2 EU Humanitarian Aid
| (28719)
10965/07
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(07) 317
| Commission Communication: Towards a European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 13 June 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 June 2007
|
| Department | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 5 July 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (26737) 11403/05: HC 34-xii (2005-06), para 8 (30 November 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | November 2007 "development" General Affairs and External Relations Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 In its introduction, the Commission says that "the objective
of humanitarian aid is to save lives and to provide immediate
relief for people facing severe crisis whether as a result of
natural disaster or of conflict". It notes that, over the
last 30 years, there has been increased emphasis on principles,
quality and professionalism in the provision of international
humanitarian aid. But "humanitarian actors today face a number
of specific challenges" — humanitarian crises happen
with greater frequency and severity, linked to climate change,
the changing nature of conflict, increasing competition for access
to energy and natural resources, extreme poverty, poor governance
and failed states; the main victims are civilians, most of them
living in developing countries, and subject to an increasing tendency
for humanitarian and international law to be ignored or blatantly
violated; this also adversely affects access to vulnerable populations
and the safety and security of humanitarian workers.
2.2 The Commission also notes that the EU collectively
is the leading humanitarian donor in the world — in 2006,
over £1.348 billion, which is over 40 per cent of total official
international humanitarian assistance — and that Europeans
are strongly committed to supporting humanitarian action: "this
places particular responsibility and expectations on the EU. It
is time to bolster European humanitarian action in the face of
these developments by setting out an explicit EU Consensus on
the common values and principles that underpin EU humanitarian
action".
2.3 The Commission says that it is also opportune
to look at practical ways to reinforce complementarity between
Member States' and Community humanitarian action to enhance the
effectiveness of the EU aid effort. The European Consensus on
humanitarian aid "should promote a more coherent, consistent
and comprehensive approach to humanitarian aid, with a clear commitment
to good donorship practice and a definition of the roles of the
respective actors". The consensus on humanitarian aid would
therefore be distinct from and complementary to the December 2005
European Consensus on Development.[12]
The Commission Communication
2.4 The past decade has seen rising demand for international
humanitarian action. The Communication recommends that the Commission
should reinforce its capacity to maintain its role at the centre
of the EU humanitarian effort, through its humanitarian Directorate-General
(DG ECHO).
2.5 The Communication states that EU humanitarian
action should be based on the principles of the Good Humanitarian
Donorship (GHD) Initiative. GHD defines humanitarian aid, sets
out fundamental humanitarian principles (humanity, neutrality,
impartiality and independence) and provides guidance on good donor
practice.[13] The Communication
also calls on the EU to advocate and work to strengthen respect
for and adherence to international humanitarian law.
2.6 The Communication recommends that the EU works
together to ensure that there are adequate humanitarian aid resources,
and to ensure these are used effectively to meet priority humanitarian
needs. Accountability to European citizens and recipients of aid
should be strengthened. Finally, the Communication recognises
that the EU must support international efforts to ensure that
there is adequate capacity to respond to crises.
2.7 The Communication notes the particular legitimacy
of the United Nations in leading the international response and
the reform of the international humanitarian system currently
underway. It recognises also the need for the EU to provide support
to non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross Movement,
as well as national institutions involved in humanitarian response.
2.8 The Communication recognises the increasing use
of military and civil protection personnel and equipment (e.g.
police and helicopters) in responding to international humanitarian
crises. It acknowledges that, in some circumstances, the use of
appropriate people and equipment can play an important role. However,
there is a risk that the deployment of such forces, particularly
in conflict situations, can jeopardise the perceived impartiality
and neutrality of the relief effort, and so compromise the safety
of humanitarian workers and access to people in need. It therefore
underscores that these assets should only be used as a last resort
and in line with internationally accepted guidelines.
2.9 The Communication recommends that humanitarian
assistance should be better linked with the EU's development efforts,
so that development activities build on immediate emergency aid
to enable rapid and sustainable recovery from a humanitarian crisis.
The EU should also develop a policy to support international efforts
on disaster risk reduction (DRR) — that is, minimising the
likely occurrence and impact of natural disasters, such as droughts
and floods.
2.10 The Communication has two annexes: the first
— a DG ECHO report on its response to crises in DRC, Pakistan,
Lebanon, Burma/Myanmar — provides examples of the issues
raised in the Communication; the second is a report on the consultations
carried out by DG ECHO on a Consensus for Humanitarian Aid.
The Government's view
2.11 In his 7 July Explanatory Memorandum, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International Development
(Mr Gareth Thomas) notes that the Commission plays an important
role in international humanitarian action through its financing
of humanitarian organisations and its role in coordinating the
deployment of civil protection and military personnel and equipment,
and welcomes the Communication "as an opportunity to reaffirm
the fundamental principles that underpin the Commission's work
in this area". He continues as follows:
"We also welcome the recommendation that Member
States should agree an EU Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. Such
a Consensus would strengthen the collective efforts of Member
States and of the Commission, both to influence global policy
and to ensure timely and effective assistance on the ground.
