐ 19.32

Kiribati 9.01 0.50 0.28 0.78 9.79 ‐ 9.79

Papua New Guinea

40.24 0.08 0.64 0.48 9.88 11.07 51.31 43.54 43.54 94.85

Solomon Islands 13.52 74.64 2.18 76.82 90.34 ‐ 90.34

Tonga 5.03 0.46 0.46 5.49 ‐ 5.49

Tuvalu 1.90 0.50 0.00 0.50 2.40 ‐ 2.40

Vanuatu 10.23 0.14 3.00 0.81 1.59 5.54 15.77 5.22 5.22 20.99

Western Samoa 14.07 5.00 0.03 5.03 19.10 3.43 3.43 22.53

* Total Pacific 110.91 ‐ 0.64 ‐ 11.00 76.88 0.48 13.64 ‐ 102.63 ‐ 213.54 8.65 43.54 52.19 265.73

Caribbean Region

41.61 18.60 18.60 60.21 ‐ 60.21


76.78 ‐ 76.78 ‐ 76.78

East Africa Region

161.91 ‐ 161.91 ‐ 161.91

Indian Ocean 11.47 ‐ 11.47 ‐ 11.47

341

Region


679.54 ‐ 679.54 ‐ 679.54

Multiregional PALOP

10.29 ‐ 10.29 ‐ 10.29

Pacific Region 32.73 ‐ 32.73 ‐ 32.73


57.20 ‐ 57.20 ‐ 57.20

West Africa Region

196.83 1.71 27.10 28.81 225.64 ‐ 225.64

* Total regional cooperation

ACP 1 268.35 1.71 ‐ ‐ 45.70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47.41 ‐ 1 315.76 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 315.76


34.91 34.91 ‐ 34.91

All ACP countries

( 4.49) 60.27 ( 7.29) 2.55 16.99 ‐ ‐ 1 060.00 1 128.02 1 128.02 ‐ 1 128.02

* Total ACP 4 984.91 82.79 136.25 100.31 1 018.36 722.37 100.82 1 496.74 1 060.00 4 717.65 34.91 9 737.48 417.42 236.17 653.58 10 391.06

Anguilla 0.80 ‐ 0.80 ‐ 0.80


0.51 0.51 0.51 ‐ 0.51

Montserrat 1.60 ‐ 1.60 ‐ 1.60

Saint Helena 0.06 ‐ 0.06 ‐ 0.06


3.00 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00

* Total British OCT

2.45 0.51 ‐ ‐ 3.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.51 ‐ 5.97 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.97

Aruba 0.40 ‐ 0.40 ‐ 0.40


3.66 ‐ 3.66 ‐ 3.66

* Total Dutch OCT

4.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.06

French Polynesia

10.10 0.29 3.00 3.29 13.39 ‐ 13.39

Mayotte 0.85 1.18 1.18 2.03 ‐ 2.03

342

New Caledonia 7.45 0.33 2.46 2.79 10.24 ‐ 10.24


3.47 ‐ 3.47 ‐ 3.47

Wallis & Futuna 1.45 ‐ 1.45 ‐ 1.45

* Total French OCT

23.32 0.63 ‐ ‐ 3.00 1.18 2.46 ‐ ‐ 7.27 ‐ 30.59 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30.59


4.92 ‐ 4.92 ‐ 4.92


0.46 ‐ 0.46 ‐ 0.46


0.12 ‐ 0.12 ‐ 0.12


OCT 5.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.49

* Total OCT 35.32 1.14 ‐ ‐ 6.00 1.18 2.46 ‐ ‐ 10.78 ‐ 46.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 46.10

* Total ACP+OCT

5 020.23 83.93 136.25 100.31 1 024.36 723.56 103.28 1 496.74 1 060.00 4 728.43 34.91 9 783.58 417.42 236.17 653.58 10 437.16

Table 3.1.6


Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope

B Envelope

Total Assigned funds annual 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

343

Angola ( 3.34) ‐ ( 3.34) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.34)

Benin ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Botswana ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04)

Burkina Faso ( 0.76) ‐ ( 0.76) ( 0.06) ‐ ( 0.06) ( 0.82)

Burundi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cameroon ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.04) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04)

Cape Verde ( 0.03) ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.03)

Central African Republic ( 0.06) ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.06)

Chad ( 0.45) ‐ ( 0.45) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.45)

Comoros ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Congo (Brazzaville) ( 0.19) ‐ ( 0.19) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.19)


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Djibouti ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Equatorial Guinea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Eritrea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ethiopia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Gabon ( 0.05) ‐ ( 0.05) ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ( 0.09)

Gambia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ghana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.26) ( 0.26) ( 0.26)

Guinea Bissau ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ ( 0.02) ( 0.02)

Guinea (Conakry) ( 0.21) ‐ ( 0.21) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.21)

Ivory Coast ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Kenya ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Lesotho ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Liberia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Madagascar ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00)

344

Malawi ( 0.34) ‐ ( 0.34) ( 0.20) ‐ ( 0.20) ( 0.54)

Mali ( 0.60) ‐ ( 0.60) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.60)

Mauritania ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mauritius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mozambique ( 1.29) ‐ ( 1.29) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.29)

Namibia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Niger ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.62 1.62 1.62

Nigeria ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Rwanda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sao Tome & Principe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Senegal ( 0.06) ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.06)

Seychelles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sierra Leone ( 0.11) ‐ ( 0.11) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.11)

Somalia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sudan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Swaziland ‐ ‐ ( 0.28) ‐ ( 0.28) ( 0.28)

Tanzania ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Togo ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Uganda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Zambia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Africa ( 7.52) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 7.52) ( 0.61) 1.32 0.71 ( 6.81)



Lomé Cotonou Total state

345

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope B Envelope Total Assigned funds annual 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Antigua & Barbuda

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Bahamas ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominican Republic

( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00)

Grenada ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Guyana ( 0.49) ‐ ( 0.49) ‐ ( 0.49)

Haiti ( 0.13) ‐ ( 0.13) ‐ ( 0.13)

Jamaica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Kitts & Nevis

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Lucia ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00)


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Suriname ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Trinidad & Tobago

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Caribbean

( 0.62) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.62) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.62)

Fiji ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Kiribati ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Papua New Guinea

‐ ‐ ( 1.58) ( 1.58) ( 1.58)


346

Tonga ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐




* Total Pacific ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.58) ( 1.58) ( 1.58)

Caribbean Region

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

East Africa Region

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Indian Ocean Region

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


( 2.50) ‐ ( 2.50) ‐ ( 2.50)

Multiregional PALOP

( 0.10) ‐ ( 0.10) ‐ ( 0.10)



‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

West Africa Region

( 1.89) ‐ ( 1.89) ‐ ( 1.89)


ACP ( 4.49) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 4.49) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 4.49)


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

All ACP countries

( 0.16) ( 0.14) 3.19 2.89 2.89 ‐ 2.89

* Total ACP ( 12.63) ( 0.16) ‐ ( 0.14) ‐ 3.19 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.89 ‐ ( 9.74) ( 0.61) ( 0.26) ( 0.87) ( 10.61)



‐ ‐ ‐ ‐



347


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total British OCT

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aruba ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Dutch OCT

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

French Polynesia

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mayotte ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐



‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


* Total French OCT

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00)


OCT ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00)

* Total OCT ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00)

* Total ACP + OCT

( 12.64) ( 0.16) ‐ ( 0.14) ‐ 3.19 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.89 ‐ ( 9.74) ( 0.61) ( 0.26) ( 0.87) ( 10.61)

348

Table 3.1.5


Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope

B Envelope

Total Payments cumulative

2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Angola 71.50 11.18 15.19 26.37 97.88 97.88

Benin 111.99 5.76 0.97 52.76 59.49 171.47 171.47

Botswana 31.27 1.30 0.11 1.40 32.67 3.67 27.56 31.24 63.91

Burkina Faso 170.19 1.01 13.92 1.54 87.60 104.07 274.26 117.66 117.66 391.92

Burundi 13.06 22.50 19.63 9.23 51.36 64.41 64.41

Cameroon 102.40 68.62 17.41 43.99 130.03 232.44 232.44

Cape Verde 29.10 2.58 4.77 0.66 17.98 25.99 55.09 55.09


54.69 0.40 6.31 22.90 29.61 84.30 84.30

Chad 142.42 2.05 15.55 50.98 68.57 210.99 210.99

Comoros 10.46 0.71 4.89 5.60 16.07 16.07

Congo (Brazzaville)

9.12 3.63 3.63 12.75 12.75


18.96 1.91 21.00 4.69 27.61 46.57 46.57

Djibouti 15.68 2.00 9.00 11.00 26.68 26.68

Equatorial Guinea

3.15 0.79 0.79 3.95 3.95

Eritrea 0.08 9.55 8.37 17.93 18.01 18.01

Ethiopia 136.85 3.36 5.66 57.15 5.76 112.60 184.54 321.39 0.04 0.04 321.43

Gabon 37.10 32.85 0.45 6.60 39.91 77.01 32.78 32.78 109.79

349

Gambia 15.70 4.49 9.04 13.53 29.23 29.23

Ghana 121.58 17.05 78.57 95.62 217.20 39.49 39.49 256.69

Guinea Bissau 40.85 3.29 0.37 1.41 5.07 45.92 34.23 34.23 80.15

Guinea (Conakry)

93.74 21.36 21.36 115.10 115.10

Ivory Coast 53.16 0.33 80.86 21.67 102.86 156.01 156.01

Kenya 62.80 8.09 4.23 35.86 51.05 17.00 116.23 179.03 179.03

Lesotho 48.40 1.10 14.77 15.87 64.27 64.27

Liberia 4.96 19.13 24.09 24.09 24.09

Madagascar 161.05 1.71 45.81 20.81 44.73 113.05 274.10 55.00 55.00 329.10

Malawi 183.87 1.39 10.71 11.57 49.80 73.47 257.34 24.86 24.86 282.20

Mali 198.17 4.66 35.70 79.41 119.77 317.93 317.93

Mauritania 57.42 3.92 0.22 25.78 19.00 0.15 26.92 76.00 133.42 36.32 36.32 169.73

Mauritius 30.07 1.50 9.23 10.73 40.80 40.80

Mozambique 167.51 5.24 93.51 131.21 229.96 397.47 142.03 142.03 539.50

Namibia 48.93 17.36 1.11 4.23 0.20 22.89 71.82 71.82

Niger 111.25 0.28 0.14 39.44 39.86 151.12 0.99 49.39 50.38 201.49

Nigeria 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Rwanda 94.60 25.99 55.40 81.39 175.99 175.99

Sao Tome & Principe

8.52 3.71 3.71 12.23 12.23

Senegal 94.78 4.12 45.94 38.69 0.46 52.68 141.90 236.68 236.68

Seychelles 5.46 1.77 1.77 7.23 7.23

Sierra Leone 62.16 5.39 30.40 35.79 97.94 97.94

Somalia 48.29 ‐ 48.29 48.29

Sudan 19.22 105.05 124.27 124.27 124.27

Swaziland 21.24 4.96 28.01 32.97 54.21 3.26 3.26 57.47

Tanzania 189.89 3.50 102.14 34.81 136.89 277.34 467.23 467.23

350

Togo 9.71 9.71 9.71 9.71

Uganda 194.00 1.60 92.03 35.32 94.27 223.23 417.23 417.23

Zambia 136.24 3.64 102.56 86.56 90.70 283.46 419.70 419.70

Zimbabwe 86.63 3.25 15.31 0.13 18.69 105.32 105.32

* Total Africa 3 294.35 50.49 75.17 102.32 857.20 516.40 88.18 1 417.71 ‐ 3 107.47 ‐ 6 401.82 381.74 185.53 567.28 6 969.09



Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope

B Envelope

Total Payments cumulative

2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Antigua & Barbuda

0.50 ‐ 0.50 ‐ 0.50

Bahamas 2.20 ‐ 2.20 2.20

Barbados 3.51 2.71 2.71 6.22 6.22

Belize 10.36 7.54 7.54 17.90 0.13 0.13 18.03

Dominica 6.24 2.78 29.18 31.96 38.20 38.20

Dominican Republic

94.03 0.88 0.17 30.98 0.34 32.38 126.40 126.40

Grenada 0.48 2.89 2.89 3.38 3.38

Guyana 28.82 5.11 11.82 10.69 27.62 56.44 56.44

Haiti 62.80 3.10 11.70 14.80 77.60 77.60

Jamaica 52.65 6.41 27.54 9.48 43.00 86.43 139.09 26.85 26.85 165.93

Saint Kitts & 2.72 4.00 4.00 6.72 6.72

351

Nevis

Saint Lucia 1.26 0.43 49.78 50.21 51.48 51.48


1.60 0.28 32.53 32.81 34.41 34.41

Suriname 19.19 0.20 0.20 19.39 19.39

Trinidad & Tobago

6.60 0.78 4.00 4.78 11.38 11.38

* Total Caribbean

292.97 11.70 0.17 ‐ 81.95 126.95 12.16 65.39 ‐ 298.33 ‐ 591.30 26.98 ‐ 26.98 618.27

Fiji 16.91 0.41 2.00 2.41 19.32 19.32

Kiribati 9.01 0.50 0.28 0.78 9.79 9.79

Papua New Guinea

39.49 0.08 0.74 0.48 9.88 11.17 50.65 43.20 43.20 93.86

Solomon Islands 13.52 74.64 2.18 76.82 90.34 90.34

Tonga 5.03 0.47 0.47 5.50 5.50

Tuvalu 1.90 0.50 0.00 0.50 2.40 2.40

Vanuatu 10.23 0.14 3.00 0.81 1.59 5.54 15.77 5.22 5.22 20.99

Western Samoa 14.07 5.00 0.03 5.03 19.10 3.43 3.43 22.53

* Total Pacific 110.16 ‐ 0.64 11.00 76.98 0.48 13.64 102.74 212.89 8.64 43.20 51.85 264.74

Caribbean Region

40.16 13.79 13.79 53.95 53.95


76.78 ‐ 76.78 76.78

East Africa Region

158.91 ‐ 158.91 158.91

Indian Ocean Region

11.47 ‐ 11.47 11.47


663.23 ‐ 663.23 663.23

Multiregional PALOP

10.20 ‐ 10.20 10.20

Pacific Region 32.73 ‐ 32.73 32.73


57.20 ‐ 57.20 57.20

352

West Africa Region

194.46 1.71 27.10 28.81 223.27 223.27


ACP 1 245.14 1.71 ‐ ‐ 40.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42.60 ‐ 1 287.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 287.73


34.91 34.91 34.91

All ACP countries

4.66 60.27 ( 2.75) 20.46 ( 0.77) ‐ ‐ 1 060.00 1 141.87 1 141.87 1 141.87

* Total ACP 4 942.61 68.57 136.25 99.57 1 011.49 719.57 100.82 1 496.74 1 060.00 4 693.00 34.91 9 670.53 417.36 228.74 646.10 10 316.63

Anguilla 0.80 0.80 0.80


0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

Montserrat 1.60 1.60 1.60

Saint Helena 0.06 0.06 0.06


3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

* Total British OCT

2.45 0.51 ‐ ‐ 3.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.51 ‐ 5.97 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.97

Aruba 0.40 0.40 0.40


3.66 3.66 3.66

* Total Dutch OCT

4.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.06

French Polynesia

10.10 0.29 3.00 3.29 13.39 13.39

Mayotte 0.85 1.18 1.18 2.03 2.03

New Caledonia 7.45 0.33 2.46 2.79 10.24 10.24


3.47 3.47 3.47

Wallis & Futuna 1.45 1.45 1.45

* Total French OCT

23.32 0.63 ‐ ‐ 3.00 1.18 2.46 ‐ ‐ 7.27 ‐ 30.59 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30.59


4.92 4.92 4.92

353


0.46 0.46 0.46


0.12 0.12 0.12


OCT 5.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.49 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.49

* Total OCT 35.32 1.14 ‐ ‐ 6.00 1.18 2.46 ‐ ‐ 10.78 ‐ 46.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 46.10

* Total ACP + OCT

4 977.93 69.71 136.25 99.57 1 017.49 720.75 103.28 1 496.74 1 060.00 4 703.78 34.91 9 716.62 417.36 228.74 646.10 10 362.73


Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total

Grants

A Envelope B Envelope Total Payments annual 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Angola ( 0.05) ‐ ‐ 0.02 ‐ ‐ 0.02 ( 0.02) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.02)

Benin ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Botswana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04)

Burkina Faso ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Burundi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cameroon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cape Verde ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Chad ( 0.05) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.05) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.05)

354

Comoros ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Congo (Brazzaville)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Djibouti ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Equatorial Guinea

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Eritrea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ethiopia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.41 0.41 0.41 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.41

Gabon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.80 1.80 1.80

Gambia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ghana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.11 0.11 0.11

Guinea Bissau ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Guinea (Conakry)

4.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.73

Ivory Coast ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Kenya ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.03)

Lesotho 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00

Liberia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Madagascar ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Malawi 0.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.04 1.04 1.42 ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01) 1.41

Mali ( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07)

Mauritania ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mauritius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.02 ‐ 0.02 0.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.02

Mozambique ( 0.10) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.10) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.10)

Namibia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Niger ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.90 5.90 5.90

Nigeria ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

355

Rwanda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sao Tome & Principe

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Senegal ( 0.01) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.01) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.01)

Seychelles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sierra Leone ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Somalia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sudan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Swaziland ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) ( 0.00)

Tanzania ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Togo ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Uganda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Zambia ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00)

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Africa 4.81 ‐ ‐ 0.02 0.02 1.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.49 ‐ 6.30 ( 0.05) 7.82 7.77 14.07



Lomé

Cotonou

Total state

8th EDF NIP NON NIP

Total NON‐NIP

Interest Total Grants

A Envelope

B Envelope

Total Payments annual 2013

Interest‐rate

subsidies

Emergency Aid

Aid for refugees

Risk capital



countries

Antigua & Barbuda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

356

Bahamas ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominica ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.08 0.08 0.08 ‐ 0.08

Dominican Republic ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00)

Grenada ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Guyana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Haiti ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Jamaica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Kitts & Nevis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Lucia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.34 4.34 4.34 ‐ 4.34


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Suriname ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Trinidad & Tobago ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Caribbean ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.43 ‐ 4.42 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.42

Fiji ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Papua New Guinea ‐ ‐ 0.01 0.01 0.01


Tonga 0.10 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10




* Total Pacific ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.10 ‐ 0.10 ‐ 0.01 0.01 0.11

Caribbean Region ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Central Africa Region ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

357

East Africa Region ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Indian Ocean Region ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Intra ACP Allocations ( 0.12) ‐ ( 0.12) ‐ ( 0.12)

Multiregional PALOP ( 0.02) ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ ( 0.02)


Southern Africa Region ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

West Africa Region ( 0.22) ‐ ( 0.22) ‐ ( 0.22)


( 0.36) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.36) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.36)


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

All ACP countries ( 0.12) ‐ ( 0.09) ( 0.20) ( 0.20) ‐ ( 0.20)

* Total ACP 4.44 ‐ ‐ ( 0.09) 0.02 5.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.81 ‐ 10.25 ( 0.05) 7.83 7.78 18.04


British Virgin Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐



Turks & Caicos Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total British OCT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Aruba ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Netherlands Antilles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Dutch OCT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

French Polynesia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mayotte ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Saint Pierre & Miquelon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


* Total French OCT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

358


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total OCT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total ACP + OCT 4.44 ‐ ‐ ( 0.09) 0.02 5.89 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.81 ‐ 10.25 ( 0.05) 7.83 7.78 18.04

Table 3.2.1

Overall situation by state (EUR million)

Cotonou

Total 9th EDF cumulative NIP A Envelope B Envelope

2013

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP

Decisions Assigned funds Payments

Angola 97.50 96.49 99% 88.32 91% 25.51 26% 24.96 26% 135.20 128.34 124.88

Benin 303.97 302.12 99% 300.71 99% 1.05 0% 1.05 0% 303.53 302.21 301.99

Botswana 52.07 52.07 100% 50.12 96% 8.06 15% 8.06 15% 60.13 59.19 58.18

Burkina Faso 338.20 338.20 100% 332.98 98% 0% 0% 347.30 345.08 341.82

Burundi 212.43 212.43 100% 204.52 96% 50.92 24% 50.22 24% 329.28 325.56 319.63

Cameroon 161.78 161.78 100% 155.35 96% 7.23 4% 6.78 4% 169.01 166.95 162.13

Cape Verde 47.29 47.29 100% 44.18 93% 5.50 12% 5.50 12% 53.68 51.78 50.04

Central African Republic 108.98 108.98 100% 102.27 94% 9.06 8% 9.06 8% 118.05 115.37 111.33

Chad 198.22 198.22 100% 184.57 93% 16.77 8% 16.41 8% 216.25 208.18 202.05

Comoros 31.53 31.53 100% 25.74 82% 5.80 18% 5.80 18% 37.33 35.80 31.53

Congo (Brazzaville) 112.51 112.51 100% 110.51 98% 6.36 6% 6.14 5% 133.41 131.69 131.19

359

Democratic Republic of Congo 412.24 412.24 100% 404.38 98% 98.49 24% 97.24 24% 566.48 561.18 556.46

Djibouti 40.39 40.25 100% 34.73 86% 0% 0% 40.25 37.87 34.73

Equatorial Guinea 8.99 8.99 100% 6.21 69% 0% 0% 8.99 6.57 6.21

Eritrea 81.80 81.80 100% 74.68 91% 0.46 1% 0.46 1% 82.25 81.69 75.13

Ethiopia 531.51 531.51 100% 513.06 97% 43.62 8% 43.61 8% 604.63 600.81 586.18

Gabon 34.35 34.35 100% 25.35 74% 1.10 3% 1.01 3% 35.56 32.22 26.47

Gambia 51.70 51.70 100% 47.70 92% 1.80 3% 1.23 2% 56.10 54.51 51.51

Ghana 289.77 288.34 100% 276.19 95% 1.67 1% 1.67 1% 291.48 290.68 279.33

Guinea Bissau 58.96 58.96 100% 48.53 82% 3.20 5% 3.20 5% 62.44 53.95 52.01

Guinea (Conakry) 88.76 88.76 100% 88.00 99% 28.38 32% 24.39 27% 151.36 149.92 146.61

Ivory Coast 4.86 4.86 100% 4.86 100% 200.07 4114% 193.57 3981% 204.93 201.72 198.43

Kenya 260.47 260.47 100% 242.90 93% 26.21 10% 20.13 8% 296.53 281.39 271.51

Lesotho 103.56 103.56 100% 92.27 89% 0% 0% 104.13 97.86 92.84

Liberia 99.74 99.74 100% 88.35 89% 23.74 24% 23.70 24% 123.49 115.93 112.04

Madagascar 379.53 379.53 100% 374.47 99% 6.25 2% 6.25 2% 385.78 382.03 380.72

Malawi 220.90 219.00 99% 216.30 98% 20.36 9% 20.36 9% 245.58 243.37 242.81

Mali 413.73 413.73 100% 406.52 98% 42.09 10% 40.82 10% 458.33 451.07 449.85

Mauritania 119.01 119.01 100% 108.26 91% 27.26 23% 27.26 23% 146.58 139.88 135.83

Mauritius 62.41 62.41 100% 62.41 100% 0.67 1% 0.67 1% 63.16 63.16 63.16

Mozambique 417.56 417.56 100% 400.56 96% 3.38 1% 3.38 1% 429.30 421.56 412.11

Namibia 93.41 93.41 100% 92.89 99% 0.61 1% 0.61 1% 94.01 93.60 93.49

Niger 343.81 343.81 100% 338.08 98% 13.03 4% 13.03 4% 356.84 352.17 351.11

Nigeria 440.21 440.21 100% 383.45 87% 0% 0% 544.59 519.83 484.38

Rwanda 216.81 216.81 100% 215.03 99% 0% 0% 218.68 216.99 216.89

Sao Tome & Principe 12.85 12.85 100% 12.20 95% 2.00 16% 1.87 15% 14.85 14.23 14.06

Senegal 271.72 271.72 100% 262.29 97% 10.97 4% 10.48 4% 283.38 275.91 273.46

Seychelles 4.48 4.48 100% 4.10 92% 0.70 16% 0.70 16% 5.18 4.99 4.80

Sierra Leone 177.41 177.41 100% 160.40 90% 56.08 32% 52.79 30% 256.79 236.01 233.38

Somalia 180.30 180.30 100% 179.61 100% 0% 0% 180.30 180.18 179.61

360

South Sudan 266.66 266.66 100% 15.87 6% 0% 0% 266.66 56.79 15.87

Sudan 125.90 236.24 188% 134.34 107% 78.67 62% 78.04 62% 421.94 346.43 319.40

Swaziland 34.71 34.71 100% 29.93 86% 0% 0% 35.94 33.15 30.87

Tanzania 383.80 383.80 100% 382.42 100% 4.55 1% 4.55 1% 388.38 387.80 387.01

Togo 18.54 18.54 100% 17.58 95% 39.89 215% 38.30 207% 77.14 73.35 72.04

Uganda 254.00 254.00 100% 250.07 98% 36.75 14% 36.74 14% 297.14 294.76 292.99

Zambia 349.10 349.10 100% 328.69 94% 18.94 5% 18.94 5% 368.31 363.04 347.91

Zimbabwe 32.06 32.06 100% 28.77 90% 24.30 76% 22.79 71% 56.63 53.19 51.82

* Total Africa 8 550.47 8 654.48 101% 7 950.69 93% 951.47 11% 921.75 11% 10 127.26 9 639.92 9 377.82


Overall situation by state (EUR million)

Cotonou

Total 9th EDF cumulative NIP A Envelope B Envelope

2013

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP


Antigua & Barbuda 6.20 6.20 100% 4.99 81% 0% 0% 6.20 5.79 4.99

Bahamas 5.28 5.28 100% 5.22 99% ‐ 0% 0% 5.28 5.22 5.22

Barbados 11.68 11.68 100% 10.47 90% 0% 0% 11.68 11.66 10.47

Belize 7.62 7.62 100% 7.11 93% 0.64 8% 0.64 8% 8.26 7.77 7.75

Dominica 10.47 10.47 100% 10.14 97% 4.38 42% 4.38 42% 14.85 14.59 14.52

Dominican Republic 109.58 109.58 100% 109.58 100% 36.13 33% 34.43 31% 145.71 144.89 144.01

Grenada 19.00 19.00 100% 18.85 99% 7.57 40% 5.88 31% 26.57 26.42 24.73

Guyana 43.81 43.81 100% 41.38 94% 9.09 21% 9.09 21% 52.90 52.64 50.47

Haiti 112.79 112.67 100% 104.41 93% 166.77 148% 157.68 140% 279.44 273.17 262.09

Jamaica 38.29 38.29 100% 34.99 91% 28.01 73% 28.01 73% 149.38 147.12 132.08

361

Saint Kitts & Nevis 4.47 4.47 100% 4.47 100% 0% 0% 4.47 4.47 4.47

Saint Lucia 18.04 18.04 100% 16.68 92% 4.68 26% 4.41 24% 22.72 22.30 21.08

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 13.02 13.02 100% 12.14 93% 4.40 34% 3.96 30% 17.42 17.40 16.10

Suriname 43.29 43.29 100% 43.17 100% 0.69 2% 0.69 2% 44.08 44.02 43.97

Trinidad & Tobago 31.33 31.33 100% 31.33 100% 0% 0% 37.33 37.33 37.33

* Total Caribbean 474.86 474.74 100% 454.94 96% 262.36 55% 249.17 52% 826.29 814.81 779.29

Cook Islands 2.73 2.73 100% 2.73 100% 0.60 22% 0.60 22% 3.33 3.33 3.33

East Timor 17.31 17.31 100% 16.36 94% 0% 0% 17.31 16.99 16.36

Fiji 22.22 22.22 100% 21.61 97% 2.10 9% 2.00 9% 24.92 24.15 24.10

Kiribati 8.80 8.80 100% 8.31 94% 2.20 25% 2.08 24% 11.35 10.96 10.74

Marshall Islands 3.43 3.43 100% 3.21 94% 1.10 32% 1.09 32% 4.53 4.31 4.31

Micronesia 4.70 4.70 100% 4.37 93% 1.40 30% 1.36 29% 6.10 5.76 5.73

Nauru 1.80 1.80 100% 1.67 93% 0.50 28% 0.49 27% 2.30 2.29 2.16

Niue 2.00 2.00 100% 1.81 90% 0.60 30% 0.60 30% 2.60 2.41 2.41

Palau 2.00 2.00 100% 1.80 90% 0.60 30% 0.58 29% 2.60 2.44 2.38

Papua New Guinea 74.07 74.07 100% 59.74 81% 25.94 35% 12.36 17% 103.40 92.26 75.34

Solomon Islands 14.21 14.21 100% 10.70 75% 7.80 55% 3.92 28% 22.45 19.60 15.03

Tonga 5.17 5.17 100% 5.17 100% 1.88 36% 1.85 36% 7.06 7.05 7.03

Tuvalu 4.13 4.13 100% 4.13 100% 0.70 17% 0.68 16% 5.03 5.03 5.01

Vanuatu 14.89 14.89 100% 13.36 90% 3.19 21% 3.18 21% 18.08 17.55 16.53

Western Samoa 21.80 21.80 100% 21.64 99% 2.10 10% 2.00 9% 23.90 23.70 23.64

* Total Pacific 199.27 199.27 100% 176.60 89% 50.71 25% 32.80 16% 254.96 237.84 214.09

Caribbean Region 104.89 104.89 100% 98.01 93% 34.48 33% 34.26 33% 139.36 137.41 132.27

Central Africa Region 62.37 62.37 100% 47.96 77% 16.14 26% 14.50 23% 78.51 69.17 62.47

Eastern, Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean

283.95 280.51 99% 231.29 81% 46.07 16% 41.58 15% 326.57 314.91 272.88

Multiregional PALOP 23.19 23.19 100% 16.67 72% 0% 0% 23.19 20.12 16.67

Pacific Region 39.78 39.78 100% 38.86 98% 0% 0% 39.78 39.08 38.86

Regional cooperation ACP 2 743.96 2 742.28 100% 2 516.24 92% 112.08 4% 103.85 4% 2 949.22 2 861.56 2 699.33

Southern Africa Region 97.23 97.23 100% 89.22 92% 17.29 18% 16.96 17% 114.52 109.58 106.18

362

West Africa Region 247.32 247.32 100% 172.75 70% 31.10 13% 27.99 11% 278.41 249.06 200.73

* Total regional cooperation ACP 3 602.68 3 597.56 100% 3 211.00 89% 257.15 7% 239.15 7% 3 949.57 3 800.91 3 529.39


435.75 433.80 423.19

All ACP countries 157.90 157.90 100% 153.90 97% 0% 0% 188.76 184.67 184.66

* Total ACP 12 985.18 13 083.96 101% 11 947.13 92% 1 521.70 12% 1 442.87 11% 15 782.58 15 111.94 14 508.44

Anguilla 12.24 12.24 100% 12.16 99% 0% 0% 12.24 12.16 12.16

British Virgin Islands 0.92 0.92 100% 0.72 78% 0% 0% 0.92 0.91 0.72

Cayman Islands 4.47 4.47 4.47 4.47 4.47

Falkland Islands 4.52 4.52 100% 4.52 100% 0% 0% 4.52 4.52 4.52

Montserrat 23.08 23.08 100% 20.38 88% 0% 0% 23.08 23.05 20.38

Pitcairn Islands 2.35 2.35 100% 2.35 100% 0% 0% 2.35 2.35 2.35

Saint Helena 17.94 17.94 100% 17.82 99% 0% 0% 17.94 17.82 17.82

Turks & Caicos Islands 13.88 13.88 100% 13.88 100% 0% 0% 13.88 13.88 13.88

* Total British OCT 74.94 74.94 100% 71.83 96% 4.47 6% 4.47 6% 79.41 79.16 76.30

Aruba 10.34 10.34 100% 10.28 99% 0% 0% 10.40 10.34 10.34

Netherlands Antilles 50.47 50.47 100% 49.65 98% 0% 0% 52.60 51.84 51.78

* Total Dutch OCT 60.81 60.81 100% 59.93 99% 0% 0% 63.00 62.18 62.12

French Polynesia 20.93 20.93 100% 19.31 92% 0% 0% 20.97 20.22 19.35

Mayotte 24.24 24.24 100% 19.75 82% 0% 0% 24.24 21.97 19.75

New Caledonia 28.75 28.75 100% 28.75 100% 0% 0% 29.65 29.64 29.64

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 18.94 18.94 100% 18.88 100% 0% 0% 18.94 18.88 18.88

Wallis & Futuna 16.86 16.86 100% 15.74 93% 0% 0% 16.86 16.82 15.74

* Total French OCT 109.71 109.71 100% 102.43 93% 0% 0% 110.66 107.52 103.37

Regional cooperation OCT 47.94 47.94 100% 44.42 93% 0% 0% 47.97 46.48 44.45

* Total regional cooperation OCT 47.94 47.94 100% 44.42 93% 0% 0% 47.97 46.48 44.45

All OCT countries 0.73 0.73 0.73

* Total OCT 293.40 293.40 100% 278.61 95% 4.47 2% 4.47 2% 301.77 296.06 286.96

363

* Total ACP + OCT 13 278.58 13 377.36 101% 12 225.75 92% 1 526.17 11% 1 447.33 11% 16 084.35 15 408.00 14 795.40

Table 3.2.2

Overall situation by instrument state (EUR million)

Cotonou

TOTAL 9th EDF annual NIP A Envelope B Envelope

2013

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP


Angola 97.50 ( 20.45) ‐21% ( 1.51) ‐2% ‐ 0% 0.05 0% ( 20.55) ( 6.48) ( 1.46)

Benin 303.97 ( 5.13) ‐2% 0.33 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 5.13) ( 1.96) 0.33

Botswana 52.07 ‐ 0% 0.22 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.14) 0.22

Burkina Faso 338.20 ( 5.41) ‐2% 0.01 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 6.25) ( 1.88) 0.01

Burundi 212.43 ( 0.11) 0% 5.09 2% ( 1.49) ‐1% ( 0.08) 0% ( 1.61) ( 0.36) 5.01

Cameroon 161.78 ( 4.49) ‐3% 1.03 1% ( 0.97) ‐1% 0.22 0% ( 5.46) ( 1.01) 1.25

Cape Verde 47.29 ( 0.00) 0% 1.57 3% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.00) ( 0.22) 1.57

Central African Republic 108.98 ‐ 0% 2.31 2% ( 0.06) 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.06) ( 0.65) 2.31

Chad 198.22 ( 3.52) ‐2% 2.50 1% ‐ 0% 0.39 0% ( 3.52) ( 1.87) 2.89

Comoros 31.53 ( 0.20) ‐1% 0.10 0% ( 0.40) ‐1% ‐ 0% ( 0.60) ( 0.30) 0.10

Congo (Brazzaville) 112.51 ( 1.51) ‐1% 0.09 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 1.52) ( 1.62) 0.09

Democratic Republic of Congo 412.24 ( 3.31) ‐1% 4.83 1% ‐ 0% 1.04 0% ( 5.43) ( 1.31) 5.90

Djibouti 40.39 ( 0.14) 0% 6.26 16% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.14) ( 0.12) 6.26

Equatorial Guinea 8.99 ‐ 0% ( 0.02) 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.88) ( 0.02)

Eritrea 81.80 ( 0.65) ‐1% ( 0.25) 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.65) ( 0.13) ( 0.25)

Ethiopia 531.51 ‐ 0% ( 0.19) 0% ( 1.17) 0% 0.01 0% ( 1.64) ( 2.22) ( 0.18)

Gabon 34.35 ‐ 0% 1.30 4% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.07) 1.30

Gambia 51.70 ( 1.01) ‐2% 0.82 2% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 1.01) ( 0.07) 0.82

364

Ghana 289.77 ( 9.81) ‐3% 5.19 2% ( 1.13) 0% ‐ 0% ( 10.93) ( 2.36) 5.19

Guinea Bissau 58.96 ( 0.67) ‐1% 0.81 1% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.67) ( 0.42) 0.81

Guinea (Conakry) 88.76 ( 0.64) ‐1% 1.77 2% ( 0.03) 0% 1.54 2% ( 2.61) ( 2.58) 3.31

Ivory Coast 4.86 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 1.80) ‐37% 3.80 78% ( 1.80) ( 0.34) 3.80

Kenya 260.47 ( 3.47) ‐1% 11.29 4% ‐ 0% ( 0.01) 0% ( 3.47) ( 1.22) 11.28

Lesotho 103.56 ( 0.09) 0% 2.68 3% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.12) 0.29 2.68

Liberia 99.74 ‐ 0% 0.71 1% ‐ 0% ( 0.04) 0% ‐ ( 2.19) 0.67

Madagascar 379.53 ( 12.43) ‐3% 0.61 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 12.43) ( 2.10) 0.61

Malawi 220.90 ( 12.38) ‐6% 1.22 1% ( 0.43) 0% ( 0.18) 0% ( 13.05) ( 6.23) 1.03

Mali 413.73 ( 0.20) 0% ( 0.21) 0% ‐ 0% 0.13 0% ( 0.20) ( 0.20) ( 0.08)

Mauritania 119.01 ( 1.57) ‐1% 2.31 2% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 1.57) ( 1.01) 2.31

Mauritius 62.41 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ ‐

Mozambique 417.56 ( 1.02) 0% 1.21 0% ( 0.12) 0% 0.01 0% ( 1.32) ( 1.87) 1.22

Namibia 93.41 ‐ 0% 0.01 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.04) 0.01

Niger 343.81 ( 3.12) ‐1% ( 0.73) 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 3.12) ( 2.64) ( 0.73)

Nigeria 440.21 ( 15.43) ‐4% 5.26 1% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 30.44) ( 7.47) 5.12

Rwanda 216.81 ( 0.28) 0% 0.41 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.28) ( 0.46) 0.41

Sao Tome & Principe 12.85 ‐ 0% 0.65 5% ‐ 0% 0.05 0% ‐ 0.05 0.70

Senegal 271.72 ( 12.37) ‐5% 3.43 1% ( 0.63) 0% ‐ 0% ( 13.00) ( 4.64) 3.43

Seychelles 4.48 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.01) ‐

Sierra Leone 177.41 ( 3.13) ‐2% ( 0.10) 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.29) 0% ( 3.51) ( 5.09) ( 0.38)

Somalia 180.30 ( 6.31) ‐3% 2.24 1% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 6.31) ( 0.65) 2.24

South Sudan 266.66 189.00 71% 12.86 5% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 189.00 30.65 12.86

Sudan 125.90 36.00 29% 8.12 6% ( 0.71) ‐1% ( 0.10) 0% 35.29 19.84 8.02

Swaziland 34.71 ( 1.72) ‐5% 0.00 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 1.72) ( 0.85) 0.00

Tanzania 383.80 ( 2.86) ‐1% 4.15 1% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 2.86) 0.05 4.15

Togo 18.54 ( 2.06) ‐11% 0.80 4% ( 1.71) ‐9% 1.50 8% ( 3.77) ( 1.68) 2.29

Uganda 254.00 ( 4.23) ‐2% ( 0.00) 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 4.23) ( 0.31) ( 0.00)

Zambia 349.10 ( 4.05) ‐1% 1.12 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 4.05) ( 0.93) 1.12

365

Zimbabwe 32.06 ( 0.13) 0% ( 0.54) ‐2% ‐ 0% ( 0.01) 0% ( 0.13) ( 2.47) ( 0.55)

* Total Africa 8 550.47 81.11 1% 89.75 1% ( 10.64) 0% 8.03 0% 49.13 ( 18.18) 97.67


Overall situation by instrument state (EUR million)

Cotonou

TOTAL 9th EDF annual NIP A Envelope B Envelope

2013

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP

Decisions % of NIP

Payments % of NIP

Antigua & Barbuda 6.20 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bahamas 5.28 ( 1.30) ‐25% 0.04 1% 0% 0% ( 1.30) 0.04 0.04

Barbados 11.68 0% 0% 0% 0% ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize 7.62 ( 0.13) ‐2% 0% ( 0.36) ‐5% 0% ( 0.48) ( 0.17) ‐

Dominica 10.47 0% 0.13 1% ‐ 0% 0% ‐ ( 0.01) 0.13

Dominican Republic 109.58 ( 1.79) ‐2% 0.00 0% ‐ 0% 0.02 0% ( 1.79) ( 0.39) 0.46

Grenada 19.00 ( 0.27) ‐1% 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.27) ( 0.16) ‐

Guyana 43.81 ( 6.84) ‐16% 0.03 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 6.84) ‐ 0.03

Haiti 112.79 ( 0.12) 0% 0.87 1% ( 0.29) 0% ( 1.68) ‐1% ( 0.42) ( 1.98) 1.46

Jamaica 38.29 ( 12.18) ‐32% 0.27 1% ( 0.01) 0% ( 0.01) 0% ( 12.25) ( 1.08) 0.27

Saint Kitts & Nevis 4.47 ( 0.47) ‐10% 0.01 0% 0% 0% ( 0.47) ‐ 0.01

Saint Lucia 18.04 ‐ 0% 0.18 1% 0% 0% ‐ ‐ 3.19

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 13.02 ( 0.50) ‐4% 0.97 7% 0% 0% ( 0.50) ( 0.04) 1.00

Suriname 43.29 ( 1.00) ‐2% 0.02 0% 0% 0% ( 1.00) ( 0.27) 0.02

Trinidad & Tobago 31.33 ‐ 0% 0% 0% 0% ‐ ‐ 2.00

* Total Caribbean 474.86 ( 24.60) ‐5% 2.53 1% ( 0.67) 0% ( 1.67) 0% ( 25.32) ( 4.06) 8.61

Cook Islands 2.73 ‐ 0% 0.06 2% 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ 0.06

366

East Timor 17.31 ( 0.69) ‐4% 1.82 11% 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.69) ( 0.04) 1.82

FIJI 22.22 ‐ 0% ( 0.03) 0% ‐ 0% 0.21 1% ‐ ( 0.24) 0.18

Kiribati 8.80 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.07) ‐ ‐

Marshall Islands 3.43 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.01) ‐

Micronesia 4.70 ‐ 0% ( 0.02) 0% 0% 0.08 2% ‐ ( 0.09) 0.06

Nauru 1.80 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0% 0.03 2% ‐ ‐ 0.03

Niue 2.00 ‐ 0% ( 0.00) 0% 0% ‐ 0% ‐ ( 0.10) ( 0.00)

Palau 2.00 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0% 0.03 2% ‐ ‐ 0.03

Papua New Guinea 74.07 ‐ 0% 0.20 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.06) 0% ‐ ( 0.71) 0.14

Solomon Islands 14.21 ‐ 0% 0.79 6% ‐ 0% 1.30 9% ‐ 0.11 2.09

Tonga 5.17 ( 0.52) ‐10% ( 0.13) ‐3% 0% 0.06 1% ( 0.52) ( 0.50) ( 0.07)

Tuvalu 4.13 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0% 0.04 1% ‐ ‐ 0.24

Vanuatu 14.89 ( 0.14) ‐1% 0.01 0% 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.14) ( 0.09) 0.01

Western Samoa 21.80 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0.06 0% ‐ ( 0.01) 0.06

* Total Pacific 199.27 ( 1.35) ‐1% 2.69 1% ‐ 0% 1.76 1% ( 1.42) ( 1.68) 4.65

Caribbean Region 104.89 ( 2.19) ‐2% ( 0.01) 0% ( 0.80) ‐1% 0.13 0% ( 2.99) ( 0.20) 0.11

Central Africa Region 62.37 ( 0.15) 0% ( 0.84) ‐1% ‐ 0% 0.95 2% ( 0.15) ( 0.06) 0.11


283.95 ( 3.44) ‐1% 10.29 4% ( 0.89) 0% 1.61 1% ( 4.33) ( 5.86) 11.90

Multiregional PALOP 23.19 ( 2.48) ‐11% 0.40 2% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 2.48) ( 1.88) 0.40

Pacific Region 39.78 ( 0.55) ‐1% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ( 0.55) ( 0.25) ‐

Regional cooperation ACP 2 743.96 ( 59.21) ‐2% 73.89 3% ( 0.82) 0% 6.93 0% ( 63.47) ( 40.67) 83.79

Southern Africa Region 97.23 ( 14.06) ‐14% 0.39 0% ‐ 0% 0.87 1% ( 14.06) ( 14.05) 1.25

West Africa Region 247.32 ( 2.86) ‐1% 4.98 2% ( 0.72) 0% 2.01 1% ( 3.57) ( 12.89) 6.98

* Total regional cooperation ACP 3 602.68 ( 84.95) ‐2% 89.08 2% ( 3.22) 0% 12.49 0% ( 91.61) ( 75.85) 104.55

Administrative and financial expenditure 5.42 8.63 1.24

All ACP countries ( 2.50) ( 0.09) ( 2.52) ( 5.03) ( 0.09)

* Total ACP 12 827.28 ( 32.30) 0% 183.96 1% ( 14.52) 0% 20.61 0% ( 66.32) ( 96.17) 216.62

Anguilla 12.24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.08) ‐

British Virgin Islands 0.92 ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐

367

Cayman Islands ‐ ‐ ( 2.53) ( 2.53) ‐ ‐

Falkland Islands 4.52 ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Montserrat 23.08 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Pitcairn Islands 2.35 ‐ 1.13 48% ‐ ‐ 1.13

Saint Helena 17.94 ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ ‐

Turks & Caicos Islands 13.88 ( 0.78) 0% ( 0.78) ( 0.09) ‐

* Total British OCT 74.94 ( 0.78) ‐1% 1.13 2% ( 2.53) ‐ ( 3.31) ( 0.17) 1.13

Aruba 10.34 ( 0.66) 0% ( 0.66) ‐ ‐

Netherlands Antilles 50.47 ‐ 0% 0.07 0% ‐ 0.13 0.07

* Total Dutch OCT 60.81 ( 0.66) 0.07 0% ‐ ‐ ( 0.66) 0.07

French Polynesia ‐ ‐ 4.15 ‐ 0.32 4.15

Mayotte 24.24 ‐ ( 3.72) ‐15% ‐ 0.31 3.72

New Caledonia 28.75 ( 1.47) ‐ 0% ( 1.47) ‐ ‐

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 18.94 ‐ ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ ‐

Wallis & Futuna 16.86 ‐ ( 1.51) ‐9% ‐ ‐ 1.51

* Total French OCT 88.78 ( 1.47) ( 1.08) ‐1% ‐ ‐ ( 1.47) 0.62 9.38

Regional cooperation OCT ‐

* Total regional cooperation OCT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

All OCT countries ( 0.58) ( 0.58) 2.46 ( 0.58) ( 0.00) 2.46

* Total OCT 223.95 ( 3.49) ‐2% 2.58 1% ( 2.53) ‐ 0% ( 6.02) 0.45 13.04

* Total ACP + OCT 13 051.23 ( 35.79) 0% 186.54 1% ( 17.05) 0% 20.61 0% ( 72.34) ( 95.73) 229.66

Table 3.2.3

Situation by instrument and by state (EUR million)

9TH EDF Cotonou Lomé Voluntary contribution

TOTAL STATE Decisions cumulative A Envelope B Envelope Implementation Transfers Transfers

368

2013 Macroeconomic

support Sectoral policies

A Envelope Compensation export earnings

Emergency aid


countries

B Envelope

costs from 6th EDF ‐ Lomé

from 7thEDF ‐ Lomé

Peace facility

Angola 96.49 96.49 25.51 25.51 13.19 135.20

Benin 16.39 285.73 302.12 1.05 1.05 0.36 303.53

Botswana 52.07 52.07 8.06 8.06 60.13

Burkina Faso 184.95 153.25 338.20 ‐ 9.10 347.30

Burundi 64.85 147.58 212.43 5.86 37.46 7.60 50.92 65.93 329.28

Cameroon 161.78 161.78 7.23 7.23 169.01

Cape Verde 12.27 35.01 47.29 5.50 5.50 0.90 53.68


11.58 97.40 108.98 4.17 3.29 1.60 9.06 118.05

Chad 198.22 198.22 16.77 16.77 1.26 216.25

Comoros 31.53 31.53 5.80 5.80 37.33

Congo (Brazzaville) 28.45 84.06 112.51 4.36 2.00 6.36 14.54 133.41


105.70 306.54 412.24 98.49 98.49 0.55 55.20 566.48

Djibouti 40.25 40.25 ‐ ‐ 40.25

Equatorial Guinea 8.99 8.99 ‐ 8.99

Eritrea 81.80 81.80 0.46 0.46 82.25

Ethiopia 57.97 473.54 531.51 43.62 43.62 29.51 604.63

Gabon 34.35 34.35 1.10 1.10 0.11 35.56

Gambia 51.70 51.70 1.80 1.80 2.60 56.10

Ghana 104.21 184.13 288.34 1.67 1.67 0.02 1.45 291.48

Guinea Bissau 9.78 49.18 58.96 3.20 3.20 ‐ 0.28 62.44

Guinea (Conakry) 88.76 88.76 28.38 28.38 ‐ 34.22 151.36

Ivory Coast 4.86 4.86 200.07 200.07 204.93

Kenya 100.73 159.74 260.47 26.21 26.21 9.84 296.53

Lesotho 103.56 103.56 ‐ 0.57 104.13

369

Liberia 3.44 96.30 99.74 23.74 23.74 0.02 ‐ 123.49

Madagascar 70.76 308.77 379.53 6.25 6.25 0.00 385.78

Malawi 54.47 164.54 219.00 10.00 10.36 20.36 0.34 5.87 245.58

Mali 413.73 413.73 1.11 40.98 42.09 2.51 458.33

Mauritania 119.01 119.01 21.60 5.66 27.26 0.32 146.58

Mauritius 8.74 53.67 62.41 0.38 0.28 0.67 0.09 63.16

Mozambique 145.83 271.72 417.56 3.38 3.38 6.64 1.72 429.30

Namibia 93.41 93.41 0.61 0.61 94.01

Niger 164.59 179.22 343.81 13.03 13.03 356.84

Nigeria 440.21 440.21 ‐ 104.38 544.59

Rwanda 54.00 162.81 216.81 ‐ 1.52 0.34 218.68


Senegal 45.15 226.57 271.72 10.97 10.97 ‐ 0.69 283.38

Seychelles 4.48 4.48 0.70 0.70 5.18

Sierra Leone 62.00 115.41 177.41 24.75 31.33 56.08 23.30 256.79

Somalia 180.30 180.30 ‐ 180.30

South Sudan 266.66 266.66 ‐ 266.66

Sudan 110.34 125.90 236.24 78.67 78.67 2.54 104.49 421.94

Swaziland 34.71 34.71 ‐ 1.24 35.94

Tanzania 177.60 206.19 383.80 4.55 4.55 0.04 388.38

Togo 3.03 15.50 18.54 39.89 39.89 18.72 77.14

Uganda 80.56 173.45 254.00 36.75 36.75 2.86 3.53 297.14

Zambia 170.02 179.08 349.10 11.49 7.45 18.94 0.27 368.31

Zimbabwe 32.06 32.06 24.30 24.30 0.27 56.63

* Total Africa 2 114.09 6 540.40 8 654.48 92.43 847.84 11.20 951.47 ‐ 14.57 506.73 ‐ 10 127.26

370



9TH EDF Cotonou Lomé

Voluntary contribution Peace facility

TOTAL STATE

Decisions cumulative A Envelope B Envelope

Implementation costs

Transfers from 6th EDF ‐ Lomé

Transfers from 7th EDF ‐ Lomé 2013

Macroeconomic support

Sectoral policies


Emergency aid

Heavilyindebted poor

countries

B Envelope

Antigua & Barbuda 6.20 6.20 ‐ 6.20

Bahamas 5.28 5.28 ‐ ‐ 5.28

Barbados 11.68 11.68 ‐ 11.68

Belize 7.62 7.62 0.64 0.64 8.26

Dominica 6.40 4.07 10.47 4.38 4.38 14.85

Dominican Republic 80.71 28.87 109.58 19.98 16.15 36.13 145.71

Grenada 9.88 9.12 19.00 7.57 7.57 26.57

Guyana 19.07 24.74 43.81 8.40 0.69 9.09 52.90

Haiti 4.04 108.63 112.67 166.77 166.77 279.44

Jamaica 2.50 35.79 38.29 1.99 26.02 28.01 0.07 83.01 149.38

Saint Kitts & Nevis 4.47 4.47 ‐ 4.47

Saint Lucia 18.04 18.04 4.68 4.68 22.72


13.02 13.02 4.40 4.40 17.42

Suriname 43.29 43.29 0.69 0.69 0.11 44.08

Trinidad & Tobago 26.98 4.35 31.33 ‐ 6.00 37.33

* Total Caribbean 149.59 325.15 474.74 43.82 218.54 ‐ 262.36 ‐ 0.17 89.01 ‐ 826.29

Cook Islands 2.73 2.73 0.60 0.60 3.33

East Timor 17.31 17.31 ‐ 17.31

Fiji 22.22 22.22 2.10 2.10 0.01 0.59 24.92

Kiribati 8.80 8.80 2.20 2.20 0.35 11.35

371

Marshall Islands 3.43 3.43 1.10 1.10 4.53

Micronesia 4.70 4.70 1.40 1.40 6.10

Nauru 1.80 1.80 0.50 0.50 2.30

Niue 2.00 2.00 0.60 0.60 2.60

Palau 2.00 2.00 0.60 0.60 2.60

Papua New Guinea 74.07 74.07 22.44 3.50 25.94 3.39 103.40

Solomon Islands 14.21 14.21 7.25 0.55 7.80 ‐ 0.44 22.45

Tonga 5.17 5.17 1.88 1.88 7.06

Tuvalu 4.13 4.13 0.70 0.70 0.20 5.03

Vanuatu 14.89 1.62 1.57 3.19 3.19

Western Samoa 21.80 21.80 2.08 0.02 2.10 23.90

* Total Pacific ‐ 199.27 199.27 33.39 17.32 ‐ 50.71 ‐ 0.01 4.97 ‐ 254.96

Caribbean Region 104.89 34.48 139.36

Central Africa Region 62.37 16.14 78.51


280.51 46.07 326.57

Multiregional PALOP 23.19 23.19

Pacific Region 39.78 39.78

Regional cooperation ACP

2 742.28 112.08 4.32 65.96 24.58 2 949.22

Southern Africa Region 97.23 17.29 114.52

West Africa Region 247.32 31.10 278.41


‐ ‐ 3 597.56 ‐ ‐ ‐ 257.15 ‐ 4.32 65.96 24.58 3 949.57


89.41 346.33 435.75

All ACP countries 157.90 1.67 29.18 188.76

* Total ACP 2 263.67 7 064.82 13 173.37 169.64 1 083.71 11.20 1 521.70 346.33 20.74 695.85 24.58 15 782.58

372

Anguilla 12.24 12.24 ‐ 12.24

British Virgin Islands 0.92 0.92 ‐ 0.00 0.93

Cayman Islands 4.47 4.47 4.47

Falkland Islands 4.52 4.52 ‐ 4.52

Montserrat 23.08 23.08 ‐ 23.08

Pitcairn Islands 2.35 2.35 ‐ 2.35

Saint Helena 17.94 17.94 ‐ 17.94

Turks & Caicos Islands 13.86 0.02 13.88 ‐ 13.88

* Total British OCT 13.86 61.08 74.94 ‐ 4.47 ‐ 4.47 ‐ ‐ 0.00 ‐ 79.41

Aruba 10.34 10.34 0.06 10.40

Netherlands Antilles 50.47 50.47 2.13 52.60

* Total Dutch OCT ‐ 60.81 60.81 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.19 ‐ 63.00

French Polynesia 20.93 20.93 0.04 20.97

Mayotte 24.24 24.24 24.24

New Caledonia 28.75 28.75 0.90 29.65


18.94 18.94 18.94

Wallis & Futuna 16.86 16.86 16.86

* Total French OCT ‐ 109.71 109.71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.95 ‐ 110.66

Regional cooperation OCT

47.94 0.03 0.00 47.97


‐ ‐ 47.94 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.03 0.00 ‐ 47.97

All OCT countries 0.73 0.73

* Total OCT 13.86 231.60 293.40 ‐ 4.47 ‐ 4.47 0.73 0.03 3.15 ‐ 301.77

*Total ACP + OCT 2 277.53 7 296.42 13 466.77 169.64 1 088.18 11.20 1 526.17 347.06 20.77 699.00 24.58 16 084.35

373

Table 3.2.4


9th EDF Cotonou Lomé

Voluntary contribution Peace Facility

Total state

Decisions annual A Envelope B Envelope

Implementation costs 2013


Sectoral policies

Total A Envelope

Compensation export earnings

Emergency aid


countries

B Envelope Transfers from 6th EDF ‐ Lomé


Angola ‐ ( 20.45) ( 20.45) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.10) ( 20.55)

Benin ( 1.27) ( 3.86) ( 5.13) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 5.13)

Botswana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Burkina Faso ( 2.05) ( 3.36) ( 5.41) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.84) ( 6.25)

Burundi ( 0.03) ( 0.08) ( 0.11) ( 1.49) ( 1.49) ‐ ‐ ( 1.61)

Cameroon ‐ ( 4.49) ( 4.49) ( 0.97) ( 0.97) ‐ ‐ ( 5.46)

Cape Verde ‐ ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00)

Central African Republic ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.06) ( 0.06) ‐ ‐ ( 0.06)

Chad ‐ ( 3.52) ( 3.52) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.52)

Comoros ‐ ( 0.20) ( 0.20) ( 0.40) ( 0.40) ‐ ‐ ( 0.60)

Congo (Brazzaville) ‐ ( 1.51) ( 1.51) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.02) ( 1.52)


‐ ( 3.31) ( 3.31) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.12) ( 5.43)

Djibouti ‐ ( 0.14) ( 0.14) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.14)

Equatorial Guinea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Eritrea ‐ ( 0.65) ( 0.65) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.65)

Ethiopia ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.17) ( 1.17) ‐ ( 0.47) ( 1.64)

Gabon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Gambia ‐ ( 1.01) ( 1.01) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.01)

Ghana ‐ ( 9.81) ( 9.81) ( 1.13) ( 1.13) ‐ ‐ ( 10.93)

Guinea Bissau ( 0.12) ( 0.56) ( 0.67) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.67)

374

Guinea (Conakry) ‐ ( 0.64) ( 0.64) ( 0.03) ( 0.03) ‐ ( 1.95) ( 2.61)

Ivory Coast ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.80) ( 1.80) ‐ ‐ ( 1.80)

Kenya ‐ ( 3.47) ( 3.47) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.47)

Lesotho ‐ ( 0.09) ( 0.09) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.12)

Liberia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Madagascar ( 1.81) ( 10.62) ( 12.43) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 12.43)

Malawi ( 1.60) ( 10.79) ( 12.38) ( 0.43) ( 0.43) ( 0.05) ( 0.19) ( 13.05)

Mali ‐ ( 0.20) ( 0.20) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.20)

Mauritania ‐ ( 1.57) ( 1.57) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.57)

Mauritius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mozambique ‐ ( 1.02) ( 1.02) ( 0.12) ( 0.12) ( 0.01) ( 0.17) ( 1.32)

Namibia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Niger ‐ ( 3.12) ( 3.12) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.12)

Nigeria ‐ ( 15.43) ( 15.43) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 15.01) ( 30.44)

Rwanda ‐ ( 0.28) ( 0.28) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.28)

Sao Tome & Principe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Senegal ( 7.85) ( 4.52) ( 12.37) ( 0.63) ( 0.63) ‐ ‐ ( 13.00)

Seychelles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sierra Leone ‐ ( 3.13) ( 3.13) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.38) ( 3.51)

Somalia ‐ ( 6.31) ( 6.31) ‐ ‐ ( 6.31)

South Sudan 189.00 ‐ 189.00 ‐ ‐ 189.00

Sudan 36.00 ‐ 36.00 ( 0.71) ( 0.71) 35.29

Swaziland ‐ ( 1.72) ( 1.72) ‐ ‐ ( 1.72)

Tanzania ‐ ( 2.86) ( 2.86) ‐ ‐ ( 2.86)

Togo ‐ ( 2.06) ( 2.06) ( 1.71) ( 1.71) ( 3.77)

Uganda ‐ ( 4.23) ( 4.23) ‐ ( 4.23)

Zambia ‐ ( 4.05) ( 4.05) ‐ ( 4.05)

375

Zimbabwe ‐ ( 0.13) ( 0.13) ‐ ( 0.13)

* Total Africa 210.28 ( 129.17) 81.11 ‐ ( 10.64) ‐ ( 10.64) ‐ ( 0.06) ( 21.28) ‐ 49.13





Total state

Decisions annual A Envelope B Envelope



Sectoral policies

Total A Envelope


Emergency aid


countries



Antigua & Barbuda ‐ ‐ ‐

Bahamas ‐ ( 1.30) ( 1.30) ‐ ( 1.30)

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize ‐ ( 0.13) ( 0.13) ‐ ( 0.36) ( 0.36) ( 0.48)

Dominica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominican Republic ‐ ( 1.79) ( 1.79) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.79)

Grenada ( 0.12) ( 0.15) ( 0.27) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.27)

Guyana ( 6.84) ‐ ( 6.84) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 6.84)

Haiti ‐ ( 0.12) ( 0.12) ‐ ( 0.29) ( 0.29) ( 0.42)

Jamaica ‐ ( 12.18) ( 12.18) ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01) ( 0.05) ( 12.25)

Saint Kitts & Nevis ‐ ( 0.47) ( 0.47) ‐ ( 0.47)

Saint Lucia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ( 0.50) ( 0.50) ‐ ( 0.50)

Suriname ‐ ( 1.00) ( 1.00) ‐ ( 1.00)

Trinidad & Tobago ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Caribbean ( 6.97) ( 17.64) ( 24.60) ( 0.01) ( 0.65) ‐ ( 0.67) ‐ ‐ ( 0.05) ‐ ( 25.32)

376

Cook Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

East Timor ( 0.69) ( 0.69) ‐ ( 0.69)

Fiji ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Kiribati ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07) ( 0.07)

Marshall Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Micronesia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Nauru ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Niue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Palau ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Papua New Guinea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Tonga ( 0.52) ( 0.52) ‐ ( 0.52)


Vanuatu ( 0.14) ( 0.14) ‐ ( 0.14)

Western Samoa ‐ ‐

* Total Pacific ‐ ( 1.35) ( 1.35) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.80) ‐ ‐ ( 0.07) ‐ ( 1.42)

Caribbean Region ( 2.19) ( 0.80) ( 2.99)

Central Africa Region ( 0.15) ( 0.89) ( 1.04)


( 3.44) ‐ ( 3.44)

Multiregional PALOP ( 2.48) ‐ ( 2.48)

Pacific Region ( 0.55) ( 0.82) ( 1.37)

Regional cooperation ACP ( 59.21) ‐ ( 0.27) ( 3.17) ( 62.65)

Southern Africa Region ( 14.06) ( 0.72) ( 14.78)

West Africa Region ( 2.86) ‐ ( 2.86)


‐ ‐ ( 84.95) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 3.22) ‐ ( 0.27) ( 3.17) ‐ ( 91.61)

Administrative and 5.42 5.42

377

financial expenditure

All ACP countries ( 2.50) ( 0.02) ( 2.52)

* Total ACP 203.31 ( 148.16) ( 32.30) ( 0.01) ( 11.29) ‐ ( 15.32) 5.42 ( 0.33) ( 24.59) ‐ ( 66.32)


British Virgin Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cayman Islands ‐ ‐ ( 2.53) ‐ ( 2.53) ( 0.00) ( 2.54)

Falkland Islands ‐ ‐

Montserrat ‐

Pitcairn Islands ‐

Saint Helena ‐

Turks & Caicos Islands ( 0.78) ( 0.78) ( 0.78)

* Total British OCT ( 0.78) ( 0.78) ( 2.53) ( 3.31)

Aruba ‐ ( 0.66) ( 0.66) ( 0.66)

Netherlands Antilles ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Dutch OCT ( 0.66)

French Polynesia ‐ ‐ ‐

Mayotte ‐ ‐ ‐

New Caledonia ‐ ( 1.47) ( 1.47) ( 1.47)

Saint Pierre & Miquelon ‐ ‐ ‐

Wallis & Futuna ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total French OCT ( 1.47) ( 1.47) ( 1.47)

Regional cooperation OCT ( 0.58) ( 0.58)


