International Aviation
Federal Efforts Help Address Safety Challenges in Africa, but Could Benefit from Reassessment and Better Coordination Gao ID: GAO-09-498 June 16, 2009The African continent is important to U.S. economic, strategic, and foreign policy interests, and efforts have been made to improve commerce and connectivity to benefit the two regions. However, the continent has the highest aviation accident rate in the world, which has hindered progress. Recognizing the importance of improving aviation safety in Africa, the United States and the international aviation community have worked to improve aviation safety in Africa. This congressionally requested report discusses (1) challenges in improving aviation safety in Africa, (2) key U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa and the extent to which they address the identified challenges, and (3) international efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa. To address these issues, GAO synthesized literature and aviation safety data, interviewed federal officials, and visited four African countries.
Improving aviation safety in Africa is an important goal for the United States and the international aviation community. However, achieving that goal presents several challenges. The major challenge is the relatively low priority that political leaders in many African countries have accorded aviation safety, in part because of more pressing concerns such as widespread poverty, national health care issues, and a lack of awareness about the potential benefits of an improved aviation system. This relatively low priority placed on improving safety is reflected in the other challenges that were frequently identified in the literature GAO reviewed and by the officials GAO interviewed. These challenges include weak regulatory systems, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of technical expertise and training capacity. U.S. assistance to improve aviation safety in Africa has helped to address some challenges. For instance, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA) program--created in 1998 as a presidential initiative--is the principal U.S. effort to improve aviation safety. One of the primary goals of the SSFA program is to increase the number of African countries that meet international aviation safety standards. Through memorandums of agreement, the State Department provides funding for the program and DOT manages the program. DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration work to help African countries meet international aviation safety standards by providing technical assistance and training. However, funding for the program has been inconsistent since its inception, with funding levels ranging from a high of $8.5 million from the Department of State's fiscal year 2003 appropriation to zero from its appropriations in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. DOT officials stated that current budgetary and personnel limitations hamper their ability to effectively implement the program. For example, DOT has currently limited SSFA activities to countries making tangible progress in improving safety, rather than directing activities to all participating countries. Given the potential benefits associated with improved aviation systems, two agencies that focus on economic development--the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and the Millennium Challenge Corporation--have also provided funding for aviation safety-related projects in Africa. However, coordination of U.S. efforts on the continent has not been consistent, because of differences in agency missions and program processes, resulting in potential duplication of effort and missed opportunities to leverage limited resources. Several international efforts have been implemented to assist and encourage African countries in improving their civil aviation systems. For example, in response to widespread concerns about the adequacy of aviation safety oversight on the continent, the International Civil Aviation Organization developed the Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in Africa to help African countries meet their international obligations for safety oversight. The World Bank also provides funding for African countries to address aviation needs and deficiencies.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-498, International Aviation: Federal Efforts Help Address Safety Challenges in Africa, but Could Benefit from Reassessment and Better Coordination
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-498
entitled 'International Aviation: Federal Efforts Help Address Safety
Challenges in Africa, but Could Benefit from Reassessment and Better
Coordination' which was released on June 23, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2009:
International Aviation:
Federal Efforts Help Address Safety Challenges in Africa, but Could
Benefit from Reassessment and Better Coordination:
GAO-09-498:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-498, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The African continent is important to U.S. economic, strategic, and
foreign policy interests, and efforts have been made to improve
commerce and connectivity to benefit the two regions. However, the
continent has the highest aviation accident rate in the world, which
has hindered progress. Recognizing the importance of improving aviation
safety in Africa, the United States and the international aviation
community have worked to improve aviation safety in Africa.
This congressionally requested report discusses (1) challenges in
improving aviation safety in Africa, (2) key U.S. efforts to improve
aviation safety in Africa and the extent to which they address the
identified challenges, and (3) international efforts to improve
aviation safety in Africa. To address these issues, GAO synthesized
literature and aviation safety data, interviewed federal officials, and
visited four African countries.
What GAO Found:
Improving aviation safety in Africa is an important goal for the United
States and the international aviation community. However, achieving
that goal presents several challenges. The major challenge is the
relatively low priority that political leaders in many African
countries have accorded aviation safety, in part because of more
pressing concerns such as widespread poverty, national health care
issues, and a lack of awareness about the potential benefits of an
improved aviation system. This relatively low priority placed on
improving safety is reflected in the other challenges that were
frequently identified in the literature GAO reviewed and by the
officials GAO interviewed. These challenges include weak regulatory
systems, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of technical expertise
and training capacity.
U.S. assistance to improve aviation safety in Africa has helped to
address some challenges. For instance, the Department of Transportation‘
s (DOT) Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA) program”created in 1998 as a
presidential initiative”is the principal U.S. effort to improve
aviation safety. One of the primary goals of the SSFA program is to
increase the number of African countries that meet international
aviation safety standards. Through memorandums of agreement, the State
Department provides funding for the program and DOT manages the
program. DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration work to help
African countries meet international aviation safety standards by
providing technical assistance and training. However, funding for the
program has been inconsistent since its inception, with funding levels
ranging from a high of $8.5 million from the Department of State‘s
fiscal year 2003 appropriation to zero from its appropriations in
fiscal years 2008 and 2009. DOT officials stated that current budgetary
and personnel limitations hamper their ability to effectively implement
the program. For example, DOT has currently limited SSFA activities to
countries making tangible progress in improving safety, rather than
directing activities to all participating countries. Given the
potential benefits associated with improved aviation systems, two
agencies that focus on economic development”the U.S. Trade and
Development Agency and the Millennium Challenge Corporation”have also
provided funding for aviation safety-related projects in Africa.
However, coordination of U.S. efforts on the continent has not been
consistent, because of differences in agency missions and program
processes, resulting in potential duplication of effort and missed
opportunities to leverage limited resources.
Several international efforts have been implemented to assist and
encourage African countries in improving their civil aviation systems.
For example, in response to widespread concerns about the adequacy of
aviation safety oversight on the continent, the International Civil
Aviation Organization developed the Comprehensive Regional
Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in Africa to help African
countries meet their international obligations for safety oversight.
The World Bank also provides funding for African countries to address
aviation needs and deficiencies.
What GAO Recommends:
The Secretary of Transportation should (1) lead a collaborative effort
to reassess the SSFA program‘s goals and identify the level of
budgetary and human capital resources necessary to achieve those goals
and (2) develop a comprehensive strategy to lead efforts to coordinate
the governmentwide resources available to accomplish the program‘s
goals. DOT generally agreed with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-498]. For more
information, contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or
dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Many Ongoing Challenges Make Improving Aviation Safety in Africa
Difficult:
U.S. Assistance Has Helped Address Some Challenges but Could Benefit
from Better Coordination:
The International Community Has Taken Steps to Address the Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Cape Verde's Experience in Improving Aviation Safety:
Table 2: Funding Allocated from the Department of State's
Appropriations for the SSFA Program, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2009:
Table 3: Nigeria's Experience in Improving Aviation Safety28:
Figures:
Figure 1: Relative Size of the African Continent:
Figure 2: Annual Average Aviation Accident Rate, by Regions of the
World, from 2005 through 2008:
Figure 3: Direct Flights between the United States and Africa Compared
with Direct Flights between Europe and Africa, December 2008:
Figure 4: African Nations Currently Participating in the SSFA Program:
Abbreviations:
AFI Plan: Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation
Safety in Africa:
AFRICOM: U.S. Africa Command:
AGOA: African Growth and Opportunity Act:
CASSOA: Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency:
COSCAP: Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing
Airworthiness Program:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EAC: East African Community:
EU: European Union:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
IASA: International Aviation Safety Assessment:
IATA: International Air Transportation Association:
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization:
IOSA: IATA Operational Safety Audit:
MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation:
NCAA: Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority:
SSFA: Safe Skies for Africa program:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
USTDA: U.S. Trade and Development Agency:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 16, 2009:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jerry F. Costello:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Aviation:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Corrine Brown:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Donald M. Payne:
House of Representatives:
The African continent is important to U.S. economic, strategic, and
foreign policy interests, and efforts have been made to improve
commerce and connectivity to benefit the two regions.[Footnote 1] U.S.
interests in Africa include having access to natural resources,
particularly petroleum reserves, and ensuring their security and market
stability; mitigating potential security threats posed by vast
uncontrolled spaces; and alleviating the effects of sporadic
humanitarian crises and armed conflicts. Furthermore, Africa has been
identified as a strategic trading partner, because the continent is a
large potential market for U.S.-manufactured products, such as aviation
safety and security equipment and aircraft. African countries have also
recognized the benefits of improved commerce and connectivity between
the United States and Africa, notably the economic benefits associated
with increased trade and tourism.
However, efforts to increase commerce and connectivity between the
United States and Africa have been hindered, in part, by the poor
aviation safety record of some African countries. The African continent
has historically had one of the highest accident rates in the world.
The poor aviation safety record of some African countries has
contributed to the limited number of direct flights between the United
States and the continent. With few exceptions, flights between the
United States and African countries bring passengers through
intermediate points, often European hubs, adding time to these flights
and potentially increasing their cost.
