9 The European Voluntary Humanitarian
Aid Corps
| (34256)
14150/12
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(12) 514
| Draft Council Regulation establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
|
| Legal base | Article 214 (5) TFEU; Co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Department for International Development
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 11 October 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-iv (2013-14), chapter 6 (5 June 2013); HC 86-xxxi (2012-13), chapter 2 (6 February 2013); HC 86-xxii (2012-13), chapter 10 (5 December 2012) and HC 86-xviii (2012-13), chapter 6 (31 October 2012); also see (32292) 17065/10: HC 428-xii (2010-11), chapter 12 (12 January 2011)
|
| Discussion in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
9.1 The Committee's extensive consideration of this
proposal thus far is set out in the previous Reports cited above.
A summary is set out below.
9.2 Article 214(5) TFEU sets out a commitment to
create a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps (EVHAC), "to
establish a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans
to the humanitarian aid operations of the Union". The May
2011 ECOFIN Council welcomed the proposal, "but underlined
that such a corps should be cost-effective, should build upon
existing national and international voluntary schemes without
duplicating them, and be focused on addressing concrete needs
and gaps in the humanitarian field." A European Parliament
Declaration was enthusiastic but lacked any of these qualifications.
9.3 The initiative is based on a widespread consultation
around six identified problems:
· lack of a structured EU approach towards
volunteering;
· poor visibility of EU humanitarian action
and solidarity with people in need;
· lack of consistent identification and
selection mechanisms across Member States; insufficient availability
of qualified volunteers;
· shortcomings in the "surge capacity"
of humanitarian aid; and
· weak capacity of organisations receiving
volunteers.
9.4 The Commission would develop standards for recruitment,
preparation, deployment and management of volunteers, including
duty of care and minimum requirements on subsistence and accommodation.
Organisations that would like to select, prepare and deploy them
would have to be certified for compliance with these standards.
The Commission would manage a Register of EU Aid Volunteers.
A certification mechanism would also be established for organisations
eligible to receive volunteers, who could be helped to build capacity
to ensure effective management of the volunteers and sustainable
impact of their work. The proposed 2014-2020 budget is €239.1
million.
9.5 In her first update last December, the Minister
(Lynne Featherstone) was concerned that the current proposal was
not yet informed by the results of the pilots launched to guide
its eventual shape. She set out her approach clearly:
· determine whether the volunteering programme
would be the most cost-effective way of addressing the problems
that had been identified;
· limit the number and scope of the initiative's
activities to those where needs were clear and pilot programmes
had been evaluated and given a positive assessment;
· ensure "as a minimum" that any
EU Aid Volunteers initiative not only responded to identified
need but was complementary to existing initiatives in this field
within the international system;
· offered value for money;
· had objectives grounded in humanitarian
principles, including a focus on robust outcome measures such
as lives saved;
· provided for sufficient Duty of Care for
those deployed; and
· was time-limited and independently evaluated
before any continuation.
9.6 Even after providing a further update in February,
on what the pilot projects had shown thus far, the Minister continued
"to have reservations about the initiative as proposed, including
the overall need for it, its scale/budget and its fit with similar
projects."
9.7 In her further update of 7 May 2013, the Minister
reported that:
· the European Parliament's Development
Committee voted on its amendments to the proposal on 23 April;
· Member States met at the end of April
to discuss the Irish Presidency's revised proposal;
· a further Presidency revision would go
to the relevant working group on 15 May;
· the Presidency was hoping to take the
proposal to COREPER before the end of June; and
· trilogue would begin following agreement
of the Council negotiating position.
Our assessment
9.8 As recently as February, the Minister continued
to doubt the overall need for this proposal and yet the proposal
was plainly at the point of entering the final stage of the legislative
process. However, it was by no means clear from the information
provided what had changed in order to overcome her reservations.
9.9 We therefore asked the Minister to deposit the
revised proposal forthwith and, in her Explanatory Memorandum,
as well as dealing with the reservations outlined in February
— the overall need for it, its scale/budget and its fit
with similar projects — explain in detail how it satisfied
the elements of the approach she set out at the beginning (see
paragraph 9.5)
9.10 In the meantime, we retained the proposal under
scrutiny.[52]
9.11 We also again drew this chapter of our Report
to the attention of the International Development Committee.