( 0.58) ( 0.58)

All OCT countries ‐

* Total OCT ( 2.91) ( 3.49) ( 6.02)

* Total ACP+OCT 203.31 ( 151.06) ( 35.79) ( 0.01) ( 11.29) ‐ ( 17.05) 5.42 ( 0.33) ( 24.59) ‐ ( 72.34)

378

Table 3.2.5


9th EDF Cotonou

Lomé


Total state

Assigned funds cumulative

A Envelope B Envelope


2013 Macroeconomic



Emergency aid


countries



Angola 91.06 91.06 25.51 25.51 11.77 128.34

Benin 16.39 284.55 300.94 1.05 1.05 0.23 302.21

Botswana 51.13 51.13 8.06 8.06 59.19

Burkina Faso 184.62 151.55 336.16 ‐ 8.92 345.08

Burundi 64.85 145.22 210.07 5.86 37.10 7.60 50.56 64.93 325.56

Cameroon 159.72 159.72 7.23 7.23 166.95

Cape Verde 12.27 33.65 45.92 5.50 5.50 0.36 51.78


11.58 94.72 106.30 4.17 3.29 1.60 9.06 115.37

Chad 190.69 190.69 16.41 16.41 1.08 208.18

Comoros 30.01 30.01 5.80 5.80 35.80



105.70 302.53 408.23 98.10 98.10 0.38 54.46 561.18

Djibouti 37.87 37.87 ‐ ‐ 37.87


379

Eritrea 81.23 81.23 0.46 0.46 81.69

Ethiopia 57.97 469.71 527.69 43.62 43.62 29.51 600.81

Gabon 31.10 31.10 1.01 1.01 0.11 32.22

Gambia 50.70 50.70 1.23 1.23 2.58 54.51

Ghana 104.11 183.43 287.54 1.67 1.67 0.02 1.45 290.68

Guinea Bissau 9.78 40.69 50.47 3.20 3.20 ‐ 0.28 53.95

Guinea (Conakry) 88.61 88.61 27.09 27.09 34.22 149.92

Ivory Coast 4.86 4.86 196.86 196.86 201.72

Kenya 100.73 152.04 252.77 20.13 20.13 8.48 281.39

Lesotho 97.29 97.29 ‐ 0.57 97.86

Liberia 3.44 88.75 92.19 23.74 23.74 ‐ 115.93

Madagascar 70.76 305.03 375.79 6.25 6.25 0.00 382.03

Malawi 54.47 162.39 216.86 10.00 10.36 20.36 0.34 5.81 243.37

Mali 407.52 407.52 1.11 39.92 41.03 2.51 451.07

Mauritania 112.31 112.31 21.60 5.66 27.26 0.32 139.88

Mauritius 8.74 53.67 62.41 0.38 0.28 0.67 0.09 63.16

Mozambique 145.83 264.17 410.00 3.38 3.38 6.64 1.54 421.56

Namibia 92.99 92.99 0.61 0.61 93.60

Niger 164.59 174.54 339.13 13.03 13.03 352.17

Nigeria 417.90 417.90 ‐ 101.92 519.83

Rwanda 54.00 161.13 215.13 ‐ 1.52 0.34 216.99


380

Senegal 45.15 219.34 264.50 10.72 10.72 0.69 275.91

Seychelles 4.29 4.29 0.70 0.70 4.99

Sierra Leone 55.65 106.36 162.01 24.75 28.81 53.56 20.45 236.01

Somalia 180.18 180.18 ‐ 180.18

South Sudan 56.79 56.79 ‐ 56.79

Sudan 48.11 113.25 161.36 78.04 78.04 2.54 104.49 346.43

Swaziland 32.20 32.20 ‐ 0.94 33.15

Tanzania 177.60 205.61 383.21 4.55 4.55 0.04 387.80

Togo 3.03 15.24 18.27 38.91 38.91 16.17 73.35

Uganda 80.56 171.29 251.84 36.74 36.74 2.86 3.32 294.76

Zambia 169.27 174.57 343.83 11.49 7.45 18.94 0.27 363.04

Zimbabwe 30.07 30.07 22.84 22.84 0.27 53.19

* Total Africa 1 834.44 6 366.65 8 201.09 91.86 828.84 11.20 931.89 ‐ 14.39 492.55 ‐ 9 639.92



9th EDF Cotonou

Lomé


Total state




2013 Macroeconomic



Emergency aid


countries




Bahamas 5.22 5.22 ‐ 5.22

381

Barbados 11.66 11.66 ‐ 11.66

Belize 7.13 7.13 0.64 0.64 7.77

Dominica 6.40 3.81 10.21 4.38 4.38 14.59


Grenada 9.88 8.98 18.85 7.57 7.57 26.42

Guyana 19.07 24.48 43.55 8.40 0.69 9.09 52.64

Haiti 3.54 106.02 109.55 163.61 163.61 273.17

Jamaica 2.50 33.54 36.04 1.99 26.02 28.01 0.07 83.01 147.12


Saint Lucia 17.62 17.62 4.68 4.68 22.30


13.00 13.00 4.40 4.40 17.40

Suriname 43.23 43.23 0.69 0.69 0.11 44.02

Trinidad & Tobago 26.98 4.35 31.33 ‐ 6.00 37.33

* Total Caribbean 149.08 318.15 467.24 43.11 215.27 ‐ 258.38 ‐ 0.17 89.01 ‐ 814.81

Cook Islands 2.73 2.73 0.60 0.60 3.33

East Timor 16.99 16.99 ‐ 16.99

Fiji 21.63 21.63 2.03 2.03 ‐ 0.50 24.15

Kiribati 8.53 8.53 2.08 2.08 0.35 10.96


Micronesia 4.37 4.37 1.39 1.39 5.76

Nauru 1.79 1.79 0.50 0.50 2.29

Niue 1.81 1.81 0.60 0.60 2.41

382

Palau 1.84 1.84 0.60 0.60 2.44

Papua New Guinea 68.52 68.52 17.02 3.48 20.50 3.24 92.26

Solomon Islands 12.68 12.68 5.95 0.55 6.49 ‐ 0.43 19.60

Tonga 5.17 5.17 1.88 1.88 7.05

Tuvalu 4.13 4.13 0.70 0.70 0.20 5.03

Vanuatu 14.38 14.38 1.62 1.56 3.18 17.55

Western Samoa 21.68 21.68 2.00 0.02 2.02 23.70

* Total Pacific ‐ 189.47 189.47 26.59 17.07 ‐ 43.65 ‐ ‐ 4.72 ‐ 237.84




270.21 44.71 314.91




2 673.12 109.87 4.02 50.16 24.39 2 861.56




‐ ‐ 3 470.36 ‐ ‐ ‐ 251.98 ‐ 4.02 50.16 24.39 3 800.91


89.41 344.38 433.80


* Total ACP 1 983.53 6 874.27 12 571.48 161.55 1 061.18 11.20 1 485.91 344.38 20.25 665.53 24.39 15 111.94

Anguilla 12.16 12.16 12.16

383

British Virgin Islands 0.91 0.91 0.91

Cayman Islands ‐ 4.47 4.47 4.47

Falkland Islands 4.52 4.52 4.52

Montserrat 23.05 23.05 23.05

Pitcairn Islands 2.35 2.35 2.35

Saint Helena 17.82 17.82 17.82

Turks & Caicos Islands 13.86 0.02 13.88 13.88

* Total British OCT 13.86 60.83 74.69 ‐ 4.47 ‐ 4.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 79.16

Aruba 10.28 10.28 0.06 10.34


* Total Dutch OCT ‐ 59.99 59.99 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.19 ‐ 62.18


Mayotte 21.97 21.97 21.97

New Caledonia 28.75 28.75 0.89 29.64


18.88 18.88 18.88

Wallis & Futuna 16.82 16.82 16.82

* Total French OCT ‐ 106.59 106.59 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.93 ‐ 107.52


46.45 0.03 0.00 46.48


‐ ‐ 46.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.03 0.00 ‐ 46.48


* Total OCT 13.86 227.41 287.71 ‐ 4.47 ‐ 4.47 0.73 0.03 3.13 ‐ 296.06

* Total ACP + OCT 1 997.38 7 101.68 12 859.19 161.55 1 065.65 11.20 1 490.38 345.11 20.27 668.65 24.39 15 408.00

384

Table 3.2.6




Total state

Assigned funds annual A Envelope B Envelope



Sectoral policies

Total A Envelope


Emergency aid

Debt relief



Angola ‐ ( 6.40) ( 6.40) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07) ( 6.48)

Benin ‐ ( 1.96) ( 1.96) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.96)

Botswana ‐ ( 0.14) ( 0.14) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.14)

Burkina Faso ( 0.33) ( 1.49) ( 1.82) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.06) ( 1.88)

Burundi ‐ ( 0.31) ( 0.31) ‐ ( 0.05) ‐ ( 0.05) ‐ ‐ ( 0.36)

Cameroon ‐ ( 0.93) ( 0.93) ‐ ( 0.08) ‐ ( 0.08) ‐ ‐ ( 1.01)

Cape Verde ‐ ( 0.22) ( 0.22) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.22)

Central African Republic ‐ ( 0.65) ( 0.65) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.65)

Chad ‐ ( 1.79) ( 1.79) ‐ ( 0.08) ‐ ( 0.08) ‐ ‐ ( 1.87)

Comoros ‐ ( 0.27) ( 0.27) ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ( 0.30)

Congo (Brazzaville) ‐ ( 1.62) ( 1.62) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.62)

Democratic Republic of Congo ‐ ( 1.45) ( 1.45) ‐ 0.26 ‐ 0.26 ‐ ( 0.12) ( 1.31)

Djibouti ‐ ( 0.12) ( 0.12) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.12)

Equatorial Guinea ‐ ( 0.88) ( 0.88) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.88)

Eritrea ‐ ( 0.13) ( 0.13) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.13)

Ethiopia ‐ ( 1.23) ( 1.23) ‐ ( 0.98) ‐ ( 0.98) ‐ ‐ ( 2.22)

Gabon ‐ ( 0.07) ( 0.07) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.07)

385

Gambia ‐ ( 0.07) ( 0.07) ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ( 0.07)

Ghana ‐ ( 2.36) ( 2.36) ‐ ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01) ‐ ‐ ( 2.36)

Guinea Bissau ‐ ( 0.42) ( 0.42) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.42)

Guinea (Conakry) ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.59) ‐ ( 0.59) ‐ ( 1.95) ( 2.58)

Ivory Coast ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.34) ‐ ( 0.34) ‐ ‐ ( 0.34)

Kenya ‐ ( 0.99) ( 0.99) ‐ ( 0.22) ‐ ( 0.22) ‐ ‐ ( 1.22)

Lesotho ‐ 0.29 0.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.29

Liberia ‐ ( 2.19) ( 2.19) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.19)

Madagascar ‐ ( 2.10) ( 2.10) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ( 2.10)

Malawi ( 1.30) ( 4.56) ( 5.86) ‐ ( 0.18) ‐ ( 0.18) ‐ ( 0.18) ( 6.23)

Mali ‐ ( 0.17) ( 0.17) ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ( 0.20)

Mauritania ‐ ( 1.01) ( 1.01) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.01)

Mauritius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mozambique ‐ ( 1.57) ( 1.57) ‐ ( 0.12) ‐ ( 0.12) ( 0.00) ( 0.18) ( 1.87)

Namibia ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.04)

Niger ‐ ( 2.64) ( 2.64) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 2.64)

Nigeria ‐ ( 6.84) ( 6.84) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.63) ( 7.47)

Rwanda ‐ ( 0.46) ( 0.46) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.46)

Sao Tome & Principe ‐ ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ‐ 0.05 ‐ 0.05 ‐ ‐ 0.05

Senegal ( 0.49) ( 4.14) ( 4.64) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 4.64)

Seychelles ‐ ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.01)

Sierra Leone ( 0.18) ( 3.73) ( 3.92) ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ( 1.08) ( 5.09)

386

Somalia ‐ ( 0.65) ( 0.65) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.65)

South Sudan 30.65 ‐ 30.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30.65

Sudan 25.14 ( 5.20) 19.94 ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ‐ 19.84

Swaziland ‐ ( 0.85) ( 0.85) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.85)

Tanzania ‐ 0.05 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.05

Togo ‐ ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ ( 1.60) ‐ ( 1.60) ‐ ( 0.04) ( 1.68)

Uganda ‐ ( 0.09) ( 0.09) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.22) ( 0.31)

Zambia ( 0.50) ( 0.42) ( 0.93) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.93)

Zimbabwe ‐ ( 1.39) ( 1.39) ‐ ( 1.08) ‐ ( 1.08) ‐ ‐ ( 2.47)

* Total Africa 52.98 ( 61.33) ( 8.35) ( 0.00) ( 5.29) ‐ ( 5.29) ‐ ( 0.00) ( 4.54) ‐ ( 18.18)





Total state

Assigned funds annual A Envelope B Envelope



Sectoral policies

Total A Envelope


Emergency aid

Debt relief



Antigua & Barbuda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Bahamas 0.04 0.04 ‐ 0.04

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize ( 0.17) ( 0.17) ‐ ( 0.17)

Dominica ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01)

Dominican Republic ( 0.40) ( 0.40) 0.01 ‐ 0.01 ( 0.39)

387

Grenada ( 0.16) ( 0.16) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.16)

Guyana ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Haiti ( 0.30) ( 0.30) ‐ ( 1.68) ( 1.68) ( 1.98)

Jamaica ( 1.07) ( 1.07) ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01) ( 1.08)

Saint Kitts & Nevis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Lucia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.04)

Suriname ( 0.27) ( 0.27) ‐ ( 0.27)

Trinidad & Tobago ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Caribbean ‐ ( 2.39) ( 2.39) 0.01 ( 1.68) ‐ ( 1.67) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 4.06)

Cook Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

East Timor ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ ( 0.04)

Fiji ( 0.25) ( 0.25) ‐ ( 0.25)


Marshall Islands ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01)

Micronesia ( 0.09) ( 0.09) ‐ ( 0.09)

Nauru ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Niue ( 0.10) ( 0.10) ‐ ( 0.10)

Palau ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Papua New Guinea ( 0.69) ( 0.69) ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ( 0.71)

Solomon Islands 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.11

Tonga ( 0.50) ( 0.50) ‐ ( 0.50)

388


Vanuatu ( 0.09) ( 0.09) ‐ ( 0.09)

Western Samoa ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ‐ ( 0.01)

* Total Pacific ‐ ( 1.75) ( 1.75) 0.06 ‐ ‐ 0.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.69)

Caribbean Region ( 0.10) ( 0.10) ( 0.20)

Central Africa Region 0.00 ( 0.06) ( 0.06)


( 5.14) ( 0.71) ( 5.86)

Multiregional PALOP ( 1.88) ‐ ( 1.88)

Pacific Region ( 0.25) ‐ ( 0.25)

Regional cooperation ACP ( 38.23) ( 0.34) ( 1.92) ( 0.19) ( 40.67)

Southern Africa Region ( 14.05) ( 0.00) ( 14.05)

West Africa Region ( 12.45) 0.04 ( 12.41)


‐ ‐ ( 72.09) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 1.17) ‐ ‐ ( 1.92) ( 0.19) ( 75.37)


8.63 8.63

All ACP countries ( 5.03) ( 5.03)

* Total ACP 52.98 ( 65.47) ( 89.60) 0.06 ( 6.96) ‐ ( 8.07) 8.63 ( 0.00) ( 6.46) ( 0.19) ( 95.70)

Anguilla ( 0.08) ( 0.08) ‐ ( 0.08)

British Virgin Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

Cayman Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

Falkland Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

Montserrat ‐ ‐ ‐

Pitcairn Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

389

Saint Helena ‐ ‐ ‐

Turks & Caicos Islands ( 0.09) ( 0.09) ‐ ( 0.09)

* Total British OCT ( 0.09) ( 0.08) ( 0.17) ‐ ‐ ( 0.17)

Aruba ‐ ‐

Netherlands Antilles 0.13 0.13 0.13

* Total Dutch OCT 0.13 0.13 0.13

French Polynesia 0.32 0.32 0.32

Mayotte ( 0.31) ( 0.31) ( 0.31)

New Caledonia ‐ ‐

Saint Pierre & Miquelon ‐ ‐

Wallis & Futuna ‐ ‐

* Total French OCT 0.01 0.01 ‐ 0.01

Regional cooperation OCT ( 0.00) ( 0.00)


( 0.00) ( 0.00)

All OCT countries

* Total OCT ( 0.09) 0.06 ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.03)

* Total ACP + OCT 52.89 ( 65.40) ( 89.64) 0.06 ( 6.96) ‐ ( 8.07) 8.63 ( 0.00) ( 6.46) ( 0.19) ( 95.73)

Table 3.2.7


9th EDF Cotonou Lomé Voluntary

contribution Peace Facility

Total state Payments cumulative A Envelope B Envelope



Sectoral policies


Emergency aid

Heavily indebted

B Envelope Transfers from 6th

Transfers from 7th

390

poor countries

EDF ‐ Lomé EDF ‐ Lomé

Angola 88.32 88.32 24.96 24.96 11.60 124.88

Benin 16.39 284.32 300.71 1.05 1.05 0.23 301.99

Botswana 50.12 50.12 8.06 8.06 58.18

Burkina Faso 184.03 148.94 332.98 ‐ 8.84 341.82

Burundi 64.85 139.67 204.52 5.86 36.76 7.60 50.22 64.89 319.63

Cameroon 155.35 155.35 6.78 6.78 162.13

Cape Verde 12.27 31.91 44.18 5.50 5.50 0.36 50.04


11.58 90.68 102.27 4.17 3.29 1.60 9.06 111.33

Chad 184.57 184.57 16.41 16.41 1.08 202.05

Comoros 25.74 25.74 5.80 5.80 31.53



105.70 298.68 404.38 97.24 97.24 0.38 54.46 556.46

Djibouti 34.73 34.73 ‐ 34.73


Eritrea 74.68 74.68 0.46 0.46 75.13

Ethiopia 57.97 455.08 513.06 43.61 43.61 29.51 586.18

Gabon 25.35 25.35 1.01 1.01 0.11 26.47

Gambia 47.70 47.70 1.23 1.23 2.58 51.51

Ghana 103.63 172.56 276.19 1.67 1.67 0.02 1.45 279.33

Guinea Bissau 9.78 38.75 48.53 3.20 3.20 0.28 52.01

Guinea (Conakry) 88.00 88.00 24.39 24.39 34.22 146.61

Ivory Coast 4.86 4.86 193.57 193.57 198.43

Kenya 100.73 142.17 242.90 20.13 20.13 8.48 271.51

Lesotho 92.27 92.27 ‐ 0.57 92.84

391

Liberia 3.44 84.91 88.35 23.70 23.70 112.04

Madagascar 70.76 303.71 374.47 6.25 6.25 380.72

Malawi 54.47 161.83 216.30 10.00 10.36 20.36 0.34 5.81 242.81

Mali 406.52 406.52 1.11 39.71 40.82 2.51 449.85

Mauritania 108.26 108.26 21.60 5.66 27.26 0.32 135.83

Mauritius 8.74 53.67 62.41 0.38 0.28 0.67 0.09 63.16

Mozambique 145.83 254.72 400.56 3.38 3.38 6.64 1.54 412.11

Namibia 92.89 92.89 0.61 0.61 93.49

Niger 164.59 173.49 338.08 13.03 13.03 351.11

Nigeria 383.45 383.45 ‐ 100.93 484.38

Rwanda 54.00 161.03 215.03 ‐ 1.52 0.34 216.89


Senegal 45.15 217.14 262.29 10.48 10.48 0.69 273.46

Seychelles 4.10 4.10 0.70 0.70 4.80

Sierra Leone 55.65 104.76 160.40 24.75 28.04 52.79 20.18 233.38

Somalia 179.61 179.61 ‐ 179.61

South Sudan 15.87 15.87 ‐ 15.87

Sudan 24.71 109.62 134.34 78.04 78.04 2.54 104.49 319.40

Swaziland 29.93 29.93 ‐ 0.94 30.87

Tanzania 177.60 204.82 382.42 4.55 4.55 0.04 387.01

Togo 3.03 14.54 17.58 38.30 38.30 16.16 72.04

Uganda 80.56 169.52 250.07 36.74 36.74 2.86 3.32 292.99

Zambia 168.71 159.98 328.69 11.49 7.45 18.94 0.27 347.91

Zimbabwe 28.77 28.77 22.79 22.79 0.27 51.82

* Total Africa 1 768.52 6 182.16 7 950.69 91.86 818.70 11.20 921.75 ‐ 14.39 491.00 ‐ 9 377.82

392





Total state

Payments cumulative A Envelope B Envelope



Sectoral policies


Emergency aid


countries




Bahamas 5.22 5.22 ‐ 5.22

Barbados 10.47 10.47 ‐ 10.47

Belize 7.11 7.11 0.64 0.64 7.75

Dominica 6.40 3.74 10.14 4.38 4.38 14.52


Grenada 9.88 8.98 18.85 5.88 5.88 24.73

Guyana 19.07 22.31 41.38 8.40 0.69 9.09 50.47

Haiti 3.54 100.87 104.41 157.68 157.68 262.09

Jamaica 2.50 32.49 34.99 1.99 26.02 28.01 0.07 69.01 132.08


Saint Lucia 16.68 16.68 4.41 4.41 21.08


12.14 12.14 3.96 3.96 16.10

Suriname 43.17 43.17 0.69 0.69 0.11 43.97

Trinidad & Tobago 26.98 4.35 31.33 ‐ 6.00 37.33

* Total Caribbean 149.08 305.85 454.94 41.82 207.35 ‐ 249.17 ‐ 0.17 75.01 ‐ 779.29

Cook Islands 2.73 2.73 0.60 0.60 3.33

East Timor 16.36 16.36 ‐ 16.36

Fiji 21.61 21.61 2.00 2.00 0.50 24.10

Kiribati 8.31 8.31 2.08 2.08 0.35 10.74

393


Micronesia 4.37 4.37 1.36 1.36 5.73

Nauru 1.67 1.67 0.49 0.49 2.16

Niue 1.81 1.81 0.60 0.60 2.41

Palau 1.80 1.80 0.58 0.58 2.38

Papua New Guinea 59.74 59.74 8.91 3.46 12.36 3.24 75.34

Solomon Islands 10.70 10.70 3.38 0.54 3.92 0.41 15.03

Tonga 5.17 5.17 1.85 1.85 7.03

Tuvalu 4.13 4.13 0.68 0.68 0.20 5.01

Vanuatu 13.36 13.36 1.62 1.56 3.18 16.53

Western Samoa 21.64 21.64 1.98 0.02 2.00 23.64

* Total Pacific ‐ 176.60 176.60 15.89 16.91 ‐ 32.80 ‐ ‐ 4.69 ‐ 214.09




231.29 41.58 272.88




2 519.24 103.85 3.97 47.90 24.38 2 699.33




‐ ‐ 3 214.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 239.15 ‐ 3.97 47.90 24.38 3 529.39


89.41 333.78 423.19


* Total ACP 1 917.61 6 664.62 12 039.55 149.56 1 042.95 11.20 1 442.87 333.78 20.20 647.68 24.38 14 508.44

Anguilla 12.16 12.16 ‐ 12.16

394

British Virgin Islands 0.72 0.72 ‐ 0.72

Cayman Islands ‐ 4.47 4.47 4.47

Falkland Islands 4.52 4.52 ‐ 4.52

Montserrat 20.38 20.38 ‐ 20.38


Saint Helena 17.82 17.82 ‐ 17.82

Turks & Caicos Islands 13.86 0.02 13.88 ‐ 13.88

* Total British OCT 13.86 57.97 71.83 ‐ 4.47 ‐ 4.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 76.30

Aruba 10.28 10.28 0.06 10.34


* Total Dutch OCT ‐ 59.93 59.93 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.19 ‐ 62.12


Mayotte 19.75 19.75 19.75

New Caledonia 28.75 28.75 0.89 29.64


18.88 18.88 18.88

Wallis & Futuna 15.74 15.74 15.74

* Total French OCT ‐ 102.43 102.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.93 ‐ 103.37


44.42 0.03 0.00 44.45


‐ ‐ 44.42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.03 0.00 ‐ 44.45


* Total OCT 13.86 220.34 278.61 ‐ 4.47 ‐ 4.47 0.73 0.03 3.13 ‐ 286.96

* Total ACP + OCT 1 931.46 6 884.96 12 318.16 149.56 1 047.42 11.20 1 447.33 334.50 20.22 650.81 24.38 14 795.40

Table 3.2.8


395

9th EDF Cotonou Lomé Voluntary

contribution Peace Facility

Total state

Payments annual A Envelope B Envelope

Implementation costs 2013 Macroeconomic support

Sectoral policies

Total A Envelope


Emergency aid

Debt relief B Envelope



Angola ‐ ( 1.51) ( 1.51) 0.05 0.05 ‐ ( 1.46)

Benin 0.02 0.32 0.33 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.33

Botswana ‐ 0.22 0.22 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.22

Burkina Faso ( 0.15) 0.15 0.01 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.01

Burundi ‐ 5.09 5.09 ( 0.08) ( 0.08) ‐ 5.01

Cameroon ‐ 1.03 1.03 0.22 0.22 ‐ 1.25

Cape Verde ‐ 1.57 1.57 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.57

Central African Republic ‐ 2.31 2.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.31

Chad ‐ 2.50 2.50 0.39 0.39 ‐ 2.89

Comoros ‐ 0.10 0.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.10

Congo (Brazzaville) ‐ 0.09 0.09 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.09

Democratic Republic of Congo ‐ 4.83 4.83 1.04 1.04 0.03 5.90

Djibouti ‐ 6.26 6.26 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.26

Equatorial Guinea ‐ ( 0.02) ( 0.02) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.02)

Eritrea ‐ ( 0.25) ( 0.25) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.25)

Ethiopia ‐ ( 0.19) ( 0.19) 0.01 0.01 ‐ ( 0.18)

Gabon ‐ 1.30 1.30 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.30

Gambia ‐ 0.82 0.82 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.82

Ghana ‐ 5.19 5.19 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.19

Guinea Bissau ‐ 0.81 0.81 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.81

Guinea (Conakry) ‐ 1.77 1.77 1.54 1.54 ‐ 3.31

396

Ivory Coast ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.80 3.80 ‐ 3.80

Kenya ‐ 11.29 11.29 ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ‐ 11.28

Lesotho ‐ 2.68 2.68 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.68

Liberia ‐ 0.71 0.71 ( 0.04) ( 0.04) ‐ 0.67

Madagascar ‐ 0.61 0.61 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.61

Malawi ( 0.47) 1.69 1.22 ( 0.18) ( 0.18) ‐ 1.03

Mali ‐ ( 0.21) ( 0.21) 0.13 0.13 ‐ ( 0.08)

Mauritania ‐ 2.31 2.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.31

Mauritius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mozambique ‐ 1.21 1.21 0.01 0.01 ‐ 1.22

Namibia ‐ 0.01 0.01 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.01

Niger ‐ ( 0.73) ( 0.73) ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.73)

Nigeria ‐ 5.26 5.26 ‐ ‐ ( 0.14) 5.12

Rwanda ‐ 0.41 0.41 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.41

Sao Tome & Principe ‐ 0.65 0.65 0.05 0.05 ‐ 0.70

Senegal ‐ 3.43 3.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.43

Seychelles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sierra Leone ‐ ( 0.10) ( 0.10) ( 0.29) ( 0.29) 0.00 ( 0.38)

Somalia ‐ 2.24 2.24 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.24

South Sudan 12.86 ‐ 12.86 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.86

Sudan 7.72 0.40 8.12 ( 0.10) ( 0.10) ‐ 8.02

Swaziland ‐ 0.00 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00

Tanzania ‐ 4.15 4.15 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.15

Togo ‐ 0.80 0.80 1.50 1.50 ( 0.01) 2.29

Uganda ‐ ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ( 0.00)

Zambia ( 0.02) 1.14 1.12 ‐ ‐ 1.12

Zimbabwe ‐ ( 0.54) ( 0.54) ( 0.01) ( 0.01) ( 0.55)

397

* Total Africa 19.96 69.79 89.75 ‐ 8.03 ‐ 8.03 ‐ ‐ ( 0.11) ‐ 97.67





Total state Payments annual A Envelope B Envelope



Sectoral policies

Total A Envelope


Emergency aid

Debt relief B

Envelope

Transfers from 6th EDF

‐ Lomé

Transfers from 7th EDF

‐ Lomé

Antigua & Barbuda ‐ ‐ ‐

Bahamas 0.04 0.04 ‐ 0.04

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Belize ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dominica 0.13 0.13 ‐ 0.13

Dominican Republic 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.45 0.46

Grenada ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Guyana 0.03 0.03 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.03

Haiti 0.87 0.87 ‐ 0.59 0.59 1.46

Jamaica 0.27 0.27 ( 0.00) ‐ ( 0.00) 0.27

Saint Kitts & Nevis 0.01 0.01 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.01

Saint Lucia 0.18 0.18 3.01 ‐ 3.01 3.19

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 0.97 0.97 0.03 ‐ 0.03 1.00

Suriname 0.02 0.02 ‐ 0.02

Trinidad & Tobago ‐ ‐ 2.00 2.00

* Total Caribbean ‐ 2.53 2.53 3.06 1.02 ‐ 4.08 ‐ ‐ 2.00 ‐ 8.61

Cook Islands 0.06 0.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.06

East Timor 1.82 1.82 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.82

398

Fiji ( 0.03) ( 0.03) ‐ 0.21 0.21 ( 0.00) 0.18

Kiribati ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Marshall Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Micronesia ( 0.02) ( 0.02) ‐ 0.08 0.08 ‐ 0.06

Nauru ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.03 0.03 ‐ 0.03

Niue ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.00)

Palau ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.03 0.03 ‐ 0.03

Papua New Guinea 0.20 0.20 ( 0.25) 0.19 ( 0.06) ‐ 0.14

Solomon Islands 0.79 0.79 1.27 0.03 1.30 ‐ 2.09

Tonga ( 0.13) ( 0.13) ‐ 0.06 0.06 ‐ ( 0.07)

Tuvalu ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.04 0.04 0.20 0.24

Vanuatu 0.01 0.01 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.01

Western Samoa ‐ 0.06 ‐ 0.06 0.06

* Total Pacific ‐ 2.69 2.69 1.08 0.68 ‐ 1.76 ‐ ‐ 0.20 ‐ 4.65

Caribbean Region ( 0.01) 0.13 0.11

Central Africa Region ( 0.84) 0.95 0.11


10.29 1.61 11.90

Multiregional PALOP 0.40 ‐ 0.40

Pacific Region ‐ ‐ ‐

Regional cooperation ACP 76.89 6.93 ( 0.02) 83.79




‐ ‐ 92.08 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.49 ‐ ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ 104.55


1.24 1.24

All ACP countries ( 0.09) ( 0.09)

399

* Total ACP 19.96 75.02 186.96 4.14 9.73 ‐ 26.36 1.24 ‐ 2.06 ‐ 216.62

Anguilla ‐ ‐ ‐

British Virgin Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

Cayman Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

Falkland Islands ‐ ‐

Montserrat ‐ ‐ ‐


Saint Helena ‐ ‐ ‐

Turks & Caicos Islands ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total British OCT ‐ 1.13 1.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.13

Aruba ‐ ‐

Netherlands Antilles 0.07 0.07 0.07

* Total Dutch OCT ‐ 0.07 0.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.07

French Polynesia 4.15 4.15 4.15

Mayotte 3.72 3.72 3.72

New Caledonia ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Pierre & Miquelon ‐ ‐ ‐


* Total French OCT ‐ 9.38 9.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.38

Regional cooperation OCT 2.46 2.46


2.46 2.46

All OCT countries

* Total OCT ‐ 10.57 13.04 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13.04

* Total ACP + OCT 19.96 85.59 200.00 4.14 9.73 ‐ 26.36 1.24 ‐ 2.06 ‐ 229.66

400

Overall situation by instrument and country (EUR million)

10th EDF

Cotonou

Total

NIP


cumulative 2013 Decisions as % of NIP Payments as % of NIP Decisions as % of NIP

Payments as % of NIP Decisions Assigned funds Payments

Angola 207.00 205.27 99% 32.93 16% 4.00 2% 3.20 2% 209.75 94.74 36.13

Benin 334.06 331.35 99% 184.27 55% 46.37 14% 46.04 14% 386.40 306.07 235.28

Botswana 87.60 87.60 100% 30.84 35% 45.20 52% 22.34 26% 132.80 102.99 53.18

Burkina Faso 661.71 655.82 99% 392.97 59% 56.72 9% 22.11 3% 712.54 592.24 415.08

Burundi 210.91 210.91 100% 122.85 58% 51.18 24% 45.76 22% 267.81 245.85 172.28

Cameroon 241.28 241.22 100% 158.33 66% 12.90 5% 9.44 4% 254.12 232.98 167.77

Cape Verde 60.11 60.10 100% 35.67 59% 9.00 15% 9.00 15% 69.10 63.19 44.67


Chad 331.00 330.99 100% 102.78 31% 36.94 11% 27.52 8% 367.93 227.65 130.30

Comoros 50.23 50.15 100% 13.27 26% 10.50 21% 10.00 20% 60.65 36.99 23.27

Congo (Brazzaville) 85.00 84.79 100% 17.88 21% 6.25 7% 6.20 7% 91.04 62.55 24.08


Djibouti 66.00 66.00 100% 11.76 18% 10.14 15% 1.80 3% 76.14 23.01 13.56

Eritrea 53.70 53.70 100% 10.24 19% 4.86 9% 4.86 9% 58.56 20.95 15.10

Ethiopia 674.00 673.97 100% 376.02 56% 95.23 14% 45.22 7% 769.20 550.22 421.24

Gabon 39.20 39.20 100% 2.62 7% 0% 0% 39.20 7.44 2.62

Gambia 69.05 69.05 100% 36.22 52% 4.54 7% 2.78 4% 73.59 47.40 38.99

Ghana 420.35 420.07 100% 169.13 40% 41.02 10% 41.02 10% 461.09 420.89 210.15

Guinea Bissau 37.32 36.78 99% 15.42 41% 20.45 55% 17.42 47% 57.23 37.35 32.83

Guinea (Conakry) 174.30 174.30 100% 0% 61.53 35% 36.51 21% 245.38 50.66 36.51

401

Ivory Coast 261.13 260.17 100% 65.23 25% 157.11 60% 134.80 52% 417.28 310.38 200.03

Kenya 392.31 392.24 100% 85.62 22% 84.68 22% 40.99 10% 476.92 277.90 126.61

Lesotho 139.31 139.30 100% 83.87 60% 26.50 19% 25.69 18% 169.16 151.18 110.44

Liberia 182.00 180.22 99% 109.14 60% 41.67 23% 35.71 20% 221.89 195.33 144.85

Madagascar 255.00 255.00 100% 41.76 16% 48.61 19% 15.27 6% 303.61 130.28 57.03

Malawi 551.12 551.12 100% 237.60 43% 58.39 11% 58.32 11% 609.51 495.47 295.92

Mali 704.80 704.80 100% 315.82 45% 56.42 8% 28.43 4% 767.47 597.02 347.32

Mauritania 192.89 192.10 100% 36.40 19% 17.87 9% 11.36 6% 209.97 130.59 47.76

Mauritius 64.20 64.20 100% 49.46 77% 12.53 20% 11.49 18% 76.73 69.18 60.95

Mozambique 670.30 670.19 100% 403.01 60% 58.30 9% 13.31 2% 742.16 576.07 417.53

Namibia 129.60 129.60 100% 59.26 46% 1.90 1% 0.30 0% 131.50 111.89 59.56

Niger 508.00 507.87 100% 209.28 41% 90.30 18% 76.83 15% 598.16 458.95 286.10

Nigeria 677.00 677.00 100% 163.87 24% 12.00 2% 1.76 0% 689.00 447.65 165.63

Rwanda 379.30 379.28 100% 265.22 70% 9.44 2% 9.44 2% 391.69 338.72 274.66

Sao Tome & Principe 22.00 22.00 100% 9.23 42% 1.00 5% 0.89 4% 23.00 18.29 10.12

Senegal 317.21 317.19 100% 187.58 59% 22.46 7% 22.18 7% 339.65 248.72 209.76

Seychelles 11.40 11.40 100% 9.86 86% 9.50 83% 8.75 77% 20.90 20.11 18.61

Sierra Leone 268.82 268.78 100% 135.20 50% 35.02 13% 34.76 13% 303.80 230.21 169.96

Somalia 412.00 412.00 100% 159.41 39% 17.80 4% 6.54 2% 429.80 272.41 165.95

Swaziland 70.00 70.00 100% 17.25 25% 9.96 14% 0.70 1% 79.96 32.95 17.95

Tanzania 607.00 606.48 100% 347.42 57% 21.66 4% 15.30 3% 628.14 535.60 362.72

Togo 144.56 144.27 100% 60.77 42% 23.24 16% 17.04 12% 167.51 142.22 77.81

Uganda 474.73 474.65 100% 235.47 50% 5.48 1% 5.21 1% 480.13 397.14 240.68

Zambia 452.34 451.72 100% 216.54 48% 36.87 8% 36.77 8% 488.59 426.16 253.31

Zimbabwe 157.82 101.84 157.82 155.99 101.84

* Total Africa 12 411.12 12 391.44 100% 5 495.82 44% 1 714.68 14% 1 203.26 10% 14 163.87 10 486.84 6 713.28

402



10th EDF

Cotonou

Total

NIP


cumulative 2013 Decisions as % of NIP Payments as % of NIP Decisions as % of NIP

Payments as % of NIP


Antigua & Barbuda 4.08 4.08 100% 3.30 81% 9.00 221% 9.00 221% 13.08 12.39 12.30

Barbados 9.80 9.79 100% 1.04 11% 5.81 5.21 15.60 15.54 6.25

Belize 11.80 11.80 100% 6.50 55% 4.61 39% 1.70 16.41 14.13 8.20

Dominica 7.37 7.37 100% 4.04 55% 14.40 195% 7.13 97% 21.77 14.26 11.17


Grenada 6.60 6.60 100% 0.97 15% 11.34 172% 8.86 134% 17.94 17.74 9.83

Guyana 51.00 51.00 100% 1.82 4% 51.00 2.60 1.82

Haiti 411.00 410.64 100% 134.70 33% 131.38 32% 70.68 17% 580.85 340.11 205.95

Jamaica 132.60 132.60 100% 68.54 52% 52.96 40% 26.30 20% 185.56 122.88 94.84

Saint Kitts & Nevis 4.50 4.50 100% 0.84 19% 1.80 40% 6.30 5.11 0.84

Saint Lucia 17.88 17.88 100% 3.88 22% 2.23 12% 1.00 6% 20.11 6.91 4.88


11.82 11.82 100% 1.68 14% 2.51 21% 0.14 1% 14.32 2.77 1.82

Suriname 19.80 19.80 100% 10.85 55% 19.80 18.76 10.85

Trinidad & Tobago 25.50 25.50 100% 7.36 29% 25.50 24.03 7.36

* Total Caribbean 892.75 892.38 100% 356.87 40% 268.46 30% 157.74 18% 1 199.67 774.81 515.18

Cook Islands 3.60 3.60 100% 0.90 25% 0.32 9% 0.26 7% 3.92 1.18 1.16

East Timor 88.73 88.73 100% 31.45 35% 88.73 48.70 31.45

Fidji 3.80 1.03 3.80 2.80 1.03

Kiribati 20.05 20.05 100% 5.20 26% 1.00 5% 0.94 5% 21.05 13.17 6.14

Marshall Islands 6.36 6.35 100% 4.34 68% 0.50 8% 0.14 2% 6.85 6.22 4.48

403

Micronesia 8.30 8.30 100% 4.94 60% 8.30 8.07 4.94

Nauru 2.70 2.70 100% 0.86 32% 2.70 2.28 0.86

Niue 3.60 3.60 100% 2.11 59% 3.60 2.40 2.11

Palau 2.90 2.90 100% 2.37 82% 2.90 2.63 2.37

Papua New Guinea 107.84 107.84 100% 8.00 7% 0.65 1% 0.63 1% 108.49 15.68 8.63

Solomon Islands 31.46 31.39 100% 6.79 22% 17.68 56% 17.56 56% 49.06 26.53 24.35

Tonga 7.08 7.08 100% 0.61 9% 7.79 110% 5.63 80% 14.87 12.87 6.25

Tuvalu 5.50 5.50 100% 4.35 79% 1.50 27% 1.50 27% 7.00 6.08 5.85

Vanuatu 21.60 21.60 100% 4.93 23% 1.40 6% 0.67 3% 23.00 20.73 5.59

Western Samoa 38.20 38.20 100% 15.77 41% 11.50 30% 9.50 25% 49.70 46.17 25.27

* Total Pacific 347.92 347.83 100% 92.63 27% 46.13 13% 37.86 11% 393.97 215.50 130.49

Caribbean Region 165.00 164.99 100% 42.69 26% 164.99 101.08 42.69

Central Africa Region 198.00 198.00 100% 38.88 20% 198.00 126.10 70.55


734.00 733.11 100% 148.76 20% 733.11 547.19 410.71

Intra ACP Allocations 2 895.00 2 873.82 99% 1 657.21 57% 2 885.97 2 304.40 1 674.65

Multiregional PALOP 33.10 33.10 100% 7.10 21% 33.10 13.97 7.14

Pacific Region 114.00 114.00 100% 36.98 32% 114.00 69.13 36.98

Southern Africa Region 148.00 148.00 100% 21.48 15% 148.00 101.35 47.78

West Africa Region 557.00 557.00 100% 17.48 3% 557.00 185.67 24.08


4 844.10 4 822.02 100% 1 970.57 195% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 834.18 3 448.89 2 314.59


502.52 483.95 464.26

* Total ACP 18 495.89 18 453.68 100% 7 915.88 43% 2 029.27 11% 1 398.86 8% 21 094.21 15 410.01 10 137.80

French Polynesia 19.79 19.79 100% 21.79 1.80

Mayotte 23.72 23.72 100% 22.71 96% 29.72 29.12 22.71

New Caledonia 19.81 19.81 100% 13.15 66% 19.81 19.71 13.15

404

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 20.74 20.74 100% 13.90 67% 20.74 20.60 13.90

Wallis & Futuna 16.49 16.49 100% 19.19 0.88 0.68

* Total French OCT 100.55 100.55 100% 49.76 49% ‐ 0% ‐ 111.25 72.12 50.43

Aruba 8.88 8.80 99% 2.07 8.80 8.52 2.07

Netherlands Antilles 24.00 24.00 100% 24.00

* Total Dutch OCT 32.88 32.80 100% 2.07 6% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32.80 8.52 2.07

Anguilla 11.70 11.70 100% 7.27 62% 11.70 11.70 7.27

Falkland Islands 4.13 4.13 100% 1.03 25% 4.13 4.03 1.03

Montserrat 15.66 15.66 100% 9.83 63% 15.66 15.39 9.83

Pitcairn Islands 2.40 2.40 100% 2.40

Saint Helena 16.63 16.63 100% 5.80 35% 16.63 16.40 5.80

Turks & Caicos Islands 11.85 11.85 100% 16.15 4.17 0.98

* Total British OCTs 62.37 62.37 100% 23.93 38% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 66.67 51.69 24.91

Regional cooperation OCT 40.00 40.00 100% 3.63 40.00 18.69 3.63


40.00 40.00 0.00 3.63 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40.00 18.69 3.63


* Total OCT 235.80 235.72 100% 79.39 34% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 256.72 154.71 84.33

* Total ACP + OCT 18 731.69 18 689.40 100% 7 995.27 76% 2 029.27 11% 1 398.86 8% 21 350.94 15 564.72 10 222.13

405


10th EDF Cotonou Total

NIP A Envelope B Envelope

annual 2013

Decisions as % of NIP

Payments as % of NIP Decisions as % of NIP


Decisions Assigned funds

Payments

Angola 207.00 90.30 44% 10.55 5% ‐ 0% 3.20 2% 90.30 48.98 13.75

Benin 334.06 45.15 14% 38.15 11% ‐ 0% 2.01 1% 44.27 0.17 42.29

Botswana 87.60 14.60 17% 2.18 2% 8.02 9% 11.84 14% 22.62 28.27 14.02

Burkina Faso 661.71 46.59 7% 112.19 17% 8.90 1% 2.25 0% 55.49 70.62 114.44

Burundi 210.91 23.60 11% 41.77 20% 4.57 2% 0.35 0% 28.17 77.31 44.46

Cameroon 241.28 3.08 1% 43.99 18% 2.50 1% 5.43 2% 5.58 27.54 49.42

Cape Verde 60.11 ‐ 0% 9.30 15% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 27.15 9.30


Chad 331.00 3.00 1% 44.13 13% ‐ 0% 10.16 3% 3.00 48.68 54.29

Comoros 50.23 0.65 1% 6.04 12% 0.40 1% 0.40 1% 1.05 7.67 6.44

Congo (Brazzaville) 85.00 ( 0.21) 0% 7.34 9% ‐ 0% 0.14 0% ( 0.21) 31.51 7.48


Djibouti 66.00 2.00 3% 7.93 12% 8.00 12% 0.12 0% 10.00 16.68 8.05

Eritrea 53.70 ‐ 0% 7.18 13% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 9.41 7.18

Ethiopia 674.00 171.33 25% 38.24 6% 50.00 7% 1.06 0% 221.33 155.22 39.30

Gabon 39.20 ‐ 0% 1.44 4% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 5.80 1.44

Gambia 69.05 13.45 19% 7.80 11% ‐ 0% 0.67 1% 13.45 9.17 8.46

Ghana 420.35 15.72 4% 17.35 4% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 15.72 ( 6.57) 17.35

Guinea Bissau 37.32 1.96 5% 1.73 5% 5.50 15% 2.47 7% 7.46 4.49 4.20

Guinea (Conakry) 174.30 174.30 100% ‐ 0% 5.24 3% 11.42 7% 189.09 14.45 11.42

406

Ivory Coast 261.13 31.32 12% 13.56 5% ( 0.29) 0% 62.94 24% 31.03 97.94 76.50

Kenya 392.31 103.24 26% 55.47 14% 40.00 10% 6.89 2% 143.24 81.57 62.36

Lesotho 139.31 7.65 5% 28.17 20% ‐ 0% 3.49 3% 7.65 47.28 32.54

Liberia 182.00 16.00 9% 17.27 9% 4.80 3% ( 0.00) 0% 20.80 4.43 17.26

Madagascar 255.00 134.00 53% 36.56 14% ‐ 0% 8.77 3% 134.00 98.71 45.32

Malawi 551.12 60.84 11% 66.78 12% ‐ 0% 3.93 1% 60.84 112.44 70.72

Mali 704.80 238.99 34% 146.26 21% 23.23 3% 6.14 1% 266.78 191.07 155.48

Mauritania 192.89 61.70 32% 33.90 18% ‐ 0% 3.55 2% 61.70 110.84 37.45

Mauritius 64.20 5.10 8% 1.35 2% 1.04 2% ‐ 0% 6.14 8.24 1.35

Mozambique 670.30 63.82 10% 84.10 13% 35.21 5% 0.40 0% 100.70 60.59 85.71

Namibia 129.60 23.20 18% 28.21 22% ‐ 0% 0.06 0% 23.20 24.58 28.27

Niger 508.00 157.10 31% 79.85 16% ‐ 0% 0.32 0% 157.10 109.32 80.17

Nigeria 677.00 27.00 4% 74.88 11% 10.00 1% ‐ 0% 37.00 173.87 74.88

Rwanda 379.30 77.88 21% 72.23 19% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 80.85 48.61 72.23

Sao Tome & Principe 22.00 3.40 15% 3.73 17% ‐ 0% 0.10 0% 3.40 6.44 3.83

Senegal 317.21 82.83 26% 35.17 11% ( 0.57) 0% 2.15 1% 82.26 44.18 37.31

Seychelles 11.40 0.25 2% 1.84 16% 0.60 5% 0.04 0% 0.85 0.28 1.89

Sierra Leone 268.82 48.11 18% 43.99 16% ‐ 0% 1.06 0% 48.11 65.72 45.05

Somalia 412.00 38.00 9% 46.56 11% 10.00 2% 1.34 0% 48.00 90.16 47.90

Swaziland 70.00 8.20 12% 3.09 4% 9.07 13% 0.53 1% 17.27 6.92 3.62

Tanzania 607.00 58.80 10% 66.60 11% ‐ 0% 0.34 0% 58.80 31.25 66.93

Togo 144.56 4.11 3% 17.59 12% 6.32 4% 1.06 1% 10.43 77.96 18.65

Uganda 474.73 24.65 5% 45.71 10% ‐ 0% 0.11 0% 24.65 7.26 45.82

Zambia 452.34 13.72 3% 40.10 9% ‐ 0% 0.84 0% 13.72 79.87 40.95

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.36 32.65 9.36 52.32 32.65

* Total Africa 12 411.12 1 937.04 16% 1 529.48 12% 274.89 2% 203.13 2% 2 235.96 2 360.79 1 742.65

407



10th EDF Cotonou Total

NIP A Envelope B Envelope

annual 2013

Decisions as % of NIP Payments as % of NIP Decisions as % of NIP


Decisions Assigned funds

Payments

Antigua & Barbuda 4.08 0.68 17% 0.63 16% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0.68 ‐ 0.63

Barbados 9.80 ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 5.81 5.21 5.81 14.14 5.21

Belize 11.80 ‐ 0% 2.72 23% 2.11 18% 1.70 2.11 7.43 4.42

Dominica 7.37 ‐ 0% 3.47 47% 6.90 94% 1.86 25% 6.90 0.33 5.33


Grenada 6.60 ‐ 0% 0.08 1% 0.15 2% 0.07 1% 0.15 0.76 0.15

Guyana 51.00 46.62 91% 0.50 1% ‐ ‐ 46.62 ( 0.25) 0.50

Haiti 411.00 116.63 28% 22.80 6% ( 0.80) 0% 4.83 1% 116.15 34.08 28.19

Jamaica 132.60 42.50 32% 13.68 10% 27.06 20% 7.40 6% 69.56 9.54 21.08

Saint Kitts & Nevis 4.50 ‐ 0% 0.16 4% ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ 4.21 0.16

Saint Lucia 17.88 ‐ 0% 0.32 2% 0.23 1% ‐ 0% 0.23 0.31 0.32

Saint Vincent & the Grenadines 11.82 4.02 34% 0.79 7% 0.63 5% 0.14 4.65 0.99 0.92

Suriname 19.80 0.70 4% 3.82 19% ‐ ‐ 0.70 ( 0.03) 3.82

Trinidad & Tobago 25.50 8.16 32% 2.75 11% ‐ ‐ 8.16 7.67 2.75

* Total Caribbean 892.75 234.91 26% 80.12 9% 43.09 5% 23.60 3% 278.33 80.83 104.28

Cook Islands 3.60 2.55 71% 0.14 4% ‐ 0% 0.07 2% 2.55 0.08 0.21

East Timor 88.73 4.00 5% 9.30 10% ‐ ‐ 4.00 2.27 9.30

Fidji ‐ ‐ 3.80 1.03 3.80 2.80 1.03

Kiribati 20.05 5.30 26% 2.73 14% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 5.30 7.53 2.73

Marshall Islands 6.36 1.35 21% 1.26 20% ‐ 0% 0.09 1% 1.35 1.28 1.35

Micronesia 8.30 0.20 2% 3.34 40% ‐ ‐ 0.20 0.44 3.34

408

Nauru 2.70 0.20 7% 0.62 23% ‐ ‐ 0.20 1.66 0.62

Niue 3.60 1.05 29% 0.39 11% ‐ ‐ 1.05 0.01 0.39

Palau 2.90 0.18 6% 0.00 0% ‐ ‐ 0.18 0.12 0.00

Papua New Guinea 107.84 68.12 63% 2.65 2% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 68.12 4.45 2.65

Solomon Islands 31.46 16.28 52% 1.32 4% ‐ 0% 0.60 2% 16.28 0.15 1.92

Tonga 7.08 0.47 7% 0.29 4% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 0.47 6.73 0.29

Tuvalu 5.50 ‐ 0% 1.70 31% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% ‐ 1.13 1.70

Vanuatu 21.60 12.82 59% 2.20 10% ‐ 0% 0.52 2% 12.82 16.15 2.72

Western Samoa 38.20 ‐ 0% 0.69 2% 2.00 5% ‐ 0% 2.00 18.28 0.69

* Total Pacific 347.92 112.52 32% 26.62 8% 5.80 2% 2.30 1% 118.32 63.08 28.93

Caribbean Region 165.00 30.65 19% 11.45 7% 30.65 25.72 11.45

Central Africa Region 198.00 4.28 2% 20.77 10% 4.28 44.69 51.96


734.00 235.52 32% 50.11 7% 235.52 213.96 162.06

Intra ACP Allocations 2 895.00 577.58 20% 389.28 13% 577.58 398.43 396.05

Multiregional PALOP 33.10 25.80 78% 0.47 1% 25.80 6.85 0.50

Pacific Region 114.00 48.50 43% 13.63 12% 48.50 17.85 13.63

Southern Africa Region 148.00 32.00 22% 12.55 8% 32.00 48.32 38.85

West Africa Region 557.00 333.20 60% 10.09 2% 333.20 56.44 16.69


4 844.10 1 287.52 27% 508.35 61% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 287.52 812.27 691.19


43.60 90.71 90.56

* Total ACP 18 495.89 3 571.99 19% 2 144.58 12% 323.78 2% 229.04 1% 3 963.73 3 407.68 2 657.61

French Polynesia 19.79 19.79 100% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 1.80 19.79 1.80 ‐

Mayotte 23.72 23.72 100% 22.71 96% 6.00 25% 6.00 29.72 29.12 22.71

New Caledonia 19.81 ‐ 0% 6.50 33% ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ ( 0.10) 6.50

Saint Pierre & Miquelon 20.74 ‐ 0% 6.90 33% ‐ 0% ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.90

Wallis & Futuna 16.49 16.49 100% ‐ 0% 1.62 10% 0.02 18.11 0.02 0.68

409

* Total French OCT 100.55 60.00 60% 36.11 36% 7.62 8% 7.82 67.63 30.85 36.78

Aruba 8.88 ‐ 0% 2.07 23% ‐ 0.12 2.07

Netherlands Antilles 24.00 24.00 100% ‐ 0% 24.00 ‐ ‐

* Total Dutch OCT 32.88 24.00 73% 2.07 6% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24.00 0.12 2.07

Anguilla 11.70 ‐ 0% 3.67 31% ‐ ‐ 3.67

Falkland Islands 4.13 4.13 100% 1.03 25% 4.13 4.03 1.03

Montserrat 15.66 ‐ 0% 4.70 30% ‐ ‐ 4.70

Pitcairn Islands 2.40 2.40 100% ‐ 0% 2.40 ‐ ‐

Saint Helena 16.63 ‐ 0% 5.80 35% ‐ ‐ 5.80

Turks & Caicos Islands 11.85 11.85 100% ‐ 0% 11.85 ‐ ‐

* Total British OCTs 62.37 18.38 29% 15.20 24% ‐ 0% ‐ 0% 18.38 4.03 15.20


40.00 17.00 43% 2.77 7% 17.00 14.37 2.77


40.00 17.00 0.00 2.77 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17.00 14.37 2.77


* Total OCT 235.80 119.38 51% 56.14 24% 7.62 3% 7.82 3% 129.32 49.55 57.53

* Total ACP + OCT 18 731.69 3 691.38 20% 2 200.72 35% 331.40 5% 236.86 5% 4 093.05 3 457.23 2 715.14

410

Table 3.3.3.

Situation by instrument and country (EUR million)

10th EDF Cotonou

Cofinancing TOTAL STATE A

Envelope

B Envelope

Total B Envelope


Decisions cumulative

2013


Emergency aid


countries

Other chocs with budgetary impact

Angola 205.27 4.00 4.00 0.48 209.75

Benin 331.35 1.55 44.82 46.37 8.69 386.40

Botswana 87.60 8.02 37.18 45.20 132.80

Burkina Faso 655.82 19.30 23.42 14.00 56.72 712.54

Burundi 210.91 0.85 15.36 34.97 51.18 5.73 267.81

Cameroon 241.22 12.90 12.90 254.12

Cape Verde 60.10 9.00 9.00 69.10


149.75 15.80 25.21 41.01 190.76

Chad 330.99 36.94 36.94 367.93

Comoros 50.15 0.40 0.50 2.33 7.27 10.50 60.65

Congo (Brazzaville)

84.79 6.25 6.25 91.04


568.85 34.55 105.78 140.32 7.06 716.23

Djibouti 66.00 10.14 10.14 76.14

Eritrea 53.70 4.86 4.86 58.56

Ethiopia 673.97 95.23 95.23 769.20

Gabon 39.20 ‐ 39.20

Gambia 69.05 4.54 4.54 73.59

Ghana 420.07 41.02 41.02 461.09

Guinea Bissau 36.78 3.77 16.68 20.45 57.23

Guinea (Conakry)

174.30 61.53 61.53 9.55 245.38

Ivory Coast 260.17 20.70 9.18 11.85 115.39 157.11 417.28

Kenya 392.24 84.68 84.68 476.92

Lesotho 139.30 5.50 21.00 26.50 3.36 169.16

Liberia 180.22 8.41 7.34 25.92 41.67 221.89

Madagascar 255.00 48.61 48.61 303.61

Malawi 551.12 14.39 44.00 58.39 609.51

Mali 704.80 3.37 45.35 7.70 56.42 6.25 767.47

Mauritania 192.10 17.87 17.87 209.97

Mauritius 64.20 1.63 10.90 12.53 76.73

Mozambique 670.19 44.69 1.50 12.11 58.30 13.67 742.16

Namibia 129.60 1.90 1.90 131.50

Niger 507.87 90.30 90.30 598.16

Nigeria 677.00 2.00 10.00 12.00 689.00

Rwanda 379.28 9.44 9.44 2.98 391.69

411

Sao Tome & Principe

22.00 1.00 1.00 23.00

Senegal 317.19 10.66 11.80 22.46 339.65

Seychelles 11.40 0.50 9.00 9.50 20.90

Sierra Leone 268.78 13.02 22.00 35.02 303.80

Somalia 412.00 10.00 7.80 17.80 429.80

Swaziland 70.00 9.96 9.96 79.96

Tanzania 606.48 6.82 14.84 21.66 628.14

Togo 144.27 6.32 1.80 15.12 23.24 167.51

Uganda 474.65 5.48 5.48 480.13

Zambia 451.72 6.87 30.00 36.87 488.59

Zimbabwe 9.93 147.88 157.82 157.82

*Total Africa 12 391.44 125.24 734.34 48.46 806.64 1 714.68 ‐ 57.76 14 163.87



10th EDF Cotonou

Cofinancing

TOTAL STATE A Envelope

B Envelope

Total B Envelope


Decisions cumulative

2013


Emergency aid


countries

Other chocs with

budgetary impact

Antigua & Barbuda

4.08 9.00 9.00 13.08

Barbados 9.79 5.81 5.81 15.60

Belize 11.80 4.01 0.60 4.61 16.41

Dominica 7.37 7.50 6.90 14.40 21.77

Dominican Republic

179.00 28.93 3.50 32.43 211.43

Grenada 6.60 2.40 0.15 8.79 11.34 17.94

Guyana 51.00 ‐ 51.00

Haiti 410.64 5.26 67.74 58.38 131.38 38.83 580.85

Jamaica 132.60 26.56 26.40 52.96 185.56

Saint Kitts & Nevis

4.50 1.80 1.80 6.30

Saint Lucia 17.88 1.03 1.20 2.23 20.11


11.82 0.45 2.06 2.51 14.32

Suriname 19.80 ‐ 19.80

Trinidad & Tobago

25.50 ‐ 25.50

* Total Caribbean

892.38 83.51 101.67 0.15 83.13 268.46 ‐ 38.83 1 199.67

Cook Islands 3.60 0.03 0.30 0.32 3.92

East Timor 88.73 ‐ 88.73

Fidji 3.80 3.80 3.80

Kiribati 20.05 1.00 1.00 21.05

Marshall Islands

6.35 0.50 0.50 6.85

Micronesia 8.30 ‐ 8.30

412

Nauru 2.70 ‐ 2.70

Niue 3.60 ‐ 3.60

Palau 2.90 ‐ 2.90

Papua New Guinea

107.84 0.65 0.65 108.49

Solomon Islands

31.39 17.68 17.68 49.06

Tonga 7.08 7.79 7.79 14.87

Tuvalu 5.50 1.50 1.50 7.00

Vanuatu 21.60 1.40 1.40 23.00

Western Samoa 38.20 2.00 4.00 5.50 11.50 49.70

* Total Pacific 347.83 2.00 20.16 ‐ 23.97 46.13 ‐ ‐ 393.97

Caribbean Region

164.99 164.99


198.00 198.00


733.11 733.11


2 873.82 12.15 2 885.97

Multiregional PALOP

33.10 33.10



148.00 148.00

West Africa Region

557.00 557.00

* Total regional

cooperation ACP

4 822.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.15 4 834.18


501.36 1.17 502.52

* Total ACP 18 453.68 210.75 856.17 48.61 913.74 2 029.27 501.36 109.91 21 094.21

French Polynesia

19.79 2.00

2.00 21.79

Mayotte 23.72 6.00 6.00 29.72

New Caledonia 19.81 ‐ 19.81


20.74

‐ 20.74

Wallis & Futuna 16.49 2.70 2.70 19.19

* Total French OCT

100.55 ‐ 4.70 ‐ 6.00 10.70 ‐ ‐ 111.25

Aruba 8.80 8.80


24.00

24.00

* Total Dutch OCT

32.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32.80

Anguilla 11.70 ‐ 11.70

Falkland Islands 4.13 ‐ 4.13

Montserrat 15.66 ‐ 15.66

Pitcairn Islands 2.40 ‐ 2.40

Saint Helena 16.63 ‐ 16.63


11.85 4.30

4.30 16.15

413

* Total British OCTs

62.37 ‐ 4.30 ‐ ‐ 4.30 ‐ ‐ 66.67


40.00

40.00

* Total regional

cooperation OCT

40.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40.00

All OCT countries

6.00 6.00

* Total OCT 235.72 ‐ 9.00 ‐ 6.00 15.00 6.00 ‐ 256.72

* Total ACP+OCT

18 689.40 210.75 865.17 48.61 919.74 2 044.27 507.36 109.91 21 350.94


10th EDF Cotonou


Envelope

B Envelope

Total B Envelope

Implementation costs Decisions

annual 2013 Compensation export earnings

Emergency aid


countries


Angola 90.30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 90.30

Benin 45.15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.88) 44.27

Botswana 14.60 8.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.02 ‐ ‐ 22.62

Burkina Faso 46.59 8.90 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.90 ‐ ‐ 55.49

Burundi 23.60 ‐ 4.57 ‐ ‐ 4.57 ‐ ‐ 28.17

Cameroon 3.08 ‐ 2.50 ‐ ‐ 2.50 ‐ ‐ 5.58

Cape Verde ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


21.53 ‐ 13.00 ‐ ‐ 13.00 ‐ ‐ 34.53

Chad 3.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.00

Comoros 0.65 0.40 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.40 ‐ ‐ 1.05

Congo (Brazzaville)

( 0.21) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.21)


20.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ 20.00 20.00 ‐ 6.14 46.24

Djibouti 2.00 ‐ 8.00 ‐ ‐ 8.00 ‐ ‐ 10.00

Eritrea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ethiopia 171.33 ‐ 50.00 ‐ ‐ 50.00 ‐ ‐ 221.33

Gabon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Gambia 13.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13.45

Ghana 15.72 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.72

Guinea Bissau 1.96 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.50 5.50 ‐ ‐ 7.46

Guinea (Conakry)

174.30 ‐ 5.24 ‐ ‐ 5.24 ‐ 9.55 189.09

Ivory Coast 31.32 ‐ ‐ ( 0.29) ‐ ( 0.29) ‐ ‐ 31.03

Kenya 103.24 ‐ 40.00 ‐ ‐ 40.00 ‐ ‐ 143.24

Lesotho 7.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.65

Liberia 16.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.80 4.80 ‐ ‐ 20.80

414

Madagascar 134.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 134.00

Malawi 60.84 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60.84

Mali 238.99 ‐ 23.23 ‐ ‐ 23.23 ‐ 4.57 266.78

Mauritania 61.70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 61.70

Mauritius 5.10 1.04 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.04 ‐ ‐ 6.14

Mozambique 63.82 35.21 ‐ ‐ ‐ 35.21 ‐ 1.67 100.70

Namibia 23.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 23.20

Niger 157.10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 157.10

Nigeria 27.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10.00 10.00 ‐ ‐ 37.00

Rwanda 77.88 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.98 80.85

Sao Tome & Principe

3.40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.40

Senegal 82.83 ‐ ( 0.57) ‐ ‐ ( 0.57) ‐ ‐ 82.26

Seychelles 0.25 ‐ 0.50 ‐ 0.10 0.60 ‐ ‐ 0.85

Sierra Leone 48.11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48.11

Somalia 38.00 10.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 10.00 ‐ ‐ 48.00

Swaziland 8.20 9.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.07 ‐ ‐ 17.27

Tanzania 58.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 58.80

Togo 4.11 6.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.32 ‐ ‐ 10.43

Uganda 24.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24.65

Zambia 13.72 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13.72

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ ( 0.33) ‐ 9.68 9.36 ‐ ‐ 9.36

* Total Africa 1 937.04 78.96 146.14 ( 0.29) 50.08 274.89 ‐ 24.03 2 235.96



10th EDF Cotonou


Envelope

B Envelope

Total B Envelope

Implementation costs Decisions


Emergency aid


countries


Antigua & Barbuda

0.68 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.68

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.81 5.81 5.81

Belize ‐ 2.11 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.11 2.11

Dominica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.90 6.90 6.90

Dominican Republic

15.60 ‐ 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 16.60

Grenada ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.15 ‐ 0.15 0.15

Guyana 46.62 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 46.62

Haiti 116.63 5.26 ( 8.44) ‐ 2.38 ( 0.80) 0.33 116.15

Jamaica 42.50 26.56 0.50 ‐ ‐ 27.06 69.56

Saint Kitts & Nevis

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Lucia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.23 0.23 0.23


4.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.63 0.63 4.65

415

Suriname 0.70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.70

Trinidad & Tobago

8.16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.16

* Total Caribbean

234.91 33.93 ( 6.94) 0.15 15.95 43.09 ‐ 0.33 278.33

Cook Islands 2.55 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.55

East Timor 4.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.00

Fidji ‐ ‐ 3.80 ‐ ‐ 3.80 ‐ ‐ 3.80

Kiribati 5.30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.30

Marshall Islands 1.35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.35

Micronesia 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.20

Nauru 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.20

Niue 1.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.05

Palau 0.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.18

Papua New Guinea

68.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 68.12

Solomon Islands 16.28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16.28

Tonga 0.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.47

Tuvalu ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Vanuatu 12.82 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.82

Western Samoa ‐ 2.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.00 ‐ ‐ 2.00

* Total Pacific 112.52 2.00 3.80 ‐ ‐ 5.80 ‐ ‐ 118.32

Caribbean Region

30.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 30.65


4.28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 4.28


235.52 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐

‐ ‐ 235.52


577.58 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 577.58

Multiregional PALOP

25.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 25.80

Pacific Region 48.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48.50


32.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 32.00

West Africa Region

333.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 333.20


1 287.52 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 287.52


43.11 0.49 43.60

* Total ACP 3 571.99 114.89 143.00 ( 0.14) 66.03 323.78 43.11 24.85 3 963.73

French Polynesia

19.79 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 19.79

Mayotte 23.72 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.00 6.00 ‐ ‐ 29.72

New Caledonia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐

Wallis & Futuna 16.49 ‐ 1.62 ‐ ‐ 1.62 ‐ ‐ 18.11

* Total French OCT

60.00 ‐ 1.62 ‐ 6.00 7.62 ‐ ‐ 67.63

Aruba ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

416


24.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 24.00

* Total Dutch OCT 24.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24.00

Anguilla ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Falkland Islands 4.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.13

Montserrat ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Pitcairn Islands 2.40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.40

Saint Helena ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


11.85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 11.85

* Total British OCT

18.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18.38

OCT regional cooperation, FR

60.00 ‐ 1.62 ‐ 6.00 7.62

‐ ‐ 67.63

OCT regional cooperation, NL

24.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 24.00

OCT regional cooperation, UK

18.38 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 18.38

OCT Regional cooperation

17.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 17.00

All OCT countries

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2.31 2.31

* Total OCT 119.38 ‐ 1.62 ‐ 6.00 7.62 2.31 ‐ 129.32

* Total ACP + OCT

3 691.38 114.89 144.62 ( 0.14) 72.03 331.40 45.42 24.85 4 093.05

Table 3.3.5.


10th EDF Cotonou

Cofinancing TOTAL STATE A Envelope

B Envelope


Assigned funds

cumulative 2013


Emergency aid


countries


Total B Envelope

Angola 90.26 4.00 4.00 0.48 94.74

Benin 251.58 1.38 44.77 46.16 8.33 306.07

Botswana 67.31 35.68 35.68 102.99

Burkina Faso 545.27 10.40 22.58 14.00 46.98 592.24

Burundi 192.67 0.84 11.69 34.97 47.50 5.68 245.85

Cameroon 222.69 10.29 10.29 232.98

Cape Verde 54.19 9.00 9.00 63.19


63.10 5.32 25.21 30.53 93.63

Chad 194.60 33.04 33.04 227.65

Comoros 26.89 0.50 2.33 7.27 10.10 36.99

Congo (Brazzaville)

56.35 6.20 6.20 62.55


364.84 34.55 97.89 132.43 2.34 499.61

Djibouti 20.91 2.10 2.10 23.01

Eritrea 16.09 4.86 4.86 20.95

417

Ethiopia 499.00 51.23 51.23 550.22

Gabon 7.44 ‐ 7.44

Gambia 44.28 3.12 3.12 47.40

Ghana 379.87 41.02 41.02 420.89

Guinea Bissau 16.98 3.77 16.60 20.37 37.35

Guinea (Conakry)

50.66 50.66 50.66

Ivory Coast 162.02 12.09 9.18 11.85 115.26 148.37 310.38

Kenya 233.33 44.57 44.57 277.90

Lesotho 121.59 5.49 21.00 26.49 3.10 151.18

Liberia 158.77 8.10 7.34 21.12 36.56 195.33

Madagascar 98.94 31.34 31.34 130.28

Malawi 437.08 14.39 44.00 58.39 495.47

Mali 554.54 3.37 26.77 7.70 37.84 4.63 597.02

Mauritania 115.27 15.33 15.33 130.59

Mauritius 57.69 0.59 10.90 11.49 69.18

Mozambique 527.96 21.15 1.50 12.11 34.76 13.36 576.07

Namibia 111.59 0.30 0.30 111.89

Niger 368.93 90.02 90.02 458.95

Nigeria 445.89 1.76 1.76 447.65

Rwanda 329.28 9.44 9.44 338.72

Sao Tome & Principe

17.38 0.91 0.91 18.29

Senegal 226.28 10.63 11.80 22.43 248.72

Seychelles 11.34 8.77 8.77 20.11

Sierra Leone 195.19 13.02 22.00 35.02 230.21

Somalia 264.61 7.80 7.80 272.41

Swaziland 32.06 0.89 0.89 32.95

Tanzania 518.40 2.37 14.84 17.21 535.60

Togo 119.36 6.32 1.70 14.84 22.86 142.22

Uganda 391.94 5.21 5.21 397.14

Zambia 389.39 6.77 30.00 36.77 426.16

Zimbabwe 9.85 146.15 155.99 155.99

* Total Africa 9 003.18 55.65 561.71 48.46 779.94 1 445.76 ‐ 37.91 10 486.84



10th EDF Cotonou

Cofinancing


B Envelope



2013


Emergency aid


countries

Other chocs with

budgetary impact

Total B Envelope

Antigua & Barbuda

3.39 9.00 9.00 12.39

Barbados 9.73 5.81 5.81 15.54

418

Belize 11.23 2.35 0.55 2.90 14.13

Dominica 7.13 7.13 7.13 14.26

Dominican Republic

148.77 25.33 3.50 28.83 177.60

Grenada 6.60 2.20 0.15 8.79 11.14 17.74

Guyana 2.60 ‐ 2.60

Haiti 206.52 55.17 52.65 107.82 25.76 340.11

Jamaica 91.48 5.00 26.40 31.40 122.88

Saint Kitts & Nevis

4.45 0.67 0.67 5.11

Saint Lucia 5.83 1.00 0.08 1.08 6.91


2.49 0.28 0.28 2.77

Suriname 18.76 ‐ 18.76

Trinidad & Tobago

24.03 ‐ 24.03

* Total Caribbean

543.00 49.76 88.82 0.15 67.33 206.06 ‐ 25.76 774.81

Cook Islands 0.91 0.27 0.27 1.18

East Timor 48.70 ‐ 48.70

Fidji 2.80 2.80 2.80

Kiribati 12.17 1.00 1.00 13.17

Marshall Islands

5.72 0.50 0.50 6.22


Nauru 2.28 ‐ 2.28

Niue 2.40 ‐ 2.40

Palau 2.63 ‐ 2.63

Papua New Guinea

15.05 0.63 0.63 15.68

Solomon Islands

8.93 17.60 17.60 26.53

Tonga 6.54 6.32 6.32 12.87

Tuvalu 4.58 1.50 1.50 6.08

Vanuatu 19.45 1.28 1.28 20.73

Western Samoa

36.67 4.00 5.50 9.50 46.17

* Total Pacific 174.11 ‐ 17.53 ‐ 23.86 41.39 ‐ ‐ 215.50

Caribbean Region

101.08 101.08


126.10 126.10


547.19 547.19


2 292.36 12.04 2 304.40

Multiregional PALOP

13.97 13.97



101.35 101.35

West Africa Region

185.67 185.67

* Total regional

3 436.85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.04 3 448.89

419

cooperation ACP


483.45 0.50 483.95

* Total ACP 13 157.14 105.40 668.06 48.61 871.14 1 693.21 483.45 76.21 15 410.01

French Polynesia

1.80

1.80 1.80

New Caledonia 23.12 6.00 6.00 29.12

Mayotte 19.71 ‐ 19.71


20.60

‐ 20.60

Wallis & Futuna

0.88

0.88 0.88

* Total French OCT

63.44 ‐ 2.68 ‐ 6.00 8.68 ‐ ‐ 72.12

Aruba 8.52 8.52

* Total Dutch OCT

8.52 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.52

Anguilla 11.70 ‐ 11.70

Falkland Islands

4.03

‐ 4.03




4.17 4.17 4.17

* Total British OCTs

47.52 ‐ 4.17 ‐ ‐ 4.17 ‐ ‐ 51.69


18.69 18.69

* Total regional

cooperation OCT

18.69 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18.69

All OCT countries

3.70 3.70

* Total OCT 138.17 ‐ 6.84 ‐ 6.00 12.84 3.70 ‐ 154.71

* Total ACP + OCT

13 295.30 105.40 674.90 48.61 877.14 1 706.05 487.16 76.21 15 564.72


10th EDF Cotonou


B Envelope

Total B Envelope


Cofinancing Assigned funds annual

2013


Emergency aid


countries


Angola 44.50 ‐ 4.00 ‐ ‐ 4.00 ‐ 0.48 48.98

Benin ( 1.37) ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ 0.06 0.06 0 1.49 0.17

Botswana 3.09 ‐ ‐ ‐ 25.18 25.18 ‐ ‐ 28.27

Burkina Faso 70.68 ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ‐ ( 0.06) ‐ ‐ 70.62

Burundi 74.80 ‐ 1.00 ‐ ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.50 77.31

Cameroon 26.96 ‐ 0.58 ‐ ‐ 0.58 ‐ ‐ 27.54

420

Cape Verde 27.15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 27.15


8.21 ‐ 2.53 ‐ ‐ 2.53 ‐ ‐ 10.74

Chad 38.26 ‐ 10.42 ‐ ‐ 10.42 ‐ ‐ 48.68

Comoros 7.62 ‐ 0.05 ‐ ‐ 0.05 ‐ ‐ 7.67

Congo (Brazzaville)

31.51 ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ 31.51


117.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21.65 21.65 ‐ 2.34 141.64

Djibouti 16.68 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16.68

Eritrea 9.41 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.41

Ethiopia 149.22 ‐ 6.00 ‐ ‐ 6.00 ‐ ‐ 155.22

Gabon 5.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.80

Gambia 8.69 ‐ 0.48 ‐ ‐ 0.48 ‐ ‐ 9.17

Ghana ( 6.57) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 6.57)

Guinea Bissau ( 0.93) ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.42 5.42 ‐ ‐ 4.49

Guinea (Conakry)

‐ ‐ 14.45 ‐ ‐ 14.45 ‐ ‐ 14.45

Ivory Coast 84.83 10.55 2.60 ( 0.29) 0.26 13.12 ‐ ‐ 97.94

Kenya 81.08 ‐ 0.48 ‐ ‐ 0.48 ‐ ‐ 81.57

Lesotho 40.20 ‐ 3.99 ‐ ‐ 3.99 ‐ 3.09 47.28

Liberia 4.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.43

Madagascar 75.97 ‐ 22.74 ‐ ‐ 22.74 ‐ ‐ 98.71

Malawi 108.44 ‐ 4.00 ‐ ‐ 4.00 ‐ ‐ 112.44

Mali 181.43 ‐ 5.00 ‐ ‐ 5.00 ‐ 4.63 191.07

Mauritania 105.11 ‐ 5.73 ‐ ‐ 5.73 ‐ ‐ 110.84

Mauritius 8.24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.24

Mozambique 37.98 21.15 0.10 ‐ ‐ 21.25 0 1.36 60.59

Namibia 24.58 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24.58

Niger 109.56 ‐ ( 0.24) ‐ ‐ ( 0.24) ‐ ‐ 109.32

Nigeria 173.87 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 173.87

Rwanda 48.61 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48.61

Sao Tome & Principe

6.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.44

Senegal 44.20 ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ ‐ 44.18

Seychelles 0.28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.28

Sierra Leone 65.72 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 65.72

Somalia 88.86 ‐ 1.30 ‐ ‐ 1.30 ‐ ‐ 90.16

Swaziland 6.20 0.71 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.71 ‐ ‐ 6.92

Tanzania 29.61 ‐ 1.64 ‐ ‐ 1.64 ‐ ‐ 31.25

Togo 71.64 6.32 ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) 6.32 ‐ ‐ 77.96

Uganda 7.35 ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ‐ ( 0.09) ‐ ‐ 7.26

Zambia 79.95 ‐ ( 0.08) ‐ ‐ ( 0.08) ‐ ‐ 79.87

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ 2.79 ‐ 49.52 52.32 ‐ ‐ 52.32

* Total Africa 2 115.97 38.73 89.39 ( 0.29) 102.09 229.92 ‐ 14.89 2 360.79

421



10th EDF Cotonou

TOTAL STATE A

Envelope

B Envelope

Total B Envelope


Cofinancing Assigned funds


Emergency aid


countries


Antigua & Barbuda ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Barbados 8.33 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.81 5.81 ‐ ‐ 14.14

Belize 4.53 2.35 0.55 ‐ ‐ 2.90 ‐ ‐ 7.43

Dominica 0.33 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.33

Dominican Republic 1.75 ( 3.60) 3.50 ‐ ‐ ( 0.10) ‐ ‐ 1.65

Grenada 0.61 ‐ ‐ 0.15 ‐ 0.15 ‐ ‐ 0.76

Guyana ( 0.25) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.25)

Haiti 24.53 ‐ 10.55 ‐ ( 1.75) 8.80 0 0.74 34.08

Jamaica 4.04 5.00 0.50 ‐ ‐ 5.50 ‐ ‐ 9.54

Saint Kitts & Nevis 3.55 0.67 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.67 ‐ ‐ 4.21

Saint Lucia 0.27 ‐ ( 0.03) ‐ 0.08 0.05 ‐ ‐ 0.31


0.85 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.14 ‐ ‐ 0.99

Suriname ( 0.03) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.03)

Trinidad & Tobago 7.67 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.67

* Total Caribbean 56.18 4.56 15.07 0.15 4.14 23.91 ‐ 0.74 80.83

Cook Islands 0.03 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.05 0.05 ‐ ‐ 0.08

East Timor 2.27 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.27

Fiji ‐ ‐ 2.80 ‐ ‐ 2.80 ‐ ‐ 2.80

Kiribati 7.53 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.53

Marshall Islands 1.28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.28

Micronesia 0.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.44

Nauru 1.66 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.66

Niue 0.01 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.01

Palau 0.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.12

Papua New Guinea 4.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.45

Solomon Islands 0.15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.15

Tonga 6.04 ‐ 0.69 ‐ ‐ 0.69 ‐ ‐ 6.73

Tuvalu 1.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.13

Vanuatu 15.55 ‐ 0.61 ‐ ‐ 0.61 ‐ ‐ 16.15

Western Samoa 18.28 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18.28

* Total Pacific 58.94 ‐ 4.10 ‐ 0.05 4.14 ‐ ‐ 63.08

Caribbean Region 25.72 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25.72


44.69 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44.69


213.96 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 213.96


398.43 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.01) 398.43

422

Multiregional PALOP 6.85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.85

Pacific Region 17.85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17.85


48.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48.32

West Africa Region 56.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 56.44


812.27 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.01) 812.27


90.71 90.71

* Total ACP 3 043.36 43.29 108.55 ( 0.14) 106.28 257.98 90.71 15.63 3 407.68

French Polynesia ‐ ‐ 1.80 ‐ ‐ 1.80 ‐ ‐ 1.80

Mayotte 23.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.00 6.00 ‐ ‐ 29.12

New Caledonia ( 0.10) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐

Wallis & Futuna ‐ ‐ 0.02 ‐ ‐ 0.02 ‐ ‐ 0.02

* Total French OCT 23.03 ‐ 1.82 ‐ 6.00 7.82 ‐ ‐ 30.94

Aruba 0.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total Dutch OCT 0.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Anguilla ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Falkland Islands 4.03 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.03

Montserrat ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Saint Helena ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐

* Total British OCT 4.03 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.03


23.03 ‐ 1.82 ‐ 6.00 7.82 ‐ ‐ 30.85


0.12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.12


4.03 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.03

OCT Regional cooperation

14.37 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ 14.37

All OCT countries ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.19 0.19

* Total OCT 41.54 ‐ 1.82 ‐ 6.00 7.82 0.19 ‐ 49.55

* Total ACP + OCT 3 084.90 43.29 110.38 ( 0.14) 112.28 265.80 90.90 15.63 3 457.23

Table 3.3.7


10th EDF Cotonou

Cofinancing

TOTAL STATE A

Envelope

B Envelope

Implementation costs Payments

cumulative 2013 Compensation export earnings

Emergency aid


countries


Total B Envelope

Angola 32.93 3.20 3.20 36.13

Benin 184.27 1.29 44.75 46.04 4.97 235.28

Botswana 30.84 22.34 22.34 53.18

Burkina Faso 392.97 0.98 21.13 22.11 415.08

423

Burundi 122.85 0.81 9.98 34.97 45.76 3.67 172.28

Cameroon 158.33 9.44 9.44 167.77

Cape Verde 35.67 9.00 9.00 44.67


35.20 4.57 25.21 29.78 64.98

Chad 102.78 27.52 27.52 130.30

Comoros 13.27 0.40 2.33 7.27 10.00 23.27

Congo (Brazzaville) 17.88 6.20 6.20 24.08


243.17 34.54 74.06 108.60 0.40 352.17

Djibouti 11.76 1.80 1.80 13.56

Eritrea 10.24 4.86 4.86 15.10

Ethiopia 376.02 45.22 45.22 421.24

Gabon 2.62 ‐ 2.62

Gambia 36.22 2.78 2.78 38.99

Ghana 169.13 41.02 41.02 210.15

Guinea Bissau 15.42 3.77 13.65 17.42 32.83

Guinea (Conakry) 36.51 36.51 36.51

Ivory Coast 65.23 4.85 6.96 11.85 111.15 134.80 200.03

Kenya 85.62 40.99 40.99 126.61

Lesotho 83.87 4.69 21.00 25.69 0.88 110.44

Liberia 109.14 7.25 7.34 21.12 35.71 144.85

Madagascar 41.76 15.27 15.27 57.03

Malawi 237.60 14.32 44.00 58.32 295.92

Mali 315.82 3.37 17.36 7.70 28.43 3.08 347.32

Mauritania 36.40 11.36 11.36 47.76

Mauritius 49.46 0.59 10.90 11.49 60.95

Mozambique 403.01 1.20 12.11 13.31 1.21 417.53

Namibia 59.26 0.30 0.30 59.56

Niger 209.28 76.83 76.83 286.10

Nigeria 163.87 1.76 1.76 165.63

Rwanda 265.22 9.44 9.44 274.66

Sao Tome & Principe 9.23 0.89 0.89 10.12

Senegal 187.58 10.38 11.80 22.18 209.76

Seychelles 9.86 8.75 8.75 18.61

Sierra Leone 135.20 12.76 22.00 34.76 169.96

Somalia 159.41 6.54 6.54 165.95

Swaziland 17.25 0.70 0.70 17.95

Tanzania 347.42 0.46 14.84 15.30 362.72

Togo 60.77 1.00 1.47 14.57 17.04 77.81

Uganda 235.47 5.21 5.21 240.68

Zambia 216.54 6.77 30.00 36.77 253.31

Zimbabwe 9.85 91.99 101.84 101.84

* Total Africa 5 495.82 12.30 475.24 48.46 667.25 1 203.26 ‐ 14.21 6 713.28

424



10th EDF Cotonou

Cofinancing


B Envelope


cumulative 2013


Emergency aid


countries

Other chocs with

budgetary impact

Total B Envelope

Antigua & Barbuda 3.30 9.00 9.00 12.30

Barbados 1.04 5.21 5.21 6.25

Belize 6.50 1.29 0.41 1.70 8.20

Dominica 4.04 7.13 7.13 11.17

Dominican Republic 111.34 25.33 2.39 27.72 139.06

Grenada 0.97 0.07 8.79 8.86 9.83

Guyana 1.82 ‐ 1.82

Haiti 134.70 26.82 43.86 70.68 0.57 205.95

Jamaica 68.54 26.30 26.30 94.84

Saint Kitts & Nevis 0.84 ‐ 0.84

Saint Lucia 3.88 1.00 1.00 4.88


1.68 0.14 0.14 1.82

Suriname 10.85 ‐ 10.85

Trinidad & Tobago 7.36 ‐ 7.36

* Total Caribbean 356.87 42.89 56.92 0.07 57.86 157.74 ‐ 0.57 515.18

Cook Islands 0.90 0.26 0.26 1.16

East Timor 31.45 ‐ 31.45

Fidji 1.03 1.03 1.03

Kiribati 5.20 0.94 0.94 6.14

Marshall Islands 4.34 0.14 0.14 4.48


Nauru 0.86 ‐ 0.86

Niue 2.11 ‐ 2.11

Palau 2.37 ‐ 2.37

Papua New Guinea 8.00 0.63 0.63 8.63

Solomon Islands 6.79 17.56 17.56 24.35

Tonga 0.61 5.63 5.63 6.25

Tuvalu 4.35 1.50 1.50 5.85

Vanuatu 4.93 0.67 0.67 5.59

Western Samoa 15.77 4.00 5.50 9.50 25.27

* Total Pacific 92.63 ‐ 14.40 ‐ 23.47 37.86 ‐ ‐ 130.49

Caribbean Region 42.69 ‐ 42.69


70.55 ‐ 70.55


410.71 ‐ 410.71


1 668.53 ‐ 6.12 1 674.65

Multiregional 7.14 ‐ 7.14

425

PALOP

Pacific Region 36.98 ‐ 36.98


47.78 ‐ 47.78

West Africa Region 24.08 ‐ 24.08


2 308.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.12 ‐ 2 314.59


463.96 0.30 464.26

* Total ACP 8 253.78 55.19 546.56 48.53 748.58 1 398.86 470.07 15.08 10

137.80

Mayotte 22.71 ‐ 22.71

New Caledonia 13.15 ‐ 13.15


13.90

‐ 13.90


* Total French OCT 49.76 ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 50.43

Aruba 2.07 2.07

* Total Dutch OCT 2.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.07

Anguilla 7.27 ‐ 7.27

Falkland Islands 1.03 ‐ 1.03




0.98 0.98 0.98

* Total British OCTs 23.93 ‐ 0.98 ‐ ‐ 0.98 ‐ ‐ 24.91


3.63 3.63


3.63 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.63


* Total OCT 79.39 ‐ 1.66 ‐ ‐ 1.66 3.29 ‐ 84.33

* Total ACP + OCT 8 333.17 55.19 548.22 48.53 748.58 1 400.52 473.36 15.08 10

222.13

Table 3.3.8.


10th EDF

Cotonou

Cofinancing TOTAL

A Envelope

B Envelope



Emergency aid


countries


Total B Envelope

Angola 10.55 ‐ 3.20 ‐ ‐ 3.20 ‐ ‐ 13.75

Benin 38.15 ‐ ( 0.02) ‐ 2.03 2.01 ‐ 2.14 42.29

Botswana 2.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11.84 11.84 ‐ ‐ 14.02

Burkina Faso 112.19 ‐ 2.25 ‐ ‐ 2.25 ‐ ‐ 114.44

Burundi 41.77 0.06 0.29 ‐ ‐ 0.35 ‐ 2.34 44.46

426

Cameroon 43.99 ‐ 5.43 ‐ ‐ 5.43 ‐ ‐ 49.42

Cape Verde 9.30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.30


5.51 ‐ 2.08 ‐ ‐ 2.08 ‐ ‐ 7.59

Chad 44.13 ‐ 10.16 ‐ ‐ 10.16 ‐ ‐ 54.29

Comoros 6.04 ‐ 0.40 ‐ ‐ 0.40 ‐ ‐ 6.44

Congo (Brazzaville)

7.34 ‐ 0.14 ‐ ‐ 0.14 ‐ ‐ 7.48


83.68 ‐ 1.99 ‐ 10.85 12.84 ‐ 0.40 96.92

Djibouti 7.93 ‐ 0.12 ‐ ‐ 0.12 ‐ ‐ 8.05

Eritrea 7.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.18

Ethiopia 38.24 ‐ 1.06 ‐ ‐ 1.06 ‐ ‐ 39.30

Gabon 1.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.44

Gambia 7.80 ‐ 0.67 ‐ ‐ 0.67 ‐ ‐ 8.46

Ghana 17.35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17.35

Guinea Bissau 1.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.47 2.47 ‐ ‐ 4.20

Guinea (Conakry)

‐ ‐ 11.42 ‐ ‐ 11.42 ‐ ‐ 11.42

Ivory Coast 13.56 3.83 3.25 ( 0.29) 56.15 62.94 ‐ ‐ 76.50

Kenya 55.47 ‐ 6.89 ‐ ‐ 6.89 ‐ ‐ 62.36

Lesotho 28.17 ‐ 3.49 ‐ ‐ 3.49 ‐ 0.88 32.54

Liberia 17.27 ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ‐ ‐ 17.26

Madagascar 36.56 ‐ 8.77 ‐ ‐ 8.77 ‐ ‐ 45.32

Malawi 66.78 ‐ 3.93 ‐ ‐ 3.93 ‐ ‐ 70.72

Mali 146.26 ‐ 6.14 ‐ ‐ 6.14 ‐ 3.08 155.48

Mauritania 33.90 ‐ 3.55 ‐ ‐ 3.55 ‐ ‐ 37.45

Mauritius 1.35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.35

Mozambique 84.10 ‐ 0.40 ‐ ‐ 0.40 ‐ 1.21 85.71

Namibia 28.21 ‐ 0.06 ‐ ‐ 0.06 ‐ ‐ 28.27

Niger 79.85 ‐ 0.32 ‐ ‐ 0.32 ‐ ‐ 80.17

Nigeria 74.88 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 74.88

Rwanda 72.23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72.23

Sao Tome & Principe

3.73 ‐ 0.10 ‐ ‐ 0.10 ‐ ‐ 3.83

Senegal 35.17 ‐ 2.15 ‐ ‐ 2.15 ‐ ‐ 37.31

Seychelles 1.84 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.04 0.04 ‐ ‐ 1.89

Sierra Leone 43.99 ‐ 1.06 ‐ ‐ 1.06 ‐ ‐ 45.05

Somalia 46.56 ‐ 1.34 ‐ ‐ 1.34 ‐ ‐ 47.90

Swaziland 3.09 0.53 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.53 ‐ ‐ 3.62

Tanzania 66.60 ‐ 0.34 ‐ ‐ 0.34 ‐ ‐ 66.93

Togo 17.59 1.00 ‐ ‐ 0.06 1.06 ‐ ‐ 18.65

Uganda 45.71 ‐ 0.11 ‐ ‐ 0.11 ‐ ‐ 45.82

Zambia 40.10 ‐ 0.84 ‐ ‐ 0.84 ‐ ‐ 40.95

Zimbabwe ‐ ‐ 3.00 ‐ 29.65 32.65 ‐ ‐ 32.65

* Total Africa 1 529.48 5.42 84.92 ( 0.29) 113.08 203.13 ‐ 10.04 1 742.65

427



10th EDF

Cotonou

Cofinancing

TOTAL

A Envelope

B Envelope

Implementation costs Payments annual

2013

Compensation

export earnings

Emergency aid


countries


Total B Envelope

Antigua & Barbuda 0.63 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.63

Barbados ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.21 5.21 ‐ ‐ 5.21

Belize 2.72 1.29 0.41 ‐ ‐ 1.70 ‐ ‐ 4.42

Dominica 3.47 1.86 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.86 ‐ ‐ 5.33

Dominican Republic 28.39 ‐ 2.39 ‐ ‐ 2.39 ‐ ‐ 30.78

Grenada 0.08 ‐ ‐ 0.07 ‐ 0.07 ‐ ‐ 0.15

Guyana 0.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.50

Haiti 22.80 ‐ 3.71 ‐ 1.12 4.83 ‐ 0.56 28.19

Jamaica 13.68 ‐ 7.40 ‐ ‐ 7.40 ‐ ‐ 21.08

Saint Kitts & Nevis 0.16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.16

Saint Lucia 0.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.32


0.79 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.14 ‐ ‐ 0.92

Suriname 3.82 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.82

Trinidad & Tobago 2.75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.75

* Total Caribbean 80.12 3.29 13.91 0.07 6.33 23.60 ‐ 0.56 104.28

Cook Islands 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.07 0.07 ‐ ‐ 0.21

East Timor 9.30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.30

Fiji ‐ ‐ 1.03 ‐ ‐ 1.03 ‐ ‐ 1.03

Kiribati 2.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.73

Marshall Islands 1.26 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.09 0.09 ‐ ‐ 1.35

Micronesia 3.34 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.34

Nauru 0.62 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.62

Niue 0.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.39

Palau 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.00

Papua New Guinea 2.65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.65

Solomon Islands 1.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.60 0.60 ‐ ‐ 1.92

Tonga 0.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.29

Tuvalu 1.70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.70

Vanuatu 2.20 ‐ 0.52 ‐ ‐ 0.52 ‐ ‐ 2.72

Western Samoa 0.69 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.69

* Total Pacific 26.62 ‐ 1.55 ‐ 0.76 2.30 ‐ ‐ 28.93

Caribbean Region 11.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11.45

Central Africa Region 51.96 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51.96


162.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 162.06

Intra ACP Allocations 393.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.32 396.05

428

Multiregional PALOP 0.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.50

Pacific Region 13.63 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13.63


38.85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38.85

West Africa Region 16.69 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16.69


688.87 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.32 691.19


‐ 90.51 0.30 90.81

* Total ACP 2 325.10 8.70 100.38 ( 0.22) 120.17 229.04 90.51 13.22 2 657.86

Mayotte 22.71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22.71

New Caledonia 6.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.50


6.90 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ 6.90

Wallis & Futuna ‐ ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.68 0.68

* Total French OCT 36.11 ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 36.78

Aruba 2.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.07

* Total Dutch OCT 2.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.07

Anguilla 3.67 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.67

Falkland Islands 1.03 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.03

Montserrat 4.70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.70

Saint Helena 5.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.80

Turks & Caicos Islands ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

* Total British OCTs 15.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.20


36.11 ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 36.78


2.07 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.07


15.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.20


53.37 ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 54.05


* Total OCT 56.14 ‐ 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.68 0.71 ‐ 57.53

* Total ACP + OCT 2 381.24 8.70 101.06 ( 0.22) 120.17 229.71 91.22 13.22 2 715.39

Table 3.4.1

Situation by country (EUR million)

All EDF Decisions Assigned funds Payments

cumulative amounts 2013 Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total

Angola 117.36 331.75 449.11 112.59 211.32 323.91 83.11 149.40 232.51

Benin 171.88 689.57 861.45 171.75 608.05 779.80 164.97 537.04 702.01

Botswana 33.48 224.37 257.85 33.48 193.42 226.89 31.27 142.60 173.87

Burkina Faso 284.25 1 168.57 1 452.83 283.70 1 046.11 1 329.81 266.63 865.71 1 132.35

Burundi 132.84 531.16 664.00 131.84 506.48 638.32 87.18 427.02 514.20

Cameroon 232.70 423.13 655.84 232.66 399.93 632.59 146.40 329.90 476.29

Cape Verde 56.32 121.89 178.21 55.47 114.61 170.09 47.44 94.36 141.80

429

Central African Republic 84.47 308.81 393.28 84.30 209.00 293.30 77.59 176.31 253.90

Chad 212.84 582.92 795.76 212.06 434.75 646.81 194.47 331.28 525.75

Comoros 16.12 97.97 114.09 16.12 72.79 88.91 10.46 54.80 65.27

Congo (Brazzaville) 27.67 209.91 237.58 27.55 179.70 207.25 23.66 140.73 164.39


103.10 1 226.96 1 330.05 101.76 1 005.95 1 107.71 78.50 853.79 932.29

Djibouti 26.68 116.39 143.06 26.68 60.89 87.56 24.68 48.29 72.97

Equatorial Guinea 4.42 8.99 13.42 4.05 6.57 10.63 3.15 6.21 9.37

Eritrea 18.01 140.81 158.82 18.01 102.64 120.65 0.08 90.24 90.32

Ethiopia 366.36 1 344.37 1 710.73 362.03 1 121.57 1 483.60 278.96 977.96 1 256.92

Gabon 77.41 109.65 187.05 77.14 74.36 151.49 43.82 61.75 105.57

Gambia 33.16 127.08 160.24 31.81 99.33 131.14 27.32 87.92 115.25

Ghana 218.67 790.59 1 009.26 218.67 749.60 968.26 201.62 527.50 729.11

Guinea Bissau 47.23 153.65 200.88 46.88 125.25 172.13 149.32 148.90 298.22

Guinea (Conakry) 149.42 362.51 511.94 149.32 166.36 315.68 42.54 118.79 161.33

Ivory Coast 157.27 622.21 779.48 157.19 512.11 669.30 74.82 398.46 473.28

Kenya 193.08 763.61 956.68 188.37 550.80 739.18 88.28 389.64 477.92

Lesotho 65.08 272.72 337.80 65.00 248.46 313.47 63.75 202.71 266.46

Liberia 24.88 345.36 370.24 24.86 311.25 336.12 256.89 256.89

Madagascar 274.10 744.39 1 018.49 274.10 567.32 841.42 205.78 492.75 698.53

Malawi 263.77 873.73 1 137.51 263.70 757.55 1 021.25 239.82 557.44 797.25

Mali 322.71 1 223.29 1 546.00 320.45 1 045.57 1 366.02 280.09 794.66 1 074.75

Mauritania 133.29 393.33 526.62 133.29 307.25 440.54 84.66 219.59 304.25

Mauritius 55.32 139.80 195.12 55.32 132.25 187.57 30.16 124.02 154.18

Mozambique 409.00 1 305.12 1 714.12 406.14 1 131.48 1 537.62 306.90 963.49 1 270.39

Namibia 71.82 225.51 297.33 71.82 205.49 277.31 48.93 153.05 201.98

Niger 151.21 1 010.57 1 161.78 151.12 865.78 1 016.90 150.69 687.59 838.28

Nigeria 109.38 1 129.21 1 238.59 106.92 865.55 972.47 100.93 549.08 650.00

Rwanda 177.85 608.51 786.36 177.85 553.85 731.70 151.86 489.69 641.54

Sao Tome & Principe 12.23 37.84 50.07 12.23 32.52 44.74 12.23 24.18 36.41

Senegal 237.60 622.34 859.94 237.37 523.93 761.30 148.15 482.53 630.68

Seychelles 7.23 26.08 33.30 7.23 25.09 32.32 5.46 23.41 28.86

Sierra Leone 123.60 537.29 660.89 118.56 445.78 564.34 112.74 383.16 495.90

Somalia 50.00 610.10 660.10 48.67 452.59 501.27 48.29 345.56 393.85

South Soudan 266.66 266.66 56.79 56.79 15.87 15.87

Sudan 219.29 314.91 534.20 218.99 239.40 458.38 107.03 212.38 319.40

Swaziland 67.68 118.21 185.89 60.37 68.42 128.79 22.18 51.14 73.32

Tanzania 476.06 1 016.48 1 492.54 475.91 923.36 1 399.28 326.82 749.69 1 076.51

Togo 28.43 225.94 254.36 25.88 199.40 225.28 16.16 133.69 149.84

Uganda 423.88 770.88 1 194.75 423.66 685.72 1 109.38 294.45 527.49 821.94

Zambia 419.29 856.64 1 275.93 419.95 788.93 1 208.88 227.22 600.94 828.16

Zimbabwe 105.21 214.17 319.38 105.18 208.91 314.09 86.90 153.39 240.30

* Total Africa 6 993.62 24 345.98 31 339.60 6 948.00 20 194.25 27 142.25 5 217.44 16 153.00 21 370.44

Table 3.4.1



430

cumulative amounts 2013

Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total

Antigua & Barbuda

0.64 19.28 19.92 0.61 18.18 18.80 0.50 17.29 17.78

Bahamas 2.20 5.28 7.48 2.20 5.22 7.43 2.20 5.22 7.42

Barbados 7.18 27.28 34.46 6.69 27.21 33.90 3.51 16.72 20.23

Belize 19.06 24.80 43.86 19.06 22.03 41.09 10.36 16.09 26.45

Dominica 38.34 36.62 74.96 38.12 28.85 66.97 6.24 25.69 31.93

Dominican Republic

134.38 357.14 491.52 134.38 322.49 456.87 94.03 283.08 377.10

Grenada 3.33 44.51 47.84 3.33 44.16 47.49 0.48 34.56 35.05

Guyana 60.12 103.90 164.02 58.00 55.24 113.24 39.51 52.29 91.80

Haiti 78.78 860.29 939.07 78.23 613.27 691.50 74.50 468.04 542.54

Jamaica 222.16 278.70 500.87 222.16 213.77 435.93 164.73 184.69 349.42

Saint Kitts & Nevis

6.72 10.77 17.49 6.72 9.58 16.30 2.72 5.31 8.03

Saint Lucia 50.00 42.83 92.83 49.88 29.21 79.09 1.26 25.97 27.23


34.15 31.74 65.89 34.11 20.17 54.28 1.60 17.92 19.53

Suriname 19.49 63.78 83.27 19.49 62.67 82.17 19.30 54.71 74.01

Trinidad & Tobago

20.38 56.83 77.21 20.38 55.36 75.74 12.60 38.70 51.30

* Total Caribbean

696.94 1 963.75 2 660.70 693.37 1 527.41 2 220.78 433.55 1 246.26 1 679.81

Cook Islands 7.25 7.25 4.51 4.51 4.49 4.49

East Timor 106.04 106.04 65.69 65.69 24.63 24.63

Fiji 19.92 28.12 48.04 19.82 26.45 46.28 17.41 16.53 33.94

Kiribati 10.13 32.05 42.18 10.13 23.78 33.92 9.35 8.79 18.15

Marshall Islands 11.38 11.38 10.53 10.53 10.67 10.67

Micronesia 14.40 14.40 13.83 13.83 3.02 3.02

Nauru 5.00 5.00 4.57 4.57 4.52 4.52

Niue 6.20 6.20 4.81 4.81 4.75 4.75

Palau 5.50 5.50 5.07 5.07 123.93 123.93

Papua New Guinea

54.98 252.50 307.48 54.55 148.24 202.79 52.60 38.97 91.58

Solomon Islands 91.12 71.08 162.20 90.78 45.70 136.48 16.11 47.81 63.92

Tonga 5.50 21.92 27.43 5.49 19.92 25.41 5.03 13.27 18.31

Tuvalu 2.60 11.83 14.43 2.60 10.91 13.51 2.10 10.66 12.76

Vanuatu 15.77 46.34 62.11 15.77 43.50 59.27 11.82 27.35 39.16

Western Samoa 19.10 77.02 96.12 19.10 73.30 92.40 14.07 52.34 66.40

* Total Pacific 219.14 696.63 915.77 218.25 500.81 719.07 128.49 391.74 520.23

Caribbean Region

61.32 304.35 365.68 60.21 238.49 298.69 40.16 174.96 215.12


77.04 276.51 353.54 76.78 195.27 272.06 76.78 133.02 209.81

East Africa Region

161.91 161.91 161.91 161.91 158.91 158.91


1 059.69 1 059.69 862.11 862.11 11.47 683.59 695.06

Indian Ocean Region

11.47 11.47 11.47 11.47 ‐


685.00 2 885.97 3 570.97 679.54 2 304.40 2 983.94 663.23 4 190.89 4 854.13

Multiregional PALOP

10.83 56.29 67.11 10.29 34.10 44.39 10.20 23.81 34.01

Pacific Region 32.73 153.78 186.51 32.73 108.21 140.94 32.73 75.84 108.56

431


70.28 2 878.94 2 949.22 54.18 2 807.38 2 861.56 51.86 128.23 180.09


57.20 262.52 319.72 57.20 210.93 268.12 57.20 153.96 211.16

West Africa Region

226.17 835.41 1 061.59 225.64 434.73 660.37 194.46 224.81 419.27


ACP 1 393.93 8 713.47 10 107.40 1 369.94 7 195.62 8 565.56 1 297.00 5 789.12 7 086.12


34.91 938.27 973.19 34.91 917.75 952.67 34.91 890.45 925.36

All ACP countries

1 152.24 157.90 1 310.14 1 158.78 153.91 1 312.69 3 227.02 153.90 3 380.92

ACP 10 490.78 36 816.01 47 306.80 10 423.25 30 489.76 40 913.00 10 338.40 24 624.46 34 962.87

Anguilla 0.80 23.94 24.74 0.80 23.86 24.66 0.80 19.43 20.22


0.51 0.92 1.44 0.51 0.91 1.42 0.51 0.72 1.23

Cayman Islands 4.47 4.47 4.47 4.47 4.47 4.47

Falkland Islands 8.65 8.65 8.55 8.55 5.55 5.55

Montserrat 1.60 38.74 40.34 1.60 38.44 40.04 1.60 30.22 31.81

Pitcairn Islands 4.75 4.75 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35

Saint Helena 0.06 34.57 34.63 0.06 34.22 34.28 0.06 23.62 23.68


3.00 30.03 33.03 3.00 18.04 21.04 3.00 14.85 17.85

* Total British OCT

5.97 146.08 152.04 5.97 130.84 136.81 5.97 101.21 107.17

Aruba 0.46 19.14 19.60 0.46 18.79 19.26 0.46 12.35 12.81


5.78 74.47 80.25 5.78 49.71 55.49 5.78 49.65 55.44

* Total Dutch OCT

6.25 93.61 99.85 6.25 68.50 74.75 6.25 62.00 68.25

French Polynesia

13.44 42.72 56.16 13.44 21.97 35.41 13.44 19.31 32.75

Mayotte 2.03 53.96 55.99 2.03 51.10 53.13 2.03 42.46 44.49

New Caledonia 11.22 48.56 59.77 11.13 48.46 59.59 11.13 41.90 53.03


3.47 39.68 43.15 3.47 39.48 42.95 3.47 32.78 36.25

Wallis & Futuna 1.45 36.05 37.50 1.45 17.69 19.15 1.45 16.42 17.88

* Total French OCT

31.61 220.97 252.57 31.52 178.70 210.22 31.52 152.87 184.38

OCT regional projects, FR

4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92

OCT regional projects, NL

1.00 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46

OCT regional projects, UK

1.64 1.64 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12


0.03 87.94 87.97 0.03 65.14 65.17 0.03 48.05 48.08


OCT 7.59 87.94 95.53 5.52 65.14 70.67 5.52 48.05 53.57

All OCT countries administrative and financial expenditure

6.73 6.73 4.43 4.43 4.01 4.01

OCT 51.41 555.32 606.73 49.25 447.62 496.88 49.25 368.14 417.39

* Total ACP + OCT

10 542.19 37 371.33 47 913.53 10 472.50 30 937.38 41 409.88 10 387.66 24 992.60 35 380.26

432



annual amounts 2013 Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total

Angola ( 3.40) 69.85 66.45 ( 3.41) 42.58 39.17 ( 0.05) 12.28 12.24

Benin 39.14 39.14 ( 1.79) ( 1.79) 42.63 42.63

Botswana 22.62 22.62 28.08 28.08 14.21 14.21

Burkina Faso ( 3.55) 50.08 46.54 ( 0.82) 68.74 67.92 114.45 114.45

Burundi ( 0.02) 26.57 26.54 76.94 76.94 49.48 49.48

Cameroon ‐ 0.12 0.12 ( 0.04) 26.53 26.49 50.67 50.67

Cape Verde ( 0.34) ( 0.00) ( 0.34) ( 0.03) 26.93 26.89 10.88 10.88

Central African Republic ‐ 34.47 34.47 ( 0.06) 10.09 10.03 9.90 9.90

Chad ( 4.22) ( 0.52) ( 4.74) ( 0.45) 46.81 46.37 ( 0.05) 57.18 57.13

Comoros 0.45 0.45 7.38 7.38 6.54 6.54

Congo (Brazzaville) ( 1.82) ( 1.72) ( 3.54) ( 0.19) 29.89 29.70 7.57 7.57


( 2.12) 42.93 40.81 ( 0.12) 140.45 140.33 0.03 102.79 102.82

Djibouti ( 0.79) 9.86 9.07 16.56 16.56 14.32 14.32

Equatorial Guinea ‐ ‐ ( 0.88) ( 0.88) ( 0.02) ( 0.02)

Eritrea ( 0.65) ( 0.65) 9.28 9.28 6.92 6.92

Ethiopia ( 0.47) 220.16 219.69 153.00 153.00 39.12 39.12

Gabon ‐ ‐ ‐ ( 0.05) 5.69 5.65 4.54 4.54

Gambia ( 0.04) 12.44 12.40 9.10 9.10 9.28 9.28

Ghana 4.28 4.28 ( 9.20) ( 9.20) 22.65 22.65

Guinea Bissau 6.04 6.04 4.05 4.05 14.73 14.73

Guinea (Conakry) ( 2.85) 188.42 185.57 ( 2.15) 13.81 11.66 4.73 5.01 9.74

Ivory Coast 29.23 29.23 97.60 97.60 80.31 80.31

Kenya 139.77 139.77 ‐ 80.35 80.35 ( 0.03) 73.65 73.62

Lesotho ( 0.04) 7.57 7.53 ‐ 47.56 47.56 0.00 35.22 35.22

Liberia 20.80 20.80 2.24 2.24 17.94 17.94

Madagascar 121.57 121.57 96.61 96.61 45.93 45.93

Malawi ( 1.64) 47.83 46.19 ( 0.53) 106.20 105.67 0.38 71.74 72.12

Mali ( 0.30) 266.58 266.28 ( 0.60) 190.87 190.27 ( 0.07) 155.40 155.33

Mauritania ( 0.26) 52.22 51.96 109.83 109.83 39.76 39.76

Mauritius 6.14 6.14 8.24 8.24 1.35 1.35

Mozambique ( 0.18) 99.56 99.39 ( 1.48) 58.90 57.43 ( 0.10) 86.93 86.83

Namibia 23.20 23.20 24.54 24.54 28.28 28.28

Niger ( 0.28) 153.98 153.71 108.30 108.30 85.34 85.34

Nigeria ( 15.01) 21.57 6.56 ( 0.63) 167.03 166.40 ( 0.14) 80.14 80.00

Rwanda 80.57 80.57 48.15 48.15 72.64 72.64

Sao Tome & Principe 3.40 3.40 6.49 6.49 4.53 4.53

Senegal ( 0.77) 69.27 68.50 ( 0.06) 39.55 39.49 ( 0.01) 40.74 40.73

Seychelles 0.85 0.85 0.27 0.27 1.89 1.89

Sierra Leone ( 0.38) 44.97 44.59 ( 1.20) 61.71 60.51 0.00 44.66 44.66

Somalia 41.69 41.69 89.51 89.51 50.14 50.14

South Soudan 189.00 189.00 30.65 30.65 12.86 12.86

Sudan 35.29 35.29 19.84 19.84 8.02 8.02

Swaziland ( 2.23) 15.10 12.87 5.78 5.78 3.62 3.62

433

Tanzania ( 0.85) 55.94 55.09 31.30 31.30 71.09 71.09

Togo ‐ 6.66 6.66 ( 0.04) 76.32 76.28 ( 0.01) 20.95 20.94

Uganda ‐ 20.42 20.42 ( 0.22) 7.17 6.95 45.82 45.82

Zambia ( 0.77) 9.67 8.90 ‐ 78.95 78.95 ( 0.00) 42.07 42.07

Zimbabwe 9.23 9.23 49.84 49.84 32.09 32.09

* Total Africa ( 42.29) 2 296.62 2 254.32 ( 12.06) 2 347.86 2 335.79 4.70 1 848.21 1 852.90

Table 3.4.2



annual amounts 2013

Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total Lomé Cotonou Total

Antigua & Barbuda

0.68 0.68 ‐ ‐ 0.63 0.63

Bahamas ( 1.30) ( 1.30) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

Barbados 5.81 5.81 14.14 14.14 5.21 5.21

Belize 1.63 1.63 7.26 7.26 4.42 4.42

Dominica 6.90 6.90 ‐ 0.32 0.32 ( 0.00) 5.46 5.46

Dominican Republic

( 0.14) 14.81 14.67 ( 0.00) 1.27 1.26 ( 0.00) 31.24 31.24

Grenada ( 0.09) ( 0.12) ( 0.21) 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.15

Guyana ‐ 39.78 39.78 ( 0.49) ( 0.25) ( 0.74) 0.54 0.54

Haiti ( 0.17) 115.74 115.56 ( 0.13) 32.10 31.97 29.64 29.64

Jamaica ( 0.06) 57.36 57.30 8.46 8.46 21.35 21.35

Saint Kitts & Nevis

( 0.47) ( 0.47) 4.21 4.21 0.17 0.17

Saint Lucia 0.23 0.23 0.31 0.31 3.51 3.51


4.15 4.15 0.95 0.95 1.92 1.92

Suriname ( 0.30) ( 0.30) ( 0.30) ( 0.30) 3.85 3.85

Trinidad & Tobago

8.16 8.16 ‐ 7.67 7.67 2.00 2.75 4.75

* Total Caribbean

( 0.47) 253.06 252.59 ( 0.62) 76.77 76.15 2.00 110.89 112.89

Cook Islands 2.55 2.55 0.08 0.08 0.26 0.26

East Timor 3.31 3.31 2.23 2.23 11.12 11.12

Fiji ‐ 3.80 3.80 ( 0.00) 2.56 2.56 ( 0.00) 1.21 1.20

Kiribati ( 0.07) 5.30 5.23 7.53 7.53 2.73 2.73

Marshall Islands 1.35 1.35 1.27 1.27 1.35 1.35

Micronesia 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.35 3.40 3.40

Nauru 0.20 0.20 1.66 1.66 0.65 0.65

Niue 1.05 1.05 ( 0.09) ( 0.09) 0.39 0.39

Palau 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04

Papua New Guinea

( 2.24) 62.12 59.88 2.17 2.17 2.80 2.80

Solomon Islands 16.28 16.28 0.25 0.25 4.01 4.01

Tonga ( 0.04) ( 0.04) 6.23 6.23 0.23 0.23

Tuvalu ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.13 1.13 0.20 1.74 1.94

Vanuatu 12.68 12.68 16.06 16.06 2.72 2.72

Western Samoa 2.00 2.00 18.26 18.26 0.76 0.76

434

* Total Pacific ( 2.31) 110.97 108.66 ( 0.00) 59.82 59.82 0.20 33.39 33.59

Caribbean Region

( 0.61) 27.66 27.05 25.53 25.53 11.56 11.56


( 0.15) ( 0.15) ( 0.06) ( 0.06) 0.11 0.11


4.28 4.28 44.69 44.69 51.96 51.96

East Africa Region

( 0.33) ( 0.33) ‐ 162.06 162.06


231.19 231.19 208.10 208.10 11.90 11.90


( 33.52) 577.58 544.06 ( 2.50) 398.43 395.93 ( 0.12) 469.93 469.81

Multiregional PALOP

‐ 23.32 23.32 ( 0.10) 4.97 4.87 ‐ ‐ ‐

Pacific Region 47.95 47.95 17.60 17.60 13.63 13.63


( 3.44) ( 60.03) ( 63.47) ( 1.92) ( 38.75) ( 40.67) ( 0.02) 0.90 0.87


17.94 17.94 34.27 34.27 40.10 40.10

West Africa Region

( 3.81) 329.63 325.81 ( 1.89) 43.55 41.67 ( 0.22) 23.67 23.45

‐ ‐ 6.93 6.93


( 41.71) 1 199.35 1 157.63 ( 6.41) 738.34 731.93 ( 0.36) 792.76 792.40


( 0.92) 49.02 48.10 99.34 99.34 95.05 95.05

All ACP countries ( 19.01) ( 2.50) ( 21.51) 2.89 ( 5.03) ( 2.14) 5.81 ( 0.09) 5.72

* Total ACP ( 106.71) 3 906.51 3 799.80 ( 16.20) 3 317.09 3 300.89 12.34 2 880.21 2 892.54

Anguilla ‐ ‐ ( 0.08) ( 0.08) 3.67 3.67


( 0.00) ( 0.00) ‐ ‐

Cayman Islands ( 2.53) ( 2.53) ‐ ‐

Falkland Islands 4.13 4.13 4.03 4.03 1.03 1.03

Montserrat ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.70 4.70

Pitcairn Islands 2.40 2.40 ‐ ‐ 1.13 1.13

Saint Helena ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.80 5.80


11.07 11.07 ( 0.09) ( 0.09) ‐

* Total British OCT

( 0.00) 15.07 15.07 3.86 3.86 16.32 16.32

Aruba ( 0.66) ( 0.66) 0.12 0.12 2.07 2.07


24.00 24.00 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.07

* Total Dutch OCT

23.34 23.34 0.25 0.25 2.14 2.14

French Polynesia 19.79 19.79 2.12 2.12 4.15 4.15

Mayotte 29.72 29.72 28.82 28.82 26.42 26.42

New Caledonia ( 1.47) ( 1.47) ( 0.10) ( 0.10) 6.50 6.50


‐ ‐ ‐ 6.90 6.90

Wallis & Futuna 18.11 18.11 0.02 0.02 2.19 2.19

* Total French OCT

66.16 66.16 30.86 30.86 46.16 46.16


( 0.07) ( 0.07) ‐ ‐

EDF PTU REGIONAL

‐ ‐ ( 0.00) ( 0.00) ‐

435

Projects


16.42 16.42 14.37 14.37 5.23 5.23


( 0.07) 16.42 16.34 ( 0.00) 14.37 14.37 5.23 5.23

All OCT countries 2.31 2.31 0.19 0.19 0.71 0.71

* Total OCT ( 0.08) 123.30 123.22 ( 0.00) 49.52 49.52 70.57 70.57

* Total ACP + OCT

( 106.79) 4 029.81 3 923.02 ( 16.20) 3 366.62 3 350.41 12.34 2 950.77 2 963.11

436

ANNEX 4: Materiality criteria

The criteria used by DG Development and Cooperation ‐ EuropeAid to determine the materiality of potential weaknesses have been established in line with the Standing Instructions for the 2013 Annual Activity Report. The latter propose a standard quantitative materiality threshold of maximum 2% for the reporting year. However, they allow a multi‐annual approach, in which case the DG should present evidence that the control systems are effective in a multi‐annual perspective. In such cases, the calculation of errors, corrections and materiality of the residual amount at risk should be done on a 'cumulative basis' on the basis of the totals over the entire programme lifecycle. Because of their multiannual nature, the effectiveness of DG EuropeAid’s control strategy can only be fully measured and assessed once all audits, checks and controls have been fully implemented and systematic errors have been detected and corrected.

The control objective for DG EuropeAid services is to ensure that the residual error rate, i.e. the level of errors which remain undetected and uncorrected, does not exceed 2% by the end of the management cycle. DG EuropeAid believes that a weakness is significant and deserves to be disclosed as a reservation to the Declaration where:

the weakness identified relates to the use of resources, sound financial management or the legality and regularity of transactions e.g. concerns part of the internal control framework linked to or having an material impact on the underlying expenditure; and

the weakness is qualitatively significant ‐ despite mitigating measures ‐ in nature, scope and duration e.g. systematic or wide‐ranging or long term problems;

and ‐ in addition ‐ either:

the financial impact from the cases examined exceeds 2% of the total appropriations (commitments or payments depending on the nature of the weaknesses) made for the year in question; e.g. causing an amount at risk (after all multi‐annual controls) of more than 2% of payments; or

the weakness gives rise to a high reputational risk for the Community institutions, (i.e. the weakness is significant notwithstanding the absence of one or more of the above elements). e.g. major fraud cases or decisions with a significantly negative political impact.

The question of being on track towards the control objective is to be (re)assessed annually, taking into account both the frequency and importance of the errors found as well as a cost/benefit analysis of the effort needed to detect and correct them. Notwithstanding the multiannual span of DG EuropeAid’s control strategy, its Director‐General is required to sign a statement of assurance for each financial reporting year. In order to determine whether to qualify this statement of assurance with a reservation, the effectiveness of the control systems in place needs to be assessed not only for the year of reference but also with a multiannual perspective, to determine whether it is

437

possible to reasonably conclude that the control objectives will be met in the future as foreseen.

The identification and potential correction of internal control weaknesses (and ‐ in particular ‐ errors with financial impact), the criteria for making a decision on whether there is material error in the expenditure of the DG and the question whether to make a reservation in the AAR, will therefore be based on the full range of internal controls described in the Annual Activity Report and on the level of error identified in the Residual Error Rate Studies on a multi‐annual basis.

438

ANNEX 5: Internal Control Template(s) for budget implementation (ICTs)

I ‐ Grants – direct management

Stage 1 – Programming, evaluation and selection of proposals

A ‐ Preparation, adoption and publication of the Annual Work Programmes and Calls for proposals

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission selects the proposals that contribute the most towards the achievement of the policy or programme objectives (effectiveness); Compliance (legality & regularity); Prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy).

Main risks It may happen (again) that…

Mitigating controls How to determine coverage frequency

and depth How to estimate the costs and

benefits of controls Possible control indicators

The annual work programmes and the subsequent calls for proposals do not adequately reflect the policy objectives, priorities, are incoherent and/or the essential eligibility, selection and award criteria are not adequate to ensure the evaluation of the proposals.

Hierarchical validation within the authorising department. Explicit allocation of responsibility to individual officials (reflected in task assignment or function descriptions). Centralised checklist‐based verification.

If risk materialises, all grants awarded during the year under this work programme or call would be irregular. Possible impact 100% of budget involved and significant reputational consequences. Coverage / Frequency: 100% Depth: Checklist includes a list of the requirements of the regulatory provisions identified.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation and validation of the annual work programme and calls. Cost of contracted services, if any. Benefits: Estimation of the total budgetary amount of the annual work programmes or calls with significant errors detected and corrected.

No quantitative data available on errors detected and corrected by the Commission on calls for proposals.

439

B ‐ Selecting and awarding: Evaluation, ranking and selection of proposals

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the most promising projects for meeting the policy objectives are among (a good balance of) the proposals selected (effectiveness); Compliance (legality & regularity); Prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy)


Mitigating controls How to determine coverage

frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of

controls Possible control indicators

The evaluation, ranking and selection of proposals is not carried out in accordance with the established procedures, the policy objectives, priorities and/or the essential eligibility, or with the selection and award criteria defined in the annual work programme and subsequent calls for proposals.

Assignment of staff (e.g. programme officers) and/or Selection and appointment of expert evaluators (if foreseen as deviation from FR).

100% vetting for technical expertise and independence (e.g. conflicts of interests, nationality bias, ex‐employer bias, collusion).

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the evaluation and selection of proposals. Cost of the appointment of experts. Benefits: % of proposals rejected for eligibility reasons multiplied by the total amount of CFP published during the year.

Effectiveness: % of proposals rejected for eligibility reasons multiplied by the total amount of CFP published during the year. Efficiency: Ratio between benefits and costs.

Redress procedure. 100% of contested decisions are analysed by redress committee.

440

Stage 2 ‐ Contracting: Transformation of selected proposals into legally binding grant agreements

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the actions and funds allocation is optimal (best value for public money; effectiveness, economy, efficiency); Compliance (legality & regularity); Prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy).


Mitigating controls How to determine coverage,

frequency and depth

How to estimate the costs and benefits of

controls

Possible control indicators

The description of the action in the grant agreement includes tasks which do not contribute to the achievement of the programme objectives and/or that the budget foreseen overestimates the costs necessary to carry out the action. The beneficiary lacks operational and/or financial capacity to carry out the actions. Procedures do not comply with regulatory framework.

Project Officers implement evaluators’ recommendations in discussion with selected applicants. Hierarchical validation of proposed adjustments. Validation of beneficiaries (operational and financial viability) and planning of (mid‐term and final) evaluations. Signature of the grant agreement by the AO. In‐depth financial verification and taking appropriate measures for high risk beneficiaries. Reinforce financial and contractual circuits.

100% of the selected proposals and beneficiaries are scrutinised. Coverage: 100% of draft grant agreements. Depth may be determined after considering the type or nature of the beneficiary (e.g. SMEs, joint‐ventures) and/or of the modalities (e.g. substantial subcontracting) and/or the total value of the grant.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the contracting process. Benefits: Total amount contracted for grants in direct management during the reporting year.

Effectiveness: Total amount contracted for grants in direct management during the reporting year Efficiency Indicators: Ratio between benefits and costs.

441

Stage 3 ‐ Monitoring the execution. This stage covers the monitoring the operational, financial and reporting aspects related to the project and grant agreement

Main control objectives: ensuring that the operational results (deliverables) from the projects are of good value and meet the objectives and conditions (effectiveness & efficiency); ensuring that the related financial operations comply with regulatory and contractual provisions (legality & regularity); prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy); ensuring appropriate accounting of the operations (reliability of reporting, safeguarding of assets and information).

Main risksIt may happen (again)

that… Mitigating controls

How to determine coverage, frequency and depth

How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls


The actions foreseen are not, totally or partially, carried out in accordance with the technical description and requirements foreseen in the grant agreement and/or the amounts paid exceed that due in accordance with the applicable contractual and regulatory provisions.

Operational and financial checks in accordance with the financial circuits. Operation authorisation by the AO For riskier operations, ex‐ante in‐depth and/or on‐site verification.

100% of the projects are controlled. Riskier operations subject to in‐depth and/or on‐site controls. The depth depends on risk criteria.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the actual management of running projects, cost of the expenditure verifications contracted by the grant beneficiaries. Benefits: budget value of the costs claimed by the beneficiary, but rejected by the project officers.

No data available by ICT on the amount of ineligible expenditure identified by the ex‐ante control

For high risk operations, reinforced monitoring. Recommended: consider an ex‐ante verification on‐the‐spot (OV and/or FV) – e.g. monitoring visit. Earmark projects for risk‐based ex‐post audit.

High risk operations identified by risk criteria. Red flags: delayed interim deliverables, suspicion of plagiarism, unstable consortium, requesting many amendments, EWS or anti‐fraud flagging, etc.

If needed: application of Suspension/interruption of payments, Penalties or liquidated damages. Referring grant to OLAF.

Depth: depends from results of ex‐ante controls.