Recognizing the importance of aviation in advancing U.S. and African
interests, the federal government has initiated various efforts to
improve aviation safety in Africa. In particular, the Safe Skies for
Africa (SSFA) program was created in 1998 as a presidential initiative
to improve aviation safety and security and air navigation in Sub-
Saharan African countries.[Footnote 2] The State Department provides
funding for the program from its budget using economic support funds.
[Footnote 3] The program is managed by the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Office of the Secretary, through which the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides technical assistance and
training to participating African countries. Currently, 10 African
countries participate in the SSFA program.[Footnote 4] Concerned about
the impact that poor aviation practices in Africa can have on global
aviation safety, the international community, including the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Air
Transportation Association (IATA), and World Bank, has also launched a
number of initiatives to improve aviation safety in Africa.
You asked us to examine issues related to U.S. efforts to improve
aviation safety in Africa. This report discusses (1) the challenges
that exist in improving aviation safety in Africa, (2) key U.S. efforts
to improve aviation safety in Africa and the extent to which they
address the identified challenges, and (3) steps that other countries
or international organizations have taken to improve aviation safety in
Africa. To address these issues, we reviewed and synthesized literature
and studies on U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa,
including the SSFA program, comparable international aviation efforts,
and Africa's aviation markets and safety record. We also analyzed
legislation related to U.S. efforts to improve commerce and
connectivity to Africa, SSFA program documents, and international
aviation safety information. We interviewed officials at the
Departments of Transportation, State, and Defense; U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID); U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA); National Transportation Safety Board; and Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) about U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in
Africa. We also interviewed aviation specialists from the European
Commission, World Bank, ICAO, and IATA.
In addition, we conducted site visits to Cape Verde, Kenya, Senegal,
and Tanzania. We selected these countries using the following criteria:
the countries' participation in the SSFA program, the countries'
aviation safety record, FAA's safety ratings for the countries, and
geographic location. These criteria enabled us to identify countries
with a range of safety and aviation experiences. However, because we
selected these four countries as part of a nonprobability sample, our
findings cannot be generalized to all African countries. During these
site visits, we interviewed government officials, civil aviation
authority officials, representatives from aviation stakeholder groups,
and representatives from air carriers to obtain information on efforts
to improve aviation safety in Africa, including U.S. efforts.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 to June 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more
information about our scope and methodology.
Background:
The African continent is the second largest continent in terms of land
mass and population, comprising 54 culturally diverse countries, many
with distinct histories and identities. The continent is about three
times the size of the United States, roughly the size of Argentina,
China, India, Kazakhstan, Mexico, and the United States combined (see
figure 1). African countries are politically varied, ranging from
dictatorships to emerging democracies. African countries also vary in
the types and quantities of natural resources they control and in the
size and strength of their economies. For example, the gross domestic
product of African countries ranged from about $145 million to $277
billion in 2007, with countries rich in natural resources, such as
petroleum and diamonds, generally having larger economies.[Footnote 5]
In comparison, the gross domestic product of the United States was
almost $14 trillion in 2007.[Footnote 6]
Figure 1: Relative Size of the African Continent:
[Refer to PDF for image: map and table]
The map is an illustration of the relative size of the African
Continent, depicting the following countries being contained within the
African Continent for comparison of size:
Argentina;
China;
India;
Kazakhstan;
Mexico;
United States.
Country/region: Africa;
Area (millions of square miles): 11.7.
Country/region: Argentina;
Area (millions of square miles): 1.1.
Country/region: China;
Area (millions of square miles): 3.7.
Country/region: India;
Area (millions of square miles): 1.3.
Country/region: Kazakhstan;
Area (millions of square miles): 1.0.
Country/region: Mexico;
Area (millions of square miles): 0.8.
Country/region: United States;
Area (millions of square miles): 3.8.
Source: GAO and MapArt.
[End of figure]
Despite Africa's size, diversity, and wealth of resources, however,
many African countries remain economically underdeveloped. According to
the literature we reviewed, improving airline connectivity between a
developing country and the rest of the world has potential to create
economic benefits both locally and globally. In particular, the
remoteness and size of some African countries, coupled with
underdeveloped--and sometimes unsafe--road networks, makes air
transport critical for connecting some African markets to other African
markets, the United States, and the rest of the world. Our literature
synthesis suggests that safe aviation could increase connectivity and
potentially create economic and social benefits for a country.[Footnote
7] For example, aviation can contribute to sustainable development by
facilitating tourism and trade. Such development, in turn, generates
economic growth, provides jobs, and can improve living standards,
alleviate poverty, contribute to social stability, and increase tax
revenues. Similarly, according to the literature we reviewed, when a
developing country creates additional airline connections with other
countries, it may derive potential economic benefits in the form of
increased exports, as well as tourism and business opportunities. For
example, Africa is a growing export market for U.S.-manufactured
products, including aircraft and air navigation systems.[Footnote 8]
According to DOT reports, several African countries have stated their
intention to purchase aviation security equipment based on the same
technologies as equipment donated to them by the United States.
The literature we reviewed also mentions other potential benefits to
improving aviation safety in Africa, including the following:
* Improved safety of the global aviation system. Aviation is a global
enterprise, and maintaining a safe system is the foundation upon which
the entire global aviation system network operates. One country's
failure to comply with international aviation safety standards could
have disastrous consequences for other countries' air carriers and
passengers.
* Improved U.S. national security. Civil aircraft traveling from some
African countries to other parts of the world potentially pose a threat
to U.S. national security because adequate safety and security measures
are not in place in those countries. In particular, African countries
with weak aviation oversight are more likely to have airports that act
as transit points for illicit activities, such as arms transfers and
trafficking, encouraging criminals to establish organizational bases in
these areas.
Efforts have been made to improve connectivity as a means of creating
economic benefits for both the United States and African countries, as
well as for pursuing strategic and foreign policy interests. For
example, in 2000, Congress identified Africa as a strategic trading
partner under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).[Footnote
9] AGOA provides duty-free access for over 6,000 products from 40 Sub-
Saharan African countries and has served as the central U.S. trade and
investment policy toward Sub-Saharan Africa.[Footnote 10] AGOA is aimed
at promoting open markets, expanding U.S.-Africa trade and investment,
stimulating economic growth, and facilitating Sub-Saharan Africa's
integration into the global economy. Under AGOA, U.S. trade with Africa
has grown substantially. For example, U.S. imports under AGOA have more
than tripled for apparel--from $359.4 million in 2001 to $1.3 billion
in 2007--while U.S. exports to Sub-Saharan Africa have more than
doubled from $7 billion in 2001 to over $14.4 billion in 2007.[Footnote
11] In addition, the United States has been engaged in various
strategic and foreign policy interests in Africa. For example, the
Department of Defense (DOD) maintains a small military presence in
Djibouti to provide a regional security presence related to
counterterrorism for several Horn of Africa and East African countries.
[Footnote 12] Similarly, the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership
is a multiagency U.S. effort to provide support to nine north and
western African countries relating to diplomacy, development
assistance, and military activities aimed at strengthening country and
regional counterterrorism capabilities.[Footnote 13] DOD's plans to
locate the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) on the continent are under
review, and a decision on whether or where will not be made until the
end of 2011.[Footnote 14]
However, efforts to improve connectivity and commerce between the
United States and Africa have been hindered, in part, by the overall
poor condition of African nations' aviation systems. The African
continent has historically had a poor aviation safety record, compared
with other regions of the world. For instance, the annual average
accident rate per 1 million flights for the African region over the
last 4 years is about 15 times greater than for North America (see
figure 2). Moreover, according to federal and other officials, the
accident rate in Africa is likely to be higher than reported because
accidents involving small aircrafts are underreported. For example,
according to ICAO, on average, about 70 percent of accidents in Africa
were not reported from 1990 through 2006. However, the accident rate
among African countries varies greatly. In particular, a few African
countries have a much higher accident rate than other African countries
and contribute disproportionately to the continent's overall accident
rate. For example, over half the total number of aviation accidents in
Africa over the last 10 years occurred in 4 of the continent's 54
countries.[Footnote 15]
Figure 2: Annual Average Aviation Accident Rate, by Regions of the
World, from 2005 through 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: world map]
World Region: North Asia;
Accident rate per million departures: 0.22.
World Region: North America;
Accident rate per million departures: 0.34.
World Region: Europe;
Accident rate per million departures: 0.34.
World Region: Asia/Pacific;
Accident rate per million departures: 1.25.
World Region: Middle East and North Africa;
Accident rate per million departures: 1.70.
World Region: Latin America and Caribbean;
Accident rate per million departures: 2.14.
World Region: Commonwealth of Independent States;
Accident rate per million departures: 3.76.
World Region: Africa;
Accident rate per million departures: 4.93.
World Region: World average;
Accident rate per million departures: 0.74.
Source: GAO presentation of IATA data.
Note: The accident rate reflects accidents that resulted in one hull
loss per 1 million flights of Western-built jet aircraft. A hull loss
means an accident in which an aircraft is destroyed or substantially
damaged and is not subsequently repaired for whatever reason, including
a financial decision of the owner. Western-built jets are commercial
transport aircraft designed in Western Europe, the Americas or
Indonesia.
