EU auditors flag irregularities in early use of border funds

A special report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on the use of the External Borders Fund found serious weaknesses in the management of the funds in key member states, including Malta.

The weaknesses found put into question whether border management was being adequately strengthened where this was most needed. 

Together with Greece, Spain and Italy, Malta was one of the key member states benefitting from this fund. But for its early funding years, the ECA found evidence – or rather the lack of proper documentation – of mismanagement of funds allocated to Malta.

The ECA finalised its preliminary findings in June 2013 but the official report was published only two months ago.

From 2007 to 2013, Malta was the seventh highest beneficiary receiving a 4.36% share of the total €70.4 million allocation.

According to the ECA’s findings, one of the main problems with the implementation of EU funds was the lack of needs’ assessment and ineligible costs.

For example, Malta was unable to demonstrate why certain costs had been apportioned to a €540,000 project in 2007. According to the auditors, building works were funded through the half a million euro project but no explanation was given as to why the funds were used to finance construction works.

The ECA said that according to sources, “it was only with respect to certain expenses that apportionment to the project was not provided and now with respect to the entire project”.

The EBF has contributed to the European Union’s external border management and fostered financial solidarity but, according to the auditors, the overall results could not be measured due to weaknesses in the responsible authorities’ monitoring systems.

“Serious weaknesses in the project selection procedures were found in Italy and, for the early years only, in Malta, putting into question whether the most relevant projects were selected,” the ECA said.

It also found evidence of lack of coordination between Malta’s use of EBF and other EU and international funds. The experts argued that such a shortcoming risked becoming “a loss in efficiency and effectiveness for the funds involved since they could each be targeting similar actions”.

At the same time, Malta was used as an “example of good practice” in putting assets at the disposal of Frontex operations.

“The two assets in the Court’s sample registered in Frontex’ equipment pool were aircraft of the Armed Forces of Malta. Despite facing regular migration pressure itself, Malta made one of its EBF-procured surveillance aircraft available for 90 hours for a specific Frontex joint operation in Spain in October 2012,” the Court of Auditors said.

The shortcomings registered were not only limited to member states: according to the auditors, there were also “serious deficiencies” in the ex-post evaluations by the Commission.

In its reply to the ECA findings, the European Commission itself stated that “for Malta […] the novelty of the fund and the inexperience of the responsible authorities can largely explain the issues found by the Court.”

A spokesperson for EU funds parliamentary secretary Ian Borg pointed out that the weaknesses in the management of the EBF were related only to the early funding years and improvement was registered ever since a new Responsible Authority was set up within the Ministry for European Affairs.

The spokesperson also said that Malta’s multi-annual programme was based on a number of sectoral strategies found across the main departments responsible for drawing up policies on border control, visa policy and Schengen requirements.

An inter-ministerial coordinating committee was set up in Malta to enhance synergies and coordination between the different funding mechanisms.