442

Stage 4 ‐ Ex‐Post controls

A ‐ Reviews, audits and monitoring

Main control objectives: Measuring the effectiveness of ex‐ante controls by ex‐post controls; detect and correct any error or fraud remaining undetected after the implementation ex‐ante controls (legality & regularity; anti‐fraud strategy); addressing systemic weaknesses in the ex‐ante controls, based on the analysis of the findings (sound financial management); Ensuring appropriate accounting of the recoveries to be made (reliability of reporting, safeguarding of assets and information).






The ex‐ante controls (as such) fail to prevent, detect and correct erroneous payments or attempted fraud.

Ex‐post control strategy: Carry out audits or desk‐reviews of a representative sample of operations to determine effectiveness of ex‐ante controls (+ consider ex‐post findings for improving the ex‐ante controls). If error rate over tolerable threshold, control a risk‐based sample to lower the residual error rate below the tolerable threshold. Recommended: multi‐annual basis (programme’s lifecycle) and coordination with other AOs concerned (to detect systemic errors) Validate audit results with beneficiary If needed: referring the beneficiary or grant to OLAF.

Representative sample: random or MUS sample sufficiently representative to draw valid management conclusions (RER study) Risk‐based sample, determined in accordance with the selected risk criteria, aimed to maximise error correction (either higher amounts or expected error rate).

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the audit strategy. Cost of the appointment of audit firms for the outsourced audits. Benefits: budget value of the errors detected by the RER study and by ex‐post audits for direct grants.

No data available by ICT on the errors detected by the RER study; no data available by ICT on the amount of ineligible expenditure identified by the ex‐post audits.

443


that… Mitigating controls How to determine coverage, frequency and depth



The ex‐post controls focus on the detection of external errors (e.g. made by beneficiaries) and do not consider any internal errors made by staff or embedded systematically in the own organisation.

Establish an ex‐post supervision strategy, performed by independent staff not involved in the operational and financial circuits. Recommended: to be able to serve multiple purposes (e.g. overall assurance, largest corrections), consider having at least 2 segments in the (stratified) sampling, respectively random/representative and risk‐based (for ‘complex’ transactions).

Coverage: ideally, the random sample will be statistically representative to enable drawing valid management conclusions about the entire population during the programme’s lifecycle. Sample coverage: A + B % in number and value, out of the 100% in number and value of the transactions, are re‐checked during the programme’s lifecycle (typically 5%‐15%). Depth: desk review of all underlying elements and documents.

Costs: Total cost of the verification missions of delegations carried out by EuropeAid staff in 2013. Benefits: budget value of the errors detected by the supervisors.

No data available by ICT on the errors detected by the verification missions of delegations.

444

B ‐ Implementing results from ex‐post audits/controls

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the (audit) results from the ex‐post controls lead to effective recoveries (legality & regularity; anti‐fraud strategy); Ensuring appropriate accounting of the recoveries made (reliability of reporting)

Main risks It may happen (again)


How to determine coverage, frequency and

depth



The errors, irregularities and cases of fraud detected are not addressed or not addressed timely.

Systematic registration of audit / control results to be implemented. Financial operational validation of recovery in accordance with financial circuits. Authorisation by AO.

Coverage: 100% of final audit results with a financial impact. Depth: consider ‘extending’ the findings of systemic errors into corrections of non‐audited projects by the same beneficiary.

Costs: Costs of the staff involved in the implementation of the results of the ex‐post controls. Benefits: Total amount of ineligible expenditure identified by ex‐post controls and which have been justified or recovered during year N Loss: budget value of such ROs which are ‘waived’ or have to be cancelled.

No data available by ICT on the amount of ineligible expenditure identified by ex‐post controls and which have been justified or recovered during year N.

445

II ‐ Budgetary support – direct management

Stage 1 – Programming

Preparation, adoption of the Multi‐Annual Indicative Programme

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission selects the proposals that contribute the most towards the achievement of the policy or programme objectives (effectiveness); Compliance (legality & regularity), fraud prevention and detection.



frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls


The Multi‐annual Indicative Programme does not adequately reflect the policy objectives or does not adequately identify the sectors of engagement and related budget distribution.

Adequate impact assessments and evaluations including independent experts. Guidance. Dialogue with partner countries. Hierarchical validation within the authorising circuit. Inter‐service consultation. Adoption by the Commission, EEAS, EDF Committee.

If risk materialises, all expenditure made under this programme would be inadequate. Possible impact 100% of budget involved and significant reputational consequences. Coverage / Frequency: 100%

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation and validation of the programme and evaluation. Benefits: The total amount of BS decision authorised during the year.

Effectiveness: The total amount of BS decision authorised during the year. Efficiency: Ratio between benefits and costs.

446

Stage 2: identification and formulation

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission selects the most appropriate instrument in its cooperation with partner countries in line with the objectives of budget support (effectiveness); Compliance (legality & regularity) and ensures the proper type of support and modalities specific to each partner country.


Mitigating controls How to determine coverage frequency

and depth



1. The Commission supports partner countries which do not meet the criteria on fundamental values and/or the 4 eligibility criteria11.

2. The programme is wrongly formulated to meet the general objectives12 for budget support programmes.

3. The programme's specific objectives are not aligned with partner countries own development policies, are not coordinated with other aligned donors and are not consistent with EU development policy.

Quality support Group in HQs (QSG 1) to analyse the identification fiche of the project.

100% of BS FIP.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involvement from DEL and HQs. Benefits: Total amount of BS Decisions authorised during the year.

Effectiveness: Total amount of BS Decisions authorised during the year. Efficiency Indicators: Ratio between benefits and costs.

Quality support Group in HQs (QSG 2) to analyse the action fiche of the project and the draft Financing agreement.

100 % of BS Fas.

EuropeAid step by step financial circuit for Level one commitments in Budget support operations13.

100 % of BS Fas.

RISK assessment framework for budget operations: Implemented by the Delegation and reviewed in the Budget Support Steering Committee (BSSC) for substantial or high risk BS programmes.

Substantial or high risk BS Fas.

11 National/sector public policies, Stable macro‐economic framework, public financial management and Transparency and oversight of the budget.

12 Contribute to eradicate poverty, pursue sustainable economic growth and build and consolidate democracies.

13 Operational initiation and verification and financial initiation at Delegations. Head of delegation approval, Financial verification at Headquarters. Authorising officer visa by the geographical director who remains directly

responsible.

447

Stage 3 – Monitoring of the implementation – operational, financial and reporting aspects.

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the operational results meet the conditions, objectives and expected results (effectiveness & efficiency); Ensuring that the related financial operations comply with regulatory and contractual provisions (legality & regularity)14; ensuring appropriate accounting of the operations (reliability of reporting, safeguarding of assets and information).


Mitigating controls How to determine

coverage, frequency and depth


controls


1. The Commissions fails to identify a significant deterioration of fundamental values and/or wrong assessment on the 4 eligibility

criteria15 before BS payments are released.

2. The Commission makes a wrong calculation of the amount to be disbursed for the variable tranches.

3. Risk that transfer of funds into the Treasury account has not respected the terms of the financing Agreement on exchange rate and treasury credit delay.

Policy structured dialogue: On eligibility, risk assessment framework and policy performance framework; EuropeAid step by step financial circuit

for payments in BS operations16; RISK assessment framework Implemented by the Delegation and reviewed in the BSSC for substantial or high risk BS programmes.

100% of BS payments 100% of BS payments Substantial or high risks BS payments

Costs: estimation of cost of staff for these activities. Benefits: Non accepted amount of BS payment requests during the year.

No data available on non‐ accepted amount of BS payment requests during the year.

14 Prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud/anti‐corruption strategy) is embedded in the conditions of the scheme.

15 Public policy: satisfactory progress in the implementation of appropriate public policy and continued credibility and relevance of that or any successor strategy. Macroeconomic: maintenance of a credible and relevant

stability‐oriented macroeconomic policy or progress made towards restoring key balances. PFM: satisfactory progress in the implementation of its programme to improve public financial management. Budget Transparency: satisfactory progress with regard to the public availability of accessible, timely, comprehensive, and sound budgetary information.

16 Operational initiation and verification and financial initiation and verification in Delegations, Head of delegation approval, Geographical director visa (DIRGEO), authorising officer visa by the Head of Delegation.

448

Stage 4 – Evaluation and ex post Audit

A – Evaluation

Main control objectives: Measuring the outcome and output of the scheme, ensuring feedback and input to the set‐up and implementation of the scheme



frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and


The evaluations fail to contribute adequately to the programming, identification and implementation of the BS programmes.

Set‐up of evaluation strategy and carrying‐out evaluations determining effectiveness of programming and budget support operations.

Selection of adequate sampling allowing to draw adequate and valid management conclusions.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved/ cost of the appointment of outsourced evaluations. Benefits: Cannot be quantified.

Effectiveness: number of evaluations with positive outcome. Efficiency: ratio between the total annual cost of BS evaluation and the total amount disbursed for BS operations during the year (to be developed in the future).

449

B Reviews, audits and monitoring

Main control objectives: ensuring that the conditions have been met and that the resources are transferred to the national treasury in accordance with the agreement (after meeting the conditions and eligibility criteria).

Measuring the effectiveness of ex‐ante controls; detect and correct any error or fraud remaining undetected after the implementation ex‐ante controls (legality & regularity; anti‐fraud strategy); addressing systemic weaknesses in the ex‐ante controls, based on the analysis of the findings (sound financial management); Ensuring appropriate accounting of the recoveries to be made (reliability of reporting, safeguarding of assets and information).





The ex‐ ante controls fail to prevent, detect and correct erroneous disbursements or fraud.

Ex‐post control strategy: Carry out audits or desk‐reviews of a sample of operations to determine effectiveness of ex‐ante controls / Ex‐post transactional controls.

BS payments are included in the scope of the RER study (MUS sample).

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the audit strategy. Cost of the RER study. Benefits: budget value of the errors detected by the auditors for BS Operations.

Effectiveness: No data available by ICT on the errors detected by the RER study. Efficiency: Ratio between benefits and costs.

450

C ‐ Implementing results from ex‐post audits/controls

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the (audit) results from the ex‐post controls lead to effective reimbursement (legality & regularity; anti‐fraud strategy); Ensuring appropriate accounting of the recoveries made (reliability of reporting).





The errors, irregularities and cases of fraud detected (e.g. due to intentionally incorrect reporting‐from the partner country for instance) are not addressed or not addressed timely.

Systematic registration of audit / control results to be implemented. Authorisation by AO.

Coverage: 100% of final audit results with a financial impact. Depth: consider ‘extending’ the findings of systemic errors into corrections of non‐audited projects by the same country partner.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the implementation of the audit results. Benefits: budget value of the errors detected by ex‐post controls, value of reimbursements.

No data available by ICT on the amount of ineligible expenditure identified by ex‐post controls and which have been justified or recovered during year N.

451

III – Procurement in direct management mode

Stage 1 – Procurement

A ‐ Planning

Main control objectives: Effectiveness, efficiency and economy. Compliance (legality and regularity).


Mitigating controls How to determine

coverage frequency and depth



The needs are not well defined (operationally and economically) and that the decision to procure was inappropriate to meet the operational objectives Discontinuation of the activities due to a late contracting (poor planning and organisation of the procurement process).

Validation by AO(S)D of justification (economic, operation) for launching a procurement process. Publication of intended procurements / Work programme.

100% of the forecast procurements.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved and the related contract values (if external expertise is used). Benefits: Estimation of the amount of rejection of unjustified purchases. Estimation of litigation avoided and eventual discontinuation of the activities.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available. Effectiveness: Number of projected tender cancelled, Number of contract discontinued due to lack of use (poor planning). Efficiency: average cost per tender.

452

B ‐ Needs assessment & definition of needs

Main control objectives: Effectiveness, efficiency and economy. Compliance (legality and regularity).



frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits

of controls Possible control indicators

The best offer/s are not submitted due to the poor definition of the tender specifications.

AOSD supervision and approval of specifications

100% of the calls for tenders including the technical specifications are verified ex‐ante by EC staff except for some of the CFT launched inside Programme‐estimates in accordance with applicable rules.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved and the related contract values (if external expertise is used). Benefits: limit the risk of litigation, limit the risk of cancellation of a tender. Estimation of the amount of calls for tenders for which the approval and supervisory control detected material error.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available. Effectiveness: Number of calls for tenders cancelled during the year. Efficiency: Estimated average cost of a procurement procedure.

Call for tenders which are technically complex can be elaborated by technical assistants contracted through service contracts.

453

C – Selection of the offer & evaluation

Main control objectives: Effectiveness, efficiency and economy. Compliance (legality and regularity). Fraud prevention and detection.


that…

Mitigating controls

How to determine coverage frequency and depth

How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls Possible control indicators

The most economically advantageous offer not being selected, due to a biased, inaccurate or ‘unfair’ evaluation process.

Formal evaluation process: Opening committee and Evaluation committee. Opening and Evaluation Committees' declaration of absence of conflict of interests.

100% of the offers analysed. Depth: all documents transmitted. 100% of the members of the opening committee and the evaluation committee.

Costs: estimation of costs of staff involved in the evaluation process and/or in the verification of the evaluation reports and related documents. Benefits: Compliance with FR. Compliance of the selected offers with the administrative and technical specifications. Difference between the most onerous offer and the selected one. Estimation of the benefits in the reporting year: % of rejected tenders (non‐compliant tenders) x Total amount of procurement contracted during the year.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available. Effectiveness: Numbers of ‘valid’ complaints or litigation cases filed. Efficiency: Average cost of a tendering procedure. Ratio between benefits and costs. Exclusion decisions

documented.

100% checked. Depth: provide documents for proving non‐exclusion are verified.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved. Benefits: Avoid contracting with excluded economic operators.

454

Stage 2 – Financial transactions

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the implementation of the contract is in compliance with the signed contract.



frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls


The products/services/works foreseen are not, totally or partially, provided in accordance with the technical description and requirements foreseen in the contract and/or the amounts paid exceed that due in accordance with the applicable contractual and regulatory provisions. Business discontinues because contractor fails to deliver.

Operational and financial checks in accordance with the financial circuits. Operation authorisation by the AO. For riskier operations, ex‐ante in‐depth verification.

100% of the contracts and payments are controlled, including only value‐adding checks. Riskier operations subject to in‐depth controls. The depth depends on risk criteria.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved. Benefits: Total amount contracted for procurement in direct management during the reporting year. The total amount of ineligible expenditure identified by ex‐ante controls during the reporting year.

Effectiveness: amount of errors/irregularities averted over total contracts or payments for this ICT (no data available). Efficiency: Ratio between benefits and costs.

455

Stage 3 – Supervisory measures

Main control objectives: Ensuring that any weakness in the procedures (tender and financial transactions) is detected and corrected.

Main risks It may happen (again) that …

Mitigating controls

How to determine coverage frequency and depth



An error or non‐compliance with regulatory and contractual provisions, including technical specifications, or a fraud is not prevented, detected or corrected by ex‐ante control, prior to payment

Supervisory desk review of procurement and financial transactions.

Depth: review of the procedures implemented (procurement and financial transactions).

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved. Benefits: Budgetary amount of errors detected by ex‐post audits verification missions to delegations and the RER study for procurement in direct management.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available. Effectiveness: Amounts associated with errors detected (related to fraud, irregularities and error) in % over total checked. Efficiency: Costs of the ex post controls and supervisory measures with respect to the ‘benefits’.

Ex‐post publication (possible reaction from tenderer / potential tenderer such as whistle blowing).

100%

Review of exceptions reported.

100% at least once a year. Depth: look for any weakness in the procedures (procurement and financial transactions).

456

IV ‐ Indirect management (incl. 'similarly' managed budget 'entrusted' to other entities)

This section covers a wide array of arrangements in which the AOD entrusts other actors with budget implementation tasks. These include cross‐delegations to other AODs, operating budgets for Executive Agencies, operational funds for Joint Undertakings, funds for EuropeAid’s Financing Agreements with third countries in partial decentralised management, financial instruments managed by EIB and EIF, operating budgets for EU Agencies, budget executed via National Agencies, and mandates with other International Organisations. The list is non‐exhaustive and includes management (re)classified in the new FR (now) as 'indirect' management plus still for 2013 as 'decentralised' and 'joint' management.

Stage 1 – Establishment (or prolongation) of the mandate to the entrusted entity (“delegation act”/ “contribution agreement” / etc).

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the legal framework for the management of the relevant funds is fully compliant and regular (legality & regularity), delegated to an appropriate entity (best value for public money, economy, efficiency), without any conflicts of interests (anti‐fraud strategy).





The establishment (or prolongation) of the mandate of the entrusted entity is affected by legal issues, which would undermine the legal basis for the management of the related EU funds (via that particular entity).

The establishment of delegated acts (Financing agreements with beneficiary countries, Indirect Management Delegation Agreements (previously Delegation Agreements and Contribution Agreements) is submitted to hierarchical validation within the authorising department and to Inter‐service consultation, including all relevant DGs.

Coverage/Frequency: 100%/once If risk materialises, all funds delegated during the year(s) to the entrusted entity would be irregular. Possible impact 100% of budget involved and significant reputational consequences.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation, adoption and selection work. Benefits: The total budget amount entrusted to entities, in the reporting period possibly at 100% if significant (legal) errors would otherwise be detected.

Effectiveness: Quality of the legal work (basic act, LFS and delegation act/contribution agreement/etc): number of initially negative CIS opinions. Efficiency: Ratio between benefits and costs.

457

Stage 2 – Ex‐ante (re)assessment of the entrusted entity’s financial and control framework (towards “budget autonomy”; “financial rules”).

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the entrusted entity is fully prepared to start/continue implementing the delegated funds autonomously with respect of all 5 ICOs.



frequency and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits

of controls Possible control

indicators

The financial and control framework deployed by the entrusted entity is not fully mature to guarantee achieving all 5 ICOs (legality and regularity, sound financial management, true and fair view reporting, safeguarding assets and information, anti‐fraud strategy). For FEI: the investment strategy and/or risk‐profile of the asset management mandate is not clear.

Ex‐ante assessment, conditional to granting budget autonomy Hierarchical validation within the authorising department Requiring justification and prior consent for any deviating financial rules. Postponing the budget autonomy. Obligation to notify any subsequent changes embedded in Board proceedings.

Coverage/frequency: 100% of entrusted entities/once Depth may be determined after considering the type or nature of the entrusted entity (e.g. other international organisation with a specific EC agreement, EIB/EIF, PPPs, CFSP persons, etc) and/or the value of the budget concerned.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the ex‐ante assessment process (which may include missions, if applicable). Staff involved in QSG 1, QSG 2 and in pillar assessments in 2013 + cost of pillar assessment in 2013. Benefits: The total budget amount entrusted to entities in 2013 possibly at 100% if significant (legal) errors would otherwise be detected.

Indicators will be further developed in the future. Effectiveness: Efficiency Indicators: Ratio between benefits and costs.

458

Stage 3 – Operations: monitoring, supervision, reporting (“representation” / “control with or around the entity”).

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission is fully and timely informed of any relevant management issues encountered by the entrusted entity, in order to possibly mitigate any potential financial and/or reputational impacts (legality & regularity, sound financial management, true and fair view reporting, anti‐fraud strategy).

Main risksIt may happen (again) that…

Mitigating controls How to determine coverage, frequency

and depth How to estimate the costs and benefits of controls


Due to weak "modalities of cooperation, supervision & reporting", the Commission is not informed in a timely fashion of relevant management issues encountered by the entrusted entity, and/or does not in a timely fashion react upon notified issues by mitigating them or by making a reservation for them – which may reflect negatively on the Commission’s governance reputation and quality of accountability reporting. For FEI: the asset management performance reporting does not includes risk‐adjusted (excess) returns.

Delegation Act/ Contribution agreement/etc specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc related requirements – incl. the modalities on reporting back relevant and reliable control results. Monitoring or supervision of the entrusted entity (e.g. ‘regular’ monitoring meetings at operational level; review of reported control results and any underlying mngt/audit reports; representation and intervention at the board, scrutiny of annual report, etc). Management review of the supervision results. If appropriate/needed:

reinforced monitoring of operational and/or financial aspects of the entity;

intervention, e.g. via own audits on‐the‐

Coverage: 100% of the entities are monitored/supervised. Frequency: meetings take place regularly depending on the delegated activities and delegated entities, reports submitted at least annually (depending of contractual provisions). In case of operational and/or financial issues, measures are being reinforced. The depth depends on the mandate of the (type of) entity, inter alia whether the Commission has full access to the entity’s internal control information17.

Costs: Estimation of cost of staff involved in the actual (regular or reinforced) monitoring of the entrusted entities (which may include missions, if applicable). Benefits: The (average annual) total budget amount entrusted to the entity, possibly at 100% if significant (legal, management, accounting, fraud, reporting) errors would otherwise be detected.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available. Effectiveness: number of interventions (e.g. own audits), number of serous IAS and ECA findings of control failures; budget amount of the errors concerned. Efficiency Indicators: Benefit/cost ratio. % cost over annual amount delegated.

17 See page 2‐3 of this guidance: In terms of the degree of independence of the entity concerned, two main control models can be distinguished for this management mode. Either the Commission Parent DG has strong

monitoring and/or supervision powers which include full access to the entity’s own control results and detailed management reporting, usually formalised by the Commission DG being represented on the entity’s governing board (controlling with the entity). Or the Commission has no insight into the management and control situation during the financial year, and its rights are limited to the right to audit the entity and/or its beneficiaries (controlling around the entity). Therefore, the legal basic act, delegation act, contribution agreement and/or statutes establishing the entity will need to be analysed carefully to determine the specific governance situation in each individual case.

459

spot, by IAC or IAS;

potential escalation of any major governance‐related issues with entrusted entities;

referral to OLAF.

460

Stage 4 – Commission contribution: payment or suspension/interruption.

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Commission fully assesses the management situation at the entrusted entity, before either paying out the (next) contribution for the operational and/or operating budget of the entity, or deciding to suspend/interrupt the (next) contribution (legality & regularity, sound financial management, anti‐fraud strategy).






The Commission pays out the (next) contribution to the entrusted entity, while not being aware of the management issues that may lead to financial and/or reputational damage.

Delegation Act/ Contribution agreement/etc specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc related requirements – incl. reporting back. Management review of the supervision results. Ex‐ante OV and FV, ‘in‐depth’ if need be. Hierarchical validation of contribution payment and recovery of non‐used operating budget subsidy If appropriate/needed: suspension or interruption of payments.

Coverage: 100% of the contribution payments. Frequency: usually annually but can be more frequent depending on the contractual provisions. The depth depends on the mandate of the (type of) entity, inter alia whether the Commission has full access to the entity’s internal control

information18.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the (in‐depth?) OV and FV of the contribution payments/recoveries to/from the entrusted entities. Benefits: The (average annual) total budget amount entrusted to the entity, possibly at 100% if significant (legal, management, accounting, fraud, reporting) errors would otherwise be detected. Benefits in case of recovery or suspension/interruption: the amount and % value of budget recovered or not paid out.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available at ICT level. Effectiveness: budget value of the part of contribution payments claimed by the delegated entities but rejected by the project officers. Efficiency Indicators: Cost/benefit ratio.

Stage 5 – Audit and evaluation, Discharge for decentralised agencies



461

Main control objectives: Ensuring that assurance building information on the entrusted entity’s activities is being provided through independent sources as well, which may confirm or contradict the management reporting received from the entrusted entity itself (on the 5 ICOs).

Main risks

It may happen (again) that… Mitigating controls

How to determine coverage,

frequency and depth


controls

Possible control

indicators

The Commission has not

sufficient information from

independent sources on the

entrusted entity’s

management achievements,

which prevents drawing

conclusions on the assurance

for the budget entrusted to

the entity – which may reflect

negatively on the

Commission’s governance

reputation and quality of

accountability reporting.

Delegation Act/Contribution agreement/etc specifying the control, accounting, audit, publication, etc related requirements – incl. independent audit function and cooperation with IAS and ECA

If appropriate/needed:

own ex‐post audit(s) on‐the‐spot, by the Parent DG, of the entity and/or its beneficiaries;

potential escalation of any major governance‐related issues with entrusted entities;

referral to OLAF.

Coverage: sample as needed (e.g. random/representative, value‐targeted, risk‐based). Frequency: once a year.

Ideally, the sample will be statistically representative to enable drawing valid management conclusions about the entire population during the programme’s lifecycle.

The depth depends on the

mandate of the (type of) entity,

inter alia whether the Commission

has full access to the entity’s

internal control information19.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the own audits (which may include missions, if applicable). Cost of the appointment of audit firms for the outsourced audits (if any).

Benefits: The (average annual) total budget amount entrusted to the entity, possibly at 100% if significant (legal, management, accounting, fraud, reporting) errors would otherwise be detected.

Benefits: budget value of the errors detected

and/or corrected by the own auditors of the

delegated entity or by ex‐post audit or RER

study contracted by the Commission. , and

subsequently corrected.

Data necessary to calculate below indicators are currently not available at ICT level.

Effectiveness: Number of transactions with errors; budget amount of the errors detected by the own supervisors.

Efficiency: total

(average) annual cost of

own audits compared

with benefits (ratio).



462

ANNEX 6: Implementation through national or international public‐sector bodies and bodies governed by private law with a public sector mission

Nr Contract Title Domain Delegation in Charge

Benefitting Zone

Complete Name EU

Signature

Contractor

Signature

Activities Start

Activities End

Amount (€) Justification of recourse to indirect centralised

management

Justification of the selection of the bodies

Summary description of the implementation

tasks entrusted to these bodies

1 Convention de délégation pour le Projet Eau contre Choléra à Uvira par l’amélioration de l’accès à l’eau potable et à l’hygiène

FED Congo (Democratic Republic of

the)

Congo (Democratic Republic of

the)

AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

06/07/13 10/07/13 10/07/13 09/07/17 2,500,000 ADF was the initiator of the project. They proposed the idea and had the implementing capacities and expertise. Indirect centralised management was therefore the best option.

ADF is the initiation of the project. It was proposed to the pooling mechanism of the Water Facility and approved. It is a sort of "blending" project in which ADF looked for contributions from other donors.

ADF is responsible for the management of the complete project. ADF finances 75% of the project and the EU contributes with 25%.

2 Convention de délégation avec l`AfD pour la mise en oeuvre de l`Initiative OMD ‐ Balbala, Djibouti

FED Djibouti Djibouti AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

18/06/13 19/06/13 19/06/13 18/02/17 5,500,000 Djibouti n'étant pas encore éligible pour un appui budgétaire, l'action sera mise en œuvre à travers un projet géré par l'AFD. L'Initiative OMD permettrait un cofinancement, à travers une coopération déléguée, afin de faciliter la coordination et l'harmonisation, améliorer les synergies, et réduire les frais de gestion.

L’AFD est l’agence prioritaire avec l’U.E. dans le secteur eau‐assainissement à Djibouti. Ce projet de traitements des eaux usés de Balbala s’inscrit dans les priorités identifiées par l’AFD. Cette option permettrait aussi d’accentuer la coopération entre l’UE et les bailleurs de fonds et d’appuyer Djibouti dans ce cas dans une véritable approche d’harmonisation et d'efficacité de l’Aide tel que défini dans la Déclaration de Paris.

L’AFD signera une convention de financement avec le bénéficiaire primaire – la République de Djibouti – d’une part, et une convention de délégation de fonds avec l’UE d’autre part. Le projet (financement, implémentation, contrôle) sera suivi par le système de gestion de l'AFD. Un comité de pilotage sera établi avec les parties prenantes afin de s'assurer du bon déroulement du projet et de prendre les actions correctrices si nécessaire.

3 PTOM Océan Indien ‐ programme régional 10ème FED ‐Convention de

FED Mauritius Overseas countries

and territories

AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

24/05/13 18/01/13 24/05/13 23/12/15 2,925,000 Indirect centralised management is the appropriate option because of the

AFD and TAAF are the only partners in the area

AFD is responsible to reinforce technical and scientifical knowledge and for management of

463

Délégation remoteness of these territories: this Regional PTOM programme will be better coordinated by AFD since is the only partner present in the region, it involves Mayotte and the TAAF (Territoires Australes Antartiques Français) in the Indian Ocean.

the protected marine areas. Including studies in order to ensure sustainable fishing activities and preservation of the ecosystem.

4 APPROVISIONNEMENT EN EAU POTABLE DE L’AGGLOMÉRATION DE DOMONI ET SES ALENTOURS

FED Mauritius Comoros AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

26/08/13 08/09/13 08/09/13 07/01/18 4,500,000 AFD has been funding and leading programmes for the water sector since 2004 in Comoros among other partners, therefore implementing through delegation agreement is in line with aid effectiveness and division of labour principles.

Due to limited expertise and weak institutional capacities of GoC, AfD responded to the adequate technical expertise in the implementation of the programme. AFD has also been playing a coordinating role in previous programmes in the water sector among other partners (AfDB) and the GoC.

AFD is responsible of the implementation and supervision concerning the specific activities foreseen in the delegation agreement: construction and rehabilitation of the water distribution system; institutional and financial management of water resources in rural areas.

5 Convention de Délégation de fonds à l'AFD

FED Chad Chad AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

30/05/13 30/05/13 27/05/13 26/05/17 10,000,000 AFD is the identified implementer and is also co‐financing; therefore the only possible implementation modality is Delegation Agreement via indirect centralized management.

The choice of AFD is justified by the fact that AFD finance and implement since more than ten years programs in support of development of urban services to the city of N'Djamena.

AFD is responsible for the totality of the action related to the component "access to drinking water and sewage systems in eastern part of N'Djamena".

6 Convention de Délégation. Initiative UE‐OMD. Projet: Eau et Assainissement dans 5 wilayas de Mauritanie

FED Mauritania Mauritania AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

08/07/13 28/07/13 28/07/13 27/09/16 11,100,000 AFD is the identified implementer and is also co‐financing; therefore the only possible implementation modality is Delegation Agreement via indirect centralized management.

En Mauritanie l'AFD est engagée sur des projets hydrauliques de grande envergure et se positionne en chef de file du secteur, partenaire technique et financier privilégié dans ce domaine pour les

L'AFD est responsible de l'amélioration pérenne de l’accès à l’eau potable et à l’assainissement (OMD 7c) dans cinq régions du sud de la Mauritanie (Gorgol, Guidimakha, Assaba, Hodh El Gharbi et Hodh

464

autorités mauritanienness.

El Charghi). Le financement UE est complété par un financement de l'AFD à hauteur de €4 million.

7 TOGO ‐ Convention de délégation avec l'AFD ‐ PAUT 2

FED Togo Togo AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

19/07/13 24/07/13 24/07/13 23/05/18 39,912,000 La délégation de fonds à l'AFD, permet une plus grande efficacité car L'AFD est fortement présent à Lomé et possède une très bonne connaissance du secteur. L'expérience du financement et du suivi des projets par l'AFD est importante (projet « Environnement urbain de Lomé » PEUL, le programme d’urgence d’appui à la Togolaise des Eaux (TdE) en milieu urbain à Lomé notamment).

Les infrastructures urbaines sont l’un des trois secteurs de concentration de l’aide publique française au Togo, la plus importante bilatérale. Les activités prévues dans ce projet s’inscrivent dans la droite continuité des actions actuellement appuyées par l’AFD à travers le PEUL (drainage des eaux pluviales, gestion des déchets solides urbains, renforcement des capacités de la municipalité de Lomé – finances locales, fiscalité, réorganisation des services municipaux, planification et programmation urbaine du Grand Lomé).

L’Agence Française de Développement (AFD) prévoit de confier la mise en œuvre du programme au Ministère de l'Eau, de l'Assainissement et de l'Hydraulique Villageoise. Le processus de contractualisation (gestion des appels d'offre, évaluations, attributions, signature de contrats), la mise en œuvre des activités et les paiements seront mis en œuvre selon les procédures du délégataire.

8 Technical Assistance programme in support of the Mediterranean Urban Projects Finance Initiative (UPFI TA)

ENPI Headquarters

Region Neighbourh

ood

AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

05/12/13 16/12/13 16/12/13 15/06/17 5,200,000 ARt. 54(2) of Financial Regulation.

AFD was selected as it is an eligible finance institution under the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF)

AFD will be responsible for the overall operational and financial management of the project as specified in the NIF Framework Arrangement.

9 Integrated and Sustainable Housing and Community Development Programme in

ENPI Headquarters

Egypt AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

11/12/13 17/12/13 17/12/13 16/12/18 15,300,000 ARt. 54(2) of Financial Regulation.

AFD was selected as it is an eligible finance institution under the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF).

AFD will be responsible for the overall operational and financial management of the project as specified in the NIF Framework

465

Egypt‐ Pillar II Arrangement.

10 Convention de Délégation avec l'Agence Française de Développement pour le financement de la mise à niveau de quartiers populaires en Tunisie

ENPI Tunisia Tunisia AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

17/06/13 17/06/13 01/08/13 31/01/17 32,900,000 Article 54(2) of the Financial Regulation.

AFD has a lot of experience in the field of urban development which is one of its main sectors, including in Tunisia. It has the technical capacity to ensure the implementation of the programme and the management of the Commission contribution.

AFD will take over the following tasks in the name and on the account of the Commission: i. Ex‐ante control of the procurement procedures in conformity with AFD procedures; ii. Analysis of payment requests and the corresponding annexes (actual state of financing plan of the operations, analysis of additional operations), terms of reference of the external auditor, Analysis of reports on analysis of the allocation of funds; iii. Control of the correct technical and financial execution of the action and supervision of activities; iv. Control of visibility actions foreseen in the programme. AFD will also ensure the implementation and the follow‐up of technical assistance which will be mobilised through the whole PPIQP.

11 Gaza Solid Waste Management

ENPI West Bank and Gaza Strip

West Bank and Gaza Strip

AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

21/06/13 17/07/13 17/07/13 16/03/18 5,000,000 Article 54(2)(c) of the Financial Regulation

AFD has a specific solid waste sector related expertise

Implementation of the contract

12 ''Improving service DCI‐ Brazil Brazil AGENCE 30/09/13 30/09/13 01/05/13 31/10/17 1,605,000 This management mode AfD has proven AfD assumes the

466

delivery and investment planning in the power sector”

ALA FRANCAISE DE DEVELOPPEMENT

will contribute to a better aid delivery and will promote coordination and synergies between EU and interested Member States, in this case France. In this framework, AfD has successfully passed the assessment allowing delegating it budget implementation tasks of the Commission in the indirect centralized management mode, according to the requirements of Article 56 of the financial Regulation

experience in this field and will provide a clear added‐value to ensure the sound management and the good outcome of the project.

responsibility through this programme for the overall coordination of the technical assistance. It will participate in the Project Implementation Unit and provide expertise in procurement, monitoring, evaluation and audit.

13 LAIF contribution to the project ''Towards a sustainable development of cities and regions in Colombia''

DCI‐ALA

Colombia Colombia AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

01/08/13 10/09/13 01/07/13 30/06/17 5,200,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by AFD a Financial institution from a European Union Member State (FR) in cooperation with IDB‐ Interamerican Development Bank. In line with LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734) AFD having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

Proven experience of AFD and IDB in issues related with Climate Change adaptation and sustainable socio‐ec development. Project screened by LAIF Board for its quality and fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

AFD and IDB take shared responsibility in the implementation of the project, allowing the financing of investment projects by FINDETER (Financiera de Desarrollo Territorial).

14 “Support to the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Colombia”

DCI‐ALA

Colombia Colombia AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

25/09/13 16/10/13 16/10/13 15/04/17 4,650,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by AFD a Financial institution from a European Union Member State (FR) in cooperation with CAF. In line with

Proven experience of AFD and CAF in issues related with Climate Change adaptation and Integrated Water management. Project screened by LAIF Board for its quality and

AFD and CAF take shared responsibility in the implementation of the project, providing budget support policy for IWRM and monitoring the implementation of the IRWM policy through key

467

LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734) AFD having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

indicators.

15 ''Support to the development of Geothermal Energy''

FED Headquarters

Caribbean Region

AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

22/03/13 22/03/13 23/03/13 22/03/18 2,140,000 Project developed under the Caribbean Investment Facility (CIF) lead by AFD, a Financial institution from a European Union Member State (FR). The Government of Dominica is completely involved in the project, they have launched a request for qualifications for the development of small Geothermal Power Plant dedicated to local consumption in order to form a PPP that will at a second stage commission an export‐oriented Large Geothermal Power plant.

AFD is one of the most experienced institutions to carry out this sort of programmes and one of the main implementing partners under the CIF.

The project will contribute to the development of geothermal power in Dominica allowing the country to exploit its important geothermal potential, raising the possibility of exporting clean and competitive power to the neighbouring island. The project is highly beneficial to Dominica’s economy. The electricity exported will be substantially cheaper than the electricity currently produced in the region, which is mostly based on imported fossil fuels.

16 Northern Uplands Development Programme (NUDP)

DCI‐ASIE

Thailand Laos AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

09/12/11 14/12/11 19/05/11 30/09/17 3,800,000 Absence of sector policy and of international organisations in that sector and geographic area.

AFD has a significant experience within the sector of rural development and of the country.

Grants, procurement of services (technical assistance), works and supplies.

17 Global Climate Change Alliance support programme to Timor Leste

DCI‐ENV

Timor Leste Timor Leste CAMOES ‐INSTITUTO DA COOPERACAO EDA LINGUA IP

20/12/13 30/12/13 12/12/13 11/12/18 1,900,000 Shortage of human resources at Delegation

The selected entity has implemented several projects in the country and has proved able to create valuble synergies on the ground.

Support to rural communities

18 Projet de développement des chaines de valeur

FED Madagascar Madagascar DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT

FUR

01/07/13 18/07/13 18/07/13 17/07/16 4,000,000 Cette délégation de gestion a pour objectif de bénéficier de

La Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) a

Gestion des activités liées au volet "développement des

468

dans les régions de l'extrême Sud ‐ Sud est de Madagascar

INTERNATIONALE ZUSAMMENARBEIT (GIZ) GMBH

l'expérience acquise par d'autres partenaires au développement dans le domaine du développement de filières agricoles tournées vers le marché en partenariat avec le secteur privé et des modalités d'exécution financières mises en place par ces derniers et adaptées à ce type d'intervention, dans le respect des critères (les "six piliers") de l'article 26 du Règlement (CE) No 215/2008 sur le règlement financier applicable au 10eme FED. Elle permettra également une meilleure coordination et harmonisation des différentes initiatives conduites dans ce domaine.

déjà conduit des expériences similaires dans le pays, dispose de compétences au niveau local, permettant un démarrage rapide, et est déjà présente dans la zone d'intervention avec un partenariat sur cette même problématique avec l'entreprise minière QMM.

chaines de valeur" (volet 3 du programme) : 1. Identification et sélection de potentiels entrepreneurs, porteurs de projets de développement de chaines de valeur agricoles dans la région; 2. Assistance à la préparation des projets; 3. appui à la conception et la mise en œuvre de programmes d'accompagnement à la production et d'organisation des producteurs et de la collecte, en partenariat avec des opérateurs de type ONG; 4: Contribution aux investissements attendus des entrepreneurs sélectionnés, pour la partie des investissements non matériels.

19 Institutional Development of the National AIDS Council ''CNCS'' in Mozambique, phase 2

FED Mozambique

Mozambique

DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT

FUR INTERNATIONALE ZUSAMMENARBEIT (GIZ) GMBH

20/12/13 20/12/13 01/01/14 31/12/16 4,812,000 This is the second phase of a project implemented with the same body and with the same implementation modality. The ROM and evalaution of the first phase were both positive and the continuation of the second phase was suggested

Continuity with the implementation modality and body of the first phase

Support to provincial AIDS councils (CNCS) and their capacity development/building

20 Rider to Delegation ENPI Egypt Egypt DEUTSCHE 12/12/13 17/12/13 17/12/13 16/11/18 19,500,000 ARt. 54(2) of Financial This implementation is The Action will

469

Agreement ENPI/2012/299447

GESELLSCHAFT FUR


Regulation justified due to GIZ previous and ongoing successful experience in managing similar activities in the sector.

contribute to efforts of developing deprived informal areas through grants to NGOs and local administrations for small and medium‐sized infrastructure projects, policy advice and capacity building to relevant stakeholders. It will cover an additional 1 million people located in 4 additional informal areas (of which 2 areas will be in the Governorate of Qalyubeya that was not part so far of the on‐going EU funded project).

21 Eastern Partnership Territorial Cooperation Programmes

ENPI Headquarters

Eastern Europe Region



12/12/13 13/12/13 01/01/14 31/12/16 12,500,000 ARt. 54(2) of Financial Regulation

GIZ has a consolidated presence in the EaP region. They implement six regional programmes in the South Caucasus, with an overall budget of €58.5 million (2008‐2015) in such sectors as rule of law, local governance, environment and economic development; four bilateral projects of €10.2 million (two in Georgia and two in Azerbaijan) as well as two training programs (€12.8 million) under the Global Human Capacity Development.

GIZ will be responsible for launching calls for tenders and calls for proposals as well as evaluating those tenders and proposals. It will also act as contracting authority concluding and managing contracts, carrying out payments, recovering sums due and cancelling debts that cannot be recovered.

22 Regional Planning and Project Pipelines for Development

ENPI Moldova Moldova DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT

FUR INTERNATIONALE

08/10/13 17/10/13 17/10/13 16/12/15 5,000,000 Articles 53(d) and 56(1) of the Financial Regulation and Articles 43 and 35 of its

GIZ has extensive experience in Moldova in regional and local planning, in particular in

‐ Launching Call for Tenders; ‐ Select company(ies) that will undertake or

470

Regions North, South, Central in the Republic of Moldova

ZUSAMMENARBEIT (GIZ) GMBH

Implementing Rules with regard to actions implemented under joint management and indirect centralised management

the fields of water and sanitation, solid waste and energy efficiency.

assist in relevant data collection, analysis, elaboration of regional plans in various fields; ‐ coordination and supervision of the contracts; close cooperation with MRDC and EU Delegation, including regular reporting.

23 Activités B.9.1 (Approche audit technologique) et B.9.2 (Transfert Technologique) du PASRI.

ENPI Tunisia Tunisia DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT


09/12/11 15/12/11 15/12/11 14/12/14 700,000 Principe du Code de conduite européen

Il s'agit de la composante "Audit technologique et accompagnement". La GTZ mène déjà un projet dans le même secteur. En effet, dans le cadre de son programme innovation, la GTZ a créé des capacités et continue à les renforcer en finançant des actions dans les entreprises. Ces actions sont complémentaires à celles prévues dans ce projet et la délégation de cette partie permettra une capitalisation du potentiel acquis dans ce domaine, une sénergie plus efficace entre les deux acteurs de coopération (GTZ et CE) et une consolidation plus accrue des acquis du programme de la coopération allemande, en ligne avec les principes de la déclaration de Paris.

L'achat, le paiement et le contrôle des prestations d'assistance technique au bénéfice des entreprises dans le cas de délégation à la GTZ en raison de la complémentarité des actions et en cohérence avec la Déclaration de Paris sur l'efficacité de l'aide.

24 Construction of Community Police Stations




FUR

27/05/13 07/06/13 10/06/13 09/06/15 5,993,547 Article 54(2) of the Financial Regulation

GIZ has a world‐wide experience including in the WBG with police

1. Construction of the wastewater treatment plant and reuse

471


support programmes and confidence and endorsement on the part of the Ministry of Interior.

infrastructure. 2. Detailed design and supervision of the works. 3. Capacity building, accompanying measures and preparatory studies i.e.: 3.1 Capacity building and institutional strengthening in the Water and Sanitation sector. 3.2 Accompanying measures for the Sanitation and Re‐use component of this action (including Operations and Maintenance Training). 3.3 Preparatory studies for future programmes in the Water and sanitation sector (including Solid Waste in the Gaza strip).

25 EU Support to TVET SEctor in the Gaza Strip





04/03/13 05/03/13 06/03/13 05/09/15 2,000,000 Article 54(2)(c) of the Financial Regulation.

GIZ has a solid track record of engagement and success in TVET area in the oPt and with the EU (see 2.3.vii above), and has an office in the Gaza Strip.

GIZ will be fully entrusted for the implementation of the programme, including procurements of goods and services, and possibly works.

26 Apoyo al desarrollo de la cadena de valor de la madera ‐ Componentes 3 y 4

DCI‐ALA

Nicaragua Nicaragua DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT


26/07/13 26/08/13 26/08/13 25/01/17 2,000,000 The project will be implemented mostly in a partially decentralised mode by the National Forestry Institute. For the part implemented through delegated cooperation, the Nicaraguan counterpart specifically requested the involvement of GIZ, due

GIZ is the organization of technical cooperation with most years of service and presence in the forest sector, protected areas and promotion of renewable energy in Honduras. It has managed in Honduras more than €20 million of

GIZ would implement activities related to improving the skills base of the working force of the wood sector and the competitiveness of SMEs.

472

to its lack of experience/mandate in dealing with increasing the skills base of the work force in the sector and the competitiveness of the SMEs.

non reimbursable aid to support natural resources management in the last ten years.

27 Adaptación al cambio climático en el sector forestal (CliFor)

DCI‐ALA

Nicaragua Honduras DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT


25/10/13 05/11/13 05/11/13 04/11/18 20,400,000 The EuroFor (€47 million) programme is composed of two elements: (i) a budget support operation and (ii) a community forestry component. The delegation of the capacity building component to GIZ was decided, taking into consideration the vast experience of GIZ in the area of natural resources, incl. assistance to the government during the process of the approval and implementation of the forest, as well as the consolidation of a strategic vision for the sector and the Forestry Conservation Institute (ICF – for its acronym in Spanish) in coordination with the EC. GIZ has demonstrated in the framework of previous projects that it has an excellent track record in involving national authorities, technical experts and local authorities in the implementation of activities.

GIZ is the biggest donor in the environment/forestry sector whose experience dates back to 2002. GIZ programmes have contributed to the improvement of the food security, independent forest monitoring, as well as provided support to the Ministry of Natural Resources and ICF for the implementation of the sector policy. GIZ is the organization of technical cooperation with most years of service and presence in the forest sector, protected areas and promotion of renewable energy in Honduras. It has managed in Honduras more than €20 million of non reimbursable aid to support natural resources management in the last ten years.

GIZ is in charge of the implementation of the support operation related to climate change adaptation of community forestry (CliFor). The other component (sector budget support) would be implemented under the direct centralised management modality.

473

28 Global Climate Change Alliance support programme to Timor Leste

DCI‐ENV

Timor Leste Timor Leste DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT


20/12/13 31/12/13 12/12/13 11/12/18 1,900,000 Legal reason: use of grant contracts and shortage of human resources at Delegation

The selected entity has implemented several projects in the country and has proved able to create valuable synergies on the ground.

Improve the capacity to collect climate data

29 Delegation Agreement with the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)

DCI‐AFS South Africa South Africa DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN

AFRICA LIMITED

19/12/13 19/12/13 19/12/13 99,600,000 The choice of indirect centralized management mode with the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) as delegatee was motivated by (i) South Africa's government preference for this arrangement which it believes will promote country ownership in line with aid effectiveness principles, and (ii)by the DBSA's fulfillment of the EU 6‐pillar assessment

DBSA's core business is in the financing, advising and implementation of infrastructure projects in Southern Africa and it has the expertise, experience, technical and financial management capacity to implement the project. In addition, the DBSA has close relationships with the EIB, AFD and KfW, who are main partners in IIPSA, thus promoting efficiency gains. Moreover, the DBSA has recently started to work directly with the European Commission under the SADC Project Preparation Development Facility (SADC PPDF), managed by the EU Delegation to SADC in Botswana

DBSA: ‐ Participating finance institution; ‐ Fund manager (financial & treasury management, maintenance of the fund's accounts, etc.); ‐ Hosting of the secretariat of the Steering Committee.

31 Acuerdo de Delegación Parcial con la Fundación Internacional y para Iberoamérica de Administraciones y Políticas Públicas (FIIAPP) para el INTERCAMBIO DE EXPERTOS ENTRE UNIÓN EUROPEA Y CUBA

DCI‐ALA

Dominican Republic

Cuba FUNDACION INTERNACIONAL

Y PARA IBEROAMERICA

DE ADMINISTRACION Y POLITICAS PUBLICAS

04/12/13 04/12/13 20/01/14 19/07/17 2,900,000 It is not foreseen in the NIP 2011‐2013 to work through decentralised cooperation. It is highly difficult in Cuba to implement cooperation projects using External Technical Assistance. It was decided that indirect centralised management would be the best method to implement

FIIAPP is a public foundation at the service of the Spanish administration, active in the field of international cooperation. The Board of Directors of FIIAPP is presided by the Vice‐Presidency of the Spanish Government and composed by a number of Ministers, Secretaries

The EC will keep the political dialogue, the needs assessment and the final selection of candidates together with national authorities. The Delegatee will be entrusted the tasks of advising on terms of reference and annual work programmes, ensuring identification of

474

this kind of programme. of State and other Directors of the central administration. The aim of FIIAPP is to support reform processes in third countries. Combining services in the fields of public technical assistance, capacity development and leadership training, research and applied studies on social cohesion, FIIAPP provides an holistic approach to these reform processes. The main methodological approach is the exchange of experiences between peers, operating as an intermediary or exchange facilitator with the aim to develop public partnerships. FIIAPP operates in the main projects of the Action Plan approved during the VI EU‐LAC Summit of Heads of State and Government in Madrid in 2010.

high quality experts (from different Member States and Third Countries) and the smooth and rapid deployment of experts (including contracts with experts/administrations, organising travels,) to Cuba and Cubans abroad (organising agendas for visit studies).

32 Delegation Agreement between EC and KfW: Construction of the Burundi Component of the Power Interconnector between Rwanda and Burundi (BUCO PIRUBU)

FED Burundi Burundi KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

20/12/13 20/12/13 01/02/14 31/01/17 15,750,000 Point 3 of the TAPs of Agreement N° RSO/FED/023‐764 provides for that implementation modality. The nature of project activities (building an OHTL between Rwanda and Burundi with associated posts and substations)

KfW complies with the 5 pillar criteria and was almost the “natural choice” as it contributes the larger part of the project funding: €22 million out of €37 million overall project costs. KfW has been active in energy sector in the region for more than 20 years

1. Overall administration of the activities and Project supervision during implementation for tendering of goods and services, disbursement and management of funds. EU grant funds will be disbursed to Delegatee Body, who

475

and the funding structure justify the management type. Not blending, just joint cofinancing by KfW and EU.

administers them as a mandate; 2. In respect of the foregoing, the Delegatee Body shall apply to all Projects, in line with the Agreement, the same internal policies, procedures, care, and diligence as are applied when making and managing a grant, a loan or providing a guarantee or other credit support from their own ordinary resources, in accordance with the principle of sound financial management; 3. The Delegatee will make disbursements in accordance with the progress of the implementation of the Action and upon request of the PEA. The disbursement procedure is governed by the procedures and systems of the Delegatee Body, named "Direct Disbursement Procedure". The PEA requests the disbursement of funds for the Action to the Delegatee Body in accordance with the contractually agreed disbursement procedure as soon as all contractual preconditions for

476

disbursement have been fulfilled. Upon approval of the PEA's request, the Delegatee Body makes the disbursement directly to the "contractors" whose works, supplies and services are to be financed; 4. The Delegatee Body will enter into a "Financing and Project Agreement" with the Government of Burundi, represented by the Ministry of Finance, as Recipient of the financial contribution as well as with the PEA. In the "Financing and Project Agreement" the Delegatee Body will undertake to finance the Action by extending the financial contribution to the Recipient. The Recipient will channel the financial contribution to the PEA. The PEA under the "Financing and Project Agreement" will undertake towards the Delegatee Body and the Recipient to implement the Action and to use the financial contribution solely for this purpose. The Delegatee Body and the PEA will further enter into a "Separate Agreement", pertaining to the "Financing and

477

Project Agreement", setting out the details of the implementation of the Action and the tasks of the PEA in this respect; 5. The Delegatee Body, in compliance with Annex II "General Conditions", will monitor and report on implementation of the Action.

33 Nairobi Water Distribution Programme

FED Headquarters

Kenya KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

19/12/13 27/12/13 27/12/13 26/12/17 5,000,000 This project was selected in the context of the EU water facility‐ Pooling mechanism. As stated in the guidelines (http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/acp/regional‐cooperation/water/documents/acp_eu_water_facility_pooling_mechanism_guidelines_en.pdf). “The applicants eligible to submit directly proposals for grant support to the Pooling mechanism shall be subject to the specific rules applicable to delegated cooperation and co‐financing or grant contracts as laid down in the 10th EDF Financial Regulation and the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EC external actions5. These rules determine that specific contractual agreements and

Justification of the selection of the body is linked with the eligibility criteria stated in the guidelines of the EU‐WF –Pooling Mechanism.

The total amount of the project is €130 million. The KfW portion will focus on rehabilitation and extension of the secondary and tertiary networks and comprise an investment volume of approximately €30 million. The investments shall enhance sufficient and sustainable water supply in parts of Nairobi which are currently underserved, including areas that are not connected to the network at all as for example Salka, Ruai, Glthurai, Kahawa West, Roysambu, Karura, Gichagi, Kirigu, Ruthimitu and Waithaka, The AfD portion will especially focus on water treatment and secondary networks.

478

management procedures shall apply to the eligible applicants depending on their status and the type of proposal submitted”.

34 EU Support to the Malawi Social Cash Transfer

FED Malawi Malawi KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

26/11/13 02/12/13 02/12/13 01/10/16 34,150,000 Proposed contractual procedure avoid duplication of structures, alignment of donor's initiatives and ownership by GoM, in line with the EU commitments on aid effectiveness.

KfW has the comparative advantage of already supporting the social cash transfer programme in Malawi since January 2012.

35 KfW‐DA‐ Communal Land Development Project

FED Namibia Namibia KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

18/12/13 20/12/13 01/01/2014

31/12/18 13,500,000 By contributing to ongoing projects, rather than through parallel mechanisms, Aid Effectiveness is promoted and the Division of Labour respected. Donor coordination will be strengthened through a Basket Fund mechanism which provides a sound system for other donors to invest in an area that is being fully supported by the government. Furthermore, disbursement via the Delegation Agreements avoids duplication of administrative systems.

KfW has been working with the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement and is managing the Basket Fund, which implements four out of the five identified result areas (i.e. areas 1, 2, 3 and 5). Furthermore, KfW has strong previous experience with the European Union implementing external actions through delegation agreements and has positively been assessed on the 6‐pillar assessment.

The activities under the Delegation Agreement to be concluded with KfW will be largely implemented by the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement (MLR) as the subdelegatee.

36 Volet Travaux de la Composante Hydraulique du Programme d'Hydraulique et d'Assainissement pour le Millénaire

FED Ivory Coast Ivory Coast KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

26/06/13 04/07/13 04/07/2013

03/01/18 13,500,000 KfW a été identifié comme exécutant à cause de son expertise et sa présence dans le secteur de l'hydraulique de plus de 20 ans.

Depuis le début des années 1990, la KfW a soutenu le développement du secteur de l'hydraulique rurale en Côte d'Ivoire. A travers la mise en œuvre de différents programmes

La KfW donne un avis de non objection (contrôle ex‐ante) avant le lancement de la procédure de passation des marchés, à l'issue de l'évaluation des offres et avant la signature des contrats et procédera

479

(actuellement le Programme HVA VIII), cet organisme a développé une coopération rapprochée avec les principales parties prenantes du secteur et a acquis une expertise sur les questions transversale liées à la décentralisation et à la participation du secteur privée dans le contexte de la fourniture de services d'approvisionnement en eau en milieu rural.

directement aux paiements des factures des contractants. Une équipe d'assistance technique sera mise à la disposition de l'ONEP par la KfW pour assurer l'accompagnement des activités de gestion du projet et assurer sa bonne exécution technique et financière. Par ailleurs, la KfW va financer et réaliser au cours du second semestre 2012 les études d'avant projet détaillé d'une part importante de la Composante Hydraulique du PHAM permettant ainsi d'accélérer le calendrier de mise en œuvre pour l'atteinte des objectifs du programme dans les délais impartis.

37 Communal Infrastructure Program (CIP)

ENPI Armenia Armenia KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

23/12/13 27/12/13 27/12/2013

26/12/18 15,390,000 Art. 54(2) of Financial Regulation

KFW was selected as it is an eligible finance institution under the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF)

KFW will be responsible for the overall operational and financial management of the project as specified in the NIF Framework Arrangement.

38 Integrated Solid Waste Management in the Southern Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia)

ENPI Headquarters

Eastern Europe Region

KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

22/11/13 02/12/13 02/12/13 01/12/18 6,240,000 Art. 54(2) of Financial Regulation.

KFW was selected as it is an eligible finance institution under the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF).

KFW will be responsible for the overall operational and financial management of the project as specified in the NIF Framework Arrangement.

39 Support to wastewater services in

ENPI Jordan Jordan KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

30/12/13 30/12/13 30/12/13 29/12017 9,900,000 Article 54(2)(c) of Financial Regulation

This implementation is justified because (i) KfW has a substantial proven

KFW will be responsible for the overall administration of all

480

Jordanian communities hosting Syrian refugees

track‐record of project implementation in Jordan (ii) KfW is a lead implementing agency in the area of water and wastewater infrastructure in Jordan; (ii) KfW is currently preparing with the Government of Jordan a EUR 50 million package in the area of sanitation.

activities.

40 Sewerage Nablus East (EU‐KfW‐PA funds)



KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

16/12/13 16/12/13 16/12/13 15/09/18 18,000,000 Article 54(2)(c) of the Financial Regulation

KfW has a proven track record in implementing large‐scale infrastructure programmes in harmony with other donors. As the majority of EU funds to the MDP will be used for implementing infrastructure projects, KfW has the required experience and expertise. KfW is currently implementing water and sanitation projects in the municipalities, which is a focal area of action for the EU, and is strongly involved in the MDLF’s institutional development, an area the EU would like to support during MDP2. Furthermore, KfW has proved to give adequate attention to gender, social accountability and youth participation.

KfW will be responsible for the overall administration of all activities.

41 LAIF: Chilean Solar Energy Programme

DCI‐ALA

Chile Latin America Countries

KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

20/12/13 27/12/13 27/12/13 26/12/18 15,300,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by KfW a Financial

Proven experience of KfW and IDB in issues related with Climate Change adaptation and

The Chilean Solar Energy Program is a joint initiative of the Chilean Ministry of Energy, the

481

institution from a European Union Member State (GER) in cooperation with IDB‐ Interamerican Development Bank. In line with LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734),having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

low carbon technologies. Project screened by LAIF Board for its quality and fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

German development institutions KfW and GIZ on behalf of the German government, the Inter‐American Development Bank and the Clean Technology Fund (CTF).The GoC will provide a subsidy in the form of a grant of USD 20 Mio. to the project and will provide a suitable location for the construction of the plant.. The development finance institutions KfW, IDB and IFC together with the CTF are trying to structure a financing package that will be able to close the financial gap between conventional power solutions and the low‐carbon technology CSP.

42 "Entrepreneurial Development and Promotion of micro, small and medium‐sized enterprises (MSME) in Central America”

DCI‐ALA

Headquarters

Latin America Countries

KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

04/12/13 11/12/13 11/12/13 10/12/17 3,952,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by KfW a Financial institution from a European Union Member State (DE) in cooperation with CABEI‐ Central America Investment Bank. In line with LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734), KfW having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

Proven experience of KfW and CABEI in the promotion and support to the development of MSMEs. Project screened by LAIF Board for its quality and fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

KfW and CABEI take shared responsibility in the implementation of the project and conform the supervisory committee of the project. CABEI links with the intermediate (entrepreneurial development centres) final beneficiaries (MSMEs, incubators, innovative undertakings) of the project in the countries of Central America providing for technical support and supervision of the specific proposals from

482

such entities

43 Expansion and improvement of water supply, sewage, wastewater treatment and reuse systems in Lima Metropolitan Area

DCI‐ALA

Headquarters


KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

12/12/13 18/12/13 18/12/13 17/12/17 3,150,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by KfW a Financial institution from a European Union Member State (GER) in cooperation with IDB‐ Interamerican Development Bank. In line with LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734), AECID having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

Proven experience of KfW and IDB in issues related with Climate Change adaptation and Integrated Water management. Project screened by LAIF Board for its quality and fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

KfW and IDB take shared responsibility in the implementation of the project. The expansion of the water and sewerage system in the Lima area will be financed by IDB and the connection of the sewerage system to the wastewater treatment plant will be done with kfW funding ;

44 Urban Public Transportation Improvement Program

DCI‐ALA

Headquarters


KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

09/12/13 12/12/13 12/12/13 11/03/17 3,150,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by KfW a Financial institution from a European Union Member State (DE) in cooperation with CAF ‐ Andean Development Corporation. In line with LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734), KfW having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

KfW and CAF have already developed a long collaboration in projects related with urban sustainability. Project screened by LAIF Board for its quality and fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

KfW and CAF take shared responsibility in the implementation of the project. The KfW/CAF credit line selected some transport projects, the funds will be channelled through CAF and will be offered to its members States to modernise or finance new urban transport systems.

45 Dhakka Urban Transport

DCI‐ASIE

Headquarters

Bangladesh AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

23/12/13 27/12/13 27/12/13 26/12/17 3,000,000 AFD implements the programme, Delegation has no expertise in area of transport

better experience of the implementing partner in the field of cooperation

Manage preparation of Terms of reference for TA and capacity building

46 Efficient Transmission of Electricity from

DCI‐ASIE

Headquarters

Nepal KREDITANSTALT FUR

WIEDERAUFBAU

31/12/13 31/12/13 31/12/13 30/12/17 2,407,500 Indirect Centralised Management is used for contracts funded from

Specific Expertise of the Contractor

The Delegatee body is responsible for the administration of the

483

Renewable Energy Sources in Nepal

the Blending Facility Project including the AIF contribution, i.e.: (1) the execution of paments directly to contractors; (2) the monitoring of implementation based on reports prepared by the Project Executive Agency, and (3) ensuring the reporting by the PEA

47 Improvement of access to electricity and water in small towns and rural areas

DCI‐ASIE

Headquarters

Asia AGENCE FRANCAISE DE

DEVELOPPEMENT

17/12/13 20/12/13 20/12/13 19/12/19 6,288,000 The Asia Investment Facility (“AIF”) was created to provide EU grant support for lending operations led by European multilateral development‐finance institutions and also bilateral development finance institutions of the Member States (“European Finance Institutions” or “EFIs”). The AIF provides grants for investment co‐financing, loan guarantee cost financing, interest rate subsidies, risk capital operations and technical assistance packages. The objective is to combine European Union (EU) grants with loans from consortia of EFIs in order to finance large investment projects in the Asian and Central Asia region. The AIF supports projects focussing on the sector priorities established by the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Regional

Afd's significant expertise in areas relevant to action.

The Action comprises three projects: 1. The “EDC Project”: support to Electricité du Cambodge (EDC) for expansion of the high and medium voltage electricity transmission network in non‐covered areas; 2. The “Credit line Project to REEs/SWEs”: credit line to a local bank to finance Rural Electrification Enterprises (REEs) and Small Water Enterprises (SWEs) business expansion; 3. The “Green Microfinance Project”: support to two to three microfinance institutions (MFIs) in developing clean energy microfinance business in non‐connected areas. The AIF contribution will support both Technical Assistance (TA) and Investment Grant (IG) components in the three projects as follows:

484

Strategy for Asian Countries and target the following sectors: energy, environment, social infrastructure and the private sector. Support can also be provided at a later stage to transport related investments. On 15 November 2013, based on a proposal made by Agence Française de Développement (“AFD”), the AIF Operational Board approved a contribution of EUR 6,000,000 (the “AIF contribution”), financed by the EU budget to the “Improvement of access to electricity and water in small towns and rural areas” project (the “Action”).

• TA (EUR 4.4 million) with respect to the three projects; • IG (EUR 1.6 million) with respect to the Credit line Project to REEs/SWEs and the Green Microfinance Project.

48 Acuerdo de Delegacion con AECID ‐ Medidas de acompañamiento PAPSE II

FED Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic

REINO DE ESPANA

23/04/13 29/04/13 30/04/13 29/04/17 2,300,000 Adequacy of Indirect centralised management proposal made to be in line with the EC commitments on aid effectiveness, encouraging greater donor coherence and complementarity in the sector policy and greater coordination and harmonisation of cooperation activities. At the same time, the Delegation Agreement has been considered in order to deliver aid more efficiently by sharing and

Selection of AECID was made since this agency is one of the most important donors providing education non targeted budget support and full alignment with national sector strategies. The EU decided to enter into a delegated cooperation agreement, and thereby delegate the coordination of capacity development related component to AECID taking into consideration the following criteria:

To support the Ministry of Education on the design and implementation of its multiannual strategic plan corresponding to the period of implementation of the education SBS programme. Areas of support include sector performance analysis and evaluation, exchange of good practices, organisation of stakeholders' meetings, social dialogue and increased participation,

485

maximising use of technical and management capacity and systems and to encourage use of common monitoring, evaluation and accounting procedures to reduce number of separate donor reviews and different procedures.