[End of figure]
ICAO is the international body that seeks to harmonize global aviation
standards so that worldwide civil aviation can benefit from a seamless
air transportation network. ICAO members, known as contracting states,
including the United States, are not legally bound to act in accordance
with ICAO standards and recommended practices.[Footnote 16] Rather,
contracting states decide whether to transform the standards and
recommended practices into national laws or regulations. In some cases,
contracting states deviate from some of the ICAO standards and
recommended practices, or do not implement some of them at all when
they find it impracticable to do so.[Footnote 17] Contracting states
are also responsible for the establishment of a regulatory framework to
provide safety oversight for their civil aviation systems, and for
developing the required aviation infrastructure necessary to maintain a
safe, secure, and sustainable system.
FAA is responsible for regulating the safety of civil aviation in the
United States. FAA also works to advance the nation's leadership on the
international level by engaging in dialogue with aviation counterparts
across the world, collaborating with ICAO, providing technical
assistance and training, working to harmonize global standards toward
developing a seamless air transportation network, and sharing expertise
and technologies. In 1992, FAA established the International Aviation
Safety Assessments (IASA) program based on its own and congressional
concerns that the level of safety oversight being applied by other
civil aviation authorities with air service to the United States was
inadequate and not in compliance with international safety standards.
The IASA program examines the ability of foreign countries, not
individual air carriers, to adhere to international standards and
recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance
established by ICAO. FAA generally conducts a safety assessment when a
foreign air carrier files an application with DOT requesting to
initiate new air service to the United States, or take part in a code-
share arrangement with U.S. airlines.[Footnote 18] FAA also conducts a
safety assessment when reliable information indicates that another
country with operators providing service to the United States has
serious aviation oversight deficiencies. In conducting these
assessments, FAA meets with officials from the foreign civil aviation
authority and foreign air carrier and reviews pertinent records.
FAA uses a two-tier rating system for the results of the assessments:
Category 1 for countries that comply with ICAO standards and Category 2
for countries that do not.[Footnote 19] FAA uses this determination as
part of its basis for recommending whether or not DOT should allow air
carriers overseen by certain foreign civil aviation authorities to
initiate, continue, or expand air service to the United States. In
particular, air carriers in foreign countries without a Category 1
rating cannot initiate or continue service to the United States, take
part in code-share arrangements with U.S. air carriers, or effectively
increase air traffic with the United States.[Footnote 20] Currently,
five African countries have a Category 1 rating: Cape Verde, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Morocco, and South Africa. Partly because of the small number
of Category 1 countries, direct connections between Africa and the
United States are currently limited. In fact, only one U.S. commercial
airline provides direct passenger service to the continent as of June
2009.[Footnote 21] Furthermore, there are only eight direct connections
between U.S. cities and an African city, and three of these connections
are provided solely by foreign air carriers (see figure 3).
Figure 3: Direct Flights between the United States and Africa Compared
with Direct Flights between Europe and Africa, December 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Connections between continents: Between United States and Africa;
Number of connections: 8 connections.
Connections between continents: Between Europe and Africa;
Number of connections: 491 connections.
Source: GAO presentation of IATA data.
Note: The number of connections refers to the number of weekly, nonstop
commercial and charter air service flights between a U.S. city and
Africa (city pair) and a European city and Africa.
[End of figure]
Many Ongoing Challenges Make Improving Aviation Safety in Africa
Difficult:
According to our literature synthesis and U.S. and African officials we
interviewed, the major challenge in improving aviation safety is that
the highest levels of government in some African nations have not made
it a priority. We have previously identified leadership support as
critical to fundamental organizational changes[Footnote 22]--such as
those required to prioritize aviation safety in some African countries.
According to U.S. federal officials and ICAO representatives, making
aviation a governmental priority is critical to the successful
transformation of African civil aviation authorities. In fact, we found
that in African countries that have succeeded in improving aviation
safety and generating economic benefits, like Cape Verde (see table 1),
top leadership's clear and personal involvement has set the direction
for civil aviation officials to act upon. However, according to U.S.
government and African officials, many political leaders in African
countries have not prioritized aviation safety, in part because of more
pressing priorities, such as poverty, health care, and basic nutrition.
Some African officials told us that aviation is seen as a luxury for
the affluent in African society, and these perceptions pressure
governmental leaders to give lower priority to improving aviation
safety and to use resources for issues that affect a larger segment of
the African population. These officials further said that African
political leaders often do not realize the potential benefits, such as
increased tourism, that can flow from improved aviation safety.
Table 1: Cape Verde's Experience in Improving Aviation Safety:
Ten islands off the west coast of the African continent make up the
country of Cape Verde. Cape Verde islands are mostly barren, volcanic
rock, and the country has few natural resources, limited fresh water,
and limited agricultural products. Nevertheless, according to Cape
Verde officials, the country has a strategic location in the Atlantic
by air and sea, which makes the country a potential hub for
intercontinental transport, business, and tourism. To fulfill this
vision, political leaders set out to develop its air transport sector.
Cape Verde was an original SSFA program participant in 1998. According
to DOT, the highest levels of the government of Cape Verde consistently
gave high priority to improving the country's aviation system and
meeting international aviation safety standards, including changing the
country's civil aviation regulations and establishing a financially and
politically independent civil aviation authority, among other things.
In September 2003, Cape Verde became the first SSFA country to meet
ICAO international safety standards and achieve FAA Category 1 status.
According to Cape Verde officials, this achievement created
opportunities for further development of air transport to and from Cape
Verde. In July 2005, Cape Verde initiated regularly scheduled air
services from the national capital of Praia to the United States
(Boston, Massachusetts) via the national carrier, TACV Cape Verde
Airlines. Cape Verde officials attributed these new routes, in part, to
the country's efforts to improve aviation safety. In addition to
creating jobs associated with growth in the aviation sector, Cape Verde
officials told us that the increased connections to the United States
have had a positive impact on their country's tourism sector. To
illustrate, Cape Verde's tourist industry expanded about 13 percent
between 2000 and 2003, and about 16 percent between 2004 and 2007. Cape
Verde officials expect this growth to reach the benchmark of 1 million
tourists annually by 2015, when tourism would account for as much as 30
percent of Cape Verde's gross domestic product, compared with 18
percent in 2006.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The lack of priority for improving safety may create or exacerbate
other challenges frequently identified in the literature we reviewed
and by officials we interviewed, including weak aviation regulatory
systems, a lack of resources, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of
human capital expertise, and a lack of training capacity. These
challenges are not mutually exclusive, since most are affected by or
contribute to the other challenges.
* Weak aviation regulatory systems. ICAO recommends that civil aviation
authorities be created as politically and financially independent
bodies. Accordingly, an authority should be independently funded and
(1) have its own financial resources, (2) have the authority needed to
issue aviation standards and regulations and conduct safety oversight
of air operators; and (3) establish requirements for the certification
of air operators. These are among the critical elements of a safety
oversight system designed to ensure the implementation of ICAO
standards and recommended practices. According to DOT officials,
however, many African civil aviation authorities do not have sufficient
regulatory autonomy or stable and reliable revenue sources to comply
with ICAO standards. For example, some officials we interviewed stated
that some African civil aviation authorities' budgets are linked to
their countries' general treasuries or transportation ministries,
making the authorities susceptible to political interference. Moreover,
because they are not independent entities, some civil aviation
authorities can have their decisions overturned by higher-ranking
government officials. For example, according to several officials we
interviewed, a decision to ground two aircraft because of safety
concerns in one African country resulted in the firing of the civil
aviation authority head. According to representatives from the United
Nations' World Food Program, a program that uses the aviation system to
deliver humanitarian aid, these weak regulatory systems allow unsafe
aviation practices--such as certifying outdated and poorly maintained
aircraft in some African countries--to go unchecked. According to DOD,
the ability of each African country to have a civil aviation authority
that meets international standards of oversight is critical for the
safety of DOD's aviation operations on the continent and to mission
success.
* Lack of resources. Some African countries lack sufficient revenues to
improve the safety of their aviation systems. A World Bank official
told us that only a few countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have an
aviation market with sufficient passenger traffic to generate sustained
funding for aviation safety improvements. Furthermore, aviation
officials from all four of the African countries we visited told us
that obtaining adequate funding to properly maintain their aviation
system was a major challenge. For example, according to Tanzanian civil
aviation officials, they have not been able to make needed aviation
safety improvements because their authority does not generate
sufficient revenue from air traffic. Moreover, revenue generated
through such mechanisms as landing fees are not always dedicated to the
aviation system in some African countries; rather, the governments use
this revenue for other priorities. Finally, because of the low priority
placed on improving aviation safety in some African countries, African
aviation officials told us that it can be difficult to secure
additional government funding for safety improvements.
* Inadequate infrastructure. Partly for lack of resources, the aviation
infrastructure in many African countries is insufficient, outdated, or
in otherwise poor condition, which can lead to safety hazards. For
example, as discussed previously, airspace in some regions of Africa is
not controlled by air navigation systems. The lack of such technology
increases the potential for midair collisions, affecting both civilian
and military aviation. For example, DOD officials told us that the lack
of air navigation systems affects military aviation operations, such as
carrying out missions and conducting training exercises, on the
continent. To reduce the risk of collisions, officials from one African
airline said they fly to certain regions only during daytime hours.
African airports also sometimes lack basic infrastructure, such as
radar systems, adequate runway surfaces, and other navigation
facilities, or the infrastructure they have is obsolete. For example,
according to IATA, at many African airports, airfield lighting is not
compliant with international aviation safety standards. Noncompliant
airfield lighting contributed to a crash in Nigeria in December 2005
that killed 108 passengers. The runway lights were off, in part because
the airport lacked the funds and resources to maintain a stable power
supply from operating generators.[Footnote 23] According to Tanzanian
airport officials, maintaining and improving airport infrastructure is
the biggest challenge they face in attempting to improve their
country's aviation safety.
* Lack of human capital expertise. According to several U.S. and
African officials, the lack of qualified aviation personnel, such as
pilots, air traffic controllers, maintenance technicians, and flight
inspectors, has been a major challenge for African countries. These
officials stated that many African civil aviation authorities and air
carriers find it difficult to attract and retain qualified personnel,
primarily because of the low wages they pay. This problem becomes
especially acute for some African civil aviation authorities trying to
retain qualified inspectors, because their salaries are tied to the
governmental pay structure, which is not competitive with the private
sector. According to U.S. and African officials, aviation personnel
leave African civil aviation authorities and air carriers for more
lucrative positions, frequently with foreign air carriers in the Middle
East and Asia, after gaining a few years' experience in Africa--a
phenomenon these officials referred to as "brain drain." As a result,
critical aviation positions, such as airworthiness inspection
positions, go unfilled, leaving the country noncompliant with
international aviation safety standards. We and others have identified
the importance of a competent aviation inspector workforce to improve
safety and compliance with safety standards.[Footnote 24]
* Lack of training capacity. Improving aviation safety in Africa has
been hindered by the lack of training capacity in some African
countries. Having inadequate financial resources and competing primary
needs, many African countries do not have sufficient means to fund
training for personnel in technical, management, and leadership
disciplines. Two of the four countries we visited had training centers
to train aviation personnel in various disciplines, such as air traffic
control, flight operations, and airport security. However, the training
center officials said they lacked important training capacity because
of funding constraints. For example, officials said the centers had
insufficient numbers of teachers and classrooms and lacked up-to-date
training materials and equipment. Because they lack training capacity,
many African civil aviation authorities send personnel to other
countries, including the United States, for training, which can be
costly and time-consuming.
U.S. Assistance Has Helped Address Some Challenges but Could Benefit
from Better Coordination:
DOT Provides Assistance to African Countries Primarily through the SSFA
Program:
DOT's SSFA program has been the principal U.S. aviation safety
assistance program for African countries since its inception in 1998 as
a presidential initiative. The program was established to promote
sustainable improvements in aviation safety and security in Africa and
to foster aviation growth between the United States and Africa. The
program was designated in 2003 as the vehicle to support the goals of
the 2003 East Africa Counterterrorism presidential initiative to
advance the administration's regional security strategy[Footnote 25].
According to DOT officials, the program was also incorporated into the
administration's strategy for working with Sub-Saharan African
countries in 2007.[Footnote 26] DOT's 2008 strategic plan describes the
SSFA program as advancing the Department's mission and objective of
international outreach and global connectivity.[Footnote 27]
Furthermore, according to FAA's business plan, the program serves to
coordinate and advance FAA's international leadership objectives and
activities in Africa.[Footnote 28]
The SSFA program has three main goals: (1) increase the number of Sub-
Saharan African countries that meet the ICAO aviation safety standards,
(2) improve aviation security at a number of African airports, and (3)
improve regional air navigation services in Africa by using modern
satellite-based navigation aids and modern communications technology.
DOT works to achieve these goals by providing training and technical
assistance to the participating countries, including direct assistance
from FAA. For example, DOT has provided training to over 1,200 aviation
personnel from Africa through the SSFA program. Similarly, DOT and FAA
collaborated with ICAO to formally develop model civil aviation
regulations to provide countries participating in SSFA with a cohesive
set of guidance materials to use in developing their own set of
technical regulations and guidance materials. DOT's Office of the
Secretary manages the SSFA program, including identifying the program's
objectives, activities, and project time frames, as well as documenting
the program's results. FAA provides the technical expertise and other
in-kind services to participating African countries, especially in
technical areas such as safety oversight. For all participating SSFA
countries, DOT works with FAA to conduct a baseline safety and security
assessment, develop an action plan to remedy the identified
deficiencies, and outline an assistance plan to guide the country's
efforts to address its aviation safety and security issues. The
participating SSFA countries bear the primary responsibility for
funding the improvements recommended by DOT.[Footnote 29] Currently, 10
African countries participate in the SSFA program (see figure 4).
[Footnote 30]
Figure 4: African Nations Currently Participating in the SSFA Program:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map of Africa]
Safe Skies for Africa program:
Angola:
Cameroon:
Cape Verde:
Djibouti:
Ghana:
Kenya:
Mali:
Namibia:
Tanzania:
Uganda:
Source: GAO and MapArt.
[End of figure]
A recent focus of the SSFA program is encouraging African countries to
take a regional approach to address aviation safety challenges. DOT
officials told us that a regional approach to safety allows countries
to address resource, human capital, and training challenges by pooling
and leveraging expertise and sharing costs. For example, rather than
each country establishing individual training centers, countries can
band together to establish regional training centers that could serve
aviation personnel from all of the participating countries. Such an
approach allows the countries to provide the necessary training, but
with less money and fewer teachers than they would need to establish
multiple, country-specific training centers. In 2007, as part of the
SSFA program's regionalism effort, three East African Community (EAC)
countries (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda) [Footnote 31] established the
first operational regional safety and security oversight organization
in Africa--the Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency
(CASSOA)--to be responsible for, among other things, ensuring the
development of a safe and secure civil aviation system, including
uniform operating regulations that meet the international standards and
standardized procedures for licensing, approving, certificating and
supervising civil aviation activities.[Footnote 32] CASSOA was
fashioned after aspects of ICAO's regional safety oversight
organizations, as discussed later in this report. According to FAA
officials, one of the main focuses of CASSOA will be to assist in
developing a pool of qualified, transnational inspectors who can be
used in any of the EAC countries as needed.
In addition to the SSFA program, DOT has other efforts to assist
foreign countries, including African countries, in developing their
civil aviation systems and improving aviation safety. In particular,
FAA provides aviation safety technical assistance and training to
countries across the globe. According to FAA, a key component of the
agency's technical assistance efforts is its technical reviews. A
technical review is an evaluation of a country's compliance with ICAO
standards for aviation safety oversight. In these reviews, FAA
technical teams apply the same criteria used in an IASA program audit
and identify areas of noncompliance and work with the country to
develop an action plan in order to implement the proposed corrective
actions.[Footnote 33] The goal of the technical review is to provide a
baseline for a country in order to help the country eventually meet
ICAO standards and, potentially, IASA requirements. According to DOT,
FAA has conducted technical reviews of seven African civil aviation
authorities, in both SSFA and non-SSFA countries. For example, in July
2007, FAA conducted a technical review of the safety oversight
capability of the civil aviation authority in Nigeria, a non-SSFA
country. FAA also provides aviation-related training to the
international community and supports ICAO contracting states and
regional aviation organizations. For example, in July 2007, FAA helped
South Africa review its aviation law and regulations prior to an IASA
reassessment scheduled for later that year.
Resources for SSFA Program Have Been Unpredictable and Constrained:
DOT and FAA officials told us that resources for the SSFA program and
other technical assistance efforts directed toward Africa have been
unpredictable and constrained since the program began, hampering their
efforts to carry out its objectives. The State Department provides
funding for the program from one of its appropriations--the Economic
Support Fund Account--and funding for the program has ranged from $8.5
million from the appropriation for fiscal year 2003 to zero from the
appropriations for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (see table 2).[Footnote
34] Funds that are provided for SSFA are available for obligation for 2
fiscal years, and in fiscal year 2008, DOT-obligated funds carried over
from fiscal year 2007, according to DOT.[Footnote 35] Because of a
continuing resolution, funds for SSFA remained available for obligation
into fiscal year 2009, and a DOT official estimated that such funds
could sustain the program for the remainder of the fiscal year.
[Footnote 36] However, to stretch the resources through this date, DOT
officials said they have limited SSFA activities, focusing only on
countries that are making tangible progress in improving safety and
regional initiatives. Other planned activities were delayed or
canceled. For example, because of limited funding, according to DOT
officials, the SSFA program was unable to keep aviation safety
personnel in Africa to provide on-site guidance and technical
assistance. According to these officials, such on-site guidance and
technical assistance would help African countries eliminate errors in
implementing or interpreting aviation safety requirements and, over
time, would reduce the amount of time spent working with them to meet
international aviation safety standards. In addition, DOT officials
said that one funding priority is helping EAC countries establish the
newly created regional oversight organization. According to a State
Department official, the fiscal year 2010 congressional budget
justification for the department includes $2 million for the program.
Table 2: Funding Allocated from the Department of State's
Appropriations for the SSFA Program, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2009:
Fiscal year: 2000;
Funding: $1,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Funding: $4,995,000[A].
Fiscal year: 2002;
Funding: $3,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Funding: $8,500,000[B].
