The EU’s new instrument for development aid and cooperation with partner countries lacks consistency in determining financial allocations and clear indicators for monitoring impact, according to a recent report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). The European Commission partly disagrees.
With a budget of €79.5 billion between 2021 and 2027, the new Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) – Global Europe covers more than 70% of EU spending for external action. It was adopted in June 2021 by the merger of previous instruments and covers Neighbourhood countries and other regions across the world.
By December 2022, the European Commission had adopted multiannual indicative programmes (MIPs) for 102 partner countries in five regions (sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Neighbourhood, Eastern Neighbourhood, Asia/Pacific and Americas and the Caribbean).
The instrument also includes a thematic pillar (€6 358 million) complementing the geographical pillar with support for human rights and democracy, civil society organisations, peace, stability and conflict prevention, and global challenges;
The Commission follows two different approaches for the allocation of funds. Whereby the allocations for the non-Neighbourhood countries are based on a mathematic formula, the Neighbourhood countries’ allocations are based on qualitative assessments.
While the geographical programmes were comprehensively designed, addressing a broad range of partner country needs and EU priorities, the EU auditors stress that their wide scope can limit the focus of EU funding and undermine its effects.
This is particularly the case in the areas where the funding levels were reduced, as compared to the previous programming period, the audit team told The Brussels Times. The priority areas in the MIPs are very broad and encompass several sectors in some countries. The risk is that funds will be dispersed between too many objectives.
“As NDICI-Global Europe Instrument will shape most EU development aid and external cooperation in the coming years, programming it well is crucial to effective delivery and impact,” said Hannu Takkula, the Finnish ECA member who led the audit and a former member of the Finnish Parliament and the European Parliament.
“However, it is apparent from our findings that work remains to be done in this area: country envelopes are not calculated rigorously enough, and the programmes lack common indicators to allow progress to be measured.”
The auditors found that the monitoring framework will not necessarily make it possible to measure actual achievements. The majority of the around 700 sampled indicators were specific. However, more than 20 % of the sampled indicators had either no baseline or an unclear baseline, and 24 % had either no targets or unclear targets. This may hamper the performance measurement, according to ECA.
Indicators are supposed to be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound). How do you explain the shortcomings in the indicators?
We analysed whether the wording is accurate, understandable and doesn’t allow multiple interpretations, the audit team replied. We compared the targets with the baselines and discussed with the relevant EU Delegations the usefulness of the indicators. We also checked the sources for the selected baselines.
Does the quality of the indicators differ by region and Directorate – General in the Commission?
We didn’t perform such analysis in the framework of this audit.
Is there an internal procedure in the Commission to check the indicators before approving them?
The indicators, as part of the multiannual indicative programmes, are agreed between the EU delegations in the partner countries and Headquarters in Brussels. The process is supported by a unit responsible for designing the monitoring framework.
Commission response
The European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) welcomed the audit report and its overall conclusion.
They also accepted, at least partially, the audit recommendations to further improve the programming process but expressed reservations, “given the weight of the political elements” of the partnership agreements with the Neighbourhood countries and the impossibility to “preempt future political and policy priorities”.
“With its global coverage, NDICI - Global Europe was designed to reinforce a policy-first approach to EU cooperation and international partnerships based on shared interests and policy priorities,” a Commission spokesperson explained.
“In a challenging geopolitical context, its aim has been to make engagement with third countries more strategic and responsive, building stronger and mutually beneficial partnerships through a multi-stakeholder dialogue.”
M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times