Firstly, to respond to the recommendation of the country level evaluation, made in 2011, regarding the reinforcement of the sector dialogue. The experience gained by AECID in supporting the Ministry of Education in the implementation of its sector policies during the last 18 years would certainly contribute to strengthening the sector policy dialogue as well as the consistency and impact of the sector external support. Secondly, the capacity of AECID to deal with wide range of financial instruments (bilateral, multilateral and grants) and actors (sector institutions, civil society organization, universities, research centres, government institutions, etc.) will have a direct positive impact on the implementation of the education SBS operation.

greater alignment and coordination of the donor community, actions related to strengthening the capacity of the Ministry for improving the service delivery, the implementation of strategic priorities of the sector policy, as well as the management of the sector budget.

49 Proyecto CEMí. Apoyo a la Cadena Productiva del Cacao en el Oriente Rural ‐ Guantánamo

DCI‐ALA

Dominican Republic

Cuba REINO DE ESPANA

13/12/13 13/12/13 01/03/14 28/02/17 1,300,000 It is not foreseen in the NIP 2011‐2013 to work through decentralised cooperation. It is highly difficult in Cuba to implement cooperation projects using External Technical Assistance. The main implementing agencies in Cuba are UNDP, AECID, Swiss

AECID has an extensive experience with food security projects in Cuba, and in particular in specific products such as cocoa. Delegating the action to AECID is therefore in line with the Division of Labour process in the country, by which Ministry of

AECID will take full responsibility for implementing the whole action and the European Union will closely monitor the action, including through ROM. Ex‐ante control of the contractual procedures and the execution of payments are delegated

486

Cooperation and NGOs. The European Union has so far chiefly channelled its cooperation through UNDP and NGOs, but with limits to the latter's absorption capacity. Therefore new instruments like delegating cooperation to AECID is an opportunity to further diversify the modalities for channelling EU aid, while enhancing division of labour in this sector.

Agriculture is encouraging donors to specialise in different value chains. The Ministry in Charge of Cooperation (MINCEX) represented by the Directorate in charge of relations with the European Union confirmed to the delegation of the European Union in Cuba its agreement to this management arrangement . Transaction costs are reduced in the sense that no new structures are created .AECID procedures and operating modalities are well known to the Cuban administration and will not create a heavy burden. Activities will be integrated in the planning of the management unit at provincial level and should not represent extra‐work for the administration. AECID has taken into account the alignment of the project with the provincial priorities when designing the action.

to AECID.

50 LAIF contribution to the Project ''Promoting climate change adaptation and integrated water resources

DCI‐ALA

Headquarters


REINO DE ESPANA

13/12/13 19/12/13 19/12/13 18/06/19 15,300,000 Project developed under the Latin America Investment Facility (LAIF) lead by AECID a Financial institution from a European Union Member

Proven experience of AECID and IDB in issues related with Climate Change adaptation and Integrated Water management. Project

AECID and IDB take shared responsibility in the implementation of the project and conform the supervisory committee of the

487

management investment in the water and sanitation sector in Latin America in the framework of the Spanish Cooperation Fund for Water and Sanitation"

State (ES) in cooperation with IDB‐ Interamerican Development Bank. In line with LAIF decision (CRIS 21 734), AECID having passed the 6‐pillars assessment, the project’s mode of implementation is that of indirect centralised management.

screened by LAIF Board for its quality and fulfilment of eligibility criteria both from the financial and technical view‐points.

project. Funding is provided by AECID via the FCAS, Fundo de Cooperacion para Agua y Saneamiento, (Cooperation Fund for Water and Sanitation) and by the IDB.

51 Acuerdo de Delegación con AECID para la ejecución del programa ''Apoyo a medidas de prevención y control de drogas y crimen organizado en Nicaragua''

DCI‐ALA

Nicaragua Nicaragua REINO DE ESPANA

02/12/13 03/12/13 22/12/13 21/10/18 8,000,000 The choice of delegated body recognises AECID’s expertise and edge over other organisations and Member States involved in the security sector in Nicaragua and its consolidated and effective working relations with the National Police of this country. The use of Delegated cooperation will ensure that technical assistance will be mainly focused on supporting local beneficiaries, while AECID takes the responsibility of administrative procedures, thus facilitating local appropriation of the intervention by the beneficiaries and the improvement of their capacities, resulting in an improvement of the efficiency of the institutions involved in the project. Another additional advantage of using delegated

The choice of delegated body recognises AECID’s expertise and edge over other organisations and Member States involved in the security sector in Nicaragua and its consolidated and effective working relations with the National Police of this country. Furthermore, the use of Delegated cooperation will ensure that technical assistance will be mainly focused on supporting local beneficiaries, while AECID takes the responsibility of administrative procedures, thus facilitating local appropriation of the intervention by the beneficiaries and the improvement of their capacities, resulting in an improvement of the efficiency of the institutions involved in the project. The majority of the activities having to

AECID will be responsible for budgetary control and supervision of the project. AECID's role as delegatee body will go well beyond the provision of technical assistance services and will in fact be in charge of implementing key activities required for the attainment of project objectives. The majority of the activities having to do with the contracting of services, supplies or works, will be handled by AECID, based on project needs.

488

cooperation is the reinforcement of coordination with other donors present in the country and active in complementary projects, thus in full compliance with the principles of the Code of Conduct on Complementarity and the Division of Labour in development policy.

do with the contracting of services, supplies or works, will be handled by AECID, based on project needs.

52 Proyecto de lucha contra la impunidad y apoyo a la transparencia (PIT)

DCI‐ALA

Nicaragua Honduras REINO DE ESPANA

29/11/13 29/11/13 29/11/13 28/09/18 8,388,840 Only part of the EuroJusticia (€27.5 million) project is delegated to AECID. The delegation of tasks to AECID is based on its previous experience with project partners and relations already established with them.

The reasons for choosing AECID lie in its long‐term engagement in the justice and security sector in Honduras, with a good governance approach similar to the one applied in this action. Since 2006, AECID has implemented over 20 projects for about €10.2 million. It has established continuous cooperation with the Security Secretary, the Institute for Access to Public Information (IAIP), UNAH and National Congress, and worked in the past with the Judiciary and the MP. Its cooperation for the next years will focus on issues related to this action, such as transparency and social audit, information and statistics, and postgraduate training of justice and security officials.

AECID's responsibilities will involve the supervision of: i) activities' planning and implementation, ii) all procurements and payments and iii) funds management. AECID will be required to assign sufficient administrative personnel for the administration of the funds and to manage and monitor the components under its responsibility. It will also take responsibility for provision of a technical consultant, when required for the achievement of results.

53 Apoyo a la Estrategia de

DCI‐ALA

Nicaragua Central America

REINO DE ESPANA

18/12/13 20/12/13 20/12/13 19/11/17 12,700,000 The use of indirect centralised management

AECID gained strong expertise in the security

The management of the project will be partially

489

Seguridad de Centroamerica (ESCA)

Region will contribute to the reinforcement of coordination with other donors present in the region and active in complementary projects. It is also relevant to contribute to the application of the principles of the Code of Conduct on Complementarity and the Division of Labour in development policy.

sector in the region over the last 10 years. AECID also established a solid relationship with SG SICA.

delegated to AECID. A grant will be managed by the EU through Direct Centralised Management. The project will include two main components: 1. Prevention of violence; 2. Institutional strengthening.

54 Promoting Qualitative Health Services in Eastern Sudan (PQHS)

FED Sudan Sudan REPUBBLICA ITALIANA

24/10/13 31/10/13 01/01/14 31/12/16 8,600,000 It enhances division of labour, aid effectiveness and the coherence of the EU intervention in the health sector

The Delegatee body has long‐standing experience in the health sector in Sudan, and a pipeline of on‐going and future medium term activities in the sector.

The tasks involving exercise of public authority remains with the Delegatee body. They include the launch of call procedures (preparation of tender documents, approval of reports, determination of amounts to be paid, contract award), concluding contracts with third parties and undertaking project follow‐up.

55 Index Based Livestock Insurance

FED Kenya Kenya UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN

IRELAND

08/03/13 10/04/13 11/04/13 10/04/16 1,000,000 Indirect centralised management is chosen to allow a more rationale division of labour among funding donors, based on specific experience and capacity. This arrangement will ensure more coherence, efficiency and timeliness to this funding.

DFID funded a first successful pilot of an Index Based Livestock Insurance in Marsabit county. The DA with DFID will allow for greater up‐scaling and commercialisation of the pilot to all counties of Northern Kenya.

The main implementer of this action will be ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) which developed jointly with DFID the first pilot in Marsabit county.

56 Support to the South Sudan Health Pooled Fund

FED South Sudan

South Sudan

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN

05/10/13 04/11/13 04/11/13 03/11/15 8,000,000 A EU contribution to DFID's activities through its Health Pool Fund

DFID is a lead donor in the health sector, with consolidated experience

he tasks involving exercise of public authority remains with

490

AND NORTHERN IRELAND

enhances aid effectiveness and the coherence of the EU and wider interventions in the health sector.

and privileged relations with both authorities and rest of the international community. It has set up a pool fund to which most donors' in South Sudan are contributing. This pool funds is at present the best vehicle to guarantee maximum efficiency in the health sector.

the Delegatee body. They include the launch of call procedures (preparation of tender documents, approval of reports, determination of amounts to be paid, contract award), concluding contracts with third parties and undertaking project follow‐up.

57 Support to the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) in Liberia

FED Liberia Liberia UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN

IRELAND

18/04/13 23/05/13 24/05/13 23/05/18 3,000,000 DFID is co‐financing the VPA Support Programme, consequently the Delegation Agreement through indirect centralised management is the appropriate mechanism for these cases as per Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 on the financial regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund.

The reasons for selecting DFID are their strong development approach and the full engagement of DFID in the FLEGT processes globally. Specifically, in Liberia, DFID has led Member State engagement in preparation for VPA negotiations and through the process, supporting all technical meetings and negotiation sessions as well as supporting the efforts of the VPA negotiation team through the VPA Secretariat.

DFID will be in charge of putting in place the 1) VPA Support Unit and 2) The Legality Verification Department in order to ensure that Liberia timber exports meet the legal requirements through an appropriate due dilligence process.

58 PALESTINIAN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (PMD)



UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN

IRELAND

24/10/13 24/10/13 24/10/13 23/10/18 5,500,000 Art. 54(2) of Financial Regulation.

DFID has the required experience and capacity, having successfully managed, together with the World Bank, a pilot project in this area.

DFID will be fully entrusted and responsible for the implementation of the programme, including procurements of services. DFID will procure an overall independent implementer for the project as well as a separate entity for monitoring and

491

evaluation through competitive tendering process. DFID will be solely responsible for verification and approval of all payments.

* excluding the European Investment Bank as per standing instruction for AAR 2013.

492

ANNEX 7A: The AAR of Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency

Foreword

MESSAGE FROM BRIAN HOLMES, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE EACEA

2013 was a challenging year for the Agency: in addition to managing the final selections and on‐going projects for the existing funding programmes, we also prepared for the new programmes by working closely with the Commission on the extension of our mandate and by reorganising our units internally.

Concerning the existing programmes, in 2013 the Agency continued to produce positive results in line with the objectives set out in the Annual Work Programme. We launched 28 calls for proposals with a total of around 15 000 applications received for all programmes. Of these, some 4 000 were selected representing an overall success rate of around 27%. Simplification measures introduced in recent years were reinforced, working further towards the objective of streamlining project selection processes: e‐Forms were put in place for most actions, with 91% of applications now being submitted online; greater use was made of more cost‐effective online briefings for experts and preparatory work was completed for the introduction of the mandatory audit certificates which will ensure a faster treatment of the final report for the benefit of our stakeholders.

A reservation is maintained for one programme (LLP) which registered an error rate of over 2% for the third consecutive year; an action plan is already in place to ensure that this risk is reduced as far as possible in the future. Certain measures already implemented, such as the increased use of lump‐sums and kick‐off meetings for new projects, are already showing positive effects on the error rates of the related programmes.

Concerning the new mandate, the Erasmus+, Creative Europe, Europe for Citizens and EU Aid Volunteers programmes will be partly managed by the Agency. As a consequence, we have been actively working with the Commission in designing and preparing the actions to be delegated, and in completing the legal formalities to extend our mandate for the period 2014‐2020. Moreover, we prepared for an internal reorganisation in order that we may better manage the transition from the current to future actions.

All in all, 2013 ended on a very positive note: the Agency's new organogram was approved and the new mandate was formally adopted by the budgetary authority. The budget for 2014 was agreed and the first calls for proposals were launched for Creative Europe, for Erasmus+ and for Europe for Citizens.

493

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 494

THE DG/SERVICE IN BRIEF .............................................................................................................................. 494 THE YEAR IN BRIEF ......................................................................................................................................... 494 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 496 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ...................................................................................................................... 496 POLICY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR ...................................................................................................................... 500 KEY CONCLUSIONS ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS ........................................... 504 INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSIONER .............................................................................................................. 504

1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENCY'S ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMME 2013 505

1.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 505 1.1.1 ABB ACTIVITY EDUCATION AND TRAINING ........................................................................................... 505 1.1.2 ABB ACTIVITY AUDIOVISUAL ............................................................................................................. 523 1.1.3 ABB ACTIVITY CULTURE .................................................................................................................... 528 1.1.4 ABB ACTIVITY YOUTH ...................................................................................................................... 531 1.1.5 ABB ACTIVITY CITIZENSHIP ................................................................................................................ 534 1.2 SPECIFIC EFFORTS TO IMPROVE 'ECONOMY' AND 'EFFICIENCY' OF SPENDING AND NON‐SPENDING ACTIVITIES...... 537 1.2.1 INCREASING USE OF THE IT TOOLS ...................................................................................................... 537 1.2.2 USE OF LUMP‐SUM SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 538

2. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES 540

2.1 MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES BY EACEA ........................................................... 541 2.1.1 CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS AS REGARDS LEGALITY AND REGULARITY ............................................................. 541 2.1.2 CONTROL EFFICIENCY AND COST‐EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................... 545 2.1.3 FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION ................................................................................................... 548 2.2 BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION TASKS ENTRUSTED TO OTHER SERVICES AND ENTITIES. ........................................ 549 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF AUDIT RESULTS AND FOLLOW UP OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 550

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS 554

4. MANAGEMENT ASSURANCE 556

4.1 REVIEW OF THE ELEMENTS SUPPORTING ASSURANCE .............................................................................. 556 4.2 RESERVATIONS AND OVERALL CONCLUSION ON ASSURANCE ..................................................................... 557

DECLARATION OF ASSURANCE 558

ANNEXES 559

ANNEX 1: ....................................................................................... STATEMENT OF THE RESOURCES DIRECTOR 559 ANNEX 2: ............................................................................................... HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES 560 ANNEX 3: ............................................................................DRAFT ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS 562 ANNEX 4: ............................................................................................................... MATERIALITY CRITERIA 585 ANNEX 5: .................................................. INTERNAL CONTROL TEMPLATE(S) FOR BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (ICTS) 588 ANNEX 7: ..................................................................................................... AARS OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES 595 ANNEX 8: ........................................................................................................... DECENTRALISED AGENCIES 596 ANNEX 9: ..................................................................... PERFORMANCE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN EVALUATIONS 597 ANNEX 10: .............................................. SPECIFIC ANNEXES RELATED TO "MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES" (PART 2) 598

494

INTRODUCTION

The DG/Service in brief

The mission of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Agency) is set in the context of the general provisions which empower the Commission to set up an Executive Agency, in particular by Council Regulation (CE) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002.

The Agency was first established by Commission Decision 2005/56/EC and entrusted with the management of EU actions in the field of education, audiovisual and culture. The Agency's mandate was extended on several occasions to cover the management of new projects and programmes in the field of education, audiovisual, citizenship, youth and EU Aid Volunteers. Commission Decision 2005/56/EC was subsequently replaced by Commission Decision 2013/776/EU.

The role of the Agency is to manage European funding opportunities and networks in the EU programmes Erasmus+, Creative Europe, Europe for Citizens and EU Aid Volunteers. The tasks executed by the Agency are carried out in conformity with both the aforementioned delegating Decision and the legal bases of these programmes.

The Agency has a duty to ensure financial transparency, efficiency and a high quality service to applicants and beneficiaries in full co‐operation and transparency with parent DGs.

The year in brief

A. Implementation of the delegated programmes and actions

During 2013, the Agency implemented the delegated programmes in line with its work programme. 28 calls for proposals were published as well as 3 calls for tenders. In addition 8 restricted calls were published, two of which have no financial impact, including the first call for the new programme Erasmus+ (Erasmus Charter for Higher Education 2014).

The Agency received approximately 15.200 proposals, compared to 13.000 last year in the same period (representing a 17% increase), and around 4.100 proposals were selected compared to 3.600 last year (representing a 15% increase).

The new Financial Regulation came into force on 1st January 2013 and slight delays were noted in the contracting of some actions given the necessity to modify templates for contracts and bank guarantees. By the end of 2013, all targets sent for the time to contract were met and all payment indicators are in line with the targets.

The external evaluation of the Agency for mid‐2008‐2011 was finalised and an Action Plan was agreed by the management and by the Steering Committee. Most of the actions have been carried out in 2013 according to plan.

B. Management of resources

As regards the operational budget, the execution of commitment credits is 686 Mio€ or 98.6% of the available budget, which is almost in line with the target (99%). The execution of payment credits is 667.2 Mio€. The payments reach 98.3% of the available budget which is above the target (95%).

495

As regard the operating budget, the execution of commitment appropriations is 49.82 Mio€ (97,2% of the available budget – 51.27 M€). The execution of payment appropriations is 50.3 Mio€ (87.2% of the available budget). The financial indicators are globally in line with the forecast, in particular for the time‐to‐pay. The new grant management system Pegasus was put into production, integrating all the actions previously managed in Saykiss and the MEDIA actions (Development, Video on Demand, Festivals, Training, Mediadesks and Pilot projects). The financial system was adapted to the new version of ABAC. The staff occupation rate for available posts at the end of December amounts to 96%.

The percentage of operating costs is 7.5% (50.3/667.2 = 7.5%), see p.36 section 2.1.2 'Control efficiency and cost‐effectiveness'.

C. Control & Audit environment

Following the reservation in the AARs of 2011 and 2012, the action plan has been implemented and the error rate for the LLP programme is being closely monitored. The Internal Audit Capability of the Agency has been working on the audits on the MEDIA programme and the audit on Monitoring Missions. Four follow‐up audit reports have been issued: Selection of experts, Procurement, Grant management awarding and contracting and Agency’s IT services to Agency’s operational Units.

D. New programmes (2014‐2020)

One of the Agency's objectives in 2013 was 'to support 'the Commission in the preparation of the next generation of programmes and in the preparation of the Agency's mandate'. In this respect, Agency staff participated in the preparation of the new generation of programmes for 2014‐2020 through various working groups in collaboration with parent DGs. 2013 has been also an important year for the Agency in preparing for the management of the new programmes, particularly taking into account the introduction of the new staff regulations. To this effect a re‐organisation of the Agency took place, reflecting the new mandate. On the basis of the established work load indicators and different projections on the scope of the 2014‐2020 programmes, the Agency established its estimations concerning the necessary staffing levels for the management of the new programmes. The Agency contributed to the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) report, based on its own estimation of the resources needed to manage the legacy (2007‐2013 projects) as well as the new programmes.

A lot of work has been done in particular for the definition of lump‐sums which were already used for some actions of the previous programmes and have proven to help simplify project management. A call for experts for the new programmes was launched (Appel à Manifestation d'Interêt).

As regards external communication, mirror‐units (in the Agency and parent DGs) have continued to plan the necessary information and communication activities for the new programmes. Concerning internal communication, regular messages were sent to staff by the Interim Director on the future programmes and on the Agency's reorganisation.

The new mandate of the Agency was prepared in close cooperation with the parent DGs

and was formally adopted on 26/12/2013 in agreement with the Steering Committee.

496

Executive Summary

The Annual Activity Report is a management report of the Director of EACEA to the College of Commissioners. It is the main instrument of management accountability within the Commission and constitutes the basis on which the Commission takes its responsibility for the management of resources and the achievement of objectives.

Key Performance Indicators

1 – Evolution of the time‐to‐award grants to beneficiaries (from application deadlines to grant award decision) 2011‐2013

Target for the Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens programmes: finalisation of selections within 4 months from the deadline of submission20.

Target for the other programmes managed by the Agency: finalisation of selections within 5 months21 .

New target for all programmes following the revision of the Financial Regulations: finalisation of selections within 6 months (average time between the call deadline and the notification to all applicants).

20 With no comitology procedure

21 With no comitology procedure

497

2 – Evolution of the time‐to‐contract with beneficiaries (2011‐2013)

Target for the Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens programmes: 1st grant agreement to be sent to the beneficiary within 1 month of the award decision.

Target for the other programmes managed by the Agency: 1st grant agreement to be sent to the beneficiary within 2 months after the award decision.

New target for all programmes following the revision of the Financial Regulations: finalisation of selections within 3 months (average time between the notification and the signature of contracts/sending of decisions).

3 – Evolution of monitoring activities (visits, meetings, thematic clusters) 2011‐2013

Target: more than 400 projects monitored and more than 5% of open‐projects

499

4 – Evolution of the percentage of payments within contractual time 2011‐2013

Target: 90%

5 ‐ Evolution of the percentage of the residual error rate by ABB from 2011‐2013 :

Target : max 2%

The increase in error rate for the Culture programme is due to year‐on‐year fluctuations in terms of the audit results from limited sampling; the Agency believes that there are no systemic weaknesses for which new measures need to be taken.

500

Policy highlights of the year

In its Work Programme for 2013, the Agency identified 5 operational priorities. The achievements made during the reporting period for each of them are listed below.

1) Support the Commission in the preparation of the next generation of programmes and in the preparation of the extension of the Agency's mandate (for 2014‐2020)

The Agency prepared the extension of its mandate with regard to the next generation of programmes and collaborated with DG EAC in the finalisation of the necessary legislative documents (Legislative and Financial Statement, Delegation Act, Creation Act, CBA).

The Agency supported the Commission in the negotiation process of the next generation of programmes through active participations and timely contributions to working groups led by the Commission to prepare the next generation of programmes (Erasmus+, Creative Europe, Europe for Citizens and EU Aid Volunteers).

The Agency contributed to the preparation of implementation mechanisms for the next generation of programmes.

2) Implement the extension of the mandate in 2013 and prepare for the future extension (2014‐2020)

Based on the structure of the new programmes, the Agency implemented an internal re‐organisation, including a rotation of Heads of Sector, thereby ensuring a smooth transition between the two generations of programmes.

The Agency finalised the preparation of the first calls for the new generation of programmes, for which it is responsible, and they were launched. In addition, the call for expression of interest for experts was published. Information activities for the new programmes at programme level took place in close collaboration with the parent DGs.

The Agency prepared and delivered the tools and documents necessary for the new generation of programmes i.e. finalisation of the model call for proposals, programme guides and starting the production of the e‐Forms for the new generation of programmes.

A smooth transfer of the tasks related to the extension of the Agency's mandate for 2013 was implemented: procedures were updated for the LLP, MEDIA, Youth in Action and Erasmus Mundus programmes, taking into account the delegation of e‐Twinning ENPI and MEDIA Mundus to the Agency in 2013 and the increase of budget for Erasmus Mundus.

3) Streamlining project selection processes

More than 15.000 proposals were received, and around 4.100 projects were selected. The number of projects selected, which is 15% higher than in 2012 (3.555 in 2012), reflects the amount of budget available, the amount requested and the quality of the proposals received. The targets set in the Agency Work Programme were met.

501

The average duration of the selection and contracting periods respected the fixed deadlines: the average time‐to‐award was 2.9 months for Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens (target <4 months) and 3.9 months for all other programmes (target <5 months) and the average time‐to‐contract for Youth in Action and Europe for Citizens was 0.81 (target <1 month) months and 1.7 months for all other programmes (target <2 months). Furthermore, the revision of the Financial Regulation changed the requirement for the calculation of the indicators 'Time‐to‐award' and 'Time‐to‐contract'. The Agency introduced this new method of calculation during the year. The average time to award including all programmes has become 4 months (target <6 months) and the average time to contract including all programmes has become 2 months (target <3 months). For a more comprehensive view, the graphs (see.p.6 and 7) show both calculations.

E‐forms were used for 91% of the applications. Progress was continued to extend the use of online briefings of experts.

Based on the analysis of a satisfaction survey for the applicants, which was carried out as part of the 2nd interim evaluation of the Agency, improvements were proposed in an action plan to be implemented during the next generation of programmes.

4) Providing improved guidance for project implementation and moving towards harmonised reporting requirements

Monitoring visits were carried out in line with a harmonised approach, as indicated in the action plan for the reservations emitted 2011 and 2012. With a budget of 650.000€, 688 missions were carried out in 2013, including 310 missions for monitoring the projects. In total, 503 projects have been closely monitored through these missions which correspond to 9.2% of the open projects in 2013.

The error rates by ABB shows that all programmes are in line with the target set (<2%) with the exception of the LLP programme 2007‐2013 where the error rate has been above 2% since 2011. A reservation was consequently made for this programme in the AARs 2011, 2012 and 2013. The Agency had already implemented an action plan affecting all delegated programmes in the course of 2011. Following the instructions from DG Budget, the error rate has been calculated on a multi‐annual basis from 2012 onwards, showing an error rate and materiality of the value at risk for the LLP programme 2007‐2013 above 2% for 2013. The Interim Director thus maintains the reservation in 2013.

The audit certificates strategy, which is part of the action plan to tackle the error rate, was deployed in all calls in 2013 to reduce the percentage of suspensions of payments whether for technical reasons or for request for information, as well as to improve the control of eligible expenses and therefore decrease the error rates. The main results of this strategy will only be tangible in 2 years as they are linked to the duration of the projects. This strategy is part of the Agency's simplified global approach to financial analysis of final reports.

Payments were conducted in line with target deadlines set by the Commission. 96% of payments were made within the contractual time limits.

502

5) Supporting and exploiting further the achievements of EU actions, and providing policy support to the Commission in the fields of education and youth.

Appropriate statistics and information on selection and programme implementation as well as best practices and emblematic projects were delivered to the relevant Commission services.

Project results were disseminate through transfers of project information into the public domain database "EVE" of DG EAC.

Selection results and compendia were published on the Agency website

The Eurydice 2013 Work Programme was implemented according to agreements with DG EAC Directorate A.

The wiki‐based Eurypedia was updated regularly to reflect policy reforms

Analytical reports were produced for Education and Youth.

EACEA supported DG EAC country desks with country‐specific information in relation to Europe 2020 priorities.

503

The results of the other indicators can be found in the dashboard below:

Indicateurs 30-juin 31-déc Valeur cible annuelleI. GESTION OPERATIONNELLECall for proposals published 9 28Call for tenders published 2 3Non-published call for proposals (designated beneficiaries) 2 8Proposals received (without designated beneficiaries and renewals) 12.872 15.231 +/- 11.000Proposals selected (IDEM) 2.432 4.098 +/- 4.000% of proposals received on line 77% 91% 70%Number of project monitored through visits (onsite or in Brussels) 158 503 400% of projects monitored compared with the number of open projects NA 9,2%Time to award (except Youth and Europe for Citizens) 3,4 3,9 max 5 mois hors comitologieTime to contract (except Youth and Europe for Citizens) 1,4 1,7 max 2 mois Time to award for Youth and Europe for citizens 3,0 3,0 max 4 moisTime to contract for Youth and Europe for citizens 0,7 0,8 max 1 moisNew Time to award NA 4,0 max 6 moisNew Time to contract NA 2,0 max 3 moisNumber of projects openned/closed 8968 / 2205 5492 / 4969II. BUDGET - FINANCESSuivi de l'exécution des crédits -budget opérationnelMontant total des engagements effectués (crédits C1+C5) 271,6M€ 850,3M€Taux d'exécution des crédits engagement/budget total (crédits C1+C5) 31,80% 99,60% min 99 %

Montant total des engagements effectués (crédits C1, C4,C5, R0/P0)) na 686M€Taux d'exécution des crédits engagement/budget total (crédits C1, C4,C5, R0/P0) na 98,62% min 98 %

Montant total des paiements effectués (crédits C1+C5) 222,8M€ 631,6M€Taux d'exécution des crédits paiement/budget total (crédits C1+C5) 41,90% 100,00% min 95 %

Montant total des paiements effectués (crédits C1, C4,C5, R0/P0) na 667,16M€Taux d'exécution des crédits paiement/budget total (crédits C1, C4,C5, R0/P0) na 98,30% min 95 %

Délai de paiement en joursDélai de paiement global moyen (en jours) 28,8 24,2Premiers préfinancements 14,4 11,1 max 20 joursPaiements intermédiaires et finaux - double délai 14,6 14,4 max 30 joursPaiements intermédiaires et finaux -délai unique 51,1 50,7 max 75 joursEnregistrement des factures dans les 7 jours 90% 93% min 90%

% des paiements à tempsTous les programmes 95% 96% min 90%

Suivi de la bonnes gestion des avoirs de la Commission % d'OR nécessitant une action de l'Agence ayant été traités 85% 92% min 80%Nombre de cas de RAL anormaux clos 451 739 close min 570 PARSuivi de l'exécution des crédits -budget de fonctionnementTaux d'exécution des crédits d'engagement 96,9% 97,2% min 97%Taux d'exécution des crédits de paiement (crédits C1+C8) 37% 87,2% min 80%Délai moyen de paiement en jours 13,3 13,2 max 30 joursIII. CONTROLETaux de mise en oeuvre des exigences de base des standards de contrôle interne n/a 100% 100%Taux d'erreur des contrôles ex post par ABB n/a 1,40 max 2%

LLP n/a 3,04 max 2%Erasmus Mundus and Intra ACP n/a 0,38 max 2%

Tempus and Bilateral Cooperation n/a 0,69 max 2%Youth n/a 1,19 max 2%

Culture n/a 1,78 max 2%MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus n/a 0,48 max 2%

Europe for Citizens n/a 0,64 max 2%Nombre de rapports d'exception 11 22 < ou = 37Nombre de recommandations IAS/IAC implémentées en 2013 33% 91% min 75%IV. RESSOURCES HUMAINESEffectif cible et taux d'occupation des postes (hors prestataires) 99% 96% 95%

dont AT 99% 97%dont AC 100% 94%

Jours de formation/staff (provided on an annual basis) NA 5,8 8 jours

EVOLUTION DES INDICATEURS DE PERFORMANCE ET DE GESTION

Du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2013

504

Key conclusions on resource management and internal control effectiveness

In accordance with the governance statement of the European Commission, the EACEA conducts its operations in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, working in an open and transparent manner and meeting the expected high level of professional and ethical standards.

The Commission has adopted a set of internal control standards, based on international good practice, aimed to ensure the achievement of policy and operational objectives. As required by the Financial Regulation, the Director of the Agency has put in place the organisational structure and the internal control systems suited to the achievement of the policy and control objectives, in accordance with the standards and having due regard to the risks associated with the environment in which it operates.

The Agency has assessed the effectiveness of its key internal control systems during the reporting year and has concluded that the internal control standards are effectively implemented. Furthermore, the Agency has taken measures to further improve the efficiency of its internal control systems in the area of three specific internal control standards as reported in Part 3. Further details are given in Part 3.

In addition, EACEA has systematically examined the available control results and indicators as well as the observations and recommendations issued by internal auditors and the European Court of Auditors. These elements have been assessed to determine their impact on the management's assurance as regards the achievement of control objectives. Further details are given in Part 2.

In conclusion, management has reasonable assurance that, overall, suitable controls are in place and working as intended; risks are being appropriately monitored and mitigated; and necessary improvements and reinforcements are being implemented.

The Interim Director, in his capacity as Authorising Officer by Delegation has signed the Declaration of Assurance albeit qualified by a reservation concerning the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) 2007‐2013.

Information to the Commissioner

The main elements of this report and assurance declaration, including the reservation envisaged, have been brought to the attention of the Agency's Steering Committee and to the parent DGs Directors General, who have taken these into consideration in their reporting to Commissioner Vassiliou, responsible for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, to Commissioner Reding, responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship and to Commissioner Füle, responsible for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy.

505

1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENCY'S ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMME 2013

1.1 Achievement of Specific Objectives

1.1.1 ABB activity Education and Training

A. Lifelong Learning Programme

The implementation of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) actions by the Agency contributes to the achievement of three specific objectives set by DG EAC as indicated in the general budget 2013 publication:

Specific objectives

I EAC 15 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 ‐ Modernisation and reform of EU education and training systems in line with the Europe 2020’ strategy and the Youth on the Move initiative

II EAC 15 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 ‐ In the context of Europe 2020, develop an European area of skills and qualifications and in the context of 'Youth on the Move' foster mobility in view of strengthening Europe's competitiveness and inclusiveness, building its knowledge‐intensive economy and deepening the sense of European identity and citizenship

III EAC 15 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 ‐ Make Multilingualism enabling European citizens to use several languages, to access culture and to participate as active citizens in EU political and economic life, benefitting from better communication, inclusiveness and wider employment as well as business opportunities

506

Calls, selections and monitoring

Lifelong Learning Programme

Time to contract

Date (../../12)

Mode (Commission ou

EACEA (Spécifier si Procédure

information)

sent (in months)

Comenius

1.2. Multilateral projects 37 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 274 274 3 1,1% 34 12% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2 5,71.3. Networks 7 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 36 36 0 0,0% 7 19% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2,5 5,77 3,671.4.Accompanying measures 4 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 14 14 1 7,1% 3 21% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2 5,77 2,77

1.5 eTwinning CSS (6 month ) 1 EACEA/2007/13 1/10/07 2 0 1 50,0% 1 50% 5/12/07 PP-EA 2,1 0,3

1.6 eTwinning NSS 34 EACEA/37/2012 20/12/12 34 31 0 0,0% 34 100% 22/02/13 Art.54.2.c-EA 2,1 1 2,33 0,83

eTwinning PSA 5 EAC 7/12/12 6 0 0 0,0% 5 83% 5/03/13 Art.54.2.c-EA 2,1 0,5

TOTAL COMENIUS 88 366 355 5 1,4% 79 22% 3,8 1,38 4,89 2,42Erasmus

2.2 Erasmus - Multilateral projects 55 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 266 266 2 0,8% 60 23% 15/07/13 APEA 1,5 1,5 5,77 2,682.3 Erasmus - Networks 10 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 22 22 1 4,5% 8 36% 15/07/13 APEA 2,2 2 5,77 2,772.4 Erasmus - Accompanying Measures 6 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 23 23 0 0,0% 9 39% 15/07/13 APEA 1,7 1,7 5,77 2,03TOTAL ERASMUS 71 311 311 3 1,0% 77 25% 1,8 1,73 5,77 2,49Leonardo da Vinci

3.2 Multilateral projects - Development of innovation 40 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 294 294 3 1,0% 38 13% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 1,5 5,773.3 Networks 7 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 29 29 2 6,9% 6 21% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2 5,83 3,173.4 Accompanying measures 4 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 19 19 2 10,5% 3 16% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2 5,77 3,87TOTAL LEONARDO DA VINCI 51 342 342 7 18,4% 47 14% 5,5 1,83 5,79 3,52Grundtvig

4.2 Multilateral projects: transfer and development of innovation

54EAC/S07/12

31/01/13 436 436 10 2,3% 61 14% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2 0,87 8,20

4.3 Networks 6 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 12 12 0 0,0% 2 17% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2,5 5,80 3,734.4 Accompanying measures 4 EAC/S07/12 31/01/13 21 21 3 14,3% 3 14% 15/07/13 APEA 5,5 2 5,80 3,10TOTAL GRUNDTVIG 64 469 469 13 2,8% 66 14% 5,5 2,16 4,16 5,01

TOTAL Sub-Programmes 274 1488 1477 28 1,9% 269 18% 4,1 2 5,15 3,36KA1 Policy cooperation and innovation

5.10 Implementation of the European strategic objectives in Education and training ET2020 (stakeholder cooperation, experimentation and innovation)

25 EACEA/04/2013 16/09/13 53 53 12 22,6% 12 23% 22/01/14 APEA 4,3 3

5.15 Eurydice 42 EACEA/24/2012 11/12/12 39 39 0 0,0% 39 100% 23/04/13 Art.54.2.c-EA 4,4 1

5.22 Euroguidance 36 EACEA/22/2012 14/12/12 34 34 0 0,0% 34 100% 3/05/13 Art.54.2.c-EA 4,7 1

5.22 Euroguidance part B - national databases for learning opportunities

15EACEA/05/2013

29/11/13 14 0 0 0,0% 14 100% 20/01/14 Art.54.2.c-EA 1,7

5.23 Europass 36 EACEA/23/2012 4/12/12 35 35 0 0,0% 35 100% 23/04/13 Art.54.2.c-EA 4,7 1

5.40 Adult skills survey (PIAAC) 4 EACEA/03/2013 22/04/13 3 3 0 0,0% 3 100% 4/07/13 MON-EA 2,4 1

5.45 ICILS skills survey 13 EACEA/01/2013 11/02/13 11 11 0 0,0% 11 100% 4/07/13 MON-EA 4,8 1

5.46 The international civic and citizenship education study (ICCS 2016)

27 EACEA/02/2013 17/09/13 13 13 0 0,0% 13 100% 8/10/13 MON-EA 0,7 1

5.80 Networks for transnational co-operation for the promotion of LLL policies and partnerships at national, regional and local level, including public-private partnerships - KA1NW

3

EAC/S07/12

28/02/13 10 10 4 40,0% 2 20% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 3 5,17 3,53

5.90 Multilateral Projects and Networks: Promoting the integration of Roma in and through education

7EAC/S07/12

28/02/13 54 53 3 5,6% 8 15% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 2,5 4,90 3,70

TOTAL KA1 208 266 251 19 7,1% 171 64% 3,7 1,61 5,04 3,62

ANNEXE 3: Suivi Sélections et Contractualisation 2013

% ineligible applications

Time to award (in months)

Grant award decisions

Taux de sélection

en %

N° of selected applications

Calls n°NEW Time to

award(in

months)

NEW time to

contract 100%

N° of planned

interventions (AMP)

ActionN° of ineligible

applications

N° of applications

received which were submitted

on line

N° of applicat

ions receive

d

Calls deadlines

507

Lifelong Learning Programme

Time to contract

Date (../../12)

Mode (Commission ou

EACEA (Spécifier si Procédure

information)

sent (in months)

KA2 Languages 6.1. Multilateral projects 20 EAC/S07/12 28/02/13 113 113 3 2,7% 20 18% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 2,5 5,03 3,276.2. Networks 5 EAC/S07/12 28/02/13 6 6 1 16,7% 2 33% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 3 5,03 3,336.3. Accompanying measures 3 EAC/S07/12 28/02/13 10 10 0 0,0% 3 30% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 2,5 5,03 3,00TOTAL KA2 28 129 129 4 3,1% 25 19% 4,6 2,66 5,03 3,20KA3 ICT

7.1 Multilateral projects 19 EAC/S07/12 28/02/13 265 265 7 2,6% 18 7% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 2,5 1,10 7,507.2. Networks 6 EAC/S07/12 28/02/13 22 22 1 4,5% 6 27% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 3 1,10 7,73TOTAL KA3 25 287 287 8 2,8% 24 8% 4,6 2,75 1,10 7,62

KA4 Dissemination and Exploitation of Results

8.1 Multilateral projects 7 EAC/S07/12 28/02/13 74 74 2 2,7% 7 9% 15/07/13 APEA 4,6 3 4,83 4,208.2 Thematic Networks (LLP National Agency Thematic Networking on Work-Based Learning and Apprenticeships )

1EACEA/13/2013

31/05/13 1 0 0 0,0% 1 100% 12/08/13 APEA 2,4 1,5 2,23 1,43

TOTAL KA4 8 75 74 2 2,7% 8 11% 3,5 2,25 3,53 2,82

TOTAL KAs TRANSVERSAL 269 757 741 33 4,4% 228 30% 4,1 2 3,67 4,31 KA1 Jean Monnet Action - Art. 3.3 (a)

9.10 AJM - Unilateral projects (Chairs, Centre of Excellence, Modules)

120EAC/S07/12

15/02/13 371 371 5 1,3% 123 33% 5/07/13 APEA 0,7 0,64 5,00 2,50

9.20 AJM - Unilateral projects - Associations of Professors and Researchers

3EAC/S07/12 15/02/13 6 6 0 0,0% 3 50% 5/07/13 APEA 1,2 1,2 5,00 2,10

9.30 AJM - Unilateral projects - Information and Research Activities

35EAC/S07/12

15/02/13 141 141 1 0,7% 33 23% 5/07/13 APEA 0,8 0,8 5,00 2,17

9.35 AJM – Unilateral projects – Learning EU at School35

EAC/S07/1215/02/13 68 68 0 0,0% 37 54% 5/07/13 APEA 0,8 0,8 5,00 1,87

9.40 AJM - Multilateral projects - Research groups 3 EAC/S07/12 15/02/13 9 9 0 0,0% 3 33% 5/07/13 APEA na na 5,00 3,97TOTAL KA1 JEAN MONNET 196 595 595 6 1,0% 199 33% 0,9 0,9 5,00 2,52

KA3: operating grants - Art. 3.3

11.10 AJM - Associations active in the field of education and training EACEA/30/12 15/11/12 24 24 3 12,5% 9 37,5% 22/03/13 APEA 4,2 4,2

11.10 AJM - Associations active in the field of education and training - 3rd year of partnership agreement

EACEA/30/12 15/11/12 8 8 0 0,0% 8 100,0% 22/02/13 APEA 3,3 3,3

TOTAL KA3 JEAN MONNET 17 32 32 3 12,50% 17 53% 3,8 3,75 0,23 5,93

TOTAL JEAN MONNET 213 627 627 9 1,4% 216 34% 2,3 2,3 2,62 4,23

Total hors partenariats et marchés 525 2656 2655 66 2% 519 20% 2,0 1,91 3,81 3,97

GRAND TOTAL 756 2872 2845 70 2% 713 25%

Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (Selection without financial implication)

5000 EAC/S06/13 15/05/13 4886 4572 312 6,4% 4308 88% 6/12/13 APEA 6,8 na na na

Erasmus ECTS/DS (European Credit Transfer / Diploma Supplement) (selection without financial implication)

250 na 1/10/13 263 na 0 0 216 82% 17/12/13 APEA 2,6 na na na

Total 5250 5149 4572 312 6% 4524 4,7 na na naGrand Total 6006 8021 7417 382 5% 5237

ANNEXE 3: Suivi Sélections et Contractualisation 2013




Taux de sélection

en %


Calls n°NEW Time to

award(in

months)

NEW time to

contract 100%

17

N° of planned

interventions (AMP)

ActionN° of ineligible

applications

N° of applications


on line

N° of applicat

ions receive

d

Calls deadlines

0,23 5,93

508

a. Publications of Calls

The Agency published 3 specific calls for proposals, 5 restricted calls and 1 call for tender in 2013 with the deadlines set up in the EACEA AWP 2013. A second call for tender was prepared by the Agency and published by DG EAC under the provisions for the Erasmus+ Programme ("Online assessment and linguistic support for mobility of individuals under the Erasmus+ Programme") before the extension of the Agency's mandate came into force.

The LLP Units of the Agency, in collaboration with those responsible for Erasmus Mundus, Youth and TEMPUS, also devoted resources to the preparation of the first calls for the Erasmus+ Programme.

b. Selection and monitoring

In 2013 the Agency managed a total of over 8000 applications, of which over 5000 were selected (713 projects and 4.524 quality labels, i.e. EUC, ECTS). The selection process went as foreseen in the EACEA AWP 2013 with the exception of eTwinning central support services: in July the Authorising Officer approved the evaluation report and formalised a decision not to award a contract and, in agreement with DG EAC, launched a negotiated procedure with the only tenderer. The contract was signed on 17 December 2013.

80 monitoring visits and 24 visits of projects to the Agency premises were organised,

covering 13422 projects. In addition, LLP units organised or collaborated closely in the

organisation of a number of meetings with on‐going projects (kick‐off meeting, cluster

meetings, thematic monitoring events, conferences and seminar). LLP units also took part

in 19 external conferences, exhibitions and events to support awareness raising and

dissemination, and involving almost 130 projects.

c. Education and Youth Policy Support

12 Eurydice publications foreseen in the 2013 Work Programme were published and preparatory work on reports/documents was carried out as agreed with DG EAC. The following documents were postponed in agreement with DG EAC.

The Report on Staff Mobility originally foreseen for 2012 was postponed to 2013 in order to accommodate the Excellence in Education report. It was published in October 2013.

Financing of Schools: the publication of this report was foreseen for 18 December 2012 but the publication was postponed to March 2013.

The publication of the report on the Learners Mobility Scoreboard, foreseen for late autumn 2013 was postponed to January 2014.

The Support to country desk officers continued: the reform section in Eurypedia was updated twice in 2013 and the feedback of the DG EAC country desks on the reform chapter in Eurypedia was communicated to the National Units. A new proposal for the update of the reform chapter was launched at the end of 2013. The activities in the field of Youth were implemented as scheduled with DG EAC.

22 One monitoring mission may cover several projects

509

The Eurydice Unit also launched a new section on the website to highlight information from different publications in an engaging manner. This new session is called: 'Focus on: EU policy, news and links' and these articles are promoted by a newsletter issued approximately 4 times a year.

510

B. Erasmus Mundus Programme

The implementation of Action 1 and of Action 3 by the Agency contributes to the achievement of the following specific objectives set by DG EAC, DG DEVCO and DG ELARG in their 2013 Annual Work Programmes and/or indicated in the 2013 general budget publication. The implementation of Action 2 by the Executive Agency contributes to the achievement of the following specific objectives set by DG DEVCO, DG FPI and DG ELARG in their 2013 Annual Actions Programmes and/or indicated in the 2013 general budget publication.

Specific Objectives

Actions 1 and 3

I EAC 15 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 ‐ Modernisation and reform of EU education and training systems in line with the Europe 2020 strategy and the Youth on the Move initiative

XVII ELARG 22 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Enhance regional integration and cooperation, including implementation of multi‐beneficiary programmes(IPA)

XIX DEVCO 19 08

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Furthering the conditions for close co‐operation between the EU and its neighbours and for regional and multilateral integration (ENPI)

Action 2

XIII DEVCO 21 06

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Integration of the ACP countries into the world economy through economic development, trade and regional integration (DCI)

XIV DEVCO 21 06

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4: Intensifying people‐to‐people contacts through EU academic mobility towards South Africa (ICI+)

XVII ELARG 22 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Enhance regional integration and cooperation, including implementation of multi‐beneficiary programmes (IPA)

XVIII FPI 19 05

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: to advance networking and awareness of the EU among industrialised and high‐income partners (FPI)

XIX DEVCO 19 08

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Furthering the conditions for close co‐operation between the EU and its neighbours and for regional and multilateral integration (ENPI)

XX DEVCO 19 08

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4: Strengthening the “Strategic partnership” between Russia and the EU (ENPI)

XXI DEVCO 19 09 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Promote social cohesion in Latin America (DCI)

XXII DEVCO 19 09

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Non ODA activities: Intensification of political cooperation and economic partnership with Latin America (ICI+)

XXIII DEVCO 19 10

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Promote sustainable development in Asia, eradicate poverty and facilitate the integration into the world economy (DCI)

XXIV DEVCO 19 10

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5: cooperation activities other than official Development assistance (Asia, Central Asia, Iraq, Iran and Yemen) (ICI+)

511


Follow up table selections and contractualisations - December 2013State of play on 31/12/2013

Time to contract

Date (../../..)

Mode**** (Commission or EACEA (spécifier si

procédure d'information)

sent (in months)

Action 1 - Erasmus Mundus Joint Programmes1.11 Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Programmes no call no call na na na na na na na na na na na1.12 Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral Programmes no call no call na na na na na na na na na na naAction 1 - Erasmus Mundus Scholarships

1.11 Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Programmes 138invitation to

apply 28/02/13 138 na na na 138 100,0% 8/05/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-10 2,3 0,8

1.21 Category A scholarships at master level 1461**invitation to

apply 28/02/13 26205 na na na 1523** 5,8% 8/05/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-10 2,3 0,8

1.22 Category B scholarships at master level 626invitation to

apply 28/02/13 3790 na na na 611 16,1% 8/05/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-10 2,3 0,81.31 Scholarships for third-country academics at masters level 265

invitation to apply 28/02/13 na na na na 260 na 8/05/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-10 2,3 0,8

1.32 Scholarships for European academics at masters level 75invitation to

apply 28/02/13 na na na na 69 na 8/05/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-10 2,3 0,8

1.12 Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral Programmes 43invitation to


1.41 Category A fellowships at doctoral level 246invitation to


1.42 Category B fellowships at doctoral level 129invitation to

apply 28/02/13 1577 na na na 126 8,0% 8/05/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-10 2,3 1,2Action 3 - Enhancing attractiveness3.1 Attractiveness Projects 8 38/12 15/04/13 57 57 1 1,8% 10 17,5% 5/07/13 EACEA/PR-INF/2013-13 2,7 1,9 2,67 2,83.6 Quality review of EM Joint Masters Programmes 1 FWC na na na na na na na na na na na na na

Total (excluding individual scholarships) 189 238 190 79,8%

Erasmus Mundus and External Cooperation

3 1,33

NEW Time

to

award(in

months)

NEW time

to

contract

100%

% of ineligible

applications

Number of selected applications

Taux de sélection en

%



Number of applications


on line

Number of ineligible

applicationsAction

Number of planned interventions (AMP)

Calls NoCalls deadlines (one deadline/row) ../../..


received

512

Time to contract

Date (../../..)

Mode**** (Commission or EACEA (spécifier si


sent (in months)

Erasmus Mundus Action 2 - Strand 11. ENPI: SOUTH MEDITERRANEAN and EASTERN EUROPE and RUSSIA - Lot 1 Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt 4 38/12 15/04/13 11 11 0 0,0% 4 36,4% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7

Lot 2 Jordan, Lebanon, occupied Palestinian territory, Syria 4 38/12 15/04/13 8 8 0 0,0% 4 50,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 3 Israel 1 38/12 15/04/13 4 4 0 0,0% 1 25,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 4 Russia 2 38/12 15/04/13 12 12 4 33,3% 2 16,7% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 5 Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, 9 38/12 15/04/13 17 17 0 0,0% 9 52,9% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 6 Tunisia 2 38/12 15/04/13 3 3 1 33,3% 2 66,7% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,72. IPA: WESTERN BALKANS

Lot 7 Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo*, Montenegro, Serbia 3 38/12 15/04/13 9 9 1 11,1% 3 33,3% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 2,03. DCI, ICI+: MIDDLE EAST REGION (YEMEN, IRAN, IRAQ)Lot 8 Yemen, Iran, Iraq 1 38/12 15/04/13 1 1 0 0,0% 1 100,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7

4. DCI, ICI+: CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS Lot 9 Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan 4 38/12 15/04/13 9 9 0 0,0% 4 44,4% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,8Lot 10 Uzbekistan (DCI only) 1 38/12 15/04/13 3 3 0 0,0% 1 33,3% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,85. DCI, ICI+: ASIA REGIONAL Lot 11 Group A: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh Group B: Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Philippines, Thailand, China, North Korea. 4 38/12 15/04/13 10 10 0 0,0% 4 40,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 12 Group A: Cambodia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos Group B: Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Philippines, Thailand, China, North Korea.

4 38/12 15/04/13 14 14 0 0,0% 4 28,6% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,76. DCI: IndiaLot 13 India 4 38/12 15/04/13 8 8 1 12,5% 4 50,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,77. DCI, ICI+: LATIN AMERICALot 14 Group A Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay Group B Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. 3 38/12 15/04/13 24 24 2 8,3% 3 12,5% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 2,4Lot 15 Group A Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua Group B Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. 3 38/12 15/04/13 16 16 1 6,3% 3 18,8% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 2,48. DCI, ICI+: BrazilLot 16 Brazil 2 38/12 15/04/13 12 12 0 0,0% 2 16,7% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 2,48. DCI, ICI+: SOUTH AFRICA Lot 17 South Africa 3 38/12 15/04/13 7 7 0 0,0% 3 42,9% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 2,19. EDF: ACP countriesLot 18 All ACP 2 38/12 15/04/13 12 12 0 0,0% 3 25,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 2,4TOTAL STRAND 1 56 180 180 10 5,6% 57 31,7% 3,1 1,87

Erasmus Mundus Action 2 - Strand 2 (ICI)Lot 1 United States of America, Canada 2 38/12 15/04/13 2 2 0 0,0% 2 100,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 2 Australia, New Zealand 2 38/12 15/04/13 4 4 0 0,0% 1 25,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 3 Japan, Korea 2 38/12 15/04/13 4 4 0 0,0% 1 25,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7Lot 4 Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates

1 38/1215/04/13

2 2 00,0%

150,0% 9/07/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-26 2,8 1,7

TOTAL STRAND 2 7 12 12 0 0% 5 41,7% 3,13

GRAND TOTAL EM excluding scholarships 252 430 192 10 2,3% 252 58,6% 2,8 1,9 2,98 2,00

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence**This total includes 168 scholarships selected in 2012 under regional windows, but contracted in 2013*** Action 1: for 1.11 EMMC and 1.12 EMJD: also EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-19 signed on 08/05/2013; for 1.21 EMMC: also EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-18 and EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-20 signed respectively on 08/05/2013 and 14/05/2013

3,1 1,87

3,13

NEW Time

to

award(in

months)

NEW time

to

contract

100%

% of ineligible

applications

Number of selected applications

Taux de sélection en

%





on line


applicationsAction

Number of planned interventions (AMP)

Calls NoCalls deadlines (one deadline/row) ../../..


received

513


The last Call for Proposals under Erasmus Mundus (EACEA 18/2013) published in November 2013 targets only Action 2 partnerships. It aims to select 27 partnerships under Strand 1 and three partnerships under Strand 2. This is a reduced number of partnerships compared to previous years, due to the absence of budget from EDF and from ENPI (with the exception of a specific lot for Syria). Minor changes were made to the Programme Guide (change of Croatia's status and adaptation of the Call timetable for the Call EACEA/18/2013).

No Calls for tender were published during the period. However a specific contract was signed on 27 June in the context of a framework service contract issued by DG EAC for "Consultancy services / External Part" (EAC/02/2010 ‐ lot 2). This specific contract will be used for the preparation and implementation of a Quality Review on 43 of the 50 eligible EM Action 1 master courses.


Four selections were carried out during 2013: both targets for time to award and time to contract were met for all selections. Proposals were of sufficient number and quality for all Calls to meet their selection targets set in the EACEA AMP 2013.

- Action 1 scholarship selection The 2013 EM Action 1 scholarship selection was the largest one since the beginning of the programme, both in terms of consortia concerned (179), budget distributed (more than EUR 131 million) and number of scholarships offered (2659 plus a further 168 selected in 2012 under regional windows for which contracting was done in 2013). The targets set in the AMP were met and even exceeded thanks to the award of an additional EUR 1 million budget for a "Tunisian window."

- Action 2 Call for Proposals (EACEA/38/12) 192 proposals were received, 180 for Strand 1 and 12 for Strand 2. This is a 20% increase in relation to last year, which is understandable given the increase in the budget this year, the popularity of the programme, and the number for proposals to be selected (62 partnerships, 14 % more than last year). For Strand 1, 57 partnerships were selected, with a total project budget of EUR 183.5 million. Together these partnerships plan mobility for over 10,000 individuals. For Strand 2, five partnerships were selected. Their total budget is of EUR 6.4 million. These partnerships plan mobility for 314 individuals.

- Action 3 Call for Proposals (EACEA/38/12) Under the call 38/12, the Agency received 57 proposals. Thus, the number of proposals is lower than expected (19% decrease compared to 2012). The number of proposals has increased during the last two years, probably due to the success of the promotion activities within Action 3 (establishment of activity fiches and different Cluster events). The EACEA AMP 2013 set out to select 8 projects. With additional funds 10 projects were finally selected for a total amount of EUR 2.8 million.

In general, 119 projects were visited during monitoring visits performed by the unit staff and 19 missions were related to information and promotion of the programmes (Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus+). During the first quarter of 2013, unit Erasmus Mundus unit's staff attended four Infodays organised by EM National Structures (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, and Spain) and a joint EM & Tempus Infoday in Zagreb. Outside the EU, as the Call for Proposals has a

514

strong focus on the Southern Neighbourhood region, Erasmus Mundus unit attended a number of information sessions in the region (Libya, Jordan, Israel and Palestine). A day‐long meeting for the coordinators of the 57 EMMCs selected in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was organised to discuss the findings of a draft synthesis report based on the final reports they had submitted. The report and meeting feedback helped with preparations for the Joint Master Degree action of the Erasmus+ Programme.Three Information Days on Erasmus+ for neighbouring countries were organised in collaboration with DG EAC. The Erasmus Mundus Coordinators' Conference for Actions 2 and 3 projects selected under the Call EACEA/38/12 involved 194 participants including representatives from the projects, the Commission, the National Structures and student representatives.

C. Bilateral agreements and cooperation initiatives with industrialised countries

Through its activities, the Executive Agency contributes to the achievement of the following specific objective set by DG EAC and indicated in the general budget 2013 publication.

Specific Objectives

Co‐operation USA and Canada

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1:

II In the context of Europe 2020, develop a European area of lifelong learning and in the context of 'Youth on the Move' foster mobility in view of strengthening Europe's competitiveness and inclusiveness, building its knowledge‐intensive economy and deepening the sense of European identity and citizenship.

Co‐operation with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New‐Zealand (ICI/ECP)

FPI 19 05

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: To develop and manage the cooperation with the EU’s main industrialised and high‐income partners.

515


Follow-up table selection and contractualisation - 31 December 2013

Time to contract

Date (../../..)

Mode (Commission or EACEA

(spécifier si

procédure

d'information)

sent (in months)

1. Joint Mobility Projects / Joint Degree Projects

1.1. EU-Japan 3 to 5 5 0 2

1.2 EU-Korea 3 to 5 17 0 3

1.3 EU-Australia 3 to 4 18 0 2

1.4 EU-New Zealand 1 3 0 1

Total 9 43 0 3 6,98% 8 19% 2,53 1,80 2,53 1,80

3 6,98% 2,5 1,8

NEW Time

to award

(in

months)

NEW time

to

contract

100%

Number of planned

interventions (AMP)

Calls No

Calls deadlines (one deadline/row) ../../..

Number of applicatio

ns received

Number of applications received

which were

submitted on line

2,5 1,8EACEA/44/2012 15/05/13

Bilateral Cooperation : ICI/ECP

19% 30/07/13 EACEA

Number of ineligible applicatio

ns

% of ineligible

applications

Number of selected

applications

Taux de sélection

en %


Time to award

(in months)

Action

516


The calendar of the ICI‐ECP call for proposals 2012 was respected. The call covered all four partner countries, namely Australia, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand. The ICI‐ECP call for the 2013 allocation was issued on 23 December 2013 (EACEA/24/2013) with a deadline on 15 May 2014. The call covers Australia, Japan and South Korea.


For the ICI‐ECP 2012 call, a total of 43 proposals were submitted (18 for Australia, 17 for Korea, 5 for Japan and 3 for New Zealand). The high number of proposals can be considered as a success, given that last year only 12 applications were put forward, which then led to a considerable under‐absorption. A total of 8 projects were recommended for funding by the Joint Selection Committees (2 for Australia, 3 for Korea, 2 for Japan and 1 for New Zealand). The total EU contribution amounts to € 2.45 million, which corresponds to 100% absorption of the available commitment appropriations. Due to shortage in payment appropriations in 2013, FPI was only in a position to make available 4 Mio in payment appropriations (EUR 3.4 in the beginning of 2013 and EUR 0.6 million in October 2013) out of the requested EUR 6.8 million as requested by the Agency in its draft budget 2013. Project coordinators were duly informed about the lack of payment credits. For some of the projects, interest on late payment will be due. Mid‐January 2014, the Agency received the expected payment appropriations to cover the first pre‐financings for the 8 new projects selected in summer 2013. The 8 pre‐financings were processed immediately. The Agency will have to pay interest for late payment for a total amount of around € 3,000.

In the context of the bilateral cooperation programmes, a project directors' conference took place in Melbourne, Australia, on 4‐6 March, back‐to‐back with the EU‐Australia policy dialogue. The conference gathered approximately 100 participants representing project coordinators and administrators from 16 European countries, from Australia, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. The main focus of the conference was to take stock of achieved results in the bilateral cooperation programmes as well as to inform about the new education programme and what it can offer to applicants.

517

D. Tempus Programme

The implementation of the above funding actions by the Executive Agency contributes to the achievement of the following objectives set by DG DEVCO and by DG ELARG and indicated in the general budget 2013 publication:

Specific Objectives

XV ELARG 22 02 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Support candidate countries’ accession process

XVI ELARG 22 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 Support potential candidates’ stabilisation and association process

XVII ELARG 22 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Enhance regional integration and cooperation, including implementation of multi‐beneficiary programmes

XIX DEVCO 19 08

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Furthering the conditions for close co‐operation between the EU and its neighbours and for regional and multilateral integration

XX DEVCO 19 08

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4: Strengthening the “Strategic partnership” between Russia and the EU

518


Follow-up table selection and contractualisation - 31 December 2013

Time to contract

Date (../../..)

Mode (Commission or EACEA

(spécifier si

procédure

d'information)

sent ( in months)

1. Joint Projects/Structural measures 189 EACEA/35/2012 26/03/13 937 937 98 10,46% 171 18,25% 7/10/13 EACEA 6,5 1,5 6,97 na

2. Accompanying Measures -

3. Renewal of National Tempus Offices (2011-2013)

1

4. Conferences/Events (Framework contract)

4

Total 194 6,5 1,5 6,97 na

NEW Time

to

award(in

months)

NEW time

to

contract

100%

Contracts signed with Teamwork for the organisation of the following events : - a regional seminar on Human Resources Management on Higher Education (Chisinau - Moldova, 22-23 April 2013)- 2 meetings with the National Tempus Offices (NTO) and National Contact Points (NCP), (Brussels, 1-2 July 2013 and 12-13 February 2014)- a kick-off meeting with representatives from newly selected projects (Brussels, 10-11 February 2014)- a conference on Erasmus+ in Central Asia (Tashkent - Uzbekistan, May 2014)- a conference on Quality Assurance (Zagreb - Croatia, June 2014)- a conference on Vocational Education and Higher Education (Istanbul - Turkey, September/October 2014).

Numbre of applications received

which were

submitted on line


ns

% ineligible applicatio

ns

Number of selected projects

Taux de sélection

en %


Time to award

(in months)

Renewals for 27 grant agreements for National Tempus Offices signed (award decisions signed respectively on 17/06/2013 and on 25/09/2013).

Tempus

Action

Number of planned

interventions (AMP)

Calls No

Calls deadlines (one deadline/row)

Number of applicatio

ns received

519


The launch of the sixth Tempus IV call for proposals (EACEA/35/2012) was slightly postponed, with the publication on 5 December 2012, so as to include in the call the ENPI budget 2013 (for which the Commission’s financing decision was taken only at the end of November). In fact, in order to avoid any overlapping with the first call of the Erasmus+ programme, initially planned for end 2013, it was decided not to have a seventh Tempus IV call in autumn 2013 and to inject the budget 2013 from IPA and ENPI in the sixth call of the current programme. The available budget was significantly increased by 55.6% (from € 94.4 million for the previous call to around € 150 million).Therefore an extensive information campaign was carried out to disseminate the opportunities offered by the sixth (and last) Tempus IV call for proposals. In total, 51 information events, involving the Agency's staff, were organised: 19 in EU Member States and 32 in partner countries.