Fiscal year: 2004;
Funding: $6,470,500[C].
Fiscal year: 2005;
Funding: $3,472,000.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Funding: $1,970,000.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Funding: $2,000,000.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Funding: 0.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Funding: 0.
Source: DOT.
Note: The table shows the funding transferred from the Department of
State's appropriation account by fiscal year. Because funds provided to
SSFA are available for obligation for 2 fiscal years, the funding
levels above indicate the amounts allocated to SSFA for each fiscal
year and not necessarily the amounts obligated or expended in a
particular fiscal year. For example, no funds were transferred to the
program from the Department of State's fiscal year 2008 appropriation
account, but DOT obligated and expended funds from the previous fiscal
year's account to operate the program in 2008. All funding amounts are
in nominal dollars.
[A] Funding level reflects one-time funding for aviation security
equipment. This funding was provided after the September 11, 2001,
attacks for the purchase, transport, and installation of the equipment
and for training in seven of the nine countries active in the SSFA
program at that time.
[B] Funding level reflects a special allocation for Kenya.
[C] Funding level includes a one-time allocation of $1.5 million for
Djibouti.
[End of table]
In addition to budgetary constraints, DOT and FAA officials told us,
they have limited staff resources to work on aviation safety issues in
Africa. Most of the DOT and FAA staff working on aviation safety in
Africa also have other responsibilities that limit the amount of time
they can spend on the SSFA program and other African initiatives. All
of the African governmental officials we spoke with were appreciative
of the technical assistance and training provided under the SSFA
program, but many said additional assistance for implementing the
technical advice provided by FAA would be very helpful. For example,
EAC headquarters officials said the technical assistance through SSFA
has helped EAC harmonize the civil aviation regulations for each
country. However, they said the lack of funding and expertise will make
the next step in the process--implementing regulations in each member
country--difficult.
Two Economic Development-Oriented Agencies Have Funded Aviation
Projects in Africa:
In addition to the training and technical assistance provided by DOT
and FAA, USTDA and MCC have provided funding for aviation-related
projects, including safety improvements, in Africa. Neither of these
agencies has an aviation-related mission; rather the missions of these
agencies focus on promoting economic development in countries around
the world.[Footnote 37] However, given the potential economic benefits
associated with improved aviation systems, USTDA and MCC, in total,
have funded over two dozen aviation-related projects in various African
countries, including the following:
* Over the past 10 years, according to USTDA, the agency has provided
over $6.1 million in funding for 26 aviation-sector projects throughout
Sub-Saharan Africa.[Footnote 38] These projects typically focus on
providing technical assistance or conducting feasibility studies for
African governments or private-sector entities. For example, USTDA
provided $460,000 to the Malawian Ministry of Transport and Public
Works to assist in establishing an autonomous civil aviation authority
with a supportive legal and regulatory framework and adequate
institutional capabilities. USTDA has also funded aviation projects in
several African countries in an effort to strengthen regional air
traffic management and communications structures. For example, USTDA
has provided about $1.7 million for conducting feasibility studies for
air traffic management development and for modernizing three regional
groups' upper airspace. The benefits expected from these efforts
include improved air traffic safety and regional coordination, and
increased revenues for the member countries. In addition, USTDA has
sponsored training and seminars. For example, in 2002, USTDA provided
about $84,000 for an orientation visit in which 18 delegates from nine
African countries traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with government
and private-sector representatives on project-specific opportunities in
Africa, and on the role and development of air cargo transportation in
AGOA. Also, in November 2008, USTDA and DOT partnered to sponsor a
workshop in Washington, D.C., to bring together ministers and senior
officials from eastern African countries, U.S. government officials,
and private-sector representatives to discuss transportation needs and
regional solutions to transportation infrastructure challenges in East
Africa.
* MCC has funded aviation-related projects for Mali and Tanzania. MCC
provides its assistance through compact agreements, or multi-year
agreements between MCC and an eligible country. Compact agreements were
signed with Mali in November 2006 and with Tanzania in February 2008.
Under these agreements, MCC has provided about $183 million and $7
million, respectively, for airport infrastructure projects.
U.S. Efforts Are Not Consistently Coordinated:
U.S. efforts on the continent have not consistently been coordinated.
The SSFA program began as a collaborative effort between DOT and other
U.S. agencies. Throughout the program's existence, DOT has pursued
collaborative efforts, such as regular briefings to the State
Department on program developments and formal and ad hoc discussions
and meetings with USTDA and MCC. Currently, multiple federal agencies
are working to improve aviation safety or are funding aviation-related
projects in Africa. However, these agencies' missions do not focus
specifically on improving aviation safety. These agencies have distinct
missions and, consequently, their efforts on the continent have
different purposes, but their efforts nonetheless intersect.
Recognizing the interrelatedness of their efforts, DOT has used
memorandums of agreement with several federal agencies to coordinate
aviation-related efforts in Africa to prevent duplication and to ensure
that federal funding is put to best use in the aviation
sector.[Footnote 39] DOT officials told us these memorandums of
agreement are mechanisms to provide recommendations based on
international standards and coordination with SSFA activities. In
addition, USTDA and FAA jointly formed an Interagency Committee on
International Aviation Safety and Security in 2004 to coordinate
technical assistance in the areas of aviation safety and security in
developing countries.[Footnote 40] The committee was formed to
strengthen the impact of U.S. aviation and security assistance through
a strategic, governmentwide focus on priority projects, and to target
U.S. assistance to those countries that are committed to progress and
capable of both improving and maintaining their safety and security
performance.
These mechanisms have not consistently worked as intended. For example,
MCC and DOT signed a memorandum of understanding to ensure coordination
on related projects. However, circumstances surrounding the MCC
aviation project in Mali demonstrate a need for improved coordination
between the two agencies. According to FAA officials, MCC did not have
prior consultations with them on MCC's aviation project in Mali, even
though FAA was actively working with Mali on aviation safety issues.
Rather, DOT and FAA officials said they learned about MCC's project
through an MCC contractor. In contrast, MCC officials told us that they
did coordinate with DOT on the Mali project, noting that DOT officials
attended several meetings held prior to the signing of the compact with
Mali in which the compact was discussed.
DOT and FAA officials told us that increased collaboration is needed
among federal agencies providing aviation-related assistance to Africa
to leverage limited resources and minimize duplication of effort. The
officials pointed out that in some instances other agencies and
organizations that provide funding for aviation infrastructure,
technical assistance, and training projects may not have the aviation
expertise needed to determine whether the projects meet international
aviation safety standards. As a result, investments provided to fund
projects that do not meet international aviation safety standards may
not allow African countries to reap the potential economic benefits
associated with enhancing air connectivity with the United States.
In addition, we have previously reported on the importance of
coordinating federal efforts, especially when these efforts target the
same population, to prevent duplication and fragmentation of effort.
[Footnote 41] This potential for overlap and fragmentation underscores
how important it is for the federal government to develop the capacity
to more effectively coordinate crosscutting program efforts.[Footnote
42] Our work also indicates that coordinating crosscutting programs is
a persistent challenge for executive branch agencies, and in addressing
these challenges, agencies will need to overcome barriers, such as
disparate missions and other incompatibilities. Agencies can enhance
and sustain their collaborative efforts by developing a strategy that
includes necessary elements for a collaborative working relationship,
such as defining and articulating a common outcome; identifying and
addressing needs by leveraging resources; agreeing on roles and
responsibilities; establishing compatible policies, procedures, and
other means to operate across agency boundaries; and developing
mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
The International Community Has Taken Steps to Address the Challenges:
The international community also has taken steps to improve aviation
safety in Africa. Addressing issues on the continent has been elevated
in international aviation organizations, institutions that represent
sovereign nations or foreign governments, and other international
organizations. Many of these steps, such as improving aviation
oversight, increasing training, and improving infrastructure, address
the challenges involved in improving aviation safety in Africa. The
following are among the international efforts most frequently mentioned
by officials we interviewed.
* International Civil Aviation Organization has strengthened its focus
on the safety oversight capacity of African countries. ICAO implemented
the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program in 1999 as an auditing
tool to determine contracting states' capability for safety oversight
by assessing the states' implementation of a safety oversight system
and identifying areas of concern.[Footnote 43] Findings from ICAO's
audits revealed that a number of African countries lack the resources
and regulatory framework necessary to fulfill their safety oversight
responsibilities, and vary widely in their ability to provide safety
oversight.[Footnote 44] In 2007, audits of 27 African countries showed
that, on average, these countries were not effectively implementing
over half of ICAO's eight critical elements of a safety oversight
system, with the proportion of standards effectively implemented
ranging from about 9 percent to about 94 percent. As a result, ICAO has
been involved in several initiatives to help African countries improve
aviation safety. The first major initiative, the Comprehensive Regional
Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in Africa (AFI Plan), was
developed in 2007 to address aviation safety concerns and support
African countries in meeting their international obligations for safety
oversight. The plan was intended to coordinate and lead all of ICAO's
efforts for addressing aviation safety issues in Africa with clearly
defined objectives, outputs, activities, and metrics.[Footnote 45]
Like the SSFA program, ICAO has worked with African nations to share
aviation oversight responsibilities through regional organizations in
its Cooperative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing
Airworthiness Program (COSCAP).[Footnote 46] Under this program,
African countries have begun to consider the benefits of coordinating
aviation oversight responsibilities to enhance the safety of air
transport operations in their respective regions. For example, eight
countries in western Africa formed the West Africa Economic and
Monetary Union COSCAP. This COSCAP established a cooperative
arrangement for the member countries to provide collaborative safety
oversight for the subregion to enhance the safety and efficiency of air
transport. According to literature sources and ICAO officials, these
regional organizations will enhance the ability of civil aviation
authorities in Africa to provide safety oversight by addressing
resource, human capital, and training challenges.
