Aid, the European Court of Auditors rejects the trust fund to address humanitarian crises in the Sahel, Lake Chad, Horn of Africa, North Africa

ROMA – In a report published a few days ago, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) reiterated and intensified his criticisms of the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa), the tool launched in 2015 during the Valletta Summit to address the underlying causes of humanitarian crises in the Sahel and Lake Chad regions, the Horn of Africa and North Africa and the resulting irregular migration. The site makes this known Info-Cooperationthe portal for Italian humanitarian workers. Since its launch in 2015, the trust fund has financed projects in 27 countries with €4.4 billion from the EU budget, supplemented by resources from national governments, including Switzerland, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom.

The various weaknesses of the Fund. It is the second and definitive report from the ECA which had already noted several in 2018 weak points in the implementation of the fund and important delays in the concrete implementation of the projects and had made some recommendations to the Commission for the future management of the fund. Today, almost nine years after the plan was announced at a high-profile summit in Valletta, the EU’s spending watchdog certified that the €5 billion spent on stemming the mass movement of people from Africa to Europe have not been spent effectively and that there is a very real risk that perpetrators of human rights violations have benefited from European money.

Devastating criticism with diplomatic language. Formulated in the cautious language of the auditors, the ECA report is a devastating critique of one of the EU’s flagship policies, at a time when migration management remains at the top of the European political agenda without a solution. The trust fund, the auditors said, was “not adequately focused on priorities” and too widespread to be effective and “human rights risks are not properly addressed”.

I projects examined and the inability of the Commission. They have responded to some needs, but not to the most urgent ones. The analysis goes deeper: “The indicators used to monitor the results do not show whether the projects are sustainable or whether they have contributed to addressing the root causes of instability, irregular migration and displacement.” The consequence is that the Commission is not yet able to indicate the most effective approaches.

Some emblematic examples. Among activities that are unsustainable, difficult to implement or not a priority, we found some emblematic examples. The renovation of a stretch of seafront in Benghazi and the Roman theater in Sabratha, Libya, especially affects the supply of sports and kitchen equipment for schools with urgent needs for basic infrastructure. “An off-grid school received a blender to complete training on food preparation and preservation,” the Court reported.

Human rights violations. Then there is the fundamental issue of the risks of human rights violations in projects financed by the EU. “They are not addressed carefully”, is the accusation coming from Luxembourg. The general conditions of all funding agreements stipulate that the action will be suspended if the EU identifies a violation of human rights. But “there are no formal procedures” for reporting and evaluating alleged violations. And not even “practical guidelines” to clarify in which situations EU support can be suspended.

The EU’s “distractions” in Libya. The mechanisms put in place by the EU to monitor the impact of the Fund’s activities on human rights in Libya have not been put in place in other countries where human rights may be at risk. Countries where “the Commission, project implementers and other contractors encountered obstacles similar to those encountered by auditors, for example in gaining access to detention centers for migrants and other locations requiring official authorisation”.

Some of the Court’s conclusions. They concern in particular, in fact, Libya where the EU has a controversial agreement to finance the country’s coast guard to carry out search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. Migrants returned to Libya were held in government-run detention centers where, according to NGO reports, they were subjected to torture, sexual violence and beatings.

Improper uses of equipment. The ECA noted that the EU-funded equipment in Libya, such as boats, could be used by people “other than the intended beneficiaries”, the same goes for EU-funded cars and buses which “may have facilitated the transfer of migrants” to detention centres. detention, “exacerbating overcrowding”.

The real risk of financing criminals. Likewise, EU-funded equipment for detention centres, the ECA said, may have been sold or “may have potentially benefited criminal organisations”. The EU audit team visited Libya, but was unable to visit a detention centre. Nor could Libyan authorities tell auditors who was responsible for the detention centers that had been closed after previously benefiting from EU funds.

And now the agreements with Egypt and Tunisia are worrying. Although the funds have largely been spent, criticism from the EU’s official spending watchdog takes on even greater weight following the EU’s recent agreements with Egypt and Tunisia, aimed at stopping migration and strengthening stability along the southern border of Europe.