Following the deadline of the sixth Tempus IV call for proposals on 26 March 2013, a total of 937 applications were received which corresponds to a steep increase of 38.6% in comparison with the 2012 call. The total EU contribution to the 171 selected projects amounts to € 149.2 million, which led to an absorption rate of 99%. In spite of the low success rate (18.2%), only a very limited number of requests for further clarification were transmitted to the Agency (7 in total). No formal complaints were received. All 171 selected projects were committed before 23 December. The 94 projects funded with the global allocations from 2012 were all signed by the Agency before the end of the year (i.e. before the contracting deadline on 31 December 2013). The grant agreements relating to the global allocations from 2013 will be signed before end January 2014. The Tempus unit was able to process 55 pre‐financings payments still in 2013; the remaining payments will take place before mid‐February 2014. Between August and November 2013, Tempus unit extended the grant agreements for the 27 National Tempus Offices for 12 months until end 2014, to avoid disruption and to secure a smooth transition to Erasmus+.

The majority of the missions were carried out for the purpose of field monitoring. However, it is worth noting that in most cases the field monitoring visits in the partner countries were combined with the participation of Tempus unit in other events such as information days, regional seminars, visibility events, etc. During the year 2013, 73 visits to projects were done and a total number of 66 projects were monitored. The remaining missions were related to the participation of P10 staff in events such as HERE23 seminars or study visits, Tempus regional seminars on Human Resource Management, Project Directors’ Conference for ICI‐ECP, and DG EAC Information days on Erasmus+.

2323 Higher Education Reform Experts

520

E. Intra‐ACP Academic Mobility Scheme

The implementation of the intra‐ACP academic mobility scheme by the Agency contributes to the achievement of the following specific objectives set by DG DEVCO in its 2013 Annual Work Programmes and/or indicated in the 2013 general budget publication:

Specific Objectives

XIII DEV 21 06

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Integration of the ACP countries into the world economy through economic development, trade and regional integration (DCI)

521


follow up table selections and contractualisations - December 2013State of play on 31/12/2013

Time to contract

Date (../../..)

Mode (Commission or EACEA (spécifier si


sent (in months)

INTRA ACP Academic Mobility SchemeAfrica 7 45/12 10/06/13 40 na 6 15,0% 7 17,5% 14/10/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-37 4,2 1,3Pacific & Caribbean 2-3* 45/12 10/06/13 3 na 0 0,0% 3 100,0% 14/10/13 EACEA/PR-DIV/2013-37 4,2 1,3

TOTAL INTRA-ACP 9-10* 43 6 14,0% 10 23,3% 4,2 1,3 4,57 1,27

* It was possible under the Call for proposals under Lot 2 to involve HEIs from only one of the two regions (Caribbean or Pacific), and to plan mobility within this one region. In these cases, it was planned to allow to reduce the maximum grant per partnership to EUR 1.25 million. The total number of projects to be funded under Lot 2 in the Call for Proposals was therefore expected to be two or three.

NEW Time

to award (in

months)

NEW time

to contract

100%




on line


applications

% of ineligible applications

Number of selected

applications

Taux de sélection

en %

Grant award decision

Intra ACP

4,57 1,27

ActionNumber of planned

interventions (AMP)

Calls NoCalls

deadlines


received

522


The Intra‐ACP Call for Proposals 2013 (EACEA/45/12) was published in the Official Journal dated 19 February 2013. The 2012 work programme had originally planned for its publication in late 2012. This was delayed as the Commission needed to complete the procedure within the EDF for the inclusion of South Sudan in the list of eligible countries. Seven partnerships for Africa were selected and three for the Pacific and the Caribbean region.


43 proposals were received: 40 for Lot 1 (Africa) and 3 for Lot 2 (Caribbean & Pacific), with particular involvement from institutions from countries new to the programme. Overall this represents 41 % more proposals than last year, which reflects the increase of the budget this year and the number of proposals to be selected. The increase in the number of the submitted proposals and the wider range of HEIs/countries applying is also a clear result of the promotion strategy and actions put in place by the Agency. The grant award decision funded 10 partnerships: 7 projects under Lot 1 (Africa) and 3 for Lot 2 (Caribbean and Pacific). The overall budget allocated to 10 selected partnerships amounts to EUR 22,942,625 for an involvement of around 80 institutions and around 1000 planned mobility. Following this decision, projects were able to start their activities by 1st November 2013.

In 2013, 1 monitoring visit was carried out to intra‐ACP projects and 3 missions on information or promotion purposes of the intra‐ACP academic mobility scheme were carried out (combined with monitoring of on‐going projects). A Coordinators’ conference and training session has been organised in Gaborone, (Botswana) involving all partners from the projects selected in the 2013 and the coordinators and technical partners selected in the 2011 and 2012 Calls. Altogether some 80 project representatives attended. Attending 7 partnership meetings proved crucial in boosting understanding of the programme's objectives and operational requirements. Bilateral meetings with the coordinators of the previously selected projects were necessary to identify and clarify issues reported to the Agency. Follow‐up visits will be important to ensure that these projects – which receive sizeable grants – adhere to these operational rules. A number of information events (Belgium, Tanzania; Togo; Ghana; Benin) were organised to promote the intra‐ACP programme, in particular the 2013 Call, and the additional opportunities provided by the increased budget. Besides the information sessions provided, the missions also included meetings with the EU Delegation, university associations, and with ministry representatives, to enlist their support and provide them with guidance on how to promote the programme.

523

1.1.2 ABB activity Audiovisual Through its activities, the Agency contributes to the achievement of the following specific objective set and indicated in the general budget 2012 publication:

Specific Objectives

VII EAC 15 04

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4: To develop the competitiveness of the European cinematographic and audiovisual industry through the continued development of a Union support policy and strategy in the audiovisual sector and through the implementation of the MEDIA 2007 annual work programme for 2013

VII

EAC 15 04

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5: To strengthen artistic and industrial cooperation between audiovisual professionals of third countries and those of the European Union; to improve the promotion and the circulation of audiovisual works of third countries within European markets and, reciprocally, of European audiovisual works in third country markets through the implementation of the annual work programme of the MEDIA Mundus Programme for the year 201324

24 Subject to the adoption of the extension of the Agency's mandate for 2013

524


Time to contract

Decisions date

Mode (Commission or Agency) and N°

Sent (in months)

1. Training

1.1. Initial Training 14 02/2011 FPA15/05/13 14 0 0 0,0% 14 100,0% 24/06/13

AE Ares(2013)2476442 2,10 1,35 2,10 1,35

1.2. Continuous training 60 05/2012 FPA10/06/13 52 0 0 0,0% 52 100,0% 25/07/13

AE Ares(2013)2909516 2,14 1,71 2,14 1,71

2. Development 2.1 Support for single projects 190 23/11/12 411 411 14 3,4% 100 24,3% 24/4/213 C(2013)2509 5,39 1,38 5,39 1,38

12/04/13 548 548 56 10,2% 121 22,1% 1/08/13 C(2013)5213 4,24 1,25 4,24 1,252.2 Support for slate funding 75 23/11/12 105 105 2 1,9% 35 33,3% 24/04/13 C(2013)2513 5,39 1,51 5,39 1,51

12/04/13 78 78 3 3,8% 31 39,7% 1/08/213 C(2013)5215 4,24 1,48 4,24 1,482.3 Support for interactive works 20 32/2012 23/11/12 55 55 10 18,2% 12 21,8% 24/04/13 C(2013)2515 5,39 1,51 5,39 1,51

12/04/13 76 76 9 11,8% 13 17,1% 1/08/213 C(2013)5211 4,24 0,72 4,24 0,722.4 Initiative i2i 40 34/2012 7/01/13 75 0 3 4,0% 20 26,7% 24/04/13 C(2013)2512 3,94 1,58 3,94 1,58

7/06/13 68 0 0 0,0% 28 41,2% 22/11/13 C(2013)8421 5,65 0,30 5,65 0,303. Distribution 3.1 Distribution Cinema selective 450 21/2012 31/11/12 378 376 22 5,8% 167 44,2% 24/04/13 C(2013) 2511 5,30 2,04 5,30 2,04

4/04/13 301 299 46 15,3% 172 57,1% 2/08/13 C(2013)5212 4,24 1,12 4,24 1,121/07/13 459 455 59 12,9% 235 51,2% 21/11/13 C(2013)8423 5,00 0,23 5,00 0,23

3.2 TV broadcasting 70 33/2012 10/12/12 58 0 7 12,1% 21 36,2% 26/4/213 C(2013)2583 4,90 1,02 4,90 1,023/06/13 113 0 23 12,1% 39 34,5% 22/11/13 C(2013)8424 6,02 0,00 6,02 0,00

3.3 Cinema network 1 17/2012 FPA31/07/13 1 0 0 0,0% 1 100,0% 25/10/2013 AE (Ares 3526173) 3,19 1,38 3,19 1,38

3.4 Distribution cinema automatic 500 639 na 7/02/13 C(2013) 7423.5 Sales Agents 50 47 na 24/04/13 C(2013) 2514 3.6 Digitisation of cinemas 200 39/2012 31/01/2013 180 0 27 15% 130 72% 27/05/13 C(2013) 2511 4,31 1,00 4,31 1,00

NEW Time to award

(in months)

follow up table selections and contractualisations- 2013MEDIA

Action

N° of planned intervent

ions (AMP)

Calls No

Calls deadlines

(one deadl/row)

N° of applicati

ons received

N°of applicati

ons received

which

N° of ineligibl

e applicati

ons

NEW Time to contract

31/2012

mécanisme de la génération de fonds et réinvestissement na namécanisme de la génération de fonds et réinvestissement na na

% ineligibl

e applicati

ons

N° of selected applicati

ons

Taux de sélection

en %

Grant award decisionsTime to

award (in months)

525

Time to contract

Decisions date


Sent (in months)

4. Promotion 31/05/13 4 0 0 0,0% 4 100,0% 27/06/13 AE (Ares 2456026) 1,28 0,13 1,28 0,13

31/05/13 3 0 0 0,0% 3 100,0% 16/07/13 AE (Ares 2671971) 2,17 0,76 2,17 0,76

15/09/13 8 0 0 0,0% 8 100,0% 17/10/13 AE (Ares 3419999) 1,71 0,46 1,71 0,46

28/02/13 7 0 0 0,0% 7 100,0% 26/03/13 AE (Ares 516875) 2,27 0,72 2,27 0,72

31/05/2013 17 0 0 0,0% 10 100,0% 16/07/13 AE (Ares 2671971) 2,04 0,89 2,04 0,89

14/12/12 26 0 1 3,8% 13 50,0% 22/04/13 C(2013) 2510 4,57 1,55 4,57 1,55

3/06/13 18 0 0 0,0% 12 67,0% 22/11/13 C(2013) 8419 6,18 -0,23 6,18 -0,23

16/11/12 110 0 6 5,5% 41 37,3% 19/03/13 C(2013)1760 4,34 1,61 4,34 1,6130/04/13 100 0 6 6,0% 49 49,0% 1/08/13 C(2013)5210 3,45 1,41 3,45 1,41

4.3 Stands (tender) 6 accord cadre various 1 0 0 6,0% 1 100,0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a5. Développement technologique 5.1 Pilot projects 5 08/2013 17/06/13 28 0 1 3,6% 8 28,6% 22/11/13 C(2013)8420 5,42 0,39 5,42 0,396. New actions

09/2013 24/06/13 39 0 0 0,0% 10 25,6% 22/11/13 C(2013)8418 5,19 0,16 5,19 0,166/2011 FPA 31/08/13 2 0 0 0,0% 2 100,0% 20/11/13 AE (Ares 3543626) 3,02 0,33 3,02 0,33

7. Actions for the sector7.1 MEDIA desks 30 8/03/13 AE (Ares 327771) 6,48 -0,03 6,48 -0,03

14 30/04/13 AE (Ares 798570) 6,48 0,03 6,48 0,03Total Global 1.882 3.379 2.403 295 9% 2.089 62% 4,20 0,90 3,34 1,00Total hors partenariats, marchés, actions 3.4 et 3.5 1.208 3.272 2.403 295 2 1.303 11 4,94 0,93 n/a n/a

NEW Time to award

(in months)

Action


ions (AMP)

Calls No

Calls deadlines

(one deadl/row)

N° of applicati

ons received

N°of applicati

ons received

which

N° of ineligibl

e applicati

ons

14/2011 FPA

35/2011 FPA

40/2012


% ineligibl

e applicati

ons


ons

Taux de sélection

en %


award (in months)

4.1 Market access (including promotion outside MEDIA countries

50

4.2 Festivals 90 29/2012

44 36/2012

6.2 On Line Distribution 17

0 0,0% 100,0%026/11/12 44

526

MEDIA Mundus

Time to contract

NEW Time to award

(in months)


Decisions date


Sent (in months)

ACTION 1 - TRAINING 7 EAC/S08/2012 28/09/2012 30 0 0 0,00% 7 23,30% 27/03/2013 COMM C(2013)1762 6,28 2,37 6,28 2,37

MARKETS 4 EAC/S08/2012 28/09/2012 9 0 0 0,00% 4 44,40% 27/03/2013 COMM C(2013)1762 6,28 2,37 6,28 2,37

ACTION 3 - DISTRIBUTION AND CIRCULATION 7 EAC/S08/2012 28/09/2012 8 0 0 0,00% 7 87,50%

27/3/2013 and

21/2/2013COMM C(2013)1762

and C(2013)1109 6,28 3,16 6,28 3,16

ACTIVITIES 9 EAC/S08/2012 28/09/2012 27 0 1 3,70% 9 33,30% 27/03/2013 COMM C(2013)1762 6,28 2,47 6,28 2,47Total 27 74 1 1,40% 27 36,50% 6,28 2,59 6,28 2,59

Action


ions (AMP)

Calls No

Calls deadlines

(one deadl/row)

N° of applicati

ons received

N°of applicati

ons received

which were

submitted on line

N° of ineligibl

e applicati

ons

% ineligibl

e applicati

ons


ons

Taux de sélection

en %



527


Regarding the 2013 MEDIA Work Programme, all calls for proposals planned to be published during the year were launched. A previous set of calls was published at the end of the previous year. Dates of publication were in line with the previsions. The only variation concerned the date of publication of the call for Pilot Projects which was delayed from February 2013 to May 2013 as the revision of the Commission's work programme was needed before publication of the call in order to redraft the guidelines with the necessary adaptations after a 4 year framework partnership. Regarding the 2014 Work Programme for Creative Europe, 13 calls for proposals were prepared by the MEDIA unit in order to be published by the Commission in December.

The Call for Tenders EACEA/2012/06 for the organisation of the MEDIA stands in the major audiovisual events was published on 15/03/2013 with a deadline postponed until 13/05/2013. The framework service contract was awarded to the consortium CECOFORMA/CONCEPTEXPO and was signed on 25/09/2013.


Regarding the number of applications received, a decrease of 5% is to be noted compared to 2012 (3.379 in 2013 compared to 3.541 in 2012). This is mainly explained by the slight reduction in applications received within the Cinema selective call (decreased by 15% after a 35% increase between 2010 and 2012) and the fact that compared to the previous year, only one call for proposals was managed for the Digitisation of Cinema action, therefore reducing the number of applications from 320 to 180. Regarding the number of selected projects, the general numbers were stable compared to the previous year but were slightly higher than the number of total planned interventions indicated in the Work Programme (2.089 compared to the 1.884 planned interventions). This was due in particular to the increase in the number of contracts issued within the Cinema Automatic scheme.

The MEDIA unit performed 42 monitoring missions and monitored 65 projects (on site and in Brussels). During the visits, best practices were identified (i.e. for MEDIA festivals: constitution of the different Juries as part of activities towards the audience, promotion of young talents; for MEDIA training: exchange of practice between training programs in order to create a pool of expertise; for MEDIA market access: extensive collaboration with other similar markets; for MEDIA distribution: new ways to reach the audience and promote films) and recurrent issues detected and taken on board for the future (i.e. for misunderstanding of some rules related to eligible expenditures, overestimation by the beneficiary of the audience impact, management problems related to forward planning and expenditure capacity of some applicants, problems to find co‐funding partnerships and obstacles to recruit professional participants due to the current economic context). The MEDIA Day at Berlin film festival was the opportunity to present the Media programme actions to 200 participants. Over a hundred meetings with professionals in this sector took place during this event. During the Cannes Film Festival, more than 200 individual meetings were organised with beneficiaries and professionals of the sector. The staff was also involved in the first presentations of the new Creative Europe programme, including the 3‐day meeting for the future Creative Europe Desk organised in Brussels in November.

528

1.1.3 ABB activity Culture Through its activities, the Agency contributes to the achievement of the following specific objectives, set by DG EAC and indicated in the activity statements of the draft budget 2013.

Specific Objectives

V EAC 15 04

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Support European cultural cooperation by promoting intercultural artistic creation, new professional pathways for artists, increasing the circulation of cultural works throughout Europe as well as the audiences for non‐national European works, with a view to promoting cultural diversity, enhancing intercultural dialogue and promoting a sense of European citizenship

VI EAC 15 04

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Promote the systematic integration of the cultural dimension as a vital element of the EU's international relations in all external and development policies and programmes, with a view to enriching political dialogue and cultural exchanges with 3rd countries

529


Time to contract

Date (../../..)

Implementation Mode

sent (in months)

Strand 1 -Support to cultural actions

1.1 Multiannual co-operation projects 15 C 286/16 8/11/12 80 79 6 7,5% 14 17,5% 28/03/2013 Commission 4,67 0,905,07 2,9

1.21 Co-operaton measures - support to

translation not included1 95 C 286/16 8/11/12 476 470 37 7,8% 111 23,3% 26/02/2013 EACEA 3,67 1,934 5,33

1.22 Co-operation measures - support to

translations2 115 C 286/16 6/02/13 400 392 56 14,0% 89 22,3% 5/07/2013 EACEA 4,97 1,505,33 3,13

1.32 Special actions - cooperation with third countries

8 C 286/16 3/05/13 111 107 9 8,1% 12 10,8% 13/08/13 EACEA 3,40 1,503,5 3,2

1.33 Special actions - Festivals - FPA 18 5/12/12 18 NA 0 0,0% 18 100,0% 12/02/13 EACEA 2,30 1,971,43 3,97

1.33 Special actions - Festivals - Annual 2 5/12/12 235 223 33 14,0% 11 4,7% 26/03/13 EACEA 3,70 1,973,97 3,93

Strand - 2 Support to bodies active in the field of culture

2.1 Cultural bodies of European interest FPA3 39 18/09/12 38 NA 0 0,0% 38 100,0% 12/02/13 EACEA 4,90 0,773,71 4,9

2.1 Cultural bodies of European interest Annual 10 18/09/12 88 88 1 1,1% 17 19,3% 28/02/13 EACEA 5,43 1,433,32 4,51

Strand - 3 Support for analysis, collection and dissemination of information

3.1 Cultural Contact points (CCP)4 37EACEA 27/2012

14/11/12 37 NA 0 0,0% 36 100,0% 8/02/13 EACEA 2,87 0,87

3.21 Policy analysis groupings 9 C 286/16 7/11/12 17 NA 2 11,8% 4 23,5% 28/02/13 EACEA 3,77 2,034 2,57

Total General 348 1500 1359 144 9,6% 350 23% 3,97 1,49 3,81 3,83

Total without Framework Partnerships and

Tenders5 254 1407 1359 144 258 18% 3,90 1,55 3,67 3,93

NEW Time to

award (in months)

NEW time to

contract 100%

Selection and contractualisation: follow-upState of play on 31/12/2013

Action

Number of planned

interventions (AMP)

Calls NoCalls

deadlines

Nb of applications

received

Nb of applications submitted on

line

Nb of ineligible

applications

Culture

C 286/16


Nb of selected projects

Taux de sélection

en %


award (in months)

C 286/16

1 Two selected organisations withdrew their projects & one project was not contractualised by the Agency because of lack of legal and financial documentation. 2 One selected organisation withdrew its projects & one project was not contractualised by the Agency because all translators withdrawn from the project. 3 One Network FPA was cancelled due to bankruptcy of the beneficiary 4 Montenegro finances the CCP on its own although it needs to present its work programme for the year. 5 CCPs are included in the partnerships as they are designed by Member States & Commission

530


All the calls were published according to the Programme Guide.


All targets set for selected projects in the Work Programme 2013 were met. However, the annual selections related to Festivals and OCEs exceeded the foreseen number of grants in the Annual Work Programme. This is due to the fact that for both actions the Culture unit aimed at maintaining a rather consistent selection rate (the number of applications received was relatively high in comparison to the initial budget foreseen in the AWP). Furthermore, the selection related to Policy analysis groupings is below the foreseen number as most of applications were of poor quality. There was a significant increase in the number of proposals received compared with 2012 (1.500 in 2013 compared with 1.157 in 2012). The evolution was mainly caused by an escalation of applications submitted under the Special action – cooperation with third countries (111 instead of 29), multi‐annual cooperation projects (80 instead of 53), the cooperation measures – support to translation not included (476 instead of 318) and the cooperation measures – support to translations (400 instead of 326). This increase is mainly due to the current trend among Member States in reducing budgets for national cultural operators but perhaps also to widespread awareness about the programme. An additional point must be made for the Special action – cooperation with third countries. In 2013, the selected countries by the EAC were Canada and Australia (instead of only one country in 2012, i.e. the Republic of South Africa).

In total, the Culture unit staff monitored 204 projects (monitoring visits both on‐site and in Brussels). In general, the mission planning was respected in terms of advance scheduling, choice of worthwhile projects (problematic, high financial support or similar) and feed‐back. The Culture unit participated in several high‐level events presenting Creative Europe along with a large number of participants (CCP Stockholm Relais Culture Europe Paris, Infoday CCP Madrid, Culture Forum organised by EAC…). In addition, the unit also organised an important and successful kick‐off meeting for the co‐operation projects and policy support groupings. Several smaller presentations regarding the broad guidelines of the new programme were also made.

531

1.1.4 ABB activity Youth The policy objectives and fields of actions of the Youth in Action programme are stipulated in the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council and in the related annual work programme. They are further detailed in the Management Plan of DG EAC.

As regards the Activity statements (DB 2013), the Agency supports DG EAC in reaching the following specific objectives:

Specific Objectives

IX EAC 15 05

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: In the context of 'Youth on the Move', promote the mobility of young people with a view of improving their employability and their European citizenship through non formal learning activities

X EAC 15 05

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Promote the potential and well‐being of all young people by developing their skills, creating more opportunities and encouraging their participation in democratic life

XVII ELARG 22 02

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Enhance regional integration and cooperation, including implementation of multi‐beneficiary programmes

532


Time to contract

Date (../../..)Implementation Mode

1st contract sent

(in months)

1 YOUTH FOR EUROPE

Programme Guide_ROUND 1 1/02/2013 21 21 13 61,9% 5 24% 27/05/2013 EACEA 3,8 0,8






2




2,13 European Voluntary Service - Insurance 1 Public Procurement

3




3,2 Cooperation with other countries 35 EACEA/10/2013 14/05/2013 249 249 42 16,9% 39 16% 2/08/2013 EACEA 2,7 2,9

4

42 Annual EACEA/26/12 103 103 6 5,8% 30 29% 12/04/2013 3,8 0,5

60 Multiannual (FPA)

Framework Partnership Agreements (renewals)

60 0 0 0,0% 60 100% 18/02/2013 3,2 1,0




4.32 Projects of youth workers mobility 50 EACEA/12/2013 10/09/2013 76 72 12 15,8% 53 70% 9/01/2014 EACEA 4,0

4,5 Information activities 28 EACEA/11/2013 27/06/2013 141 141 14 9,9% 25 18% 19/11/2013 EACEA 4,8 0,3 5,1 0,4

4.6 Partnerships 48 EACEA/06/2013 5/09/2013 56 50 14 25,0% 33 59% 20/12/2013 EACEA 3,5

4,72 Structures of the Programme - Eurodesks 35Article 54.2.c

of the Financial Regulation31/12/2012 35 0 0 0,0% 35 100% 1/03/2013 EACEA 2,0 0,6

4,73 Structures of the Programme - Eurodesks - Brussels Office 1Article 54.2.c


4,74 Structures of the Programme - Ex-volunteer organisations 35Article 54.2.c


4,75 Structures of the Programme - Euromed Platform 1Article 54.2.c


5



Programme Guide_ROUND 3 3/09/2013 9 9 5 55,6% 0 0% N.A N.A N.A N.A

398 3.046 2.928 500 16% 1.133 37% 28 3,3 0,5 4,1 0,4

266 2.941 2.928 500 0 1.028

YOUTH SUPPORT SYSTEMS

SUPPORT FOR EUROPEAN COOPERATION

Youth in Action

NEW Time

to award (in

months)

NEW time

to

contract

100%

State of play on 31/03/2013

ActionsNumber of planned

interventions Calls No Calls Deadlines

N° of applications

received

N° of applications

received submitted on

line

N° of ineligible

applications



Selection rate in %


award (in months)

2,11 European Voluntary Service 82

1.1 Youth Exchanges 7

1.3 Youth Democracy Projects 5

EUROPEAN VOLUNTARY SERVICE

3,11 Cooperation with neighbouring countries 34

4.1Support for bodies active at the European level in the field of youth

15/11/2012 EACEA

4.31Training and Networking of those active in youth work and youth organisation

32

5,11Meetings of young people and those responsible for youth policy

4

Total

Total without the renewals and designated beneficiaries

3,9 0,2

3,9 0,1

3,9 0,1

3,9 0,6

3,6 0,2

5,2 1,3

4,5 0,5

YOUTH IN THE WORLD

533


All the calls for proposals were published in line with the EACEA AMP 2013. The Commission published an addendum to the Programme Guide in July adding Croatia as a Programme Country.

As regards the calls for tender, the final version of the study 'the Youth participation in democratic life' (EACEA/2010/03) was approved by the Steering Committee of the study. The dissemination of the results of the study was ensured during the Youth Week at the end of May. The study was also published on the Europa server and the website of the Executive Agency25. In addition, the interim report of 'the value of youth work in the EU' (EACEA/2011/03) was approved. A stakeholder seminar took place on 30/05/2013. The country reports and case studies were received and assessed. The final version of the study was duly approved by the Steering Committee of the study. The final payment was authorised on 23/12/2013.


The overall quantity of proposals submitted increased very significantly. The total number of applications submitted for round 1 was more than 50% of the total number of applications received for all 3 rounds in 2012. The number of applications submitted under the call for proposals 4.5 increased by 50%. The quality of selected proposals remained stable – i.e. good to very good – whilst the increase in the number of applications increased the pressure on the selection thresholds.

In total the Youth in Action Unit participated in 9 promotional events. In addition, 6 monitoring visits served to monitor 9 recurrent beneficiaries The Unit organised 3 Info days (Moldova; Belarus; Ukraine) to promote the Eastern Partnership Youth Window of the Youth in Action Programme. An info session on Action 4.6 took place in the Executive Agency where liaison and representation offices of regions based in Brussels, and CSR Europe participated, addressing a platform of over 5 000 enterprises active in corporate social responsibility.

25 http://ec.europa.eu/youth/documents/lse_study_on_youth_participation_‐_2013.pdf

534

1.1.5 ABB activity Citizenship The implementation of the above funding actions by the Agency contributes to the achievement of the following objectives set by DG COMM and indicated in the general budget 2013 publication:

Specific Objectives

XI COMM 16 05

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Through the Europe for Citizens programme, to develop citizens' sense of ownership of the European integration, to reinforce solidarity and a sense of European identity built around shared values by enabling debate, reflection and joint actions between citizens of different member States.

XII COMM 16 05

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Through the Europe for Citizens programme, to promote active European citizenship and to boost participation in the EU by developing civil society and related policy dialogue at European level.

535



which were submitted

on line

Date (../../..)

Mode (Commission or EACEA (spécifier si


Action 1.1 Jumelage des villes - Rencontre de citoyens - phase 1

guide1/02/13 747 747 2 0,3% 146 20% 29/04/13 EACEA(procédure d'info)





SOUS TOTAL Action 1.1 440 1.697 1.697 2 0,3% 353 21%Action 1.2 Jumelage des villes - mise en réseau de villes jumelées guide 1/02/13 133 133 0 0,0% 23 17% 15/05/13 Commission (Comitologie)

Action 1.2 Jumelage des villes - mise en réseau de villes jumelées guide 3/09/13 186 186 0 0,0% 18 10% 28/11/13 Commission (Comitologie)

SOUS TOTAL action 1.2 42 319 319 0 0,0% 41 13%

Action 1.4 Projets citoyens 8 guide 3/06/13 157 157 0 0,0% 11 6% 29/07/13 EACEA(procédure d'info) 2,33 0,90 2,33 0,9

Action 1.4 Mesures de soutien 9 guide 3/06/13 96 96 0 0,0% 7 7% 29/07/13 EACEA(procédure d'info) 2,17 0,97 2,17 0,97

Action 2.1 et 2.2. Soutien structurel aux think tanks et org. européennes (Annuel) 14 12 Commission (Comitologie)

Action 2.1 et 2.2. Soutien structurel aux think tanks organisations européennes (transitional) 38 40 EACEA

Action 2.3 Soutien aux projets transnationaux de la société civile 33 guide 1/02/13 574 574 1 0,2% 28 5% 16/05/13 EACEA(procédure d'info) 4,10 0,90 4,1 0,9

Action 3.3 Structures d'information dans les EM et pays participants - Points Europe pour les citoyens (PEC) 33

Structures désignées 23/11/12 22 22 NA NA 22 NA 8/01/13 EACEA 1,50 1,50 1,5 1,5

Action 4.1 Préservation et commémoration 44 guide 3/06/13 425 425 0 0,0% 30 7% 29/07/13 EACEA(procédure d'info) 2,43 1,50 2,43 1,5

Total Général 661 3.450 3.450 3 0,1% 544 16% 2,66 1,13 2,70 1,13

Total hors partenariats et marchés 623 3.428 3.428 3 0,1% 522 15%

NEW Time to

award (in

months)

NEW time

to contract

100%

Europe for CitizensState of play on 31/12/2013

Action

Number of planned

interventions (AMP)

Calls No

Calls deadlines

(one deadline/ro

w)



ns

% ineligible application

s

2,89 0,93

Number of selected projects

Taux de sélection en %

Grant award decision


Time to contract

3,62 0,02

s EACEA 28/2012

15/11/12 160 160 0 0,0% 33% 18/01/13

2,57 2,28 2,57 2,28

2,89 0,93

3,62 0,02

536


The calendar planned in the Annual Work Programme was respected. The "Europe for citizens" programme guide for 2013 was updated in December 2012, including notably the applicable rules of the new financial regulation.

In the frame of the new programme, the Europe for Citizens Unit worked on the finalisation of the new Programme Guide 2014‐2020, due to be published in January 2014. The work programme "Europe for Citizens" 2014 was adopted on 31/10/201326. Moreover, the call for proposals for Operating Grants27 (Structural support for European public policy research organisations and for civil society organisations at European level) was published on 11/11/2013 by DG COMM with the support of EACEA C1.


The targets set for selected projects in the Work Programme 2013 were all met. Around 3.500 applications were received and treated, representing an increase of about 15% compared with 2012. Despite this significant increase of applications submitted, the level of quality of the assessment process improved thanks to a reinforcement of the briefing of experts, more detailed guidelines on operational capacity and a more thorough analysis of applications performed by the Europe for Citizens Unit.

In total, 27 missions took place on the field, covering 40 projects in total. In most of the cases, the projects visited were implemented coherently, well‐structured and in line with the initially established work programme. These projects achieved sustainable results. Specific guidance was provided to address weaknesses, where necessary. The outcomes of these monitoring visits were shared with DG COMM. Info‐Days on the Europe for Citizens Programme were organised in Portugal, in cooperation with the Portuguese government, in Spain and in Lithuania, in cooperation with the local and national authorities, etc. The Unit has presented the new Programme and the project of Programme Guide especially to various bodies (CCRE ‐Conseil des Communes et Régions d'Europe, Structural dialog, Programme Committee and ECP's ‐Europe Citizen's Points) The Europe for Citizens Unit launched a programme of job shadowing activities for the managers of the Europe for Citizens Points. Representatives from Spain, Lithuania and Belgium took part in this exercise. This initiative responded to the increasing need for training for the ECPs' managers, particularly during this challenging year of preparation of the new Europe for Citizens Programme 2014‐2020.

26 C ‐2013‐ 7160

27 COMM‐C2/01‐2013

537

1.2 Specific efforts to improve 'economy' and 'efficiency' of spending and non‐spending activities.

According to the financial regulation (art 30), the principle of economy required that the resources used by the institution in the pursuit of its activities shall be made available in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality and the best price. The principle of efficiency concerns the best relationship between resources employed and results achieved.

The respect of these principles is continuously pursued through the implementation of internal procedures and predefined practices. These procedures ensure that activities are executed in an efficient manner (e.g. the different workflows contribute to the efficient cooperation between staff, units, etc…) and according to the principle of economy (e.g. the procurement rules ensure procurement in optimal conditions).

EACEA is continuously fine‐tuning its internal arrangements in order to improve the efficiency and economy of its operations. The following two initiatives show how these principles are implemented in our service:

1.2.1 Increasing use of the IT Tools

Rationalisation of the IT Tools

The grant management system Pegasus was put in production. It integrates all the MEDIA (previously in FileMaker), the existing actions managed in Saykiss and the actions of the New Programmes delegated to the Agency. The financial system was adapted in parallel so as to take these changes into account. In addition, the adapted research tools for the management of the organisations and the experts together with a participant portal were put into production (in line the rationalisation at Commission level). The tool for the management of the evaluation of proposals was put into production for the Agency, DG EAC and the National Agencies. DG EAC and the National Agencies will use the OEET28 tool developed by the Agency for the management of the evaluations of proposals by the external experts. In addition, an agreement was reached with the Research DGs on the re‐use of the tools for the organisation management and the expert management and the Agency will be able to use the services of REA for the validation of the organisations. Extended use of e‐form

The use of the e‐form was extended to almost all the actions managed by the Agency. In 2013, the Erasmus Mundus Actions 2 and 3 calls together with the Youth specific calls introduced the e‐form which simplified and speeded up the selection process. A first set of electronic forms for the submission of the applications for the new Programmes and for the reports on the existing Programmes were deployed.

28 Online Expert Evaluation Tool

538

Video conference and Virtual community

The use of videoconferencing was intensified and enabled the Agency staff to participate 'virtually' in more events than would be possible otherwise. The on‐line briefing tool for experts was also extended to most of the Education actions. It saves travel time and costs, while allowing more staff to participate. General guidelines for experts briefing were prepared for the new generation of programmes, including recommendations and best practices for a successful expert online briefing. A pilot Experts virtual Community was put in place for some actions. The aim of this platform is to simplify the communication exchanges between the Agency and the experts as well as among the experts during the selection process. Development of new Business Object (BO) reports

BO reports were used intensively and new reports were developed for the 2013 selection in order to:

‐ identify any applications that are 'lost' in the transfer between systems; ‐ verify financial data across actions for the preparation of the award decision; ‐ prepare the ineligible and rejection letters

New Printing Policy

The adoption of the Agency‐wide policy to reduce printing had a tangible impact in the Agency. In general, Units no longer printed out all documents which are electronically available in the systems (Pegasus, AppFin and ABAC) but only those required for final archiving of files. It results in a simplification and economy in terms of time and paper. As regards future actions, 2 pilots were designed at the level of one unit for future deployment.

1.2.2 Use of Lump‐sum systems

Under the Europe for Citizens programme (2007‐2013), the simplified financing system set up for Action "Town Twinning Citizens meeting" (i.e. lump‐sums applied by breakdown of participants, common to all Member States), extended in 2012 to Actions "Networks of Twinned Towns", "Civil Society projects" and "Active European Remembrance", was successfully applied in 2013 by applicants and it has broadened accessibility to the Programme. Considering the positive effects of the simplification measures put in place, a new global lump‐sums financing system applicable to all actions of the Europe for Citizens programme was elaborated in preparation of the new Programme generation as from 2014. As a result, a Commission Decision authorised the use of lump sums/unit costs for the Europe for Citizens Programme 2014‐202029.

The Agency closely contributed to the definition of the lump sums to be used under the Erasmus+ programme in close cooperation with DG EAC. As an example, the financial management of the Capacity‐Building actions will be considerably simplified. The grant to be paid by the Agency is expected to be based on 3 unit costs/flat rates (travel, subsistence, staff salaries) and on 2 real costs items (equipment and sub‐contracting). Based on historical data, it can be assumed that these 5 cost items correspond to 90% of

29 C/2013/7180

539

the total project cost.

Lump‐sum systems were also developed for some actions of the new Creative Europe programme (MEDIA Single Development, Selective Distribution and Film Festivals). These actions are those to have a major impact on the volume of projects managed by the Agency. Around 60% of the projects managed yearly by the unit will be covered by a lump‐sum system, therefore bringing an important simplification to the administrative follow‐up of the projects. The development of lump‐sums system will simplify the financial management for the beneficiaries and for the Agency. All three proposed simplified grants were approved by the Commission C2013 9199 of the 18/12/2013.

540

2. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

Assurance is an objective examination of evidence for the purpose of providing an assessment of the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes. This examination is carried out by management, who monitors the functioning of the internal control systems on a continuous basis, and by internal and external auditors.

Its results are explicitly documented and reported to the Director of the Agency. The reports produced are:

the reports by AOSDs;

the contribution of the Internal Control Coordinator, including the results of internal control monitoring at Agency's level;

the reports of the ex‐post audits;

the opinion and the observations of the Internal Audit Capability (IAC);

the observations and the recommendations reported by the Internal Audit Service (IAS);

the observations and the recommendations reported by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).

This section reports the control results and other relevant elements that support managements' assurance on the achievement of the internal control objectives. It is structured in two separate sections: (1) the Agency’s assessment of its own activities for the management of its resources; and (2) the assessment of the results of internal and external audits, including the implementation of audit recommendations.

All of the Agency's programmes are implemented under direct management mode. In addition, the Agency manages its own administrative budget.

Payments made in 2013 (in Mio EUR)

Operational Budget Operating Budget

667.2 50.3

As regards the operational budget, the execution of commitment credits is 686 Mio€ or 98.6% of the available budget, which is almost in line with the target (99%). The execution of payment credits is 667.2 Mio€. The payments reach 98.3% of the available budget which is above the target (95%). As regard the operating budget, the execution of commitment appropriations is 49.82 Mio€ (97,2% of the available budget – 51.27 M€). The execution of payment appropriations is 50.3 Mio€ (87.2% of the available budget).

541

2.1 Management of human and financial resources by EACEA

This section reports and assesses the elements identified by management that support the assurance on the achievement of the internal control objectives. Annex 5 outlines the main risks together with the control processes aimed to mitigate them and the indicators used to measure the performance of the control systems.

2.1.1 Control effectiveness as regards legality and regularity

The EACEA has set up internal control processes aimed to ensure the adequate management of the risks relating to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, taking into account the multiannual character of programmes as well as the nature of the payments concerned.

The control objective regarding the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions is to ensure that the best estimate of the residual error rate by management does not exceed 2% cumulative by the end of the programme implementation. The Agency relies on the best estimate of the error rate because in the view of the volume of transactions by programme managed by the Agency each year it would not be cost effective to have a representative error rate from a fully statistically representative sample30 (cf. 95% confidence level/2% target error rate). The residual risk of error is estimated by the residual error rate obtained from an examination of a representative sample of transactions less any corrections made resulting from the control systems in place. More information can be found in annex 4.

The main indicators from the ex‐ante and ex‐post controls are reported below:

Ex‐ante controls

Indicator Results 2013

% of number of calls successfully concluded/number of calls planned in the MP/WP

100%

% of budget value implemented/budget allocated (commitments from calls)

99,6%

% and value of errors detected through the ex‐ante desk checks/total value of cost claims

1,96% on average or 10,4 million EUR in total

Ex‐post controls

Detected Error Rate from random audits See below

Detected Error Rate from risk‐based audits 6,45%

Value of corrections made by implementing audit results by means of recoveries and/or offsetting

1,8 million EUR

Recoveries Value of "official" recoveries as per the Communication on the protection of EU financial interests

12,9 million EUR (BO report for AAR Annex 3‐ Table 8)

Ex‐post audit strategy

In adherence with a strict methodology, the annual audit plan (AAP) of the EACEA is built

30 To have a fully statistically representative sample both by programme and programme period is not justified from a cost/benefit point of view.

542

upon both a random and a risk‐based selection. Each year, the Agency performs approximately 120 audits of which 2/3 randomly selected and 1/3 risk‐based. The audit coverage is about 10% of all closed projects in one year. Almost all audits are contracted out to an external audit firm (PKF Littlejohn) under an audit Framework Contract of DG CNECT. Only the audit results of the 'random' selection of projects are taken into account to calculate error rates.

A multi‐annual error rate is calculated by programme (Lifelong Learning Programme, Erasmus Mundus, Culture, Youth, Citizenship, MEDIA and Tempus). A further split is made between the different multi‐annual financial frameworks. Most of the audits for the moment are for closed projects from the programming period 2007‐2013. In line with guidance developed by DG BUDG on error rates, value at risk and materiality, the Agency decides to report or not a reservation in the AAR both per programme and per programming period.

From the 2012 Annual Activity Report onwards, the Agency calculated multi‐annual error rates in order to increase the representativeness of the figures. As the audit methodology was significantly changed in 2010, the Agency opted to present the multi‐annual error rates over 2 years for AAR 2012 in order to have comparable, reliable data. For AAR 2013, the Agency reports multi‐annual error rates over 3 cumulative years. The Agency managed to contract out the 2013 annual audit plan before summer (instead of at the end of the calendar year) in order to reduce to 1 year the gap between closing projects and audit results becoming available.

Past reservations

In the context of the AAR 2010, a reservation was made concerning the two programmes for which the materiality of the error rate was above 2% in 2010, namely Culture and Youth 2007‐2013. For AAR 2011, the reservation for Culture & Youth could be dropped but another reservation was made for LLP 2007‐2013. For AAR 2012, the reservation for LLP 2007‐2013 was maintained.

The analysis of the errors for the LLP programme shows that in terms of type of findings, they concern mostly the difficulty of (co‐)beneficiaries or project partners to produce adequate justifying documents and the non‐respect of some of the eligibility rules.

Back in early 2011, the Agency drafted an action plan around several pillars covering all programmes & grant schemes:

‐ improve the desk control strategies per unit/programme by producing new guidelines and by introducing two new types of audit certificates, according to the risks associated to beneficiaries or projects; ‐ improve the information provided to beneficiaries on financial obligations, audits and ex‐post controls (e.g. annual kick‐off meetings by programme/strand, Financial Information Kit); ‐ continue to reinforce/improve monitoring visits, where appropriate, a session on financial reporting and eligible costs is included; ‐ consolidate the audit strategy (move from annual to multi‐annual).

The action plan was implemented in conformity with the timetable in 2011 – beginning of 2012. While some actions, like better information to grant beneficiaries during kick‐off/information meetings and strengthening of monitoring visits, were already in place during 2011 for the LLP programme, other actions lead to improvements in later years. The financial information kit started to bring benefits from 2012. The better defined, value adding audit certificates under the new desk control strategy were mandatory for projects

543

committed as from 2013 and optional for projects committed before.

However, the results in terms of (lower) error rates are not expected before AAR 2014 or AAR 2015 as the measures described above will take time to have an impact. The reasons are twofold: a) the project duration is typically about 18 months to 2 years (and for some actions even longer) and b) there will be a minimum 1‐year gap between closing projects and audit results becoming available.

Notwithstanding these actions, the biggest improvement will come from further financial simplification in the future programme "Erasmus+" during the new programming period 2014‐2020. Today, most of grants under the LLP programme are budget‐based funding schemes which are much more prone to difficulties in terms of eligibility of costs. Hence, a greater use of lump sums and/or flat rates should reduce the error rates.

544

Results for AAR 2013

As shown in the table below, the results for AAR 2013 show that the multi‐annual error rate is still above 2% for Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) 2007‐2013. However, the multi‐annual, detected error rate of 3,25% for LLP in AAR 2013 is lower than the multi‐annual, detected error rate of 4,07% reported in the AAR 2012.

Programme DER RER MAT Reservation?

LLP 3,25% 3,04% 3.01% Yes

Erasmus Mundus and Intra ACP 0,41% 0,38% N/A No

Tempus and Bilateral Cooperation 0,74% 0,69% N/A No

Youth 1,23% 1,19% 0,85% No

Culture 1,90% 1,78% 1,39% No

MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus 0,52% 0,48% 0,49% No

Europe for Citizens 0,65% 0,64% 0,62% No

(DER= detected error rate; RER= residual error rate; MAT= materiality)

Therefore, for AAR 2013, a reservation will need to be maintained for LLP as the multi‐annual error rate is still higher than 2%. The Agency will, like in previous years, thoroughly analyse the (most recurrent) errors found through the latest batches of audit reports and, if necessary, implement additional actions in the course of 2014 taking into account the cost‐benefits of any possible corrective measures.

The increase in error rate for the Culture programme is due to year‐on‐year fluctuations in terms of the audit results from limited sampling; the Agency believes that there are no systemic weaknesses for which new measures are warranted. The residual error rate should stabilise below 2% for the Culture programme once more audit results become available under the multi‐annual approach.

What are the indications for coming years?

Based on the above analysis and a prudent extrapolation, the Agency believes that the reservation for the new LLP programme 2007‐2013 could be recurrent at least for a couple of years. The action plan above should produce its full effect for projects committed in the last year of the current programming period (2013). The mandatory use of audit certificates by beneficiaries, added to the improved communication on financial obligations, should allow the 2% materiality threshold to be reached for these projects. However, the impact on the multi‐annual error rates could be smaller, as this improvement could be more than off‐set by the higher error rates during previous years. Probably, no additional actions or mitigating measures are needed for 2014 apart from day‐to‐day drive to further improve the grant management process.

The Agency is of the opinion that for the other programmes (e.g. Culture) the situation will remain under control.

545

2.1.2 Control efficiency and cost‐effectiveness

The principle of efficiency concerns the best relationship between resources employed and results achieved. The principle of economy requires that the resources used by the institution in the pursuit of its activities shall be made available in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality and at the best price.

This section outlines the indicators used to monitor the efficiency of the control systems, including an overall assessment of the costs and benefits of controls.

Indicator Results 2013

Ex‐ante controls

Average time to inform applicants (art. 128 FR max. 6 months)

3,9 months for all programmes except 2,8 months for both Youth and Europe for Citizens

Average time to sign grant agreements or notify grant decisions (art. 128 FR max. 3 months)

1,7 months for all programmes except 0,45 months for both Youth and Europe for Citizens

Average time to pay (% on time) (art. 92 FR) 24,2 days (96% on time)

Average evaluation benefit per proposal Non–quantifiable (preventive)

Average project management benefit per proposal

Non–quantifiable (preventive)

Ex‐post controls

Average cost of ex‐post audit 11K €

Average benefit of a random audit (average grant value of project*detected error rate)

3K€

Average benefit of a risk‐based audit (average grant value of project*detected error rate)

34K€

Value of corrections made by implementing audit results by means of recovery order and/or offsetting

1,8 million EUR

Expected non‐monetary return of auditing projects

Non‐quantifiable (preventive; dissuasive effect)

The Agency quantifies the costs of the resources and inputs required for carrying out the controls described in annex 5 and estimates, as much as possible, their benefits in terms of the amount of errors and irregularities prevented, detected and corrected by these controls.

546

The results are shown in the table31 below:

GRANT MANAGEMENT

COSTS BENEFITS

Stage 1: Selection Staff

7,628,730 Non‐quantifiable

External inputs

6,521,000

Stage 2: Contracting Staff

6,040,325 17,575,663

Stage 3: Monitoring Staff

14,206,070 10,389,945

Missions

650,000

Stage 4: Ex‐post control Staff

2,913,275 1,812,214

External inputs

971,121

Missions

24,000

Grand total 38,954,521 29,777,822

On a pure quantifiable basis, the controls appear not to be cost effective given a gap of 9.2 million.

First of all, it should be noted that the Agency has particular funding schemes and/or beneficiaries under the different programmes. Their complexity and/or diversity on one hand and the large number of rather small grants to a vast population of grant beneficiaries on the other hand make the control set‐up quite challenging under the given regulatory framework. Even if the grant amounts per beneficiary are in some cases an average of 150,000 EUR (or lower), the Financial Regulation foresees a minimum set of requirements which are put in place to protect the EU financial interests.

Secondly, there are a number of non‐quantifiable benefits resulting from the controls operated during the control stages (e.g. selection phase, aimed to ensure that the financed projects contributed in the best manner to the achievement of the policy objectives, preventive controls through annual information/kick‐off meetings with new grant beneficiaries, monitoring missions to address problems in early stages and in a cooperative manner, and from the deterrent effect of ex‐post controls). Furthermore, the Agency considers that the necessity of these controls is undeniable; as they are a regulatory requirement, the totality of the appropriations would be at (compliance) risk in case they were not in place. The added‐value of these non‐quantifiable benefits is considered to make up for that gap of 9.2 million EUR.

For this reason, it is also necessary to consider the efficiency indicators, which reveal that the Agency allocated the appropriate quantity and quality of resources to ensure an

31 In terms of approach, the Agency used both direct and indirect costs leaving some overhead costs like HR and IT out to avoid double counting with the flat rate per full‐time equivalent as per DG BUDG's guidelines. Also, the management of Eurydice was left out of the scope.

547

efficient operation of controls (e.g. average time to notify grant applicants and average time to sign grant agreements are substantially below the maximum number of months as per Financial Regulation, the time to pay is kept very short while budget execution is close to 100%, etc.).

Thirdly, and more importantly, the Agency's total control & management cost (percentage of operating costs over the operational budget in terms of payments executed in 2013 namely 50.3 /667.2 million EUR = 7.55%) is considered to be cost‐effective, both overall and also taking into account the relative numbers and size of grants to be processed.

The operational budget execution is 99.6% for commitment appropriations and 100% for payment appropriations. The administrative budget execution amounts to 97,16% of the available appropriations, and 86,65% for payment appropriations. All these figures are higher than the objectives set in the Agency's 2013 Annual Management plan.

Payments were conducted in line with target deadlines set by the Commission: percentage

of payments within contractual time: 96% (target: 90%); percentage of payments within

target: 89% (target: 80%).

Payment time targets:

first pre‐financing payments: 11 days (target: max. 20 days)

interim and final payments with double time‐limit: 14 days (target: max 30 days)

interim and final payments with a single time‐limit applied for the report approval and the payment: 51 days (target: max. 75 days).

Overall conclusion of control cost‐effectiveness and efficiency

In the view of the Agency's management, the relative level of efficiency and cost‐effectiveness of the controls operated is adequate and no major improvements are necessary for the moment.

548

2.1.3 Fraud prevention and detection

The Agency has developed its anti‐fraud strategy as foreseen in the Commission’s overall anti‐fraud strategy32. All the resulting measures have been fully implemented by the end of 2013.

Anti‐fraud strategy

The Agency adopted an anti‐fraud strategy combined with an action plan on 9 July 2012. As foreseen by the action plan, the following actions were implemented by the end of 2013:

Under the ex‐ante desk control strategy, audit certificates (both light and full) have

been introduced since March 2013;

The anti‐fraud data mining tool has been further improved;

The anti‐fraud trainings (“How to detect anomalies” & “Signalization of fraud &

irregularities”) have been redefined and are mandatory for all management staff

and all financial & operational officers;

Note on termination of a grant agreement or of the participation of a partner/co‐

beneficiary is finalized;

An anti‐fraud section on the Agency's intranet offers relevant information such as

the Agency's anti‐fraud strategy, the Agency's anti‐fraud procedure, relevant

templates, etc.;

Red flags: A list of fraud indicators as described in the anti‐fraud procedure are

being instructed to staff during trainings.

Monitoring of results in 2013

In principle, the controls aimed at preventing and detecting fraud are not unlike those intended to ensure the legality and regularity of the transactions (the unintentional errors). Still, the Agency screens the population of transactions/grant agreements/projects/beneficiaries in order to identify those at a higher risk of fraud and subjects them to more in‐depth monitoring controls or specifically adjusted controls/control tools. During the reporting year, 9 transactions/contracts/projects/beneficiaries for an estimated value of EUR 15 million were subject to in‐depth controls; the results will be known at a later stage. Five cases were transmitted to OLAF for investigation. In addition, during the same period, OLAF has initiated no cases which concern the activities of the Agency based on other sources of information.

32 COM(2011) 376 24.06.2011.

549

Indicator Results

Participation to mandatory anti‐fraud trainings (staff) in 2013 41 (OLAF) & 60 (Anomalies)

Number of audits (random/risk‐based) having led to the identification of serious irregularities/fraud in 2013

1

Number of ad hoc audits carried out in 2013 3

Number of ad hoc audits having led to the identification of serious irregularities/fraud in 2013

0

Number of projects submitted to monitoring measures as a result of suspicious of irregularities/fraud in 2013

64 projects (9 cases)

Amount of those projects33 10,5 M €

Number of grant agreements terminated for serious irregularities/fraud in 2013

6

Number of cases where the participation of a partner has been terminated for serious irregularities/fraud in 2013

1

Number of recoveries launched for serious irregularities/fraud in 2013 20

Amount of those RO in 2013 365.430,60€

Number of cases sent to OLAF in 2013 5

New EWS in 2013 0

2.2 Budget implementation tasks entrusted to other services and entities.

N/A

33 this amount consists mostly of payments but also in some cases of the total amount of subventions received by the

entity concerned

550

2.3 Assessment of audit results and follow up of audit recommendations

This section reports and assesses the observations and conclusions reported by auditors which could have a material impact on the achievement of the internal control objectives, and therefore on assurance, together with any management measures taken in response to the audit recommendations.

The Agency is audited by both internal and external independent auditors: its internal audit capability (IAC), the Commission's internal audit service (IAS) and the European Court of Auditors (ECA).

European Court of Auditors (ECA)

(1) Administrative budget – Specific Annual Report (SAR) 2012

In May 2013, the European Court of Auditors carried out the audit of the Agency's 2012 annual accounts for the administrative expenditure in order to obtain reasonable assurance that the Agency's annual accounts are free of material misstatement and that the transactions processed by the Agency are legal and regular. The audit carried out by the Court consisted of analytical audit procedures, direct testing of transactions and an assessment of key controls of the Agency's supervisory and control systems. The Specific Annual Report for the financial year 2012 provides the Court's opinion on the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions:

Opinion on the reliability of the accounts

In the Court's opinion, the Agency's annual accounts present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position as at 31 December 2012 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission's accounting officer.

Opinion on the legality and the regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts

In the Court's opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts for the year ended 31 December 2012 are legal and regular in all material respects.

Following the audit on the administrative expenditure, the Court made a comment on the budgetary management observing that although carry‐overs of committed appropriations were relatively high for administrative expenditures, they mainly related to services received in 2012 for which invoices had not been issued at year‐end (building costs and IT consultancy) and to the multi‐annual nature of activities (evaluation by experts of grant applications and ex‐post audits).

Similarly to the previous year, the Agency has taken note of the Court's report. As a result, no specific contradictory procedure was needed between the Court and the Agency.

(2) Operational budget – Statement of Assurance (DAS) 2013

The audit work on legality and regularity of transactions in relation to the Statement of Assurance (DAS) 2013 started in May 2013. In total, 10 transactions or grant projects were sampled so far for DAS 2013. To date, 5 audits were completed and one finding was issued by the Court of Auditors concerning one project under the Erasmus Mundus programme. The non‐quantifiable error detected by the Court of Auditors consisted in the

551

absence of non‐essential documentation.

In relation to DAS 2013, ECA has carried out three field audit visits at the level of the final grant beneficiary and seven desk reviews. The field audit visits at the level of the beneficiary concerned two Lifelong learning (LLP) projects and one Tempus project.

Internal Audit Service (IAS)

During the period of reference, the year 2013, the IAS conducted no audits. The IAS carried out an audit on the LLP programme in 2012 to check if the procedures and control systems in place for the processing of final payments of the LLP programme were in compliance with the applicable rules, regulations and the principle of sound financial management. The two very important recommendations related to a) the ex‐ante controls and b) the non‐retroactivity rule were assessed by the Agency as ready for review.

Internal Audit Capability (IAC)

Furthermore, the IAC carried out a total of 6 audit assignments, in accordance with its multiannual audit planning, which covers the Agency's management processes, on a risk basis, over a period of five years.

In 2013, the Internal Audit Capability (IAC) of the Agency finalised two new audits on the MEDIA programme and monitoring missions. Six very important recommendations were issued.

Audit on the MEDIA programme The final report was issued in November 2013. Based on the results of the audit, the internal control system in place provides reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the business objectives set up for the MEDIA programme, except for four very important recommendations. They are related to time lag and deficit, experts (efficiency, cost‐effectiveness, and different methodologies), desk control and admission certificates.

Audit on Monitoring missions The final report was issued in November 2013 with two very important recommendations. The internal control system in place provides reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the business objectives except for two very important recommendations in the following areas: strategy & planning and data dissemination.

The IAC also finalised four follow‐up audits in 2013:

Procurement procedures (2nd follow‐up audit)

Grant management, awarding and contracting

Agency's IT services to Agency's operational units (2nd follow‐up audit)

Selection of experts

All the concerned recommendations were assessed as adequately implemented or closed for these audits. In addition, 6 new important recommendations were issued.

552

Based on the results of our audits as described in the objectives and scope of the engagements carried out by the IAC during year 2012, the internal control system in place in the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency provides reasonable assurance34 regarding the achievement of the business objectives set up for the activities audited, except for the following issues:

MEDIA35, where improvements are still needed to manage the time‐lag and the deficit related to Cinema Automatic and Support to Sales Agent schemes, and the admission certificates issued by Member States. Improvements are also needed in the desk controls by adding to the current routine controls and usual practices in place a higher degree of formalised risk analysis. Concerning the use of experts, more attention should be given to any opportunity of optimisation and economies, and also to the output produced by experts, in order to improve its added value and especially the usability of their work.

Monitoring missions36, where improvements are needed in the planning and missions strategy in the view of the new programming period considering that many actions will converge under the big umbrella of Creative Europe and Erasmus+ and in the data dissemination of the information gathered during monitoring visits in order to increase the value for money.

Management has accepted all the auditors’ recommendations in 2013 and submitted the corresponding action plans which have been assessed favourably by the auditors. The various management measures included in these action plans have been or are being implemented as foreseen.

Follow‐up of audit recommendations

As regards the implementation of recommendations issued in previous years, the relevant action plans are (being) implemented as planned and are on schedule. At year‐end, the percentage of very important audit recommendations implemented in the course of 2013 stood at 91 % or well above the target threshold of 75%. There is no significant delay in the implementation of audit recommendations.

The chart below summarises the status of very important recommendations at year‐end from IAS/IAC audits outstanding at the beginning of the year.

34 Even an effective internal control system, no matter how well designed and operated, has inherent limitations – including the possibility of the circumvention or overriding of controls – and therefore can provide only reasonable assurance to management regarding the achievement of the business objectives and not absolute assurance.

35 Final report issued on 21 November 2013 36 Final report issued on 19 December 2013

553

As a result of the assessment of the risks underlying the auditors' observations together with the management measures taken in response, the management of the Agency believes that the recommendations issued do not raise any assurance implications and are being implemented as part of continuous efforts to improve its management and control systems and value for money.

554

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

The Commission has adopted a set of internal control standards (ICS), based on international good practice, and aimed to ensure the achievement of policy and operational objectives. In addition, as regards financial management, compliance with these standards is a compulsory requirement.

The Agency has put in place the organisational structure and the internal control systems suited to the achievement of the policy and control objectives, in accordance with the standards and having due regard to the risks associated with the environment in which it operates.

The Agency annually assesses the effectiveness of its key internal control systems in accordance with the applicable guidance from the Commission. The assessment relies on a number of monitoring measures and sources of information including a survey‐based self‐assessment by management and staff; reported instances of exceptions and/or non‐compliance events and internal control weaknesses; relevant audit findings; and the risk management process. Furthermore, the 'bottom‐up‘ information on internal control issues received through the Head of Unit's management reports has been checked for confirmation or any counter‐indications. Finally, the IAC's opinion has been taken into account as well. This analysis had enabled the Internal Control Coordinator to report the state of internal control and any recommendations to the Director of the Agency (including suggestions for any ICS to be prioritised during 2014).

The purpose of the assessment based on the reported information is to identify (1) any cases of ineffective implementation of a standard or lack of compliance with the requirements; and (2) any standards for which, despite compliance and effective implementation, management takes the view that additional measures are necessary to increase efficiency. These internal control standards (ICS) are to be prioritised in the management plan for the following year.

The inherent risks of the Agency are associated primarily with sound financial management. The control standards that are most important to the Agency's environment generally are thus ICS 6, 8, 12 and 13. The Agency is particularly concerned with keeping error rates in spending programmes down to a tolerable level while balancing trust and control. While error rates for most of the spending programmes managed by the Agency are well below the materiality threshold of 2%, current error rates are around 3% on a multi‐annual basis for one of the Agency's funding programmes (Lifelong Learning Programme in programming period 2007‐2013). More information can be found in Part 2. An analysis of the main causes of errors has led the Agency to focus its efforts and lean support towards a) simplifying legislation/implementing rules and its own processes and procedures and b) adopting a solid communication policy towards both internal and external stakeholders.

Concerning the overall state of the internal control system, the Agency generally complies with the three assessment criteria for effectiveness; i.e. (a) staff having the required knowledge and skills, (b) systems and procedures designed and implemented to manage the key risks effectively, and (c) no instances of ineffective controls that have exposed the Agency to its key risks.

In its management plan for the reporting year 2013, the Agency had foreseen a number of measures to improve the efficiency of ICS 3 on Staff Allocation and mobility, ICS 8 on

555

Processes and procedures and ICS 12 on Information and communication.

By the end of the reporting year, these measures were fully and satisfactorily implemented for ICS 3 on Staff Allocation and mobility. During its meeting on 10 July 2013, the Steering Committee agreed to the proposal for the reorganisation of EACEA, which takes into consideration the needs of the future programmes and the handling of the legacy projects. The Commission approved this proposal in mid‐December and also adopted the new mandate of the EACEA on 18 December 2013.

On July 23 of 2013, management agreed on the procedure for the ''EACEA Mobility Exercise 2014'' which constitutes one element of the staff planning and reallocation policy put in place in view of the reorganisation of the EACEA. This procedure was successfully carried out in October 2013 and the results (in terms of the actual mobility of staff) took effect on 1st January 2014. Further internal mobility of staff will be carried out in the context of the applicable rules and as needs arise.

The revised Staff Regulations, in force as of 1st January 2014, foresee that, like for contract agents, temporary agents recruited by another agency will maintain their rights (grade, step and seniority) thus also facilitating the mobility of temporary agents between agencies. The challenge will now be to set up the legal framework to establish an Inter‐Agency job market (at least for Executive Agencies).

For ICS 8 on Processes and Procedures and ICS 12 on Information and Communication, the main issues were already addressed and complementary measures are more than half way implemented. Full implementation is expected by the end of 2014.

EACEA processes and procedures have been restructured in a more user‐friendly workflow based on the Business Process Modelling exercise. A pilot test has been carried out with users to validate the new interface. Content will be converted to the new user‐friendly interface throughout 2014. The visibility and promotion of the new structure will be organised to inform all staff.

As regards ICS 5 on Objectives and performance indicators, the results of the annual assessment indicate the need to revise and then communicate the objectives and performance targets under the three new programmes (Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens and Creative Europe) for the multi‐annual financial framework 2014‐2020. This initiative goes together with putting in place the revised processes and procedures for funding programmes 2014‐2020. These measures are to be implemented as soon as possible.

Therefore, the action plan 2013 will be updated and further rolled out for ICS 8 and 12 and completed with new actions for ICS 5. ICS 3 is no longer kept as a priority standard for the year 2014.

In conclusion, the internal control standards are effectively implemented. In addition, the Agency is taking measures to further improve the efficiency and/or cost‐effectiveness of its internal control systems in the area of ICS 5, ICS 8 and ICS 12. These ICS are being prioritised for 2014.

556

4. MANAGEMENT ASSURANCE This section reviews the assessment of the elements reported in Parts 2 and 3 and draw conclusions supporting of the declaration of assurance and namely, whether it should be qualified with reservations.