ICAO has also created a database for information on aviation safety and
security assistance provided to African countries by contracting
states. The purpose of this database is to facilitate the coordination
of assistance in order to better leverage limited resources. According
to ICAO officials, assistance provided to African countries to improve
aviation safety is largely uncoordinated, creating the potential for
efforts that are duplicative or serve cross purposes. Similar to U.S.
officials, ICAO officials have noted that from an international
perspective, many countries and organizations are eager to support
aviation safety efforts in African nations, and thus offer various
forms of assistance, including funding. Furthermore, the officials
noted that with limited resources, African nations have little
incentive to turn away assistance from donor countries even if it
overlaps with assistance from another country.
* International Air Transport Association provides aviation operational
safety audit tools and support for members.[Footnote 47] The IATA
Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) program was initiated in 2001 and is an
evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and
control systems of an airline. Starting in 2008, IATA required that its
members pass an IOSA audit as a condition of membership. To help its
members identify operational gaps when preparing for safety audits,
IATA developed a technical assistance program for member airlines,
including African airlines. Nigeria affords an example of an African
country's participation in ICAO and IATA programs (see table 3). IATA
also provided $3.7 million to initiate the Implementation Program for
Safe Operations in Africa, which is designed to improve aviation safety
by providing African airlines with access to IATA's Flight Data
Analysis tool. This tool monitors and collects data from airplanes,
allowing airline officials to analyze data from actual flights to
improve procedures, monitor compliance, and identify trends for
aircraft maintenance. The initiative gives up to 30 African airlines
free access to the Flight Data Analysis tool for 3 years.
IATA has been involved in several efforts related to improving airport
infrastructure as a means to improve aviation safety in Africa. For
example, IATA addresses airport deficiencies by performing on-site
visits and bringing relevant reports to the attention of the local and
national authorities. IATA also regularly organizes technical missions
to African countries. On these missions, IATA conducts airport
operations assessments and discusses issues of common interest with the
civil aviation and airport authorities, including infrastructure
deficiencies, priorities for remedial action, possibilities for
cooperation between IATA and the authorities, and future development
plans. Eleven technical missions were held in Africa in 2007.
Table 3: Nigeria's Experience in Improving Aviation Safety:
Nigeria's federal government, in partnership with Boeing and IATA and
with technical assistance from FAA, has taken steps to enhance the
country's civil aviation system. These steps are designed to address
issues that led to the failure of Nigeria Airways in 2003 and several
fatal accidents in the country. In November 2006, a new Civil Aviation
Act became law, establishing the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority
(NCAA) as an autonomous safety regulator.
The Civil Aviation Act incorporates provisions specified by ICAO into
Nigerian domestic law. This law mandates that NCAA provide safety
oversight for airlines and service providers, such as the airports
authority and aviation training organization; economic regulation of
the aviation industry; and consumer protection. The law also
establishes the Accident Investigation Bureau of Nigeria as an
autonomous agency in compliance with ICAO aviation safety standards.
Nigeria has also committed to improving its aviation infrastructure,
after making no significant investment for 20 years. In 2006, the
government launched an airport improvement plan for runway resurfacing
and airfield lighting, among other improvements. In 2007, the country's
civil aviation authority required Nigerian airlines to pass an IOSA
audit when applying for renewals of their air operator's certificate.
Two Nigerian operators, Bellview Airlines and Virgin Nigeria, have
become IOSA-registered with IATA after passing an IOSA audit. They are
the first airlines in the country to achieve compliance with these
standards. While these steps indicate that progress is being made in
Nigeria, additional efforts will be needed for Nigeria to fully meet
international aviation safety standards.
Source: GAO analysis of Flight Safety Foundation information.
Note: For further information, see Dr. Harold O. Demuren, Director
General, Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, "Early Signs of
Turnaround," Flight Safety Foundation, AeroSafety World, May 2009.
[End of table]
* The European Union (EU) publishes a list of banned airlines to
encourage airlines to improve safety. The EU publishes a list of banned
airlines that are restricted from operating in the EU because they are
deemed to be out of compliance with international aviation safety
standards.[Footnote 48] In 2005, the EU developed the list of banned
airlines in response to several fatal aircraft crashes in 2004 and
2005. European Commission officials told us that the list of banned air
carriers is both a preventive and a dissuasive measure--in particular,
the threat of being placed on the list encourages airlines to take the
measures necessary to improve safety within the shortest possible time.
In November 2008, the EU declared that 168 air carriers--100 of which
are from African countries--were noncompliant with international
aviation safety standards and banned them from operating at EU members'
airports.
Unlike FAA's IASA program, which focuses on foreign countries' aviation
regulatory framework, the EU's approach primarily focuses on the
operational safety of individual airlines. However, the EU may ban all
air carriers from a particular country if it finds systemic safety
deficiencies on the part of air carriers certified by that country's
civil aviation authority. For instance, the November 2008 list included
all air carriers certified in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Swaziland because
previous safety audits have indicated serious deficiencies in the
capability of the civil aviation authorities of these countries to
perform their air safety oversight responsibilities. According to
European Commission officials, when an operating ban has been imposed
on an air carrier, the European Commission provides technical
assistance to the air carrier and coordinates with the respective civil
aviation authority to remedy the deficiencies that resulted in the
operational ban.
In April 2009, the European Commission and the African Union Commission
held an aviation conference in Namibia to address the critical issue of
aviation safety in Africa, among other items. An outgrowth of this
conference was the creation of the Common Strategic Framework and
Action Plan, which details areas of cooperation and agreement for
permanent strategic dialogue in aviation matters. In the area of
aviation safety, the main goals are to (1) significantly reduce
accident rates in Africa, (2) reduce the average rates of nonconformity
of African states for compliance with ICAO standards and recommended
practices, and (3) reduce the number of African airlines affected by
the EU list of banned airlines.
* World Bank investments address aviation infrastructure challenges in
Africa. The World Bank and the Group of Eight, or G-8, countries have
been focusing their efforts on the continent to support economic
development in African countries, with goals beyond humanitarian
relief, and promoting development across Africa has become a global
security issue.[Footnote 49] The World Bank spends about $600 million
annually on aviation projects in Africa. Much of this funding is used
for specific infrastructure improvement projects, such as runway
construction and air traffic control improvements. For example, in
2007, the World Bank provided international development grants of about
$151 million for 23 countries for the ongoing development of a regional
air transport program, including about $47 million to Nigeria to help
finance the modernization of safety oversight bodies and airport
facilities.
* World Food Program implemented requirements for contracting with
African air carriers. The World Food Program implemented an aviation
safety program in 2004, which consists of registering, evaluating, and
monitoring contract air carriers used to carry out its humanitarian
efforts. The program was developed in response to a series of fatal
crashes in Africa involving World Food Program personnel. According to
World Food Program officials, the safety program holds contractors to
high standards and has helped to improve the safety practices of small
African air carriers.
* AviAssist Foundation provides assistance to African countries to
improve aviation safety. The AviAssist Foundation identifies safety
deficiencies, analyzes their causes, and works with African countries
to find practical solutions and secure funding for making necessary
improvements.[Footnote 50] AviAssist also works to promote aviation
safety through training events, workshops, and outreach. For example,
AviAssist conducted an information session for government and aviation
personnel in Zambia in November 2008 to help them prepare for their
upcoming ICAO audit. In addition, AviAssist is working with the Flight
Safety Foundation to develop plain-language informational documents on
countries' international responsibility for aviation safety and the
role of a civil aviation authority. According to AviAssist officials,
such information is needed to help increase political leaders'
awareness of the importance of aviation safety.
Conclusions:
A little more than 10 years have passed since the SSFA program was
launched in an attempt to bridge the United States and Africa via air
transport by assisting African countries in improving aviation safety.
U.S. and African officials attribute important safety advancements in
Africa over this period of time--such as the establishment of a
regional regulatory organization in East Africa--directly to this
program. The program is also of strategic importance to DOT, helping it
reach out to the international community and increasing global
connectivity. Furthermore, the program has been considered
strategically important to U.S. foreign policy interests. However,
funding for the program has been inconsistent, and the future of the
SSFA program is uncertain because of resource constraints. Given this
uncertainty, it seems appropriate for DOT, FAA, and the Department of
State to reassess the government's ability to achieve the program's
goals in view of the level of resources being provided.
In addition, better interagency coordination through DOT for funding
air transportation-related activities in Africa would improve U.S.
efforts to assist African countries not only by preventing duplication
of effort, but also by establishing a more comprehensive strategy for
achieving common goals and objectives. Several U.S. federal agencies
are involved in funding aviation-related projects in African countries,
but this assistance is inconsistently coordinated. Such lack of
coordination can lead to duplication of effort and the potential
allocation of scarce resources for unnecessary and unwarranted
projects. It also can prevent agencies from leveraging resources and
expertise across government and optimizing the impact of their efforts.
While DOT has been involved in some of these aviation safety-related
projects, the federal agencies have not collaborated consistently,
partly because the other agencies do not focus specifically on
improving aviation safety. The Interagency Committee on International
Aviation Safety and Security, formed by USTDA and FAA, could
potentially serve as a mechanism for developing a strategy to
coordinate agencies' resources for aviation-related projects in Africa
and to assist DOT in accomplishing the SSFA program's goals. By leading
collaborative efforts, DOT can share expertise and provide strategic
direction for aviation projects in Africa, especially through the SSFA
program, helping to ensure that the U.S. agency with the greatest
aviation expertise and technical capabilities has a leadership role in
activities related to U.S. funding of aviation safety-related efforts
in Africa. Furthermore, by encouraging coordination and collaboration,
DOT may be able to work with all agencies involved to more consistently
focus cumulative efforts on deliverable targets, leverage resources,
and achieve tangible results.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following
two actions:
* Lead a collaborative effort with the Administrator of FAA and the
Secretary of State to reassess the SSFA program's goals and identify
the level of budgetary and human capital resources necessary to achieve
those goals, including identifying the implications of reduced resource
levels on DOT's ability to achieve the program's goals.
* Develop a comprehensive strategy to lead efforts to coordinate the
governmentwide resources available to accomplish the SSFA program's
goals.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT, the State Department, DOD,
USAID, USTDA, and MCC for review and comment. DOT and USTDA generally
agreed with the report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations and
provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated, as
appropriate. Based on DOT's comments, we clarified the intent of the
recommendations to provide a better focus on the desired results to be
achieved. MCC provided clarifications to information related to MCC in
the report, which we incorporated as appropriate, and MCC's review
provided no opinion on the larger content of the report, including its
findings, conclusions, or recommendations. The State Department, DOD,
and USAID did not comment on the report.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to other interested congressional committees and members; the Secretary
of Transportation; the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense;
the Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development; the
Director, U.S. Trade and Development Agency; the Chief Executive
Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and others. The report is also available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our objectives, we reviewed and synthesized reports and
studies on U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa, the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Safe Skies for Africa (SSFA)
program, and Africa's aviation markets and safety records.
Specifically, we reviewed GAO and Congressional Research Service
reports that included general background information on a variety of
related issues on the African continent, such as the safety and
security of foreign airports and U.S. airlines' code-share partnerships
with foreign carriers. We searched databases, such as ProQuest, Nexis,
and TRIS, for information on the SSFA program, U.S. trade and
investment interests in Africa, challenges to improving aviation safety
in Africa, and comparable international aviation efforts. Furthermore,
we reviewed SSFA program documentation that included information on the
program's selection criteria, eligibility, objectives and goals,
accomplishments, and funding information. We also reviewed the DOT
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 - 2011, the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) Flight Plan 2008 - 2012, and FAA's International
Aviation Business Plan Fiscal Year 2009. In addition, we reviewed FAA
guidance on the agency's International Aviation Safety Assessment and
Code-Share Safety programs.
We also reviewed documentation and reports on efforts to improve
aviation safety in African countries from other U.S. agencies, such as
the Department of State, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and U.S.
Trade and Development Agency. For U.S. trade and investment policies
for Africa, we reviewed reports from the U.S. Trade Representative on
the implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000.
To examine international efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa,
we reviewed published reports, documentation, and regulations from the
European Commission on its list of banned carriers, and aviation safety
plans, reports, and flight statistics from the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Air Transport
Association (IATA).
In addition to reviewing program documentation and published
literature, we conducted semistructured interviews with department-
level officials from U.S. federal agencies and representatives of
international organizations, trade group associations, and other
industry stakeholders involved with aviation safety issues in Africa. A
list of these agencies and organizations follows:
U.S. federal agencies:
Department of Transportation:
Federal Aviation Administration:
Department of Defense:
Department of State:
Millennium Challenge Corporation:
National Transportation Safety Board:
U.S. Agency for International Development:
U.S. Trade and Development Agency:
U.S. Trade Representative for Africa:
International organizations:
International Civil Aviation Organization:
World Bank:
European Commission:
European Aviation Safety Agency:
MacArthur Foundation:
Associations:
Air Transport Association:
American Association of Airport Executives:
Flight Safety Foundation:
International Air Transport Association:
International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Association:
Industry organizations:
Airbus:
Boeing:
Continental Airlines:
Delta Airlines:
Honeywell International, Inc.
To obtain additional information on aviation safety efforts in Africa,
we conducted site visits to four selected African countries. To
identify the African countries to visit, we reviewed published research
on U.S. efforts to improve aviation safety in Africa, comparable
international efforts, Africa's aviation markets and safety record, and
DOT and FAA documentation on the SSFA program. We used the following
criteria to ensure variation in the countries chosen for site visits:
(1) countries' participation in the SSFA program; (2) countries that
have an FAA Category 1 rating, currently have direct flights to the
United States, and are not currently participating in the SSFA program;
(3) countries that have achieved an FAA Category 1 rating as a result
of the SSFA program; (4) countries that are not involved with the SSFA
program or do not have an FAA Category 1 rating, and have major
challenges and a poor safety record for aviation safety, with
consideration to geographic dispersion; and (5) countries that are
involved in positive efforts to meet international aviation safety
standards and improve aviation safety as a result of the SSFA program,
such as countries that have been involved in regional aviation safety
oversight organizations to improve air transport and aviation safety.
In addition, we considered other factors, such as recommendations from
U.S. government officials and aviation experts whom we consulted about
countries to visit based on their knowledge and experience working with
African countries and their professional judgment. Using this
information, we selected Cape Verde, Kenya, Senegal, and Tanzania for
site visits. During the site visits, we conducted semistructured
interviews with government officials, including those at the Ministry
level, as well as civil aviation authority and airport authority
officials; and representatives of regional aviation organizations,
African airlines, industry groups, and aviation training schools.
However, because these four countries were selected as part of a
nonprobability sample, the findings from our interviews cannot be
generalized to all African countries. A list of the organizations we
contacted in each country follows:
Cape Verde:
Cape Verde Ministry of Infrastructures, Transport, and the Sea:
Cape Verde Agency for Civil Aviation:
Cape Verde Airport and Air Navigation Authority:
Cabo Verde TACV Airlines:
Halcyon Air (airline):
U.S. Embassy, Cape Verde:
Kenya:
ALS Ltd. (airline):
East African School of Aviation:
International Air Transport Association, Eastern Africa Office:
International Civil Aviation Organization, Eastern and Southern African
Office:
Kenya Airports Authority:
Kenya Airways (airline):
Kenya Civil Aviation Authority:
Kenya Ministry of Transport:
United Nations World Food Program:
U.S. Embassy, Kenya:
Senegal:
African Civil Aviation Commission:
Agency for Air Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar:
Air Senegal International (airline):
Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Office for Africa:
High Authority Airport Leopold Sedar Senghor:
International Air Transport Association, Central and West Africa Office:
International Civil Aviation Organization, Western and Central Africa
Office:
National Civil Aviation Agency of Senegal:
U.S. Embassy, Senegal:
Tanzania:
East African Community (EAC):
EAC Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency:
Civil Aviation Training Centre:
Tanzania Airports Authority:
Tanzania Civil Aviation Authority:
Tanzania Ministry of Infrastructure Development:
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through June 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report, Nikki Clowers, Acting Director;
Vashun Cole; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Hannah Laufe; Nitin Rao; and Amy
Rosewarne.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In this report, we use the term "connectivity" to refer to aviation
connectivity that is related to the range and economic importance of
destinations, the frequency of air service, and the number of
connections available through countries' aviation networks.
[2] According to Department of Transportation documents, the SSFA
program was designated as the primary mechanism for supporting the
goals of the President's 2003 East Africa Counterterrorism initiative
for aviation security by working with the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and its Transportation Security Administration.
[3] The Economic Support Fund is an appropriation account authorized by
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide flexible economic
assistance to countries selected for their special political and
security interests to the United States.
[4] The current SSFA participants are Angola, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Djibouti, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Tanzania, and Uganda.
[5] World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 10,
2008.
[6] World Development Indicators database, World Bank, September 10,
2008.
[7] FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy
(Washington, D.C., 2008); ICAO, Economic Contribution of Civil
Aviation: Ripples of Prosperity (Montreal, 2000); Air Transport Action
Group, Air Transport Drives Economic and Social Progress: The Economic
and Social Benefits of Air Transport (Geneva, 2008). The Air Transport
Group is an independent coalition of 70 members--including the Airports
Council International, Airbus, IATA, and Boeing--whose mission is to
promote aviation's sustainable growth for the benefit of the global
society.
[8] Boeing estimated 560 airplanes will be delivered at a market value
of $60 billion to African countries between 2008 and 2027.
[9] The African Growth and Opportunity Act is included as Title I of
the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-200 (2000).
