The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has recently published a report entitled
“EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, where it evaluates whether the European Commission has effectively administered the EU support to improve governance and whether it has taken adequate account of the Democratic Republic of the Congo fragile context when designing EU programmes. Unsurprisingly, according to the Court the EU’s aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not effective.
The audit was mainly focused on the EU support, over the period 2003 to 2011, for the electoral process, security sector reform (justice and police), public finance management reform and decentralization process.
The Court noted that the EU has provided €1.9 billion in aid to the DRC during the above-mentioned period. However, the report clearly shows that EU aid has been ineffective in promoting key areas of governance in that country.
According to the Court “the effectiveness of EU assistance for governance in the DRC is limited”. The audit found that although the EU support for governance “addresses the country's main governance
needs and has achieved some results” the “progress is slow, uneven and, overall, limited.” The ECA’s report revealed that “Fewer than half
of the programmes have delivered, or are likely to deliver, most of the expected results” and stressed “Sustainability is an unrealistic prospect in most cases.” According to the Euobserver, Hans Gustav Wessberg, the ECA member responsible for the report has given as an example of this, the EU has send money for a new court and prisons to be built in eastern DRC but "the number of buildings planned was simply too large and the Congolese authorities have no money … to sustain them."
The Court has recognized that the European Commission “faces serious obstacles in its efforts to improving governance in the DRC”, such as “the
absence of political will, the donor-driven dynamics of the programmes and the lack of absorption capacity” yet it has slammed the way the European Commission has addressed these obstacles. The Court noted that the European Commission is well aware of “the main causes and consequences of State fragility in the DRC” nevertheless “it did not take sufficient account of this context when designing EU programmes”. The ECA particularly pointed out that “Risks have not been adequately addressed, programme objectives are often too ambitious, conditionality has a weak incentive effect
and policy dialogue has not been exploited to its full potential and adequately coordinated with EU Members States in all areas.” Nevertheless, the European Commission believes that “progress is advancing in the right direction.” In fact, according to the European Commission “the risk level is high due to the fragility of the country and has properly been taken into account.”
The ECA believes therefore that the European Commission needs to review the EU’s cooperation strategy with the DRC. The Court particularly stressed that “the Commission needs to be both more realistic about the design of, and what can be achieved with EU programmes” and it “needs to be more demanding of the Congolese authorities when monitoring compliance with the conditions agreed and the commitments made.” Hence, if the European Commission wants the EU’s aid to be more effective and ensure EU’s money is better spent it should follow ECA’s recommendations namely “…better assess the risks in connection with the successful implementation of programmes, establish objectives that are achievable in the national context and strengthen the use of conditionality and policy dialogue.” However, the European Commission has not accepted all the Court’s recommendations.
This is another ECA’s report that shows the EU budget wastes millions of taxpayer’s money in projects that don’t work. It is important to recall that the European Court of Auditors, being the EU's external auditor, it assesses the spending of EU funds while protecting the European citizens’ financial interests. The European Court of Auditors for the 18th year in a row has not signed the EU accounts. The ECA’s annual reports have been showing that there are serious errors and mistakes in the system. The EU monitoring and accounting system is inadequate. The EU spending continues to be affected by “material error.” This means that a considerable amount of money has been spent against EU rules governing the spending. Moreover, the special reports that the European Court of Auditors regularly publishes, such as the present one, analysing EU funding, often show that EU funds are not effective in helping to achieve EU policies objectives and have been revealing that EU taxpayers’ money is not being properly spent. These reports do not give a rosy but accurate image of the EU.
In a speech at the closing event of the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the European Court of Auditors, Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, noted that the ECA’s reports “are not released into a void but into the rough and tumble of political life and media reporting”, pointing out the way the media handle the information provided in the reports and they impact
on public opinion, he had the nerve of asking the Court “…to give some further thought as to how it can encourage more nuanced media reporting.” Herman Van Rompuy then stressed, “It's important that citizens can have the whole picture, with all its nuances.” Such request is absolutely unacceptable, it has been through the ECA’s reports that taxpayers become aware of the EU’s wasteful spending.