4.1 Review of the elements supporting assurance

The information in Parts 2 and 3 stems from the reported results of monitoring by both the Agency's management and several audit bodies (ECA, IAS and IAC) for all significant budget areas managed by the Agency. All these reports result from a systematic analysis of the evidence available. This approach provides sufficient guarantees as to the completeness and reliability of the information reported and results in a complete coverage of the budget delegated to the Director of the Agency.

The Director assesses the information provided in the above Parts 2 and 3 as complete. The administrative and operational budgets have been covered by appropriate performance indicators, by audits from ECA, IAS and IAC and the results from ex‐post audits.

The Director believes that the information provided is reliable. Most of the indicators mentioned in Parts 2 and 3 have been closely monitored since the set‐up of the Agency back in 2006. New indicators have been added to improve the coverage of the declaration of assurance (for example for prevention, detection and correction of irregularities and fraud).

While the control results show that a significant level of errors (above the 2% materiality threshold) still affect some of the transactions under the LLP programme, these errors have been analysed and their underlying causes have been identified. The action plan which addressed these weaknesses was fully implemented at the beginning of 2013.

The above findings have been complemented by the results of the audits carried out by the IAC and the IAS. In particular, the IAS audit on the LLP programme in 2012 concluded on similar recommendations in terms of the processing of final payments towards final grant beneficiaries. The two very important recommendations from this IAS audit regarding the LLP programme were implemented in the course of 2013.

The Director concludes that adequate corrective measures have been taken and should produce their full effect for LLP projects committed from 2013 onwards. However, the impact on the multi‐annual error rate could be smaller, as this improvement could be more than off‐set by the higher error rates in previous years.

In summary, the Director can provide reasonable assurance as of the adequate management of the risks related to a) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, taking into account the multi‐annual character of the programmes as well as the nature of payments concerned, b) sound financial management and c) prevention, detection and correction of irregularities and fraud except for the reservation for the LLP programme 2007‐2013.

557

4.2 Reservations and overall conclusion on assurance

No

Title Type (Financial or Reputational)

2013 amount at risk (in million euros)

ABB amount concerned i.e. scope (in million euro)

1 LLP 2007‐2013 Financial € 3,7 million euros € 124,4 million euros

Reservation 1 DG/service EACEA

Title of the reservation, including its scope

Materiality of the amount at risk resulting from the multi‐annual error rates detected through ex‐post audits in grant payments being above 2% of the 2013 programme budget for the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) 2007‐2013

Domain Direct management – grantsABB activity and amount

affected (="scope") LLP programme (2007‐2013): 15 02 22 Scope: € 124,388,710

Reason for the reservation

Occurrence of significant errors in the underlying transactions (legality and regularity) found through ex‐post controls. The materiality of the amount at risk related to those detected error rates is 3,01% for the LLP programme 2007‐2013. The errors concern mainly the difficulty for some beneficiaries to produce adequate justifying documents and the non‐respect of some eligibility rules.

Materiality criterion/criteria The materiality criterion in terms of the legality and regularity of underlying transactions of 2% of the ABB activity was breached.

Quantification of the impact

(= actual exposure")

The amount at risk is calculated for the LLP programme concerned by multiplying the value of the closed grants for which a final payment has been made in 2013 by the detected error rate taking into account corrections on the audited population. It amounts to €3,746,718 (residual error rate of 3,04% times €123,312,943) or 3,01% of the related ABB activity in 2013 in terms of the authorised payment operations.

Impact on the assurance

Although the materiality is above 2% for the legality and regularity of the financial transactions at stake under the LLP programme 2007‐2013 resulting in this reservation, its effect on the overall declaration of assurance is limited given the weight (0.56%) of the amount at risk compared to the total budget execution in terms of payments in 2013 within the Agency (3,7Mio/667,2Mio = 0.56%).

Responsibility for the weakness

The errors occur at the level of final grant beneficiaries and the ex‐ante controls within the Agency failed to sufficiently prevent, detect and correct erroneous payments.

Responsibility for the corrective action

The Agency will, like in previous years, thoroughly analyse the (most recurrent) errors found through the latest batches of audit reports and, if necessary, implement additional actions in the course of 2014 taking into account the cost‐benefits of any possible corrective measures. Based on the above analysis and a prudent extrapolation, the Agency believes that the reservation for the new LLP programme 2007‐2013 could be recurrent at least for a couple of years. The implementation of the action plan described in Part 2 should produce its full effect for projects committed in the last year of the current programming period, namely 2013. The mandatory use of audit certificates by beneficiaries, added to the improved communication on financial obligations, should allow the 2% materiality threshold to be reached for these projects. However, the impact on the multi‐annual error rates could be smaller, as this improvement could be more than off‐set by the higher error rates during previous years.

Moreover, in the context of the next programmes for 2014‐2020, action is being taken together with the Commission to further implement financial simplification. Concerning the impact of the errors affecting the LLP programme on the declaration of assurance, it must be stressed that the amount at risk only represents 0,56% of the total payments processed by the Agency in 2013. It therefore does not significantly affect the legality and regularity of the total transactions managed by the Agency.

558

DECLARATION OF ASSURANCE

I, the undersigned,

Director of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

In my capacity as authorising officer for the operating (administrative) budget and

authorising officer by delegation for the operational budget here

Declare that the information contained in this report gives a true and fair view37.

State that I have reasonable assurance that the resources assigned to the activities

described in this report have been used for their intended purpose and in accordance with

the principles of sound financial management, and that the control procedures put in place

give the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying

transactions.

This reasonable assurance is based on my own judgement and on the information at my

disposal, such as the results of the self‐assessment, ex‐post controls, the work of the

internal audit capability, the observations of the Internal Audit Service and the lessons

learnt from the reports of the Court of Auditors for years prior to the year of this

declaration.

Confirm that I am not aware of anything not reported here which could harm the interests

of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency or those of the Commission

here.

However, the following reservations should be noted:

Considering that the materiality of the amount at risk is at 2,85% for one of the programmes delegated to the Agency (Lifelong Learning Programme 2007‐2013), a reservation is warranted for this programme.

Although the materiality is above 2% for this programme, its effect on the overall assurance and declaration is limited given the weight of the amount at risk which corresponds to 0.56% of the 2013 total payments done by the Agency. Consequently, despite the reservation, the overall assurance can be maintained.

Brussels, 27th of March 2014

Brian Holmes

"Signed"

37 True and fair in this context means a reliable, complete and correct view on the state of affairs in the service.

559

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: Statement of the Resources Director

“I declare that in accordance with the Commission’s communication on clarification of the

responsibilities of the key actors in the domain of internal audit and internal control in the

Commission38, I have reported my advice and recommendations to the Interim Director on the overall

state of internal control in the Agency.

I hereby certify that the information provided in Parts 2 and 3 of the present AAR and in its annexes

is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and exhaustive.”

Brussels, 27th of March 2014

Corinne Mimran

"Signed"

38 SEC(2003)59 of 21.01.2003.

560

ANNEX 2: Human and Financial resources

Human Resources by ABB activity

Code ABB Activity ABB Activity Establishment Plan

posts External Personnel

Total

1501‐1901‐2201

Education 47 154 201

1501 Culture 7 25 32

1501 Audiovisual 11 60 71

1501 Youth 5 19 24

1601 Citizenship 4 20 24

Administrative support

22 44 66

Coordination and Communication

3 14 17

Total 99 336 435

561

Financial Resources by ABB activity (EUR Million)

implementation of Commitment Appropriations (CA)

Code ABB Activity

ABB Activity Operational expenditure

Administrative expenditure

Total

15 02 02 EDUCATION 113.005.111

15 02 22 EDUCATION 137.301.051

19 05 01 EDUCATION 8.869.900

19 08 01/03 EDUCATION 199.532.440

19 09 01/10 01/10 02/10 03/21 06 02

EDUCATION 92.008.592

19 09 03/10 04/ 21 06 06

EDUCATION 13.128.425

22 02 07 EDUCATION 46.641.065

FED EDUCATION 34.941.300

15 04 66 AUDIOVISUAL 117.535.187

15 04 68 AUDIOVISUAL 4.661.835

15 04 44 CULTURE 60.355.239

15 05 55 YOUTH 24.853.271

19 08 01 03 YOUTH 12.623.884

22 02 07 YOUTH 4.490.710

16 05 01 CITIZENSHIP 26.414.174

Total 896.362.184 49.819.023 946.181.207

For Budget Titles 19, 21 and 22, the commitments indicated for year N in the above table are relating to the level 2 (individual) commitments made by the Agency on the basis of level 1 (global) commitments made by the Commission in year N and N‐1

562

ANNEX 3: Draft annual accounts and financial reports


Annex 3 Financial Reports - DG EACEA - Financial Year 2013


Table 2 : Payments


Table 11 : Negotiated Procedures (excluding Building Contracts)

Table 12 : Summary of Contracts (excluding Building Contracts)

Table 13 : Building Contracts

Table 14 : Contracts declared Secret



Table 7 : Income




563

Commitment appropriations

authorised

Commitments made

%

1 2 3=2/1

15 15 02 Lifelong learning, including multilingualism 254,95 250,31 98,18 %

15 04Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe

184,94 182,55 98,71 %

15 05Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the f ield of youth and sports

25,76 24,85 96,48 %

465,65 457,71 98,29%

16 16 05 Fostering European citizenship 26,50 26,41 99,66 %

26,50 26,41 99,66%

19 19 05Relations and cooperation w ith industrialised third countries

7,48 7,40 98,89 %

19 08European Neighbourhood Policy and relations w ith Russia

154,70 154,18 99,67 %

19 09 Relations w ith Latin America 5,82 5,59 96,02 %

19 10Relations w ith Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

0,13 0,00 0,00 %

168,13 167,17 99,43%

21 21 06Geographical cooperation w ith African, Caribbean and Pacif ic (ACP) States

0,00 0,00

0,00 0,00

22 22 02 Enlargement process and strategy 35,30 34,70 98,30 %

35,30 34,70 98,30%

695,59 686,00 98,62 %

Title 19 External relations

TABLE 1: OUTTURN ON COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in Mio €)

Title 15 Education and culture

Total Title 15

Title 16 Communication

Total Title 16

Total Title 19

Title 21 Development and relations w ith African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

Total Title 21

Title 22 Enlargement

Total Title 22

Total DG EACEA * Commitment appropriations authorised include, in addition to the budget voted by the legislative authority, appropriations carried over from the previous exercise, budget amendments as well as miscellaneous commitment appropriations for the period (e.g. internal and external assigned revenue).

564

P ayment appro priat io ns autho rised

*

P ayments made

%

1 2 3=2/ 1

15 15 02 Lifelong learning, including multilingualism 233,95 232,27 99,28 %

15 04 Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe 180,11 172,32 95,67 %

15 05Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the f ield of youth and sports

25,03 24,41 97,54 %

439,08 429,00 97,70%

16 16 05 Fostering European citizenship 26,17 25,89 98,93 %

26,17 25,89 98,93%

19 19 05 Relations and cooperation w ith industrialised third countries 4,10 4,04 98,53 %

19 08 European Neighbourhood Policy and relations w ith Russia 99,70 99,57 99,87 %

19 09 Relations w ith Latin America 18,82 18,31 97,25 %

19 10Relations w ith Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

48,09 47,70 99,18 %

170,72 169,62 99,35%

21 21 06Geographical cooperation w ith African, Caribbean and Pacif ic (ACP) States

4,34 4,34 100,00 %

4,34 4,34 100,00%

22 22 02 Enlargement process and strategy 38,42 38,31 99,72 %

38,42 38,31 99,72%

678,73 667,16 98,30 %

Title 16 Communication

TABLE 2: OUTTURN ON PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in Mio €)

C hapter

Title 15 Education and culture

Total Title 15

Total Title 22

Total DG EACEA

Total Title 16

Title 19 External relations

Total Title 19

Title 21 Development and relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

Total Title 21

Title 22 Enlargement


565

Commitments to be settled from

Total of commitments to be set t led at end

Total of commitments to be set t led at end

Commitments 2013

Payments 2013 RAL 2013 % to be settled financial years previous to 2013

of f inancial year 2013(incl correct ions)

of f inancial year 2012(incl.

correct ions)

1 2 3=1-2 4=1-2/1 5 6=3+5 7

15 15 02 250,31 146,53 103,78 41,46 % 136,58 240,36 238,16

15 04 182,55 97,21 85,34 46,75 % 80,69 166,03 162,37

15 05 24,85 15,67 9,18 36,94 % 5,33 14,51 19,53

457,71 259,41 198,30 43,32% 222,60 420,90 420,05

16 16 05 26,41 14,56 11,86 44,89 % 9,15 21,01 23,37

26,41 14,56 11,86 44,89% 9,15 21,01 23,37

19 19 05 7,40 0,00 7,40 100,00 % 13,59 20,99 19,38

19 08 154,18 46,40 107,78 69,90 % 144,38 252,16 196,44

19 09 5,59 0,00 5,59 100,00 % 29,70 35,29 48,09

19 10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 % 88,49 88,49 138,16

167,17 46,40 120,77 72,24% 276,17 396,94 402,07

21 21 06 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 % 10,59 10,59 14,93

0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00% 10,59 10,59 14,93

22 22 02 34,70 4,28 30,42 87,66 % 43,20 73,62 77,67

34,70 4,28 30,42 87,66% 43,20 73,62 77,67

686,00 324,65 361,34 52,67 % 561,71 923,05 938,09

Lifelong learning, including multilingualism

TABLE 3 : BREAKDOWN OF COMMITMENTS TO BE SETTLED AT 31/12/2013 (in Mio €)

2013 Commitments to be settled

Chapter

Title 15 : Education and culture

Total Title 19

Developing cultural and audiovisual cooperation in Europe

Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports

Total Title 15

Title 16 : Communication

Fostering European citizenship

Total Title 16

Title 19 : External relations

Relations and cooperation w ith industrialised third countries

European Neighbourhood Policy and relations w ith Russia

Relations w ith Latin America

Relations w ith Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen)

Total DG EACEA

Title 21 : Development and relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

Geographical cooperation w ith African, Caribbean and Pacif ic (ACP) States

Total Title 21

Title 22 : Enlargement

Enlargement process and strategy

Total Title 22

566

2013 2012

82.628.305,97 93.628.444,81

82.628.305,97 93.628.444,81

343.361.507,10 331.968.811,72

335.212.043,38 317.795.628,23

8.391.748,37 14.320.908,56

-242.284,65 -147.725,07

425.989.813,07 425.597.256,53

-101.573.032,35 -102.473.434,29

-101.573.032,35 -102.473.434,29

-101.573.032,35 -102.473.434,29

324.416.780,72 323.123.822,24

67.560,00

-324.484.340,72

0,00

LIABILITIES

TABLE 4 : BALANCE SHEET

BALANCE SHEET

A.I. NON CURRENT ASSETS

A.I.5. LT Pre-Financing

A.II. CURRENT ASSETS

A.II.2. Short-term Pre-Financing

A.II.3.2. Current Receivables and Recove

A.II.5. Cash and Cash Equivalents

ASSETS

P.III. CURRENT LIABILITIES

P.III.4. Accounts Payable

NET ASSETS (ASSETS less LIABILITIES)

TOTAL 0,00

P.I.2. Accumulated Surplus / Deficit 0,00

Non-allocated central (surplus)/deficit* -323.123.822,24



567


II.1 SURPLUS/ DEF. FROM OPERATING ACTIVT 650.643.778,80 565.868.438,84

II.1.1. OPERATING REVENUES -1.503.529,03 -1.851.260,80

II.1.1.2. Other operating revenue -1.503.529,03 -1.851.260,80

II.1.2. OPERATING EXPENSES 652.147.307,83 567.719.699,64

II.1.2.2. Operating Expenses 652.147.307,83 567.719.699,64

II.2. SURPLUS/DEF. NON OPERATING ACTIVIT -469.921,93 -517.062,33

II.2.1. FINANCIAL OPERATIONS -469.921,93 -517.062,33

II.2.1.1. Financial revenue -490.727,90 -531.677,29

II.2.1.2. Financial expenses 20.805,97 14.614,96

ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT 650.173.856,87 565.351.376,51

TABLE 5 : ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT



568

PercentageAverage Payment

Times (Days)


Percentage

99,1% 9,4 34 0,9%

94,1% 13,8 114 5,9%

100,0% 15,0

99,5% 19,3 3 0,5%

91,2% 44,7 242 8,8%

100,0% 64,1

95,7% 393 4,3%

21,2


Times (Days)


Percentage

92,4% 9,0 316 7,6%

93,2% 11,4 114 6,8%

80,7% 39,8 531 19,3%

80,8% 56,6 5 19,2%

88,7% 966 11,3%

18,6

% of Total Number



% of Total Amount

21,1% 9.173 104.561.849,12 15,7%

Maximum Payment

Time (Days)


Nbr of Payments

within Time Limit

Average Payment Times

(Days)

30 3871 3837 45,9

TABLE 6: AVERAGE PAYMENT TIMES FOR 2013 - DG EACEA

Legal Times

60 591 588 73,7

90 2750 2508 112,9

45 1934 1820 70,1

50 1 1


9173 8780


24,3 94,4

105 26 26

20 4.134 3.818 37,3

30 1.673 1.559 57,2

Target Times

Target Payment

Time (Days)


Nbr of Payments

within Target Time

Average Payment Times

(Days)


8.580 7.614

75 2.747 2.216 96,6

90 26 21 95,8

Average Report

Approval Suspension

Days

Average Payment

Suspension Days

Number of Suspended Payments

Total Paid Amount

9 30 1.932 664.682.930,60


24,7 72,5

Suspensions

EACEA 65010100 Interest on late payment of charges New FR 19 246,08

20 805,97


DG GL Account Description Amount (Eur)

EACEA 65010000 Interest expense on late payment of charges 1 559,89

570

Outstanding

Chapter Current year RO Carried over RO Total Current Year RO Carried over RO Total balance

1 2 3=1+2 4 5 6=4+5 7=3-6

52REVENUE FROM INVESTMENTS OR LOANS GRANTED, BANK AND OTHER INTEREST

480.289,38 72.081,58 552.370,96 463.704,43 59.115,15 522.819,58 29.551,38

60 CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNION PROGRAMMES 8.014,14 40.700,74 48.714,88 -2.222,03 32.319,99 30.097,96 18.616,92

61 REPAYMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE -963.725,23 6.451.715,29 5.487.990,06 -1.625.754,53 2.355.688,31 729.933,78 4.758.056,28

66 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS AND REFUNDS 12.516.375,58 8.399.166,24 20.915.541,82 11.031.673,40 5.744.301,85 16.775.975,25 4.139.566,57

12.040.953,87 14.963.663,85 27.004.617,72 9.867.401,27 8.191.425,30 18.058.826,57 8.945.791,15


Revenue and income recognized Revenue and income cashed from

Total DG EACEA

571

INCOME BUDGET RECOVERY ORDERS

ISSUED IN 2013

Year of Origin (commitment)

Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount

2004 4 63.545,38 4 63.545,38 4 63.545,38 100,00% 100,00%

2005 4 345.190,02 4 345.190,02 5 345.243,28 80,00% 99,98%

2006 18 504.843,95 18 504.843,95 19 510.136,17 94,74% 98,96%

2007 1 35.361,55 37 744.270,87 1 24.900,67 39 804.533,09 43 999.407,91 90,70% 80,50%

2008 6 22.913,10 60 4.173.238,12 66 4.196.151,22 83 5.362.987,76 79,52% 78,24%

2009 11 98.729,77 51 860.131,54 4 74.048,00 66 1.032.909,31 79 1.698.294,76 83,54% 60,82%

2010 8 84.889,04 52 822.036,67 60 906.925,71 170 2.826.060,23 35,29% 32,09%

2011 13 318.501,77 101 1.032.161,01 114 1.350.662,78 150 2.054.684,93 76,00% 65,74%

2012 18 84.051,64 117 979.350,66 135 1.063.402,30 147 1.130.677,40 91,84% 94,05%

2013 3 18.600,00 3 18.600,00 3 18.600,00 100,00% 100,00%

Sub-Total 57 644.446,87 447 9.543.368,22 5 98.948,67 509 10.286.763,76 703 15.009.637,82 72,40% 68,53%

EXPENSES BUDGET


INCOME LINES IN INVOICESNON ELIGIBLE IN COST CLAIMS

291 1.610.658,56 1.255 11.065.524,41 1.546 12.676.182,97 1.559 12.919.040,44 99,17% 98,12%

CREDIT NOTES

Sub-Total 291 1.610.658,56 1.255 11.065.524,41 1.546 12.676.182,97 1.559 12.919.040,44 99,17% 98,12%

GRAND TOTAL 348 2.255.105,43 1.702 20.608.892,63 5 98.948,67 2.055 22.962.946,73 2.262 27.928.678,26 90,85% 45,39%

% Qualified/Total RC


Error Irregularity OLAF Notified TOTAL Qualified TOTAL RC(incl. non-qualified) % Qualified/Total RC

Error Irregularity OLAF Notified TOTAL Qualified TOTAL RC(incl. non-qualified)

572


2001 5

2002 12

2003 28

2004 18

2005 4

2006 4

2007 13

2008 28

2009 28

2010 27

2011 28

2012 117

2013

312

TABLE 9: AGEING BALANCE OF RECOVERY ORDERS AT 31/12/2013 FOR EACEA

3 -40,00 % 63.307,42 24.083,32 -61,96 %


EvolutionOpen Amount

(Eur) at 01/01/2013

Open Amount (Eur) at 31/12/2013

Evolution

21 -25,00 % 617.838,00 582.544,66 -5,71 %

8 -33,33 % 322.193,02 205.512,50 -36,21 %

4 0,00 % 89.934,03 89.934,03 0,00 %

12 -33,33 % 497.451,00 298.060,50 -40,08 %

8 -38,46 % 457.130,20 241.289,74 -47,22 %

4 0,00 % 457.398,36 457.398,36 0,00 %

27 -3,57 % 662.044,88 644.818,37 -2,60 %

25 -10,71 % 805.155,08 763.489,98 -5,17 %

19 -32,14 % 902.070,39 742.733,47 -17,66 %

22 -18,52 % 2.137.808,72 1.865.754,53 -12,73 %

137 2.173.552,60

43 -63,25 % 7.951.332,75 856.619,09 -89,23 %

333 6,73 % 14.963.663,85 8.945.791,15 -40,22 %

Waiver Central Key

Linked RO Central Key

Comments

1 3233130033 3241209164

2 3233130067 3241208916

3 3233130090 3241209359

4 3233130193 3240906313

TABLE 10 : RECOVERY ORDER WAIVERS IN 2013 >= EUR 100.000

RO Accepted Amount (Eur)

LE Account GroupCommission

Decision

-125.000,00 Private CompaniesC(2013) 640 of 13/02/2013

-364.073,00 Private CompaniesPE/2013/1201 of 7/03/2013

-250.000,00 Private CompaniesPE/2013/2614 of 13/06/2013

-147.665,54 Private CompaniesDécision Collège 27/9/2013

Total DG -886.738,54

Number of RO waivers 4

573

Negotiated Procedure Legal base

Number of Procedures Amount (€)

(FR2012) Art. 135(1)(a) RAP 1 15.000.000,00

Total 1 15.000.000,00

TABLE 11 : CENSUS OF NEGOTIATED PROCEDURES - DG EACEA - 2013

Procurement > EUR 60,000


(FR2012) Open procedure (Art. 127.2 RAP) 2 23.700.000,00

1 15.000.000,00

TOTAL 3 38.700.000,00


Y

TOTAL

TABLE 12 : SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES OF DG EACEA EXCLUDING BUILDING CONTRACTS

Internal Procedures > € 60,000

(FR2012) Exceptional negotiated procedure after publication of a contract notice (Art. 135(1)(a) RAP)

External Procedures > € 20,000

This Annex refers to the operational budget of the Commission managed by the Agency. The same Annex has also been prepared for the administrative budget. The figures refer to the number of procurement contracts awarded in 2013, taking into account the value of the award decisions and not the amount of the yearly contracts.

574

Total number of contracts :

Total amount :

Legal baseContrac

t Number

No data to be reported

TABLE 13 : BUILDING CONTRACTS

Contractor Name Description Amount (€)

Total Number of Contracts :

Total amount :

Legal baseContract Number

Contractor NameType of contract

Description Amount (€)

No data to be reported

TABLE 14 : CONTRACTS DECLARED SECRET

575


Annex 3 Financial Reports - EACEA;EACEA - Financial Year 2013

Administrative Budget


Table 2 : Payments




Table 7 : Income




576

Commitment appropriations

authorised *

Commitments made

%

1 2 3=2/1

A-11 Salaires 29,75 28,77 96,71 %

A-13 Frais de missions 0,70 0,65 92,86 %

A-14 Socio, infrastructure, formation 0,40 0,40 99,75 %

A-16 Service Social 0,53 0,53 100,00 %

A-17 Réceptions, Événements 0,01

31,39 30,35 96,70%

A-20 Loc. immeuble et frais 5,81 5,80 99,96 %

A-21 Traitement des données 4,70 4,69 99,79 %

A-22 Biens, meubles et frais accessoires 0,20 0,19 96,45 %

A-23 Dépenses de fonctionnement administratifs courants 0,18 0,17 98,53 %

A-24 Télécommunication & Affranchissement 0,85 0,84 99,99 %

A-26 Frais Administratifs liés activités opération. 8,16 7,76 95,14 %

19,89 19,47 97,89%

51,27 49,82 97,16 %

Total Title A-2

TOTAL EACEA

TABLE 1: OUTTURN ON COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in Mio €)

Chapter

Title A-1 FRAIS DE PERSONNEL

Total Title A-1

Title A-2 FRAIS DE FONCTIONNEMENT

* Commitment appropriations authorised include, in addition to the budget voted by the legislative authority, appropriations carried over from the previous exercise, budget amendments as well as miscellaneous commitment appropriations for the period (e.g. internal and external assigned revenue).

577

Payment appropriations

authorised *

Payments made

%

1 2 3=2/1

A-11 Salaires 30,00 28,66 95,53 %

A-13 Frais de missions 0,75 0,61 81,37 %

A-14 Socio, infrastructure, formation 0,54 0,33 59,83 %

A-16 Service Social 0,98 0,96 97,70 %

A-17 Réceptions, Événements 0,01

32,29 30,56 94,65%

A-20 Loc. immeuble et frais 6,47 5,61 86,60 %

A-21 Traitement des données 6,20 4,49 72,44 %

A-22 Biens, meubles et frais accessoires 0,30 0,23 76,12 %

A-23 Dépenses de fonctionnement administratifs courants 0,25 0,16 66,72 %

A-24 Télécommunication & Affranchissement 0,86 0,83 97,29 %

A-26 Frais Administratifs liés activités opération. 11,36 8,46 74,49 %

25,44 19,79 77,78%

57,73 50,35 87,21 %

Total A-2

TOTAL EACEA

TABLE 2: OUTTURN ON PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS IN 2013 (in Mio €)

Chapter


Total A-1



578

Commitments 2013

Payments 2013

RAL 2013% to be settled

1 2 3=1-2 4=1-2//1

A-11 28,77 -28,45 0,32 1,12 %

A-13 0,65 -0,57 0,08 11,85 %

A-14 0,40 -0,19 0,21 52,49 %

A-16 0,53 -0,53 0,00 0,68 %

A-17

30,35 -29,74 0,61 2,02%

A-20 5,80 -4,96 0,84 14,46 %

A-21 4,69 -3,01 1,68 35,89 %

A-22 0,19 -0,13 0,06 32,23 %

A-23 0,17 -0,12 0,06 31,80 %

A-24 0,84 -0,82 0,02 2,37 %

A-26 7,76 -5,64 2,12 27,31 %

19,47 -14,69 4,78 24,56%

49,82 -44,43 5,39 10,82 %

Total A-1

TABLE 3 : BREAKDOWN OF COMMITMENTS TO BE SETTLED AT 31/12/2013 (in Mio €)

2013 Commitments to be settled

Chapter


Salaires

Frais de missions

Socio, infrastructure, formation

Service Social

Réceptions, Événements

Frais Administratifs liés activités opération.

Total A-2

TOTAL EACEA


Loc. immeuble et frais

Traitement des données

Biens, meubles et frais accessoires

Dépenses de fonctionnement administratifs courants

Télécommunication & Affranchissement

579

2013 2012

1.328.904 1.086.153

A S S E 2 2 866.184 505.029

462.720 581.124

9.061.277 8.705.208

0 30.348

2.200.987 1.942.743

6.860.291 6.732.116

A S S E T S 10.390.181 9.791.361

-6.315.664 -5.045.056

L IA B IL 1 1 -895.918 -845.770

-5.419.746 -4.199.286

L IA B IL IT IE S -6.315.664 -5.045.056

4.074.517 4.746.305

L IA B IL -4.746.305 -4.865.517

# M U L T 671.787 119.212

0,00 0,00

A .I. N O A.I.1. Intangible Assets

TABLE 4 : BALANCE SHEET EACEA;EACEA

BALANCE SHEET

A.I. NON CURRENT ASSETS

A.I.2. Property, plant and equipment

A.II. CURRENT ASSETS

A .II. C U A.II.2. Short-term Pre-Financing

A.II.3.2. Current Receivables and Recove

A.II.5. Cash and Cash Equivalents

ASSETS

P.III. CURRENT LIABILITIES

P .III. C U P.III.2. Short-term provisions

P.III.4. Accounts Payable

LIABILITIES

NET ASSETS (ASSETS less LIABILITIES)

P .I. N E T A S P.I.2. Accumulated Surplus / Deficit

# M U L T IV A Non-allocated central (surplus)/deficit*

TOTAL

* This figure is a balancing amount presented here so as to reflect the fact that the accumulated result of the Commission is not attributed to each DG. It should be noted that the balance sheet and economic outturn account presented in Annex 3 to this Annual Activity Report, represent only the (contingent) assets, (contingent) liabilities, expenses and revenues that are under the control of this Directorate General. Significant amounts such as own resource revenues and cash held in Commission bank accounts are not included in this Directorate General's accounts since they are managed centrally by DG Budget, on whose balance sheet and economic outturn account they appear. Furthermore, since the accumulated result of the Commission is not split among the various Directorates General, it can be seen that the balance sheet presented here is not in equilibrium. Additionally, the figures included in tables 4 & 5 are provisional since they are, at this date, still subject to audit by the Court of Auditors. It is thus possible that amounts included in these tables may have to be adjusted following this audit.

580


II.1 SURPLUS/ DEF. FROM OPERATING ACTIVT 671.787 119.212

II.1.1. OPERATING REVENUES -49.284.960 -48.882.713

II.1.1.2. Other operating revenue -49.284.960 -48.882.713

II.1.2. OPERATING EXPENSES 49.956.747 49.001.924

II.1.2.1. Administrative Expenses 49.955.339 48.998.674

II.1.2.2. Operating Expenses 1.408 3.251

II.2. SURPLUS/DEF. NON OPERATING ACTIVIT 0 1

II.2.1. FINANCIAL OPERATIONS 0 1

II.2.1.2. Financial expenses 0 1

ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT 671.787 119.212

TABLE 5 : ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT EACEA;EACEA

581

Legal Times

Maximum Payment Time

(Days)

Nbr of Paymen

ts within


Times (Days)



Times (Days)

30 2.423 98,2% 12,7 44 1,8% 36,7

45 59 100,0% 14,7


2.482 98,3% 44 1,7%


12,8 36,7

Target Times

Target Payment Time

(Days)

Nbr of Paymen

ts within Target


Times (Days)



Times (Days)

20 1 100,0% 14,0

30 1.724 98,5% 12,7 26 1,5% 38,6


1.725 98,5% 26 1,5%


12,7 38,6

Suspensions

Average Report

Approval Suspension

Days

Number of

Suspended

Paymen

% of Total Number



% of Total Amount

Total Paid Amount

0 71, 2,8% 2.526 1.061.115,37 3,4% 30.919.553,76

TABLE 6 : PAYMENT TIMES EACEA

2.526


2.467

59


13,2


1

1.750

1.751

13,1

Average Payment

Suspension Days

10

Agency GL Account Description Amount (Eur)

582

Title DescriptionYear of Origin

Revenue and Income

recognized

Revenue and Income cashed

Outstanding Balance

10-1 Subvention: 2013 43.924.698,00 43.924.698,00 0,00

10-3 Subvention: 2013 5.825.000,00 5.825.000,00 0,00

10-4 Subvention: 2013 1.129.000,00 1.129.000,00 0,00

10-5 Subvention: 2013 394.000,00 394.000,00 0,00

23-0 Recette diverses 2012 20.734,68 20.734,68 0,00

23-0 Recette diverses 2013 274.777,66 274.777,66 0,00

51.568.210,34 51.568.210,34 0,00


TOTAL EACEA

583

INCOME BUDGETRECOVERY ORDERS ISSUED IN

2013Year of Origin (commitment)

Nbr RO Amount Nbr RO Amount Nbr Nbr RO Amount

Sub-Total

EXPENSES BUDGET


INCOME LINES IN INVOICES

NON ELIGIBLE IN COST CLAIMS

30 8.886,22 30 8.886,22 115 28.982,39 26,09% 30,66%

CREDIT NOTES 11 193.718,63

Sub-Total 30 8.886,22 30 8.886,22 126 222.701,02 23,81% 3,99%

GRAND TOTAL 30 8.886,22 30 8.886,22 126 222.701,02 23,81% 3,99%

TOTAL Qualified TOTAL RC(incl. non-qualified) % Qualified/Total RC

RO Amount


% Qualified/Total RCError Irregularity OLAF Notified TOTAL Qualified OTAL RC(incl. non-qualifie

584

Year of Origin


Totals

TABLE 9: AGEING BALANCE OF RECOVERY ORDERS AT 31/12/2013 FOR EACEA;EACEA


EvolutionOpen Amount

(Eur) at 01/01/2013

Open Amount (Eur) at

31/12/2013Evolution

Waiver Central Key

Linked RO Central Key

RO Accepted amount (Eur)

LE Account GroupCommission

DecisionComments

1,

TABLE 10 : RECOVERY ORDER WAIVERS IN 2013 >= EUR 100.000

Total EACEA;EACEA

Number of RO waivers

585

ANNEX 4: Materiality criteria

The materiality criteria are judged in both qualitative and quantitative terms. In qualitative terms, when assessing the significance of any weaknesses, the following factors are taken into account:

The nature and scope of the weakness;

The duration of the weakness;

The existence of compensatory measures (mitigating controls which reduce the impact of the weakness);

The existence of effective corrective actions to correct the weaknesses (action plans and financial corrections) which have had a measurable impact.

In quantitative terms, in order to make a judgement on the significance of a weakness, it is essential to quantify the potential impact in monetary terms or the amount considered at risk. As regards the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, the Agency uses the standard quantitative materiality threshold of 2% of the payment budget of the ABB activity.

However, the Commission's 'standard' breakdown per ABB activities at 4‐digit level being too broad (especially in the education area) and covering programmes/activities for which there are significant differences in the size and types of projects, the Agency assesses the materiality per programme managed by the Agency (AAB at 6‐digit level). It concerns the following programmes: Lifelong Learning (LLP), Erasmus Mundus, Culture, Youth, Citizenship, MEDIA and Tempus.

The Agency relies on the "best estimate" of the error rate because in view of the volumes and sizes of transactions (= grants) by programme managed by the Agency, it would not be cost‐effective to have a representative error rate from a fully statistically representative sample for each individual programme.

In 2012, the Agency has calculated for the first time multi‐annual, cumulative error rates in order to increase the representativeness of the figures and to be in line with the new guidance issued by DG BUDG in November 2011. While for the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2012 the calculation covered 2 consecutive years, the Agency calculates the error rates over a 3‐year period for reporting in the AAR 2013.

In determining the need to make a potential reservation, the Agency follows the so‐called "3+1 steps" approach; i.e. the four stages of analysis needed to come to a sound conclusion on whether to qualify the AOD's declaration with a reservation and, if so, to estimate its impact in monetary terms:

Step 1: calculating the multi‐annual representative detected error rate in a random39 sample of transactions (i.e. value of a closed grant project) and taking account of any corrections made for the calculation of the cumulative residual error rate in the population over the reference years;

Step 2: estimating the actual exposure as 'amount at risk' to the value of the projects closed during the reporting year, based on those error rates calculated for

39 Random selection is done by means of Monetary Unit Sampling (MUS).

586

a population of projects mostly closed through final payment or recovery order;

Step 3: assessing the materiality, by relating the 'amount at risk' for the activity considered to the payments made during the reporting year of the relevant programme managed by the Agency, for determining whether a reservation would be due;

Step 4: if a reservation is entered, then assessing its relative impact on the AOD's overall assurance and declaration.

1. A multi‐annual, cumulative 'detected' and 'residual' error rate is calculated for each of the programmes managed by the Agency over the reference years.

In order to check the legality and regularity and sound financial management for EACEA's underlying transactions, EACEA requests an external audit firm to conduct ex‐post controls (i.e. financial audits on‐the‐spot) on a 'random' selection of closed projects40. The project can be closed by either final payment and/or recovery order and in some cases a zero payment to clear the pre‐financing.

The multi‐annual error rate is calculated as follows for all audits finalised in the reference years.

Detected error (amount) = A‐B

Detected error rate (%) = (A‐B)/A

Where

A = the Agency‐share of the eligible costs initially accepted after ex‐ante controls, on the basis of which the final payment or recovery order was calculated and paid (and on the basis of which the pre‐financing was cleared)

B = the Agency‐share of eligible costs finally accepted after ex‐post controls (audits)

To arrive at the 'residual' error rates, one takes into account the fact the 'detected' error rates remain for the non‐audited part but these error rates are cleaned from the audited part through 'corrections', meaning the issuance of recovery orders by the Agency. In terms of timing, the correction is deemed to have been effected at the time when the recovery order has been authorised or when the amount due has been recorded in the local accounting system for offsetting from a future payment to the same beneficiary.

2. The financial impact of the multi‐annual, cumulative errors in terms of 'amount at risk' as exposure to the budget during the reporting year is calculated.

Even in case the detected and residual error rates are considered to be representative for the population of closed projects under the programme, it is necessary to establish a link between these control results and the actual payments made during the reporting year. Indeed, the audits have examined costs declared in support of projects closed in previous years.

The amount at risk is the amount that may have been paid in excess to beneficiaries assuming that the projects closed during the reporting year are affected by the same error rates as found above.

The amount at risk is calculated by multiplying the 'residual' error rate by the value of the

40 Value of the closed projects includes pre‐financing, interim/final payment and any recovery orders.

587

closed projects41 for which a final payment and/or recovery order was done in the reporting year. As far as projects managed by the Agency are concerned, the "value of the closed project" paid in year x is equal to the amount of the final payment and/or recovery order done in year x plus the amount of the related pre‐financing(s) paid during the same or previous year(s) and 'cleared' when the final payment or recovery order is done.

3. The materiality of the amount at risk is calculated by programme.

The materiality of the amount at risk is calculated by comparing the amount at risk with the total amounts of payments made in the reporting year for each the programmes having a cumulative residual error rate above 2%.

4. The impact of a reservation on the overall declaration is calculated (if applicable) by assessing its 'weight' on the overall operational budget in terms of payments done managed by the Agency in the reporting year.

41 Although pre‐financing payments can be considered not yet "at risk" (e.g. because they are still accounts receivable 'owned' by the EACEA and any errors can still be rectified at the time of the final payment or recovery order), they become "value at risk" at the time of the transfer of ownership when the pre‐financing is cleared together with the related final payment or recovery order.

588

ANNEX 5: Internal Control Template(s) for budget implementation (ICTs) Grants – direct management Stage 1 – Programming, evaluation and selection of proposals A ‐ Preparation and publication of the calls for proposals42 Main control objectives: Ensuring that the Agency selects the proposals that contribute the most towards the achievement of the policy or programme objectives (effectiveness); compliance (legality & regularity); prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy).




benefits of controls Control indicators43

The calls for proposals do not adequately reflect the policy objectives, priorities, are incoherent and/or the essential eligibility, selection and award criteria are not adequate to ensure the evaluation of the proposals.

Coordination with mirror units in parent DGs

Hierarchical validation within the authorising department (i.e. at Director's level)

(1) Explicit allocation of responsibility to 2nd level ex‐ante verification in central financial unit (reflected in task assignment and/or function descriptions) (2) Centralised checklist‐based verification (3) Ex‐post monitoring

If risk materialises, all grants awarded during the year under this call would be irregular. Possible impact 100% of budget involved and significant reputational consequences.

Coverage / Frequency: 100%

Depth: Checklist includes a list of the requirements of the regulatory provisions identified.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the preparation and validation of the calls. Cost of contracted services, if any.

Benefits: The (average annual) total budgetary amount of the calls with significant errors detected and corrected.

Effectiveness: Number of control failures; budget amount of the calls concerned. Success ratios; % of number/value proposals received over number expected/budget available.

Efficiency: Average cost (*) of preparation, adoption and publishing a call for proposals, compared with benchmarks and evolution over time.

42 The parent DGs adopts and publishes the Annual Work Programme.

43 Information on these indicators (*) is not available for the whole of the reporting year; the Agency will check feasibility and added value and then decide to report (or not) in AAR 2014.

589

B ‐ Selecting and awarding: Evaluation, ranking and selection of proposals Main control objectives: Ensuring that the most promising projects for meeting the policy objectives are among (a good balance of) the proposals selected (effectiveness); compliance (legality & regularity); prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy).




benefits of controls Control indicators

The evaluation, ranking and selection of proposals is not carried out in accordance with the established procedures, the policy objectives, priorities and/or the essential eligibility, or with the selection and award criteria defined in the annual work programme and subsequent calls for proposals.

Assignment of staff (e.g. project officers) and selection and appointment of expert evaluators (if foreseen as deviation from FR)

100% vetting for technical expertise and independence of experts (e.g. conflicts of interests, nationality bias, ex‐employer bias, collusion, rotation)

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the evaluation and selection of proposals. Cost of the appointment of experts and of the logistics of the evaluation.

Benefits: Compare selected list with a random allocation of the available budget. Benefit equals to % of the value of deserving projects otherwise not selected plus % of the value of non‐deserving projects that would have been selected (=amount redirected to better projects).

Effectiveness: % of proposals (successfully) challenged. No litigation cases. Number of candidate expert evaluators barred.(*) Amount of budget of calls concerned.

Efficiency Indicators: total (average) annual cost of expert evaluation. Average cost per call and/or per (selected) proposal.(*) % cost over annual amount disbursed in grants. Time‐to‐publication of selection results.

Assessment by staff (e.g. project officers) and by independent experts (contractors)

100% of proposals are evaluated. Depth may be determined by screening of outline proposals (two‐step evaluation).

Review (e.g. by a evaluation committee) and hierarchical validation by the AO at unit level of ranked list of proposals

In addition: publication.

Coverage: 100% of ranked list of proposals. Supervision of work of evaluators.

Depth depends of risk factors: e.g. conflicts of interests, nationality bias, ex‐employer bias, collusion, rotation)

Internal/external legal remedies 100% of contested decisions are analysed

590

Stage 2 ‐ Contracting: Transformation of selected proposals into legally binding grant agreements

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the actions and funds allocation is optimal (best value for public money; effectiveness, economy, efficiency); compliance (legality & regularity); prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy).





The description of the action in the grant agreement includes tasks which do not contribute to the achievement of the programme objectives and/or that the budget foreseen overestimates the costs necessary to carry out the action.

The beneficiary lacks operational and/or financial capacity to carry out the actions.

Procedures do not comply with regulatory framework.

Validation of beneficiaries (operational and financial viability).

Signature of the grant agreement by the AO at unit level.

In‐depth financial verification and taking appropriate measures for high risk beneficiaries.

100% of the selected proposals and beneficiaries are scrutinised.

Coverage: 100% of draft grant agreements.

Depth may be determined after considering the type or nature of the beneficiary and/or of the modalities and/or the total value of the grant.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the contracting process.

Benefits: Difference between the budget value of the selected proposals and that of the corresponding grant agreements.

Effectiveness: Amount of proposed costs rejected.

Efficiency Indicators: Value of grant agreements completed over budget requested in the corresponding proposals (%). Time‐to‐grant.

591

Stage 3 ‐ Monitoring the execution. This stage covers the monitoring the operational, financial and reporting aspects related to the project and grant agreement

Main control objectives: ensuring that the operational results (deliverables) from the projects are of good value and meet the objectives and conditions (effectiveness & efficiency); ensuring that the related financial operations comply with regulatory and contractual provisions (legality & regularity); prevention of fraud (anti‐fraud strategy); ensuring appropriate accounting of the operations (reliability of reporting, safeguarding of assets and information).





The actions foreseen are not, totally or partially, carried out in accordance with the technical description and requirements foreseen in the grant agreement and/or the amounts paid exceed that due in accordance with the applicable contractual and regulatory provisions.

Operational and financial checks in accordance with the financial circuits.

Operation authorisation by the AO at unit level.

For riskier operations, ex‐ante in‐depth and/or on‐site verification.

100% of the projects are controlled, including only value‐adding checks.

Riskier operations subject to in‐depth and/or on‐site controls.

The depth depends on risk criteria.

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the actual management of running projects.

Benefits: budget value of the costs claimed by the beneficiary, but rejected by the project officers. Budget value of the part of the grant not paid out as pre‐financing for projects that have been stopped by the Commission. Budget value of penalties and liquidated damages.

Effectiveness: Number of control failures; budget amount of the errors concerned. Number of projects with cost claim errors; budget amount of the cost items rejected. Number of penalties damages; amount of the penalties damages. Success ratios; % of value of cost claims items adjusted over cost claims value.

Efficiency Indicators: Cost/benefit ratio Average cost per open project. % cost over annual amount disbursed.(*) Time‐to‐payment.

For high risk operations, reinforced monitoring.

Recommended: consider an ex‐ante verification on‐the‐spot – e.g. monitoring visit.

Earmark projects for risk‐based ex‐post audit.

High risk operations identified by risk criteria. Red flags: delayed interim deliverables, suspicion of plagiarism, requesting many amendments, EWS or anti‐fraud flagging, etc.

If needed: application of suspension/interruption of payments, penalties or liquidated damages. Referring grant to OLAF.

Depth: depends from results of ex‐ante controls.

592

Stage 4 ‐ Ex‐Post controls

A ‐ Reviews, audits and monitoring

Main control objectives: Measuring the effectiveness of ex‐ante controls by ex‐post controls; detect and correct any error or fraud remaining undetected after the implementation ex‐ante controls (legality & regularity; anti‐fraud strategy); addressing systemic weaknesses in the ex‐ante controls, based on the analysis of the findings (sound financial management); Ensuring appropriate accounting of the recoveries to be made (reliability of reporting, safeguarding of assets and information)





The ex‐ante controls (as such) fail to prevent, detect and correct erroneous payments or attempted fraud.

Ex‐post control strategy: Carry out audits of a representative sample of operations to determine effectiveness of ex‐ante controls (+ consider ex‐post findings for improving the ex‐ante controls).

Multi‐annual basis (programme’s lifecycle) and coordination with other AOs concerned (to detect systemic errors).

Validate audit results with beneficiary.

If needed: referring the beneficiary or grant to OLAF.

Representative sample: MUS random sample sufficiently representative to draw valid management conclusions

Risk‐based sample: determined in accordance with the selected risk criteria, aimed to maximise error correction (either higher amounts or expected error rate).

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the coordination and execution of the audit strategy. Cost of the appointment of an external audit firms for the outsourced audits.

Benefits: budget value of the errors detected by the auditors.

.

Effectiveness: Representative/best estimate error rate. Residual error rate below tolerable threshold. Amount of budget of errors concerned. Number of projects with errors; budget amount of the errors detected.

Efficiency: total (average) annual cost of audits compared with benefits (ratio).

Marginal cost‐benefit: Expected return of auditing one additional beneficiary ranked by expected error (total grant(s) value * expected error rate) over the average cost of one audit

593

B ‐ Implementing results from ex‐post audits/controls

Main control objectives: Ensuring that the (audit) results from the ex‐post controls lead to effective recoveries (legality & regularity; anti‐fraud strategy); Ensuring appropriate accounting of the recoveries made (reliability of reporting)





The errors, irregularities and cases of fraud detected are not addressed or not addressed timely

Systematic registration of audit results to be implemented.

Financial operational validation of recovery in accordance with financial circuits.

Authorisation by AO at unit level.

Coverage: 100% of final audit results with a financial impact.

Depth: consider ‘extending’ the findings of systemic errors into corrections of non‐audited projects by the same beneficiary

Costs: estimation of cost of staff involved in the implementation of the audit results.

Benefits: budget value of the errors, detected by ex‐post controls, which have actually been corrected (offset or recovered).

Loss: budget value of such ROs which are ‘waived’ or have to be cancelled.

Effectiveness:

Number/value/% of audit results pending implementation (*) Number/value/% of audit results failed implementation (*)

Efficiency Indicators: total (average) annual cost of implementing audit audits compared with benefits (ratio).

Time‐to‐recovery (*)

594

ANNEX 6: Implementation through national or international public‐sector bodies and bodies governed by private law with a public sector mission

Not applicable

595

ANNEX 7: AARs of Executive Agencies

Not applicable

596

ANNEX 8: Decentralised agencies

Not applicable

597

ANNEX 9: Performance information included in evaluations

During 2013 the action plan following the 2nd interim evaluation of the Agency has been largely implemented. Overall the approach has been to put actions in a larger context in order to gain coherence and efficiency.

Staff mobility has been addressed in the context of adjusting the Agency's structure

for the next generation of programmes. However, inter‐agency mobility has not been

specifically pursued, as recommended, as it is envisaged in the new staff regulations.

Where possible, call deadlines are spread over the year while respecting the needs of

each programme.

All actions relating to the work of experts have been subject to the remit of a

dedicated working group.

To increase levels of satisfaction among unsuccessful applicants, harmonised

templates to communicate selection results were put in place. In addition, further

work is envisaged to address the specific issue of feedback to applicants.

The eForms for the new programmes take into account, whenever possible, the

feedback provided by applicants.

Supervision has been discussed with parent DGs, but the concrete outcome has to be

seen in the larger context of the supervision strategies in place.

The adoption process for the Annual Work Programme is significantly advanced,

thanks to good collaboration with the parent DG.

Knowledge‐sharing with parent DGs has been discussed in the coordination meetings

and their information needs have been met.

598

ANNEX 10: Specific annexes related to "Management of Resources" (Part 2)

599

ANNEX 11: Specific annexes related to "Assessment of the effectiveness of the internal control systems" (Part 3)

600

ANNEX 7B: The EAMRs of the European Union Delegations and the detailed tables of KPI values by Delegation (in electronic version only)

EAMR

1 Afghanistan

2 African Union

3 Albania

4 Algeria

5 Angola

6 Argentina

7 Armenia

8 Azerbaijan

9 Bangladesh

10 Barbados

11 Belarus

12 Benin

13 Bolivia

14 Bosnia and Herzegovina

15 Botswana

16 Brazil

17 Burkina Faso

18 Burundi

19 Cambodia

20 Cameroon

21 Cape Verde

22 Central African Republic

23 Chad

24 Chile

25 China

26 Colombia

27 Congo (Brazzaville)

28 Congo (Democratic Republic of the)

29 Costa Rica

30 Cuba

31 Djibouti

32 Dominican Republic

33 Ecuador

34 Egypt

35 El Salvador

36 Eritrea

37 Ethiopia

38 Fiji

39 Gabon

40 Gambia

41 Georgia

601

42 Ghana

43 Guatemala

44 Guinea (Conakry)

45 Guinea‐Bissau

46 Guyana

47 Haiti

48 Honduras

49 India

50 Indonesia

51 Israel

52 Ivory Coast

53 Jamaica

54 Jordan

55 Kazakhstan

56 Kenya

57 Kosovo

58 Kyrgyzstan

59 Laos

60 Lebanon

61 Lesotho

62 Liberia

63 Libya

64 Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of)

65 Madagascar

66 Malawi

67 Malaysia

68 Mali

69 Mauritania

70 Mauritius

71 Mexico

72 Moldova

73 Montenegro

74 Morocco

75 Mozambique

76 Myanmar

77 Namibia

78 Nepal

79 Nicaragua

80 Niger

81 Nigeria

82 Pakistan

83 Panama

84 Papua New Guinea

85 Paraguay

86 Peru

87 Philippines

88 Russia

602

89 Rwanda

90 Senegal

91 Serbia

92 Sierra Leone

93 Solomon Islands

94 Somalia

95 South Africa

96 South Sudan

97 Sri Lanka

98 Sudan

99 Swaziland

100 Syria

101 Tajikistan

102 Tanzania

103 Thailand

104 Timor Leste

105 Togo

106 Trinidad and Tobago

107 Tunisia

108 Turkey

109 Uganda

110 Ukraine

111 Uruguay

112 Uzbekistan

113 Vanuatu

114 Venezuela

115 Vietnam

116 West Bank and Gaza Strip

117 Yemen

118 Zambia

119 Zimbabwe

603

ANNEX 8: Decentralised agencies (NA for DEVCO)

604

ANNEX 9: Performance information included in evaluations

Also a key message on the main findings/ recommendations of each evaluation should be given. This Annex will feed into the Evaluation report required by Article 318 TFEU.

1. 19.02 Final evaluation of the thematic programme "Cooperation with third countries in the area of Migration and Asylum” (Spending programme DCI).

2. 21.03 The evaluation cover the Thematic Programme NSA‐LA 2007‐2013 and cover support the preparation of the new Thematic Programme (Spending programme DCI).

3. 19.06 Mid Term Review of the Heroin Route Programme (Spending programme IfS).

4. 19.06 Mid Term Review of the Cocaine Route Programme (Spending programme IfS).

5. 19.06 Evaluation of the Expert Support Facility (ESF) Framework Contract (FWC) (Spending programme IfS).

6. 19.08 Mid‐Term evaluation of the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF) (Spending programme ENPI).

7. EDF: Evaluation of the EDF support through the Intra‐ACP Programme (Spending programme EDF).

8. EDF: Bizclim II final evaluation(Spending programme EDF).

9. EDF: Evaluation of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) and mid‐term assessment of the INTRA ACP GCCA (Spending programme EDF).

10. EDF: Evaluation of Support to farmers' Organisations and Policy Processes – pilot phase ((Spending programme EDF).

11. EDF: Global Index Insurance Facility (Spending programme EDF).

12. EDF: Mid‐term evaluation of the Programme STRENGHTENING FOOD SAFETY SYSTEMS THROUGH SPS MEASURES INACP COUNTRIES / EU‐ACP Development of Food Safety Systems Programme (EDES) (Spending programme EDF).

13. EDF: Mid‐term evaluation of the Programme PIP Qualité et conformité Fruits et légumes phase 2 (PIP2) (Spending programme EDF).

14. EDF: Final Evaluation of the Programme “ACP‐EU Natural Disaster Facility” (FWC 2012/309650) (Spending programme EDF).

15. EDF: Evaluation of the African Economic Outlook VI programme (Spending programme EDF).

16. No ABB: Thematic global evaluation of European Union's support to Integrated border management and the fight against organised crime.

605

17. 21.06: Joint Evaluation of Budget Support to Tanzania (Spending programmes DCI and EDF).

18. 19.08: Evaluation of the European Union’s support to two European Neighbourhood Policy Regions (East and South) (Spending programme ENPI).

19. No ABB: Evaluation of the European Union’s Trade‐related Assistance in Third Countries.

20. No ABB: Evaluation of the European Union's Support to Private Sector Development in Third Countries.

21. 21 06: Evaluation of Budget Support in South Africa (Spending programme DCI).

"Title of the Evaluation: Final Evaluation of the Thematic Programme "Cooperation With Third Countries in the area of Migration and

Asylum”

ABB activity: 19 02

Type of evaluation: Other (O): Impact assessment

Summary of performance related findings and recommendations:

The overall objective of this evaluation was to assess the achievements of the Thematic Programme “Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum (TPMA)”, taking into account its evolution since its inception in 2007. Overall Assessment The TPMA has proved to be a unique programme, open to a very wide range of actors, which has enabled the creation of important synergies and interactions, and the elaboration of multiple and diverse responses to the challenges that are constantly emerging in this complex field of migration and asylum. There is perhaps no clearer indicator of success than the interest generated by the programme in such a large number of stakeholders who are eagerly awaiting, as evidenced in the visits to target countries, for new opportunities and openings to put forward new project proposals or to consolidate acquired results through what they perceive as the most suitable (perhaps exclusive) channel through which they can comprehensively address migration and asylum issues Main conclusions 1. It can be positively assessed that the TPMA is implemented in relevance and

coherence with the external dimension of the EU policies on migration and asylum and complying with its legal basis (DCI Art 16) in all five dimensions of the migratory phenomenon. Improvements in some areas would however increase its efficiency.

2. Although the rate of participation of CSOs in the TPMA equals the IOs participation, the project beneficiaries remain largely the International Organisations, International CSOs and to a lesser extent EU MS Governments. The participation of partner country CSOs remains low and would benefit from an adjustment of the TPMA implementing modalities.

3. The participation of Partner Country Governments as active stakeholders can

606

be assessed as acceptable in the areas of irregular migration (border management and readmission) and to a lesser extent labour migration, but often too weak in other areas, resulting in low level of ownership and sustainability.

4. Most migratory movements take place at regional level and mostly for

economic reasons. While effective in capacity building, return and reintegration and protection, of migrant workers, the TPMA is not efficient in reaching regional organisations and doesn’t effectively complement geographical and other relevant donors' programmes in a South‐South migration context.

It can be positively assessed that overall the TPMA has been implemented following modalities which are appropriate to achieve EU cooperation objectives in the field of migration and asylum. However, improvements in the ways these modalities are structured and used would increase the effectiveness and impact of the programme.

Availability of the report on Europa:

http://ec.europa.eu/EuropeAid/what/migration‐asylum/documents/thematic_programme_final_evaluation_2013.pdf

Title of the Evaluation: Final evaluation of the Programme Non State Actors and Local Authorities

ABB activity: 21 03: The evaluation cover the Thematic Programme NSA‐LA 2007‐2013 and cover support the preparation of the new Thematic Programme.

Type of evaluation: Expenditure programme (E),


The final evaluation of the thematic programme NSA‐LA (2007‐2013) was carried out by EuropeAid B2 in 2013 with a view to assess the overall performance and impact of the interventions funded under the programme and to identify key lessons and recommendations from the programming, management and support delivered. Its main conclusions and recommendations by programme component are the following:

In partner countries, the programme has reached an increasing share of local CSOs, thus contributing to their empowerment and capacity building as development and governance actors (impact). The programme is also commended for its valuable contribution to the enabling environment in the countries covered, by widening and deepening the dialogue between CSO, partner governments and other stakeholders including local authorities (EU added value). The flexibility provided at country level has allowed for better responses to the local contexts and changing conditions, including shrinking space for CSOs.

Support to multi‐country projects and multi‐actor partnerships was gradually re‐oriented towards strategic strengthening of existing and representative NSA and LA networks at regional and global level. This approach has successfully contributed to the regional and continental structuring of these actors and has also enhanced their capacity to engage on international issues with the Commission and other development partners (impact).

In the EU Member States, the development education and awareness‐raising component has contributed to enhance dialogue at national level, with increasing attention for development issues, notably in the new Member

607

States. In addition, continued exchange of best practices under the programme has led to innovation and quality improvements (impact).

In terms of management, the evaluation recommends more structured and systematic monitoring and evaluation to allow for effective management of results, especially above the project level (efficiency).

Other recommendations include a more widespread and strategic use of support measures, less funding‐related and more focused on strategic capacity development of CSO and LA (effectiveness); reaching out to other types of actors (social partners in dialogue), more attention to the quality of partnerships, to the inclusion of disadvantaged and marginalised groups and to cross‐cutting issues such as gender mainstreaming.


Not yet available on Europa (pending final validation in February 2014).

Title of the Evaluation: Mid Term Review of the Heroin Route Programme

ABB activity: 19 06

Type of evaluation: Expenditure programme (E)


The Midterm Review (MTR) of the Heroin Programme was finalised in 2013 and included an assessment of the ongoing projects and recommendations for a future action under the Heroin Route Programme. Key findings included that the first phase of the Programme (2009‐2014) has a good design and vision to enable countries in the ECO region to ally through a regional law enforcement community to combat heroin trafficking and transnational organised crime as a whole. Results of the different projects were deemed complementary although interaction amongst the different projects/components should be improved. The lack of political commitment as well as of resources, coupled with the challenging security situation in some countries, particularly Afghanistan and Pakistan, caused considerable delays and constitute obstacles in achieving transregional law enforcement cooperation. The MTR also pointed out that a future action should have a longer time‐frame and that an expansion of the Programme to inter‐related sectors to achieve coherence with EU strategies should be considered, such as drug demand reduction activities. Other suggestions included the increase of support for the development of intelligence‐led investigations; the strengthening of mentoring actions in the field; and the enhancement of project focal points on the ground.


http://ec.europa.eu/EuropeAid/how/finance/ifs_en.htm

Title of the Evaluation: Mid Term Review of the Cocaine Route Programme

ABB activity: 19 06


608


The overall objective of the Mid Term Review was to review the overall performance so far of the Cocaine Route Programme. The specific objective was to provide the decision‐makers in the European Commission, other EU institutions and the wider public with sufficient information to:

Make an overall independent assessment about the past performance of the programme, paying particular attention to the implementation of the programme actions against its objectives;

Identify key lessons and propose practical recommendations for follow‐up actions.

The exercise was desk‐ and field based with missions carried out by the independent experts in some of the most relevant countries in the implementation of the Cocaine Route Programme. Main findings The strength of the design lies in the conversion of the theoretical concept of flows into a series of practical measures that are set to grow together over time. It comes with a vision of integrating West African and Latin American partners into an international law enforcement community to combat transnational organised crime. Results of the different projects are complementary, addressing both in and outflow of drugs, the investment of illicit profits and the organisation of trafficking operations. They carry the promise of yielding exponential benefits in participating countries over time. Weaknesses stem largely from discrepancies between the actual outcomes realised by individual projects and the intended programme objectives. In addition there is the continuing fragility of the knowledge base. Little is known about the scale, structure or impact of the West African transit route. The scarcity of evidence blunts the effectiveness of interventions and tempers the commitment of some partners in beneficiary countries. Added value of Instrument for Stability The creation of the IfS provides the EU with a facility for combating global security threats that cannot be addressed from different funding envelopes. Actions need to involve beneficiaries from across different regions to be eligible. Organised Crime involvement in drug trafficking is listed as a support priority in the 2012‐2013 Multiannual Indicative Programme. In its totality the CRP therefore meets all necessary criteria to qualify for IfS support by facilitating the cooperation of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and judicial authorities across West Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean in the fight against organised crime involved in cocaine trafficking. It is also understood that part of this endeavour involves the enhancing of national and regional capacity. Main recommendations

Strengthening the coordination mechanism

Exit strategies for projects with national and regional emphasis.

Coordinate technical cooperation in the field of precursor control to avoid duplication with other EU‐funded initiatives.

Accelerate the expansion of some of the projects to Latin America and the Caribbean.

Focus on developing trans‐regional information exchange mechanisms within

609

projects and in wider Programme context.

(viii) Strengthen links with justice sector projects should be identified to find ways of integrating modules on working with drug cases and addressing corruption.

(ix) Monitor the impact of the CRP and other drug control activities on governance and human rights.

(x) Use the access of fresh information on drug trafficking and organised crime to build the knowledge base.


http://ec.europa.eu/EuropeAid/how/finance/documents/crp_mtr_final_report_en.pdf

Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the Expert Support Facility (ESF) Framework Contract (FWC) (Instrument for Stability)

ABB activity: 19 06



The global objective of this evaluation was to independently assess the performance of the first three years of operations of the ESF FWC (2009‐2012). The specific objective of this evaluation, as specified in the Terms of Reference was:

to evaluate the functioning of the FWC, focusing on its practical modalities and identifying its strengths and weaknesses;

to provide the elements for a possible new ESF FWC and to help determine the need and extent of changes to the current Global Terms of References.

to provide input to the discussions on the implementation of the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF, 2014‐2020).

The FWC tool is intended to provide dedicated support to the IfS therefore its objectives are inseparable from those of the IfS and germane to the policy needs and priorities of EU MS, partner governments and beneficiaries. Conclusions

Prior to 2011 Priority 1 projects and Priority 2 projects were the responsibility of two different units and their templates for SToR were not identical;

There are constraints to FWC operations and the greatest are issues of availability of experts and eligibility of experts.