"We particularly welcome the efforts to establish
a more consistent policy position within the Commission on the
deployment of military and civil protection personnel and equipment.
Until now, there has been some disagreement between DG Environment
and DG ECHO about their respective roles and the conditions under
which military and civil protection assets should be deployed.
Providing a clearer basis for EU intervention in this area would
contribute to more robust adherence to humanitarian principles
and so protect the operating environment which humanitarian actors
need on the ground in order to have full access to victims, to
be able to deliver assistance and to offer protection, without
endangering the safety and security of aid workers (referred to
in the Communication as 'humanitarian space').
"Equally, we support the proposals that humanitarian
aid should be delivered in accordance with the GHD principles,
that funding should be allocated according to the level of need
and that accountability to European taxpayers and to the intended
beneficiaries of humanitarian aid must be improved. We also welcome
the emphasis on: improving coordination of EU humanitarian and
development assistance; the potential role of DG ECHO field staff
in promoting information sharing between Member States; and support
for effective strategies to reduce the risks of disasters.
"We have concerns that the Communication focuses
on recommendations for action by Member States, with relatively
little attention to defining the Commission's, and in particular
DG ECHO's, own strategy. In our response to the Communication,
we will emphasise that humanitarian assistance is a shared competence.
So, while there is scope for the Commission to add value to EU
humanitarian planning in this way, we will want to ensure that
their support does not compromise our own right of initiative.
We will aim to address the lack of focus on Commission activity
(for example, one option would be, in consultation with other
Member States, to call on the Commission to formulate a five year
plan setting out its objectives, and how it will deliver them)."
2.12 The Minister also outlines the consultation
arrangements referred to above. DG ECHO issued a questionnaire
to all Member States and key stakeholders soliciting views on
a wide range of issues and received 174 responses. The findings
were discussed by Member States at the Humanitarian Aid Committee
meeting in Berlin 29-30 March 2007 at which the UK was represented.
In his view, the Communication reflects the stakeholder consultation
well. He says that the most contentious area that emerged was
with regard to the use of military and civil protection resources:
"Some Member States feel that there are risks
of overly integrating military and civil protection with civilian-led
humanitarian responses. Specifically, they are concerned that
to do so is relatively costly, and risks compromising the independence
and neutrality of humanitarian action. This issue has been handled
well in the document, with agreement that the use of such assets
must be guided by international standards."
2.13 Finally, the Minister notes that the proposed
EU Consensus is expected to be discussed at the November "development"
GAERC.
Conclusion
2.14 Discussion at the November GAERC is presumably
be intended to lead to adoption of the Communication and, thus,
of the approach outlined therein. Like the Minister, we have no
difficulty with it in principle. However, as he notes, there are
important issues that need to be addressed before this work-in-progress
is finalised:
— disagreement
between DG Environment and DG ECHO about their respective roles
and the conditions under which military and civil protection assets
should be deployed;
— the focus on action by Member States,
with relatively little attention to defining the Commission's,
and in particular DG ECHO's, own strategy;
— ensuring that their support does not
compromise the UK's own right of initiative; and
— risks of over-integrating military
and civil protection with civilian-led humanitarian responses,
thereby compromising the independence and neutrality of humanitarian
action.
2.15 It would be useful to have more details of
the "international standards" that the Minister says
will guide the use of such assets.
2.16 Also, with regard to the lack of focus on
Commission activity, it might be thought that a Commission five
year plan setting out its objectives, and how it will deliver
them, would be a starting point, and not — as he suggests
— a possible option that is still open to discussion.
2.17 We presume that all of this will be worked
upon in the normal way between now and then. We should therefore
be grateful if, before the GAERC meeting, the Minister would bring
us up to date — and, we hope, be able to reassure us that
these proper concerns have been appropriately addressed.
2.18 In the meantime, we shall retain the Communication
under scrutiny.
12 (26737) 11403/05: see HC 34-xii (2005-06), paragraph
8 (30 November 2005) for our consideration of the European Consensus
on Development. Back
13
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD)
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has provided one of the
main forums for defining good practice and promoting aid coordination.
Humanitarian aid, however, did not form part of these debates.
In the mid-1990s, NGOs, the Red Cross and UN agencies involved
in humanitarian assistance decided to create their own specific
guidelines, defining their responsibilities under international
law, and setting standards against which they could be accountable.
The pivotal role of donors in providing effective and accountable
humanitarian assistance remained outside the scope of this work.
The Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative was launched in Stockholm
in 2003; meetings are held annually to review progress and decide
on priorities for the year ahead. For full background, see http://www.goodhumanitariandonorship.org/background.asp. Back
| 