[10] AGOA offers trade benefits to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that
meet certain criteria, including progress toward a market economy,
respect for rule of law, and human and worker rights.
[11] In 2007, according to the U.S. Trade Representative, the total
value of U.S. trade exports of goods and services was $1.6 trillion.
[12] The primary operating area of DOD is the Horn of Africa region of
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia, and Sudan.
Outside of this area, the East Africa region consists of Comoros,
Mauritius, Tanzania, and Uganda.
[13] The nine countries are Algeria, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tunisia.
[14] AFRICOM's headquarters is currently located in Stuttgart, Germany.
It was established to consolidate responsibility for DOD activities in
Africa under one command that was previously divided between the U.S.,
European, Central, and Pacific commands. DOD is reviewing its initial
plans to relocate AFRICOM in Africa because of concerns from African
partners, other U.S. government agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations.
[15] The four countries are Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Nigeria, and Sudan.
[16] ICAO is a sovereign body, consisting of 190 contracting states
(members). Each contracting state is entitled to one vote, and
decisions are determined by a majority of votes cast.
[17] Contracting states are obligated to notify ICAO of differences if
they choose not to implement ICAO standards.
[18] A code-share is a marketing arrangement in which an airline places
its designator code on a flight operated by another airline, and sells
and issues tickets for that flight.
[19] Category 1 means a country's civil aviation authority has been
assessed by FAA inspectors and has been found to meet ICAO's aviation
safety standards for providing safety oversight of its air carrier
operators. Category 2 means a country's civil aviation authority does
not provide safety oversight of its air carrier operators in accordance
with the minimum safety oversight standards established by ICAO. A
country is assigned a Category 2 rating after FAA has assessed its
civil aviation authority and found that one or more of ICAO's eight
critical elements of safety oversight are not met. The eight critical
elements are: (1) primary aviation legislation; (2) specific operating
regulations; (3) state civil aviation system and safety oversight
functions; (4) technical personnel qualifications and training; (5)
technical guidance, tools, and provision of safety-related critical
information; (6) licensing, certification, authorization, and approval
obligations; (7) surveillance obligations; and (8) resolution of safety
issues. See ICAO Safety Oversight Manual Part A--The Establishment and
Management of a State's Safety Oversight System (Doc 9734).
[20] While a country's civil aviation authority is in Category 2
status, air carriers from that country are permitted to continue
operations at current levels under heightened FAA surveillance, but
generally are not permitted to expand or change services to the United
States.
[21] Delta Airlines currently offers service between the United States
and six African destinations with flights from New York's John F.
Kennedy International Airport to Accra, Ghana; Dakar, Senegal; Cairo,
Egypt; and Cape Town, South Africa (via Dakar); and from Atlanta,
Georgia, to Lagos, Nigeria, and Johannesburg, South Africa (via Dakar).
United Airlines also provides service from Washington's Dulles
International Airport to Johannesburg, South Africa, through South
African Airways under a code-share arrangement. When a U.S. air carrier
decides to initiate new service, or amend or expand existing service to
an international destination--including to foreign countries that are
not rated as Category 1--the carrier has to file an application with
DOT requesting authority to do so.
[22] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[23] Ministry of Aviation, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Civil Aviation
Accident Report No. FMA/AIPB/424 (Abuja, 2006).
[24] GAO, Aviation Safety: FAA's Safety Oversight System Is Effective
but Could Benefit from Better Evaluation of Its Programs' Performance,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-266T], (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 17, 2005).
[25] The National Security Council developed the 2003 East Africa
Counterterrorism presidential initiative as a regional effort for
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and Tanzania to minimize
the potential for terrorism-related activities through security
training, enhanced border control, and the monitoring of money
laundering and smuggling activities. Aviation security was recognized
as a key component of the administration's regional security strategy.
[26] In September 2006, the President signed National Security
Presidential Directive 50, "U.S. Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa."
[27] DOT, Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2006-2011 (Washington, D.C.,
2006).
[28] FAA, 2008-2012 FAA Flight Plan: Charting the Path for the Next
Generation (Washington, D.C.).
[29] FAA is not involved with all of the countries at the same time and
has developed a priority list.
[30] The original eight SSFA program participants--Angola, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Mali, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe--were
selected in 1998 by an interagency committee with representation from
the Departments of Defense, State, and Transportation and USTDA. The
committee considered priority lists created by each agency, among other
things, and selected countries that it believed had the highest
likelihood of complying with international aviation safety standards
set by ICAO. The committee also considered U.S. trade interests and
regional diversity issues.
[31] The East African Community is a regional intergovernmental
organization reestablished in 2000, with its headquarters in Arusha,
Tanzania, for harmonizing political, economic, and social areas of
mutual benefit.
[32] Burundi and Rwanda have since become members of the EAC and
CASSOA.
[33] FAA's technical review does not normally result in the assignment
of a specific IASA category safety rating indicating the aviation
authority's compliance with ICAO standards. The results are
confidential.
[34] Under section 632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, the Department of State is authorized to transfer funds to
another U.S. agency through interagency agreements in support of other
government-sponsored programs for the purposes for which such funds are
appropriated. 22 U.S.C. § 2392(a). Funding is provided from the State
Department to DOT through 632(a) agreements, or memorandums of
agreement, in which USAID functions as the funding pass-through entity
for the State Department.
[35] An obligation is a legal liability of the federal government that
can be incurred, for example, through a contract or a grant agreement.
[36] A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation that enables an
agency to continue to operate when Congress and the President have not
completed action on the regular appropriation acts by the beginning of
the fiscal year.
[37] USTDA's mission is to advance economic development and U.S.
commercial interests in developing and middle-income countries that
support the development of a modern infrastructure and a fair and open
trading environment. MCC is a government corporation, established by
Congress in January 2004, which receives an annual appropriation and is
authorized to provide assistance to developing nations, through a
competitive selection process, for global development in a manner that
promotes economic growth and the elimination of extreme poverty and
strengthens good governance, economic freedom, and investments in
people.
[38] According to USTDA officials, these aviation projects have
stimulated more than $251 million in related U.S. exports.
[39] DOT has entered into memorandums of agreement with MCC, USTDA, the
U.S. Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Transportation Security
Administration for collaboration on aviation-related efforts in Africa.
[40] In addition to USTDA, the members of the committee are DOT, FAA,
the Transportation Security Administration; the Departments of
Commerce, Defense, and State; USAID, and the Export-Import Bank of the
United States. The committee members meet regularly to share
information on international aviation projects that hold potential for
improving aviation safety and security, and to establish priorities and
strategies for the delivery of technical assistance.
[41] GAO, VA Health Care: Experiences in Denver and Charleston Offer
Lessons for Future Partnerships with Medical Affiliates, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-472] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28,
2006); Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669]; and
Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106], (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
29, 2000).
[42] Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than one
federal agency (or more than one bureau within an agency) is involved
in a mission in the same broad area of national need. See GAO, Managing
for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and
Program Overlap, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-97-146], (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
29, 1997).
[43] ICAO's audit program, established in 1999, is mandatory for
contracting members and was developed in response to widespread
concerns about the adequacy of aviation safety oversight around the
world. The program is intended to (1) determine whether its contracting
states were meeting their obligations for following international
aviation standards and (2) promote global aviation safety through the
regular auditing of safety oversight systems. The mandatory audit
program superseded a voluntary safety oversight assessment program that
was established in 1995.
[44] Deficiencies identified as major problems included the lack of
appropriate legislation and regulations, absence of appropriate
organization, and lack of adequate and appropriately qualified staff.
[45] In 2008, ICAO established the AFI Comprehensive Implementation
Program to manage the implementation of the AFI plan for coordinating
and facilitating the performance of comprehensive gap analyses
assessing safety deficiencies. The program focuses on three areas and
proposes a concerted effort in (1) enabling African nations to
establish and maintain a sustainable safety oversight system through
efforts such as infrastructure and capacity building, (2) assisting
states in resolving identified deficiencies within a reasonable time,
and (3) enhancing the aviation safety culture of African aviation
service providers.
[46] COSCAPs are cooperative arrangements among participating states
aimed at enhancing the safety and efficiency of air transport
operations in specific regions by building a regional core of qualified
flight operations and airworthiness inspectors to perform flight safety
inspection and certification functions on behalf of the participating
states.
[47] IATA is the industry trade association that represents air
carriers worldwide.
[48] The process and rules for developing and updating the banned list
are based on "common criteria" that are categorized by three main
areas: (1) verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies on the part
of an air carrier, (2) lack of ability and/or willingness of an air
carrier to address safety deficiencies, and (3) lack of ability and/or
willingness of the authorities responsible for the oversight of an air
carrier to address safety deficiencies.
[49] The G-8 member countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This
membership comprises the main industrialized countries in the world and
is not an international organization; it is a process that culminates
in an annual Summit at which the Heads of State and Government of the
member countries hold talks for finding solutions to the main world
issues.
[50] The AviAssist Foundation, the regional affiliate of the Flight
Safety Foundation, is a nonprofit organization that provides aviation
safety support to aviation organizations--government and industry--in
the 22 ICAO participating countries of the Eastern and Southern African
regions. The Flight Safety Foundation is an international nonprofit
membership organization that researches and promotes aviation safety.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