There is divided opinion whether experts from non‐governmental organisations, international organisations and non‐EU states, particularly beneficiary countries, should be eligible.

The resources of JRC could possibly provide an additional tool to expand the pool of expertise for implementation of activities of the FWC.

It is reasonable for public sector employees to anticipate some support from EU Delegations but the level of cooperation Delegations provide is not reliably consistent.

All members of the original EuropeAid team have departed and many of the current team have less than 12 months experience of the FWC, with the result there is minimal institutional memory.

Recommendations Overall it is recommended that EuropeAid continues to implement the FWC in the new Multiannual Financial Framework 2014‐2020 and takes steps to strengthen it

610

by adopting the following recommendations, which are guided by the need for: FWC documents of good design; successful recruitment of experts fulfilling criteria of eligibility and availability; adequate peripheral support to experts; sound management by EuropeAid and the FWC consortia. 1. EuropeAid is recommended to undertake an overall review of procedures with

specific reference to the FWC documents GToR, AF and SToR, and consider: GToR

amending the requirements on general professional experience of experts (ref. 5.2.3) by allowing some flexibility for Cat II experts by changing wording to “preferably 8 years of experience”; if possessing exceptional expertise consider allowing eligibility of experts from non‐EU states (no more than 50% of total experts in a FWC); experts from the private sector of EU MS; experts from non‐EU beneficiary/partner states;

revising Reporting requirements (ref. section 6.1) to ensure there is an annual exchange of views by consortia members and EuropeAid on FWC operations, preferably at a meeting (those unable to attend should be invited to send a report). Likewise annual meetings with ESF National Contact Points of MS;

including in the ESF Database all the experts proposed in offers (ref. 7.2 Offer);

publishing procedures for meetings to evaluate offers, which include inter alia the number of evaluators participating and the recording of minutes (ref. 7.3 Evaluation of offers);

continuing to keep records of lessons learnt and providing feedback to relevant consortia with the aim of contributing to higher standards (ref. 7.6 Lessons learnt);

AF (issues relevant to managing the FWC)

extending the thematic areas to include cyber security, cyber‐crime, falsified medicines, and counter‐radicalisation, adding Lots if necessary (ref. 3.2 Expected results and main activities);

identifying the roles of members of the Network of National Contact Points and the IfS Management Committee and convening meetings as necessary;

recognising that building the considerable potential among MS for mobilisation of expertise requires awareness‐raising activities on a regular basis (ref. 3.3 Risk and assumptions);

recording minutes of meetings of the Steering Body (including names of members present), actions they have recommended and subsequently report progress of the implementation of recommendations (ref. 4.1 Method of implementation);

completing development of the database and website;

including names of MS representatives when recording minutes of the annual meeting to discuss operation of the FWC (ref. 4.4 Performance monitoring);

SToR

ensuring good design by first standardising the template for SToR of Priority 1 and Priority 2 projects thus consistently including e.g. visibility and crosscutting issues.

2. In order to increase the numbers of experts with an interest in participating in

the FWC projects and thereby augmenting the availability of experts, EuropeAid is recommended to improve communication and awareness with EU MS regarding IfS activities and specifically the valuable role of the FWC in identifying and preparing IfS long‐term projects. EuropeAid is recommended

611

also to consider the involvement of JRC ISPRA as an additional element for expanding the availability of experts, and call upon EEAS to make repeated calls for identification of MS experts in relevant working groups such as CODUN, CONOP, COTER, etc.

3. EuropeAid is recommended to improve communication with EU Delegations by keeping them well informed about planned FWC projects. Whereas there need not be any change of instruction to Framework Contractors about the role of Delegations, better communication should encourage their willing involvement and cooperation in FWC/IfS activities and support for MS experts.

4. As already mentioned under the AF procedures for review, EuropeAid should give priority to completing development of the database and website.


http://ec.europa.eu/EuropeAid/how/finance/ifs_en.htm

Title of the Evaluation: Mid‐Term evaluation of the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF)

ABB activity: 19 08: NIF under ENPI 2007‐2013

Type of evaluation: Choose from: Expenditure programme (E)


The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the progress of the programme against its original objectives and to produce recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The evaluation focussed on the analysis of the mechanism and its procedures since its inception until the end of 2011. The evaluation was carried out based on the following OECD/DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The evaluation process was guided by the Reference Group composed of the European Commission, EEAS, Financial Institutions’ and the Member States’ representatives. Relevance to the objectives The MTE states that NIF has proven to be an effective instrument within the European Neighbourhood Policy and highlights that NIF achieved its goal of leveraging significant financial resources through grants. The executive summary notes “a steady increase in number of projects and volumes of allocations” and “effective coordination amongst Finance Institutions”. The MTE report confirms that NIF projects are overall relevant to NIF strategic objectives. It recommends, however, an increased attention to be given to the aspects of the regional interconnectivity, as well as to the cross‐cutting objectives including the policy dialogue. NIF operations The evaluation notes a relatively balanced geographical and sectoral distribution of projects. It recommends, at the same time, establishing a system, which could allow for prioritisation of projects according to their relevance and expected impact.

612

In terms of project design, sound processes and good standards implemented by Financial Institutions were observed. The evaluators noted that social, environmental and climate change concerns were adequately addressed in the appraisal process. The recommendation in this regard points to enhancing the co‐ordination with the EU Delegations, which although steadily improving over the last two years, could be further improved. The same relates to the consultation of the civil society organisations and beneficiaries. The three tiered governance of the instruments has been judged as effective, although the evaluators identified that some of its aspects need strengthening, such as for example the resource allocation mechanisms, the monitoring and evaluation functions and transparency of the decision making process. One of the positive aspects underlined by the evaluators with regards to the NIF is that it has significantly contributed to the development of partnerships and increased co‐ordination between the financial institutions and the Commission, as well as amongst the financial institutions themselves. The evaluators recommend further developing the co‐ordination mechanisms at national and regional levels. Finally, the evaluation recommends introducing a results‐based monitoring system applied to all NIF projects, as well as strengthen the communication and the visibility aspects.


http://ec.europa.eu/EuropeAid/where/neighbourhood/regional‐cooperation/irc/documents/volume_one_nif_mid_term_evaluation_final_en.pdf

Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the EDF support through the Intra‐ACP Programme (study ref. 289535)

ABB activity: EDF ‐ Intra ACP (Activity XX 01y)

Type of evaluation: Other (O)‐ Final Evaluation 9th and 10th EDF


In the context of the end of the 10th EDF, in agreement with the ACP Secretariat, a Technical Evaluation of the intra‐ACP under the 9th and 10th EDF was undertaken to inform the programming of the 11th EDF, and take stock of best practices. The findings and recommendations resulting from this exercise have been incorporated as the process progressed feeding the preparatory documents for the 11th EDF intra‐ACP programming. Objectives of the evaluation The evaluation covers EuropeAid cooperation through the 9th and 10th EDF. Main conclusions 1. Intra‐ACP cooperation remains a key instrument for ACP states to turn their

common political statements into action. 2. Intra‐ACP cooperation is consistent with the ACP and EU development policy

frameworks and contributes to strengthen the ACP‐EU partnership. However, interventions still call for increased concentration of programmes.

3. Financial management of Intra‐ACP shows good performance in the annual accounts of the EDF as compared to regional and national cooperation.

4. As compared to regional and national cooperation the intra‐ACP cooperation

613

has had added value in the Health, Education and Culture sectors. The added value of supra‐regional dimension is less evident in the Water, Energy, and Trade and Private Sector development.

5. The rationalisation undertaken with the joint programming exercise of 10th EDF intra‐ACP cooperation has underlined the fact that the partnership between the ACP secretariat and the EU (DG EuropeAid and EEAS) functions well.

6. The Intra‐ACP Cooperation produced important outputs in the large number of programmes and sub‐programmes it finances. However the 10th EDF Intra‐ACP Cooperation Strategy did not clearly define its expected outcome and intermediate impact at a global level, nor did it define clear measurable indicators for performance assessment.

7. The visibility of the Intra‐ACP cooperation, as an instrument, remains low at global level. At programme level, activities financed under the Intra‐ACP cooperation showed satisfactory levels of visibility.

Main recommendations 1. Intra ACP Cooperation programmes should concentrate on a limited number of

sectors. The rationalisation undertaken with 10th EDF intra‐ACP cooperation should be furthered in the 11th EDF programming.

2. It is recommended that the expected overall (global) results for the Intra‐ACP Cooperation Programme are clearly defined by identifying appropriate indicators for measuring progress towards global results and objectives.

3. 3. It is recommended that EuropeAid and ACP Secretariat be given a mandate to participate actively in the governance structures of initiatives and funds receiving Intra‐ACP support to voice EU institutions’ and ACP common positions in global initiatives or multi‐donor trust‐funds.


N.A.

Title of the Evaluation: Bizclim II final evaluation

ABB activity: EDF ‐ Intra ACP (Activity XX 01)

Type of evaluation: Other (O).


BizClim’s relevance is very high. The programme was designed to be fully responsive to the policies and strategies of both the EU Commission and the ACP Secretariat, focusing on enhancement of the business environment, in particular with regards to regional integration. Assessing effectiveness had to take into account that BizClim was aimed at results that are difficult to quantify, such as greater empowerment, enabled public‐private dialogue, etc. The survey revealed that a significant majority of stakeholders and participants in BizClim events evidently appreciated the programme. The quality of studies was good overall. Impact of BizClim derives from greater awareness and motivation and facilitating the interaction of relevant stakeholders in ways which spur economic development. BizClim faced challenges to efficient operations. The PMU had to work intensively with beneficiaries to prepare operations, delaying their actual launch; though the prescribed EDF procedures were known to the PMU, it was time consuming to implement them. Sustainability of BizClim is strong, based on a high level of ownership of results at political and institutional levels, as well as good adaptation of proposed initiatives in response to the available management and professional capacities of organisations and their financial resources. Information supply, awareness raising, knowledge transfer and translation into

614

action of BizClim projects aim at coherence with ACP policies and strategies, producing outcomes that can be embedded into institutional structures. Visibility of BizClim as an EU‐ACP Programme has been high and was well managed. Overall, the evaluators assess BizClim as good, partly very good. The programme is relevant, to a high degree sustainable, and has attained substantial levels of effectiveness and impact.


N/A

Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) and mid‐term assessment of the INTRA ACP GCCA associated to

REQUEST N° 2013/ 331‐334 Global GCCA (study ref. FED/2013/336‐038)

ABB activity: EDF 10th ‐ Intra ACP (Activity XX 01)



a) Make an overall independent assessment about the past performance of the Intra ACP GCCA Programme;

b) Identify Intra ACP GCCA Programme added value, key lessons and to propose practical recommendations for follow‐up actions as feasible during the remaining life of the various programme components;

c) Identify priorities and provide recommendation for allocation of the remaining €1.0 million pertaining to the Intra ACP GCCA envelop;

d) Provide recommendation for the design of a potential second phase Intra ACP GCCA to be funded under resources from 11th EDF consistent with the European Commission new flagship initiative called GCCA +.


N/A.

Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of Support to farmers' Organisations and Policy Processes – pilot phase


Type of evaluation: Other (O) – Final Evaluation


The Support to Farmers’ Organisations in Africa Programme (SFOAP) pilot phase was a €6,210,500 capacity building programme supported by the European Commission (EC) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development of the United Nations (IFAD). It seeks to strengthen the capacity of small Farmers’ Organisations (FOs) in African countries, and of their regional and Pan‐African networks, to influence policies and support programmes affecting agriculture, rural development and food security. Main Findings and Conclusions

SFOAP has significantly contributed to strengthening RFOs and NFOs by building their institutional management capacities and their capacity to lobby and advocate.

Relevance of SFOAP is high. Its objectives correspond to genuine smallholder needs and are liable to contribute significantly toward poverty reduction and food security. Stakeholders and partners involved encompass the necessary

615

range of actors; FOs are representative of African smallholder farmers. The approach is flexible and adapts to the varying needs of its diverse beneficiaries. SFOAP is logical and coherent.

Considering the programme’s timeframe, its effectiveness has been satisfactory. SFOAP has contributed to FOs emerging as significant rural development actors and imposed themselves on sectoral institutions. Their governance, reputation, credibility and visibility have all been significantly improved. Similarly, their representativeness and capacity to interrelate with their members, to communicate and manage information has been strengthened.

FOs have developed a series of positions around key themes related to agricultural development and have formulated arguments in their defence. Combined with an increased networking capacity as well as their heightened reputation, this has enabled them to become almost unavoidable actors in agricultural policy identification processes.

Despite major achievements, results vary between regions and within networks. Organisational capacities are still limited for a significant proportion of NFOs. Planning and budgeting capacities vary widely. Not all FOs are in a position to conduct effective lobbying and advocacy.

SFOAP should continue to provide support to knowledge management, lobbying and advocacy where RFOs and their networks have the most added value.

SFOAP should strengthen FO networks by supporting more technical and organisational capacity building and the emergence of economic services at lower levels of the network.

Efficiency is considered acceptable considering the significant results obtained through a relatively limited budget for a continental programme. This does not however mean that a number of significant SFOAP weaknesses with regard to efficiency should be overlooked (in particular, its inability to disburse funds on time and the consequent delays in programme implementation). Synergies with other programmes were lacking.

There is clear evidence of potential impact on producers although its impact is presently centred on FOs.

Sustainability is still a challenge.

The promotion of women and youth participation and integration in the activities of FOs should be improved through the development of strategies mechanisms and tools and the implementation of activities specifically targeting them. A gender/age sensitive M&E system should also be developed.

Visibility is very poor.

Lastly, the programme unquestionably needs (and merits) a continuation in order that the achievements of this initial phase may be consolidated and built upon, to further develop the range of services (particularly economic) that FOs can offer to their members.

Main Recommendations

Institutional strengthening takes time, adapt to endogenous FO processes, refrain from allocating overly large budgetary amounts to single organisations, set realistic goals. Continuity rather than quantity should be the guiding principle.

Move closer to institutional budget support rather than projects (strategic plan).

Focus on network strengthening and capacity building at a national and regional level (e.g. market information services): Economic service component should not provide direct support to producers; no purely

616

technical training in agricultural production.

Maintain a healthy equilibrium between FO engagement and funds received. Providing FOs with large amounts of funding can be counterproductive.

FOs should focus on capacity building of present teams (particularly farmer leaders). FOs should determine priorities and what they can expect to do well given their available resources. An increase in staff should be undertaken only when sources of funding have been diversified and offer good perspectives for stability.

Subsidiarity should remain a guiding principle.

As there are many more NFOs than RFOs and NFOs represent the bases of RFOs’ strength, distribution and/or use of project resources should be tilted more toward NFOs though funds can be channelled through RFOs.

Intensify effort to reduce differences between NFOs (consider an institutional support fund).

Distribute resources in differentiated manner following a common prioritisation of the needs of network members. But maintain implication of all members (sense of belonging); only the nature of participation should differ.

Promote exchange and better coordination between NFOs from same countries (to ensure coherence of farmer movement for example). More generally promote exchange between FOs within a network and from different regional networks.

Promote peer learning, review and exchange between NFOs and RFO and NFO or RFO and NFO. Introduce peer review as regards NFO membership so as to guarantee FO standards and ensure a network’s reputation (moral pressure can produce results in itself, promotion of FOs which perform well, Institutional support fund).

RFOs should visit NFOs rather than ask them to come to headquarters (allows increased participation of members of local network, side meetings...) when reasonably feasible.

Organise rotating meetings between countries (but cost implications).

Principle of inclusiveness should be adopted and not automatically preclude inclusion of other FOs.

Include a new economic service component within the next phase of SFOAP.

What can be done will depend on context of each FO.

SFOAP M&E/Reporting procedures should be designed as a tool for FOs (for planning future actions, for KM and exchange between FOs and donors) and evolve from the FO M&E system.

FOs need to increase the level of analysis and detail in their reports, in order to better reflect successes and failures, focus on results rather than activities, and better differentiate outputs and outcomes.

Project funding must be linked to performance indicators jointly devised by FOs. They should be linked to commonly agreed performance thresholds, as well as to a system of joint planning and evaluation enabling peer‐to‐peer support.

LFM and M&E system of SFOAP and other donor supported projects should be devised within the M&E system of the NFOs and RFOs based on their strategic plans.

FOs should set for themselves clear progressive targets towards financial sustainability (including cost reduction) and include indicators (including the share and % of self‐financing) in their M&E system.

Diversify types and sources of funding (membership fees, economic, services, private business, donors) and recognise public service dimension of FO activity (public sector support is realistic at both regional and national level (ROPPA) and develop capacity to tap development funds (project cycle

617

management...).

The members of PAFO shall facilitate the establishment of the secretariat.

Finalise the PAFO strategic plan and direction.


N.A.

Title of the Evaluation: Global Index Insurance Facility


Type of evaluation: Choose from: Other (O).


The objectives of the programme designed in 2006/07 and remodelled in 2009 remain consistent with current beneficiary requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and EC’s policies. At a macro level the programme has achieved good results. However, at a sub‐project level some constraints have arisen in design and early implementation that IFC and the partners have been working to overcome. The programme operates at a good level of efficiency (after overcoming some initial delays and operational issues) but there are still areas in which improvements are needed. Local impact from the successful sub‐projects appears good – the challenge is to scale‐up these successes and use lessons learned so that the programme achieves wider impact. Getting local/regional insurance providers engaged in index insurance and providing a conducive legal and regulatory environment are key factors for ensuring sustainability. More attention to implementing visibility activities will improve awareness of and interest in index insurance and support the scale‐up efforts The EC’s financial support to GIIF has made it possible for it to operate as a global facility. Mutual reinforcement processes with GIIF need to be strengthened


Title of the Evaluation: Mid term evaluation of the Programme STRENGTHENING FOOD SAFETY SYSTEMS THROUGH SPS MEASURES INACP

COUNTRIES / EU‐ACP Development of Food Safety Systems Programme (EDES)


Type of evaluation: Other (O) – Mid‐term Evaluation


The €29.5 million EU‐ACP Development of Food Safety Systems Programme (EDES) is a 4‐year Programme financed under the 9th European Development Fund. Since 1st March 2010, EDES has been implemented by COLEACP together with a consortium of eight partners. Main Findings and Conclusions

The EDES Programme is highly relevant and fully appropriate. The issues addressed by the Logical Framework (LF) are suitable and helpful for the common problems of the ACP countries related to poverty reduction and strengthening regional trade flows, focusing on relevant regional and international SPS requirements with particular reference to trade with the EU.

Most of the expected results of the EDES Programme can be measured

618

according to the OVI available in the Logframe. The level of effectiveness of the EDES Programme is considered good in spite of the delay in its execution. The contribution of the results to the achievement of the Project Purpose is positive.

The EDES Programme has accumulated a considerable delay in its implementation. With a 40% financial execution of the Programme funds, over 90% of the Programme execution time has already passed. Despite this, the Programme organization is considered efficient, and the implementation strategy adopted is appropriate and successful.

EDES helps to create conditions to improve the contribution of Food trade to poverty reduction in beneficiary countries. Positive associated impacts are seen and management of risks is assessed positively.

There is good probability that the Programme benefits will last after funding ends. Factors supporting this view are the support to Policy development, the institutions’ interest in the implementation of SPS measures, a good level of integrating the Programme in local manufacturing, and adoption and implementation of production systems that meet the requirements of health and safety.

The Programme gives value to the role of women as protagonists of business transformation and marketing of produce.

The contribution of European Union funds has been properly highlighted. Main Recommendations

Enhance the OVI system with appropriate indicators to better gauge governance.

Revise OVIs related to laboratories.

The Consortium members have to ensure keeping the same interlocutors of the PIU within the coordination committee.

The PIU should establish a clear mechanism to share relevant information and methodological approach with Consortium members.

Improve the coordination of management and dialogue mechanisms between the Consortium members while respecting the arrangements established by the PIU. The PIU should pay particular attention to integrate partners’ plans.

Reconsider the assumed 60% of international expertise to be provided by the Consortium members.

Consider organizing training or workshops with different Consortium partners and their experts to raise understanding/awareness of the approach implemented by EDES.

Ensure the complementarity and synergy of actions between the PIP and EDES Programmes, and in coordination in planning activities when both are working in the same country.

Identify and analyse the concrete effects of the EDES Programme on the food chain and their impact on poverty reduction of the beneficiary population.

Strengthen the public‐private dialogue platform and the Technical Secretariat of the steering committee.

The EDES Programme could contribute to the improvement of the legal and regulatory requirements at the request of the countries.

Continue to strengthen inspection services.

Coordinate activities with the Official Controls to follow up on the implementation of Self‐Assessment Guides and verification of results.

Carry out a comparative study of the costs of the different analyses between European laboratories and the ACP countries.

Assess the coverage capacity of ACP laboratories and identify which ACP countries should be equipped with accredited laboratories.

619

Establish appropriate information disseminating mechanisms.

Strengthen the EDES Programme visibility in the EU Delegations in countries where the Programme intervenes.


N.A.

Title of the Evaluation: Mid term evaluation of the Programme PIP Qualité et conformité Fruits et légumes phase 2 (PIP2)


Type of evaluation: Other (O) – Mid‐term Evaluation


The PIP Quality and Conformity Fruits and Vegetables Programme, Phase 2 (PIP 2) is a programme supported by the European Commission through a grant contract established with COLEACP, who manages and implements the programme on behalf of the ACP Secretariat. Main Findings and Conclusions

The programme has been very successful so far.

Relevance is high, reducing poverty among beneficiaries involved in the production and export of fruit and vegetables. Implementation has followed a holistic approach and complemented related initiatives.

The programme is very highly rated by beneficiaries. Food Security and Food Safety have been increased. Capacity to adapt is high. Assistance with Compliance of Standards has been largely successful.

Implementation has been very efficient, with high use of local experts and good dialogue with the private sector. Centralised operation has worked well. Going forward, stronger local coordination and monitoring will be required.

Impact has been felt by the whole chain. Exports of Fruit and Vegetables to the EU have been maintained thanks to certification. Additional stakeholders need to be brought on board to safeguard the gains made.

There is an urgent need to develop the longer‐term sustainability plan.

Gender, Environment and Poverty Reduction are central elements of the programme and have been addressed.

Main Recommendations

Widen Stakeholder Participation (agro‐dealers, local F&V traders, commercial credit organisations, local/national consumer representatives).

Enlarge Capacity Building focus (agronomic aspects, business management, etc.).

The use of SMS technology should be further explored for sharing of training, information and communications, in addition to the online systems being used, for targeting smallholders more directly.

Increase sustainability of funding, through income from fee‐paying services.

Streamline Monitoring & Evaluation.

Programme non‐cost Extension Due to high implementation efficiency, the programme implementation costs have been under‐budget so far. This has meant a saving which can now be used for an extension.

PIP/EDES greater interaction (cooperation) at official (national and EU) level.


N.A.

620

Title of the Evaluation: Final Evaluation of the Programme “ACP‐EU Natural Disaster Facility” (FWC 2012/309650)


Type of evaluation: Other (O). (9th EDF Decision 2007/019‐184)


The focus was on the impact of the project in the short and medium term and to produce lessons to be learned for future initiatives of the kind: 1. The relevance of the intervention was considered high as ACP regions have

frequently common risks, hazards and threats from natural disaster events. 2. The quality of the design of the intervention was not entirely satisfactory. The

global logical framework was a weak tool for monitoring the actions in 6 ACP regions.

3. The ACP implementing agencies struggled with EU administration and procurement procedures in the three regions working with Programme Estimates (Caribbean, East and West Africa), while in the Pacific, SOPAC worked efficiently under the framework of its Contribution Agreement.

4. The difficulty in delivering the expected outcomes of the intervention impacted on the effectiveness of the facility that contributed only in modest measure to its project purpose. In many cases, this is due to inadequate absorption capacity of natural disaster management agencies.

5. The perspective impact of the Natural Disaster Facility is good notwithstanding the limited effectiveness of the intervention. Even if the project purpose has been achieved only in small measure, the evaluation reckons that there is a substantial probability of achieving the overall objective of increasing human security in the ACP region because the project has indeed contributed to the long‐term DRR strategy of the different sub‐regions.

6. Even though the outcomes of the project have not been entirely satisfactory, the final products constitute a solid base for future interventions. The Natural Disaster Facility, notwithstanding its ambitious design, was considered to be a preliminary phase for a more substantial investment of the EU in DRR. In this respect, the legacy of the facility can be seen as the ideal launch pad for future projects.

7. In most cases, the beneficiary of the NDF developed a strong sense of ownership of the initiative, while capacities have been reinforced, especially at national level.

8. The environment surrounding DRR/DRM today is favourable for continued support to DRR initiatives at the intra‐ACP level: funding is slowly but constantly increasing, government buy‐in is improving and international donors are showing a remarkable cohesion working towards a preparedness‐oriented approach.


N/A

Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the African Economic Outlook VI programme



Summary of performance related findings and

The AEO is a well‐established international publication, but not the publication it aspires to be, which is, to become a tool for policy making and monitoring. It has helped to make the ADB an authoritative source of economic analysis, less so for

621

recommendations: forecasting, and has also greatly benefited the partner organisations involved. The AEO thematic chapters are launched at the ADB Annual Meeting and receive good media attention every year. A minority of European Delegations in Africa use the AEO themes to inform their work, in part because of competing global publications and in part because AEO key messages and policy recommendations are not seen as sufficiently distinctive nor operational. The usage of the country notes for policy making and policy monitoring is limited by their late publication, low frequency and concerns over the quality of forecasts. The UNDP, UNECA and ADB specific chapters receive very little visibility. The extensive analysis that AEO partners bring every year on a vast range of subjects comes at the expense of an alternative all African analysis. The AEO is an extensive process. It has triggered lasting institutional strengthening within the Bank. The AEO producing cycle has become firmly embedded into the Bank operations: all the country economists draft the country notes, and the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) and the AEO exercise have been integrated since 2012. Country economists have benefited from their contribution to the AEO as individuals. The AEO forecasting model remains the weakest link. The AEO partners have worked well together. Production targets have been met every year. Despite the recent launch of new products, AEO production and dissemination do not sufficiently take into account the readers’ various needs and interests. The AEO has given the four partners an opportunity to collaborate, to increase their engagement with host countries, and gain visibility in key events. The division of roles and responsibilities has in the past been subject to disagreement. The UNECA withdrawal shows the partnership reduced added‐value, now that the ADB is now firmly in the lead (outside publishing). AEO is largely financially sustainable for its current operations, but need support to overhaul its AEO forecasting model.


N/A

Title of the Evaluation: Thematic global evaluation of European Union's support to Integrated border management and the fight against organised

crime

ABB activity: No ABB

Type of evaluation:

Expenditure programme (E)


Through 2002‐2010, the EU committed €900 million to support Integrated border management and the fight against organised crime and achieved significant positive results. The EU’s perceived impartiality and experience was a recognised added value. The impact was reduced by over‐emphasis on large‐scale ‘hard’ projects and insufficient attention to comprehensive reforms. Furthermore, the sustainability is weak. The recommendations include a better balance between security and trade/traffic facilitation, more management‐related reforms, early planning for sustainability and increased assistance through regional interventions.


http://ec.europa.eu/EuropeAid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2013/1319_docs_en.htm

622

Title of the Evaluation: Joint Evaluation of Budget Support to Tanzania

ABB activity: 21.06



This evaluation covered the budget support provided by 14 donors, which amounts to almost US$ 5 billion over 2005 to 2011. The evaluation provides evidence showing that the additional funds provided into the budget have had a positive effect on economic growth, on improved outcomes in the education sector and on improvements in non‐income poverty. However, the evaluation also shows that the accompanying measures of budget support, namely the policy dialogue and the capacity building measures have not been as effective as they could have been. In particular the policy dialogue was characterised by a low level of government ownership, high transaction costs, technical weaknesses in the indicators of the Performance Assessment Framework, and the lack of a strategic, policy‐solving orientation. As a result, in a number of important areas, weaknesses in policy design and in reform implementation have persisted.



Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the European Union’s support to two European Neighbourhood Policy Regions (East and South)

ABB activity: 19.08

Type of evaluation:



In the period 2004‐2010, €1.4 billion were committed for regional cooperation out of the ENP total of €9.6 billion. The evaluation concludes that EU support stimulated regional policy dialogue and contributed to stability, a critical achievement in the difficult context. The regional interventions have a strong added value but limited linkages with other EU interventions. At country level, the priorities differ sometimes from those of regional cooperation, leading to weak support from some countries. The key recommendations include paying more attention to sustainability, carefully assessing at the design stage the differences in the willingness and capacities of regional partners; considering cooperation only with countries with a stronger political will and ensuring that interventions allow flexibility in the choice of local partners.



Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the European Union's Support to Private Sector Development in Third Countries


Type of evaluation:


623


Over 2004‐2010, the EU provided €2.4 billion grant funding for PSD. This made the EU an important player in PSD, both financially and in terms of scope covered. The EU positioned itself as a ‘generalist’, capable of funding a very wide range of activities. It has achieved results at macro‐ and meso‐levels (institutional and regulatory frameworks, access to finance, and some elements of support to enterprise competitiveness) rather than at the micro‐level. The main weaknesses are on its lack of strategy to maximise its impact, on its failure to fully exploit its expertise, on lack of information from the monitoring and evaluation of its interventions. Recommendations are made on these issues as well as on the necessity to adapt its support to the specificities of middle income countries and to improve internal and external communication on its PSD support.



Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of the European Union’s Trade‐related Assistance in Third Countries


Type of evaluation:



The EU’s TRA achieved significant results in most of the priority areas. TRA, and EU‐supportedtrade reform processes, were often successful when implemented in partnership withcommitted governments and where robust capacities to implement broader policy processeswere available. In the least developed countries (LDCs) and fragile contexts, TRA has oftenmanaged to stabilise or even expand trade volumes, and has thus had some success in onepart of the core TRA objective − that of increasing trade. However, it has had less success inthe other part of the objective − that of diversifying trade for the poorest and most fragilecountries. There is thus a still unfinished agenda of better integrating these countries in theworld economy.



Title of the Evaluation: Evaluation of Budget Support in South Africa

ABB activity: 2106

Type of evaluation:



South Africa Budget Support (2000‐2011): The evaluation covered 16 Sector Budget Support operations, for an amount of €984 million. EU Budget Support to South Africa represents a positive experience that should be continued and further integrated into the SA‐EU Strategic Partnership. Budget Support has been adapted to the context, ensuring both Government ownership and strategic relevance of EU support. The evaluation shows that budget support has been effective and had an impact on the Government policies which would not have been achieved through traditional projects. Although policy dialogue has been very effective in some sectors, the evaluation suggests to combine the dialogue with a broader strategic dialogue according to the SA/EU Strategic Partnership. A tool such as the Dialogue Facility under which for example short term TAs and other experts for Conferences/Seminars/Workshops or specific sector events could be recruited, twinning arrangement could be made and special mission to Europe or SA could be organised, is very useful to increase the value added of Policy Dialogue and to build capacities.

624



625

ANNEX 10: Analysis of EuropeAid KPI for year 2013

General overview

Summary of 2013 KPI results for DG EuropeAid

KPI Name Actuals 2013 aggregated at Directorate level Targets /

Benchmarks for 2013

Assessment

Forecast Actual

Execution Rate

A ‐ Sound financial management and effective use of EC Resources

K01 Execution of initial annual financial forecast for payments (***).

6.472.771.704 6.822.528.045 105% From 90% to

110% Outside is orange

K02 Execution of initial annual financial forecast for contracts (***)

7.282.200.751 8.343.992.882 115% From 90% to


K03 Execution of initial annual financial forecast for decisions (***)

9.174.728.240 10.469.334.882 114% From 90% to


K04 RAL Absorption capacity (*) 3,88 Less than 4 years Over is orange

K05 % of projects with red traffic lights for implementation progress (only projects and contracts managed by the Delegations). (**)

4,28% Max 20% Over is orange

K06 % of projects with red traffic light for achieving objectives (only projects and contracts managed by the Delegations). (**)

3,71% Max 20% Over is orange

K07 ROM Performance: % of ROM performance scores in categories " very good" or "good" (*)

74,34% 70% Less is orange

K08 Evolution of open old Pre‐financing (*) ‐38,45% ‐5% Less (in absolute term) is orange

K09 % of expired contracts in Delegation's and Directorate’s portfolio (*)

18,62% 15% Over is orange

K10 Evolution of Old RAL (*) ‐30,66% ‐20% Increase is orange

K27 Respect of the EuropeAid/EEAS agreement on the use of staff in Delegations. (**)

93,00% Yes for 100% of delegations

NO is orange

K11 Payment period (*) 67,47% Last result + 10%:

66% Less is orange

B ‐ Efficiency of internal control systems (ICS)

K12 % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Mission and values in Delegations (**)


K13 % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to HR in Delegations (**)


K14 % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Planning and management process in Delegations (**)


K15 % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the five ICS related to Operations and control activities in Delegations (**)


K16

% of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Information and reporting systems in Delegations (**)


K17 % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Evaluation and audit in Delegations (**)


K18 % of projects visited during the year. (**) 71,59% 80% Less is orange

K19 % of implementation of the annual evaluation plan for year N (**)


K20 Ineligible amount identified by EC's ex‐ante control during the year as % of the claimed amount. (*)


C ‐ Efficiency of audit system

K21 % of implementation of the annual audit plans for year N (committed audit contracts) (*)


626

K22 % of implementation of the annual audit plans for year N‐1 (committed audit contracts) (*)


K23 % of implementation of the annual audit plans for year N‐2 (committed audit contracts) (*)


K24 % of ineligible expenditure found by audits compared to total amount audited during the year. (*)


K26 Justification or recovery at the end of year N of ineligible expenditure identified by external audits during years N‐1 and N‐2. (**)


* Calculated from CRIS DWH based on the Entity in Charge of each transaction. Not dependent on the EAMR ** Calculated from EAMR data (and only available for geographical directorates) *** Taken from Annex II of the Annual Activity Report

The global analysis of DG EuropeAid's Key Performance Indicators (KPI) results in 2013 indicates a good overall performance with more than half of the total number of KPIs (14 KPIs out of the total of 26) having reached the benchmarks set for the year. As regards some of the 12 KPIs that did not meet the target in 2013, their results are not necessarily markers of underperformance as they have to be put in a more general perspective detailed below:

• KPIs 2 and 3 (the measure of accuracy of the financial forecasts for contracts and payments) are marginally overpassing the benchmark (115% and 114% versus 90%‐110% target), however, reflecting a good level of activity implementation.

• For KPI 20, the 1.96% of ineligible amounts identified by EC's ex‐ante controls is most probably an 'underestimated' figure because of certain practices that bias the result such as: requesting amended invoices from suppliers instead of encoding the initial invoices and the subsequent credit notes or encoding Budget Support payments as net amounts. In spite of these practices, the result for this KPI is very close to the 2% benchmark.

The KPIs performance at EU Delegation level is overall good with 23 Delegations having more than 75% of KPIs meeting the benchmark and 88 Delegations having between 50%‐75% of their KPIs on target. Only 8 Delegations (Angola, Bosnia, Central African Republic, Libya, Montenegro, Panama, Solomon Islands, and Yemen) out of 119 Delegations have more than 50% of the KPIs with values outside the benchmark. This result comes to confirm that benchmarks were realistically set and sends a strong signal that these targets could be met in the near future (by 2014 or 2015). However, temporarily constraints on human resources could have negatively impacted the KPI results in some delegations.

Among the KPIs with results in line with the target, it is worth highlighting:

• KPI 4 (RAL absorption capacity) stands at 3.88 years against a benchmark set at 4 years.

• KPI 10 (Evolution of Old RAL): – 30.66% against a benchmark of ‐ 20%.

• KPI 11 (Payment period) where 67.47% of the bills were paid within the 30 day period which is the overall target established by EuropeAid to speed‐up payments. It should be noted that the contractual provisions set out different payment periods according to the nature of the contract (up to 90 days in certain instances).

627

When assessing the performance of the DG by KPI category44 (above tables) it appears that 8 KPIs out of 12 are above the benchmarks for the category “Sound financial management and effective use of EC resources” and that 6 KPIs out of 9 are green for the category “Efficiency of the internal control systems. In the third category 'Efficiency of Audit System'45, none of the five KPIs meets the target set for the year. The results in the latter category confirm the findings of prior studies and internal assessments that identified this category as an area of improvement at encoding, implementation, monitoring and follow‐up levels.

However, it should be noted that the results for these five KPIs are partly explained by:

• Overly ambitious audit plans coupled with data errors and duplication of records (resulting in high number of cancelled audits) for KPIs 21‐23;

• Errors in data encoding in CRIS46 audit module which led to KPI 26's value being revised from 9.5% to 59% after corrections of data encoded in local currency (i.e. Tanzania, Burundi).

Other areas of improvement are:

44 The KPIs are grouped into three categories: Sound financial management and effective use of EC resources, Efficiency of internal

control systems and Efficiency of audit system. 45 Efficiency of audit system comprises the KPIs linked to the implementation of the audit plans, the percentage of ineligible expenditure

and the justification/recovery of ineligible expenditure identified by external audits. 46 CRIS stands for Common Relex Information System.

628

• KPI 9 (expired contracts): 18.62% versus a benchmark set at 15%;

• KPI 18 (projects visited during the year): 71.59% of all project visited against 80% target;

• KPI 19 (implementation of the annual evaluation plan): 72.86% rate of implementation of the annual evaluation plan for 2013 versus 80% target;

• KPI 20 (ineligible amounts identified by ex‐ante controls): 1.96% of ineligible amounts identified by EC's ex‐ante controls against a benchmark of 2%.

Overall and despite the necessary improvement to be achieved in the execution, monitoring and follow‐up of the annual audit plans, the KPI results are globally satisfactory and support the assurance provided by the Director General. A specific action plan will be elaborated by DG EuropeAid in 2014 in order to address the weaknesses identified in the audit system.

Detailed analysis by Delegation

All External Assistance Management Reports (EAMR) are thoroughly analysed by the relevant Directorate(s) in charge and written comments and recommendations are sent to each EU Delegation for follow‐up actions. When necessary, specific support is provided by Headquarters in order to address any particular problem or difficulties reported by the EU Delegation or identified in the analysis of their EAMR.

The automatic assessment of the EU Delegations performances through a traffic lights system and the obligation of the Heads of EU Delegations to justify imbalances versus the benchmarks lead to continuous improvements of the data quality in CRIS and to the completeness and reliability of KPI values in the EAMR. Last but not least, the targets or benchmarks defined for each of the 26 KPIs offer to the Heads of EU Delegations a clear understanding of the expected results and of the necessity to take actions for their achievement.

A global analysis of the EU Delegations’ performance for each Key Performance Indicators (KPI) is enclosed and it is accompanied by feedback provided by each of the Directorates. This analysis allows for the identification of domains where improvements are necessary and it provides valuable information on further improvement of the EAMR and the definition of targets or benchmarks.

KPI 1: Accuracy of initial annual financial forecast for payments

Globally, the performance of this KPI is very satisfactory and within the target set for the year. The same positive result is valid for the EU Delegations where 63% of the Delegations reported figures within or above the benchmark.

A closer look at performances that did not meet the target reveals that political factors (country risks, crisis, change of government, etc.) and operational factors (non‐compliance with minimum PFM and macroeconomic conditions, unsuccessful tenders, allocation of additional funds during the year, etc) had an impact on the year‐end results.

629

KPI 2 and KPI 3: Accuracy of initial annual financial forecast for contracts and decisions

Even though these KPIs are slightly overpassing the benchmark (115% and 114% versus 90%‐110% target), the results for the year reflect a good level of activity implementation. The main reasons explaining why the execution rates are higher than the forecasted figures are listed below:

• Mid‐year revisions and year‐round fund allocations which are not reflected in the initial previsions

• Commitment levels that are higher than the target because certain commitments were considered at risk when the forecasted figures were provided

• The political and operational factors listed under KPI 1 which impact equally on the execution rates for KPIs 2 and 3 (i.e. crisis situations in Syria, Egypt etc)

KPI 4: RAL Absorption capacity

In 2013, RAL absorption capacity stood at 3.88 years against a benchmark of 4 years which represents a very good result for DG EuropeAid. At Directorate level, the situation is also satisfactory with most of the Directorates meeting the target (with the exception of Directorates C and H where RAL absorption capacities were of 4.7 and 4.8 years respectively).

There are some cases (i.e. Egypt, Honduras, and Papua New Guinea) where there are significant differences between the values of this KPI and the benchmark. A closer analysis reveals that high values for this KPI (i.e. 25.7 years or 13.3 years) are the result of a combination of factors related to economic and political turmoil (i.e. Egypt), the failure of beneficiaries to meet the conditions for disbursement (i.e. Honduras, Azerbaijan etc.) and poor security. This confirms the impact that external factors have on the absorption capacity of Delegations and comes to reaffirm the idea that results outside the benchmark are not necessarily an indicator of Delegations' performance.

In some cases, high values for this KPI are owed to shortage in credits that decreased payment consumption. Moreover, a technical error was identified in the calculation of this KPI which had an impact on the final figures (i.e. Directorate F).

KPI 5: % of projects with red traffic lights for implementation progress (only projects and contracts managed by the Delegations).

Only 4.28% of the on‐going projects have been awarded red traffic lights as regards the risks associated with implementation progress, a result which is well below the 20% benchmark. More than half of the Delegations (59 out of 114 Delegations) had no projects with red traffic lights while only 5 Delegations (Eritrea, Central African Republic, Ghana, Papua New Guinea, Uzbekistan) didn’t reach the target for the year. The main reasons behind this result as indicated by the Delegations are: failure of the beneficiaries to comply with the main conditions for a Budget Support disbursement; administrative, political and security factors as well as limited human resources.

630

KPI 6: % of projects with red traffic light for achieving objectives (only projects and contracts managed by the Delegations).

The global result of only 3.71% of all on‐going projects being awarded red traffic lights for achieving objectives is an outstanding result for the year 2013. Moreover, 63 Delegations awarded no red traffic lights to their ongoing projects concerning the achievement of projects’ objectives.

In the case of 6 Delegations (Eritrea, Central African Republic, Gambia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Uzbekistan), the KPI value was outside the 20% benchmark. For these six cases, the Delegations provided comprehensive justification clearly indicating that the danger of not achieving projects’ objectives was mainly due to external factors such as: local political decisions and climate, failure of beneficiaries to respect contractual obligations and security issues.

KPI 7: % of ROM performance scores in categories "very good" or "good"

The result for this indicator is satisfactory with 74.34% of monitoring reports being awarded performance category I ("very good") or II ("good"). The highest ranking Delegations for this KPI were: Uganda, Israel, Honduras, Mexico, Uruguay, Malaysia with 100% values while Gambia and Panama were among the lowest ranking with no monitoring report in any of the 2 categories. The comments provided in the EAMR reports show that the Delegations are well aware of the problems and that they have taken necessary measures in order to address the situation.

KPI 8: Evolution of open old Pre‐financing

There is a clear effort at Directorate level to monitor and clear old outstanding pre‐financing which is reflected in the exceptional result for KPI 8 ( – 38.45% well above the target of – 5% for 2013). This effort is also highlighted in the EAMR reports of the Delegations with noteworthy results for this indicator for Mexico, China, and Colombia.

The situation is not so different at the other end of the spectrum where, in spite of not meeting the target, the Delegations provided a clear signal of high level of awareness concerning the outstanding amounts and recognizing that efforts were being put into close monitoring and follow‐up.

KPI 9: % of expired contracts in Delegation's and Directorate’s portfolio (data reliability is being checked)

The result for this indicator is currently being analysed in more detail in order to determine if the aggregate value of 18.62% is accurate and it is not affected by any data quality issues.

Among the Delegations with lowest percentages of expired contracts in their portfolio there are: Argentina, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uzbekistan with 0.00% expired contracts and Kyrgyzstan and Georgia with less than 1% of expired contracts in their portfolio. The comments provided by these Delegations confirm that work was done on contract closure and decommitments in a consistent and effective way throughout 2013.

631

There are, however, three Delegations (Gabon, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands) with more than 50% of expired contracts in their portfolio. Their EAMR reports confirm that steps are being taken to address the situation given the resources available and within existing local constraints.

KPI 10: Evolution of Old RAL (data reliability is being checked)

At Directorate level, the evolution of old RAL stood at – 30.66% which represents a very good performance for the year as compared to the target of – 20%. This indicator captures the evolution in the amount by which the old RAL at the beginning of the year has been reduced by the end of year.

The positive trend is also reproduced at Delegation level with 72 Delegations out of a total of 111 Delegations47 having results equal or below – 20% mark. Five Delegations (Belarus, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador and El Salvador) have – 100% as result for this indicator for the year 2013. The Delegations with the highest net decreases in the amount of old RAL are Tunisia (€ ‐ 25.2 million), Angola (€ ‐ 24.6 million) and Jamaica (€ ‐ 19.4 million).

As regards the Delegations that have increased their old RAL in 2013, the data is currently being checked for reliability in order to assess whether there are any encoding or system errors that could impact the results.

KPI 11: Payment period

This indicator measures the number of invoices authorised during the reporting period that were paid within the Commission internal target of 30 days.

In 2013, DG EuropeAid has paid 67.47% of its invoices within the 30 day period which is a satisfactory result above the 66% benchmark. At Directorate level, Directorates B, C, D, F, H, R have paid more than 66% of their invoices within the 30 days. The directorates with results below the benchmark are Directorate A, E and G with only 50%, 65% and 63% of the bills being paid within the 30 days period. It is worthwhile pointing out that there are not necessarily any legal or financial consequences in those instances where EuropeAid has not met the target of 30 days. Indeed, the contractual provisions set out different payment periods according to the nature of the contract (up to 90 days in certain instances).

According to the EAMR reports, the Delegations with the highest values for this indicator are: Azerbaijan, Brazil, Indonesia, Timor Leste and Ukraine. These results were achieved in spite of the lack of payment credits that impacted on the possibility of invoices to be paid within the 30‐day deadline.

The Delegations which did not meet the benchmark in 2013 have listed the factors that caused payment delays such as: the workload of staff in Delegations, the gaps in appointments and the lack of or incomplete documentation received from the beneficiaries.

47 After excluding 8 Delegations for which 'no data was found' for this KPI.

632

KPI 12 – 17: Indicators on Internal Control Standards (ICS)

KPIs 12 to 17 assess the implementation of the internal control standards and their effectiveness. If the standards have been fully implemented and are either fully or partially effective, then they are awarded a green flag.

The standards are divided into 6 categories which are captured by each of the six KPIs as follows:

• KPI 12: % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Mission and values in Delegations

• KPI 13: % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Human Resources in Delegations

• KPI 14: % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Planning and management process in Delegations

• KPI 15: % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the five ICS related to Operations and control activities in Delegations

• KPI 16: % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Information and reporting systems in Delegations

• KPI 17: % of green traffic lights for the implementation and effectiveness of the two ICS related to Evaluation and audit in Delegations

The benchmark for the six KPIs is for each category to be awarded at least 50% of green flags.

In 2013, DG EuropeAid has met the targets for all of the 6 KPIs on Internal Control Standards. The results for the KPIs on ICS except one are above the 50% benchmark, with values between 89.29% and 96.43%.

The only exception is KPI 13 with a global value of 78.57% which is above the 50% target but with a lower number of Delegations meeting the target than in the case of the other five KPIs. This result is mainly explained by the specificity of KPI 13 which deals with HR matters thus having a wider variety of factors affecting its final result. These factors range from external influences such as the social and economic climate in the country to internal DG procedures such as the WLAD report, the rotation exercise, and recruitment procedures.

When the target was not met for these KPIs, the Delegations indicated that remedial actions were being taken or have already been taken and results were expected in the course of 2014. Moreover, if the Delegation could not remedy the situation itself, comments were provided describing what was preventing the remedial actions and whether further assistance was needed from HQ.

KPI 18: % of projects visited during the year

633

The global result for KPI 18 is slightly under the benchmark of 80% with only 71.59% of projects48 visited during the year. However, a detailed analysis shows satisfactory performances at Delegation level with half of the Delegations having visited more than 80% of their projects and 13 Delegations having visited all of their projects in 2013.

In the cases where no projects were visited (i.e. Syria 0%) or very few projects were visited (i.e. Ghana 28%), concrete and justifiable factors were listed as leading to such outcomes as follows: evacuation of the Delegation, security volatility in the country and significant staffing and budget constraints. In some cases, the low values for this KPI (i.e. Israel, Palestine) were due to errors in encoding and a technical problem.

KPI 19: % of implementation of the annual evaluation plan for year N

72.86% of the Delegations' annual evaluation plans for 2013 were implemented, slightly under the 80% target for the year.

At Delegation level, the results are mixed with 14 Delegations49 that have no data for this KPI while 35 Delegations reported 100% implementation rates for their annual evaluation plan. 6 Delegations reported values higher than 100% for this indicator due to new evaluations being added to the annual plan throughout 2013.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are nine Delegations (Central African Republic, Egypt, Guinea Conakry, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Senegal, South Sudan, Togo and Uzbekistan) that have not reported any evaluations done in 2013. The reasons behind this low implementation rate are: political situation and fragility context in the country, concerns about security and the uncertainty of the environment, budgetary constraints, rescheduling of evaluations to 2014 due to slow start of project implementation or requests for project extensions and no evaluation plans yet assigned to newly created Delegations.

KPI 20: Ineligible amount identified by EC's ex‐ante control during the year as % of the claimed amount

At Directorate level, the percentage of ineligible amounts identified by EC's ex‐ante controls in 2013 was of 1.96% which is slightly below the 2% benchmark. However, it should be noted that this result is most probably an 'underestimated' figure because of certain practices that contribute to biasing the data such as: requesting amended invoices from suppliers instead of encoding the initial invoices and the subsequent credit notes, encoding Budget Support payments as net amounts or deducting ineligible amounts identified by interim verification expenditure reports from the next payments.

Directorate F has identified the highest amount of ineligible expenses during the ex‐ante checks with a figure of 6% in 2013. A similar result is found at Delegation level where 2 out

48 Only projects that are worth € 1 million or more are included in this sample population for this KPI.

49 After exclusion of ELARG Delegations that were not required to provide data for this KPI, 15 Delegations had 'no data found' as result:

Azerbaijan, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Eritrea, Lesotho, Libya, Mexico, Malaysia, Panama, Paraguay, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay.

634

of the 3 Delegations that have detected the highest amounts of ineligible expenses during their ex‐ante controls belong to Directorate F (Morocco with 33% and Ukraine with 12%).

There are 10 Delegations that have not identified any ineligible amounts during the ex‐ante controls which, according to the Delegations, is partly explained by the practice of asking for corrected invoices rather than registering the ineligible amount in CRIS and partly because of a close follow‐up and training provided to beneficiaries in order to fully comply with the eligibility criteria for expenditure.

KPI 21 – 23: % of implementation of the annual audit plans for year N, N‐1 and N‐2

In 2013, none of the three KPIs on the implementation of the audit plan (KPIs 21‐23) has met the target set for the year. This result confirms the findings of prior studies and internal assessments that have identified several areas of improvement as regards data encoding and audit plans implementation levels.

The following factors should be taken into account when analysing the results:

• Errors in data encoding in CRIS audit module and duplication of records (resulting in high number of cancelled audits).

• Calculation and data aggregation methods for these KPIs and their limitations (i.e. cancelled audits were included in the calculation of this KPI).

• Overly ambitious annual audit plans which make it difficult to meet the target.

A brief analysis of each individual KPI follows:

• KPI 21 (implementation of audit plan year N): 21 Delegations50 have no values (blank cells), 16 Delegations did not start the work on the audit plan for year N and 18 Delegations have fully implemented their audit plan (100%). Some Delegations with lower rates of implementation for year N audit plan have signalled that the security conditions in the country, heavy workload, job vacancies, impact of WLAD implementation as well as lack of adequate office space were among the reasons for the delays in implementation.

• KPI 22 (implementation of audit plan year N‐1): 24 Delegations51 have no values (blank cells), 38 Delegations have fully implemented their N‐1 audit plan while 10

50 The Delegations with 'no data found' for this KPI are: Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Gambia, Honduras, Laos, Libya, Montenegro,

Myanmar, Malaysia, Panama, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, Somalia, El Salvador, Syria, Swaziland, Turkey, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu. In the cases of the Delegations in Gambia, South Sudan and Swaziland, the blank values are explained by the fact that they are either “daughter delegations” (cases of Senegal with Gambia and Lesotho with Swaziland) or by the fact that they are new Delegations (case of South Sudan)

51 The Delegations with 'no data found' for this KPI are: Belarus, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Gambia, Honduras, Israel, Cambodia, Laos,

Libya, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Myanmar, Malaysia, Panama, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, El Salvador, Syria, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan and Vanuatu. In the cases of the Delegations in Gambia, South Sudan and Swaziland, the blank values are explained by the fact that they are either “daughter delegations” (cases of Senegal with Gambia and Lesotho with Swaziland) or by the fact that they are new Delegations (case of South Sudan).

635

Delegations have implementation rates between 0 and 40% for year N‐1 audit plan.

• KPI 23 (implementation of audit plan year N‐2): 22 Delegations52 have no values (blank cells), 44 Delegations have fully implemented their audit plan for year N‐2 and 10 Delegations have values between 20 and 50% for this KPI. The reasons for the delays listed by the Delegations were: lack of personnel, security aspects in the country, postponement of audits and data corrections in CRIS Audit module.

KPI 24: % of ineligible expenditure found by audits compared to total amount audited during the year

At Directorate level, the percentage of ineligible expenditure found by audits in 2013 was of 2.31% which is below the 3% benchmark for the year. Directorates E and H are above the benchmark with 6% and 5% of ineligible expenditure found by audits in 2013 while Directorates A, C and R did not identify any ineligible expenses from the total audits that delivered their final report in 2013. For Directorate B, the value of 2.68% represents the percentage of ineligible amount identified in 2013 for both Directorates B and C. The value of ineligible expenditure found by audits for Directorate B budget lines is 3.08%, which is above the EuropeAid set target of 3% while Directorate C's result for this KPI stands at 0.07%.

At Delegation level, the highest percentage of ineligible expenditure found by audits was in Russia (66.78%), Yemen (56.81%) and Venezuela (45.10%). A more in‐depth analysis of these 3 results indicates that they could be considered as statistical outliers for the following reasons:

• The Russian Delegation mentions that the very strict approach of the auditors has led to a disproportional amount of expenditure deemed ineligible in spite of the good deliverables of the supplier. Currently, the Delegation is in a process of amicable settlement which resulted in a recovery order that was fully cashed.

• In Yemen, the lack of appropriate training of the CSOs on EIDHR financial regulations led to high amounts of ineligible expenditure to be found during audits. Actions were taken such as organising a training session for 20 Yemeni CSOs which could result in the submission of better financial reports.

• The result for Venezuela is based on the findings of one single audit which found €247,505 ineligible expenses out of a total audited amount of €548,811.08.

It should also be noted that 33 Delegations53 out of 119 Delegations have no data for this KPI

52 In the cases of the Delegations in Gambia, South Sudan and Swaziland, the blank values are explained by the fact that they are either

“daughter delegations” (cases of Senegal with Gambia and Lesotho with Swaziland) or by the fact that they are new Delegations (case of South Sudan).

53 The Delegations with 'no data found' for this KPI are: Albania, Belarus, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), China, Costa Rica,

Cuba, Ecuador, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, Israel, Cambodia, Laos, Libya, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Mali, Myanmar, Mauritania, Malaysia, Panama, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Somalia, South Sudan, El Salvador, Syria, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Kosovo

636

(meaning that no final audit report was approved or encoded in CRIS in 2013) while 9 Delegations have values between 0.00% and 0.39% mainly due to final audit reports not yet received.

KPI 25: Delegation Revision of External Reports

This KPI will be available in a future EAMR.

KPI 26: Recovery at the end of year N of ineligible expenditure identified by external audits during years N‐1 and N‐2 (data reliability is being checked)

Except for the amount of ineligible expenditure identified in the audit reports approved in 2013, the other data necessary for the calculation of this KPI have to be directly encoded by the Delegations in the EAMRs.

Due to encoding errors in the system, the result for KPI 26 is not accurate. The 2013 result was revised from 9.48% to 59% after corrections were made to the data encoded in local currency (i.e. Burundi, Guyana, Tanzania) and to encoding errors in CRIS Audit module (i.e. Angola, Lesotho, Pakistan).

Moreover, there are cases where the recovery rates are higher than 100% or they have negative values. This is due to misunderstanding around the information to be provided under this KPI, exchange rate fluctuations which impact on the amount to be recovered or no data found by the system for certain elements of the KPI.

To conclude, a reliable analysis of the result for KPI 26 is not yet possible given the data quality problems existing for this KPI.

KPI 27: Respect of the EuropeAid/EEAS agreement on the use of staff in Delegations

In 2013, 93% of the Delegations reported the respect of EuropeAid/EEAS agreement on the use of staff in Delegations, result which is below the benchmark of 100%. The main explanations provided by the Delegations were as follows:

• lack of personnel and gaps in appointments;

• suspension of posts due to WLAD;

• staff on longer leaves (i.e. medical, maternity).

DG EuropeAid will continue to monitor the situation closely and it should also be noted that the Delegations have indicated that steps are taken to remedy the situation or that they would require further assistance from HQ.

649

ANNEX 11: Specific annexes related to "Assessment of the effectiveness of the internal control systems" (Part 3):

Results of the desk review on the compliance with the Internal Control Standards in DG EuropeAid

Methodology

The approach used to prepare and carry out the review included the exchange of information and bilateral contacts with DG EuropeAid staff / management involved in the implementation of the 60 baseline requirements. Unit R2 collected and updated information on activities contributing to the ICS implementation and assessment of compliance with the baselines.

Results

The vast majority of the requirements were fully implemented in 2013. Exceptions included:

Requirement 4.3: DG EuropeAid’s staff training is based on its 2011‐2012 Learning and Development Framework (LDF). A draft 2013‐2020 Learning Strategy has been prepared in 2012, but was put on hold in order to issue a combined Learning & Knowledge Management Strategy. In late 2013 it was decided to draft simultaneously a multi‐annual implementation plan and to present both documents for approval to management during the first trimester of 2014. The combined strategy, together with a multi‐annual implementation plan, will be presented for approval to management during the first trimester of 2014.

Requirements 7.4. and 7.5. concerning sensitive functions and derogations: lists of sensitive functions are updated regularly and mobility rules are applied, except in exceptional circumstances. Following a management decision, a list of staff on sensitive functions is being established and will be adopted in the course of 2014. Appropriate actions, including corrective measures and granting of the necessary derogations, will be carried out once the review of staff occupying sensitive functions is finalised.

As for 2012, requirement 8.4. was implemented in 2013 for financial and contractual deviations.

Requirements 11.1. and 11.2. concerning document management: The implementation of ICS 11 in Delegations is a joint exercise with the EEAS which cannot be fully assessed from Headquarters, but which needs the internal self‐assessment of each Delegation concerned. Taking this into account, it is, however, possible to signal the following: Although substantial progress has been made in the last years in terms of registration and filing with the systems available in Delegations (Delores and Adonis), full compliance with the ICS requirement cannot be fully and effectively achieved before the migration of all Delegations to ARES. As of 31/12/2013 64 Delegations have successfully migrated to ARES (of which 49 in 2013). The full list is available on the ARES homepage. DG EuropeAid is actively contributing to the migration of the Delegations who have a cooperation portfolio and will

650

continue doing so. Counting on the contributions by the EEAS, the SG and DG DIGIT, it is planned that all Delegations shall migrate to ARES by 2015. EuropeAid registers all documents that meet the conditions set out in the implementing rules. As of 31/12/2013, there were 17218 files in ARES, of which 12753 were active files and 4465 closed (19323, 16742 and 2581, respectively at 31/12/2012), all of them attached to a heading of the Filing Plan (NOMCOM). The reduction in the number of active files in 2013 is linked to the monitoring and database cleaning operations undertaken, which have identified and deleted empty and unnecessary files in the system. Systematic filing of documents in ARES is still not fully implemented. As of 31/12/2013 the filing rate in ARES was 86% (71% as of 31/12/2012). This figure shows a good progression, but is still below the Commission average (89%). A series of awareness raising and training actions, together with a systematic statistical follow‐up with all EuropeAid departments, launched in 2013, have significantly contributed to the improvement. These actions need to be maintained in order to achieve full implementation.

Requirement 16.4: Further to the restructuring, the Court of Auditors has considered the IAC ineffective, mainly due to the lack of audit skills of the majority of its staff members. The reinforcement gained in October 2012 was neither sufficient nor adequate to reach the required effectiveness as regards audit skills. A certified auditor has been recruited and will take duties on 16 January 2014, but during the year 2013 (reference year for this exercise), there still was no certified auditor in the unit.

Results of the survey on the effectiveness of the ICS implementation in DG EuropeAid

Introduction

The survey on the effectiveness of the Internal Control Standards (ICS) implementation was launched on 20 November 2013. The number of respondents was 39 out of 64 members of DG EuropeAid management. 30 respondents replied to all the questions.

The Internal Control Self‐Assessment showed a generally positive perception of the effective implementation of the ICS in DG EuropeAid.

The Internal Control Standards which achieved the highest effectiveness assessments across the organisation were ICS 13 'Accounting and Financial Reporting' (98.8% positive assessments), ICS 10 ‘Business Continuity (97.1% positive assessments), ICS 1 ‘Mission’ and ICS 2 'Ethical and organisational values' (96.7% positive assessments each). At the other end of the scale, ICS 3 'Staff Allocation and Mobility' achieved ‐ as in previous years ‐ the lowest effectiveness rating at 73.2%, ICS 14 ‘Evaluation of Activities (83.8%) and ICS 12 ‘Information and Communication’(83.9% positive assessments).

Effectiveness of the Internal Control System

651

Objective and scope

This annual exercise addresses the effectiveness of internal control. It aims at assessing whether the organisation, processes and controls in place work as intended, effectively and cost‐efficiently with respect to the major risks identified for the entity. It also aims at providing managers with a tool for reviewing the internal control processes at the different levels of the organisation.

This exercise helps the DG to make an informed judgement and it is based on management knowledge and experience of the functioning of the control system. The outcome of the assessment survey provides a global view and a reasonable assurance on how well the internal control system is working according to the management’s perception.

Information stemming from this exercise contributes to the preparation of the 2013 Annual Activity Report.

The internal control assessment tool (iCAT)

The exercise was carried out through a specific e‐tool managed by the Central Financial Service (CFS) of DG BUDG, the iCAT. This tool is an online survey structured around the 16 ICS. For each ICS, a number of effectiveness‐oriented questions were proposed.

Each participant was requested to assess the degree of effective implementation for each question according to a number of assessment options and provide comments where necessary. The menu contained the following six options:

My assessment is positive

My assessment is positive but changes are needed

My assessment is negative in some respects

My assessment is negative

I am not concerned by this question because...

I cannot assess because...

Once participants have completed the online survey, DG BUDG provided a consolidated report containing for each question the number of replies, the list of the participants with the number of questions they have answered, as well as the list of comments provided by the participants (anonymously).

Approach

Time scale: the survey was launched by note Ares(2013) 3527546 ‐ 20/11/2013 with an initial deadline of 15 January 2014. The deadline was subsequently prolonged until 22 January 2014.

Questionnaire: 56 effectiveness‐oriented questions linked to 16 ICS.

Participants: The number of respondents was 39 out of 64 members of EuropeAid

652

management. 30 respondents replied to all the questions.

Assumptions for producing the statistics:

With the view to producing the statistics, the assessment options “I am not concerned by this question because..." and “I cannot assess because..." have been merged in a unique category labelled as “No informed opinion”.

The merged assessment option “No informed opinion” has been deducted from the total of replies for calculating the different percentages of assessment rates. The achievement rate is calculated by dividing the assessments "My assessment is positive" by the total assessments after deducting the merged assessment “No informed opinion”.

Overall results

The following table presents the overall outcome:

Summary of overall results after deducting “No informed opinion”

201054 2011 2012 2013

Measures taken are effective

81.0% 81.0% 78.6% 79.9%

Improvements needed

19.0% 13.2% 12.5% 12.3%

The overall appreciation of the effectiveness of the measures taken in the context of the ICS was at 79.9%.

Across all questions, only 2.5% replied "I am not concerned by this question because..." and 8.4% replied "I cannot assess because...".

54 2010 relates to ex‐DG AIDCO.

annual activity report 2013 - european commission

Documents