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: