Practising what they preach? Development NGOs and the EU’s Emergency Trust Fund for Africa

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of the EUTF’s committed resources along geographic and thematic priorities, 2020.

	North Africa	Horn of Africa	Sahel and Lake Chad	Total
Greater economic and employment opportunities	0	597.5 (47)	443.4 (28)	1040.9
Strengthening resilience	0	642.1 (68)	536.4 (26)	1178.5
Improved migration management	721.8 (30)	145.0 (20)	443.2 (19)	1310.0
Improved governance and conflict prevention	8 (1)	379.3 (37)	666.9 (32)	1054.2
Total	742.3	1763.9	2089.9	4596.1

Source: Author’s elaboration, based on European Commission (2020b).

Note: in million EUR; action counts in parentheses. Data for August 2020. Some actions are coded under more than one theme. The budget data is split proportionately between the themes in these cases to maintain consistency with how the EU reports it.

Table 2. NGDOs involved in EUTF projects, 2015–2020.

Name	Origin	Income			EUTF projects
		Total	From official donors (%)	From the EU (%)	Number	Total value
Action Contre la Faim	France	424.50	78	19	2	50.00
ADRA	USA	NA	NA	NA	1	8.00
ACTED	France	260.00	87	20	2	11.10
CARE International UK	USA	74	73.80	7.70	1	20.00
Centre pour le dialogue humanitaire – HD	Switzerland	34.1	NA	NA	1	2.20
CESVI	Italy	26.00	80	27	1	23.00
Concern Worldwide	Ireland	163.50	57	14.8	3	27.00
COOPI	Italy	60.50	93	31	1	8.00
Cordoba Foundation	Switzerland	NA	NA	NA	1	2.40
Danish Church Aid	Denmark	90	75	15	1	30.00
Danish Refugee Council	Denmark	415.00	84	NA	4	46.52
Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat	Kenya	NA	100	NA	1	9.00
GOAL	Ireland	109.7	80	9	1	15.00
GRET	France	32	60	36	1	40.11
Humanity & Inclusion	France	190.7	65.5	NA	3	78.00
IMPACT Initiatives	Switzerland	NA	NA	NA	1	10.00
Instituto Marquês de Valle Flôr	Portugal	6.5	100	89	1	23.00
International Medical Corps	USA	248.8	98	NA	1	7.00
International Rescue Committee	USA	711.2	71	NA	3	56.62
Médecins Du Monde	France	99.2	47.50	NA	1	9.90
Mercy Corps UK	USA	128.4	83	22	1	3.50
Norwegian Refugee Council	Norway	430	90	16	2	41.62
Oxfam	UK	493.3	43	6	3	82.00
Plan International	UK	895	NA	NA	2	90.00
Positive Planet	France	NA	NA	NA	1	40.11
Save the Children	UK	1964.3	55	2.5	4	57.90
SNV Netherlands	Netherlands	142	92	10	4	90.00
SOS SAHEL	Senegal/France	19.6	84.80	NA	1	25.00
Terre des hommes	Switzerland	212	55	8	1	30.00
Welthungerhilfe	Germany	249	75.90	26.50	2	18.00
World Vision Australia	Australia	362.1	21.40	NA	1	15.00

Source: Data collected from individual NGDO websites, annual reports and European Commission (2020b).

Notes: Data for 2019, or latest available. Income and project values in million EUR. Data provided in currencies other than EUR was converted using the average annual exchange rate for 2019 from the European Central Bank. NA: data not available.

Table 3. Summary statistics.

Variable	Observations	Mean	Standard deviation	Min	Max
Budget	234	19,600,000	22,000,000	1,000,000	144,000,000
NGDO participation	206	0.17	0.37	0	1
North Africa	234	0.13	0.34	0	1
Horn of Africa	234	0.42	0.50	0	1
Sahel and Lake Chad	234	0.44	0.50	0	1
Improved governance and conflict prevention	234	0.30	0.46	0	1
Improved migration management	234	0.30	0.46	0	1
Strengthening resilience	234	0.40	0.49	0	1
Greater economic and employment opportunities	234	0.32	0.47	0	1

Source: Author’s elaboration.

Table 4. Probit regression results on the determinants of NGDO participation in EUTF projects.

	(1)	(2)
Budget	1.09E-09 (4.68E-09)	1.99E-09 (5.02E-09)
North Africa	0.8289 (0.5762)	0.7832 (0.5766)
Horn of Africa	−0.6828 (0.2854)**	−0.7118 (0.3288)**
Improved governance and conflict prevention	−0.2582 (0.2992)	−0.2221 (0.2899)
Improved migration management	−0.8478 (0.4828)*	−0.8018 (0.4757)*
Strengthening resilience	0.9150 (0.2906)***	0.9685 (0.2985)***
Greater economic and employment opportunities	0.0677 (0.278659)	0.1956 (0.2719)
2016	–	−0.2963 (0.6543)
2017	–	−0.2095 (0.6902)
2018	–	0.6237 (0.6940)
2019	–	−0.0125 (0.6792
2020	–	−0.5028 (0.7981)
Constant	−1.0733*** (0.2799)	−0.8420 (0.6835)
N	206	205
Pseudo R^2	0.1210	0.1421

Notes: Robust standard errors are given in parentheses.

*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Source: Author’s elaboration.

Figure 1. Marginal effects of migration management across action budgets.

CIs: confidence intervals. Source: Author’s elaboration.

Figure 2. Marginal effects of strengthening resilience across action budgets.

CIs: confidence intervals. Source: Author’s elaboration.

Table 5. Average marginal effects of migration management and strengthening resillience on the probability of NGDO participation in EUTF projects.

	Marginal effect on NGDO participation	95% confidence interval
migration management	−0.1577** (0.0717)	−0.2983 to −0.0171
strengthening resillience	0.2184*** (0.0721)	0.0771 to 0.3598

Notes: Average of marginal effects across all observations. Standard errors are given in parentheses. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Source: Author’s elaboration.

Table 6. Breakdown of Improved migration management projects according to their main activities.

Main activity	Total project values (in euro)	Share of total (%)
Border control	236,623,927	18.1
Governance	62,350,000	4.8
Information campaigns	75,600,000	5.8
Legal migration routes	40,000,000	3.1
Refugee protection	329,880,000	25.2
Return and readmission	439,593,500	33.6
Other/mixed	125,952,573	9.6
Total	1,310,000,000	100.0

Source: Author’s elaboration, based on European Commission (2020b).

European Commission. 2020b. “EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa – All Projects.” https://ec.europa.eu/trustfundforafrica/navigation/all-projects_en

 Google Scholar