The Minister's letter of 11 October 2013
9.12 The Minister responds as follows:
"In trying to improve the current proposal for
establishing the EVHAC, the UK and other Member States have negotiated
hard-won, practical, worthwhile improvements in the EU Council
Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA) which
I've summarised below. In addition, initial feedback from the
volunteers during the pilot phase has been positive and shows
that the improvements detailed below have been taken into account
by the Commission.
· "Value for money: We have
secured a 40 per cent reduction to the Commission's original estimate,
from €239 million (£205 million) to €147.9 million
(£126.7 million).
· "Consultation with Member States:
Member States will continue to be able to exercise some control
through the detailed discussion of the certification mechanism,
training programme, monitoring framework and annual work programmes.
· ""Needs-Based":
The Regulation was originally framed as a flag for Europe and
a feel-good activity for young Europeans. Negotiations in COHAFA
have removed this from the Regulation, focussing it on meeting
real humanitarian needs in stricken countries. Following the initial
pilot phase, the work will be focused on where volunteers can
add the greatest value. The reduced budget has also put pressure
on the Commission to prioritise rigorously. One suggestion has
been that the scheme could focus on building disaster resilience
and preparedness, which is in line with UK policy priorities.
· "Complementarity, Principles and
Standards: There is now strong and explicit recognition of
the need to complement and co-ordinate with established international
mechanisms, especially the UN system under the overall co-ordination
of UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
EVHAC will adopt well established international humanitarian technical
standards and there is explicit language placing EVHAC within
the agreed EU umbrella 'European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid'.
· "Differentiation of Volunteers:
The scheme will now be open to volunteers of all ages. There is
a sensible distinction in the management and deployment of volunteers
with differing degrees of experience, especially with regard to
more dangerous settings. Volunteers will not be deployed to conflict
zones at all. Following the 'Back to Base' conference of 16 September
in Brussels, where Member States met volunteers from the pilot
phase, COHAFA representatives remarked that the individuals that
had been selected were highly qualified and motivated.
· "Security: We strongly pushed
for a strengthening of security provisions, including stronger
obligations to keep consular authorities of volunteers' home countries
informed. The Commission has accepted that it is obliged to ensure
Duty of Care for all volunteers, and to manage this rigorously
through professionally organised security systems on the ground.
Further work is currently being done on this following feedback
from the pilot phase. Member States and the Commission are in
agreement about the necessity of getting security right.
· "Evaluation and Monitoring:
We successfully argued for earlier and more frequent formal evaluation
of the EVHAC than originally proposed. UK officials have obtained
a firm commitment in the Regulation that monitoring and evaluation
will be robust, independent and focused on humanitarian outcomes
and impact. The monitoring framework is likely to be discussed
in COHAFA over the next couple of months. UK officials and those
of other like-minded Member States will ensure it is sufficiently
robust."
9.13 With regard to the next steps, the Minister
says:
"the European Presidency has circulated a document
showing the original Commission proposals alongside current Council
text, as a basis for 'trilogue' discussion with the European Parliament.
The first political trilogue meeting was held on 4 September and
compromise language has since been discussed in COHAFA. Although
the European Parliament is seeking some amendments to the text,
these do not, in our opinion, threaten the hard won improvements
of the UK and other Member States. The second political trilogue
meeting will take place this month and any further changes to
the text will be agreed in COHAFA. Consensus amongst Member States
remains strong and UK officials will continue to scrutinise any
proposed amendments to the text. The current text is likely to
be the best we can reasonably secure."
Conclusion
9.14 We ask the Minister to explain why she has
not responded appropriately to the Committee's earlier request
(c.f. paragraph 9.9 above).
9.15 We also ask the Minister to deposit the amended
text to which she refers in her letter. In so doing, we ask her
to provide in her Explanatory Memorandum a clear exposition of:
· the differences between the two texts;
· the ways in which the current text
meets the tests that the Minister set herself (c.f. paragraph
9.9 above);
· to the extent that it does not, an
explanation as to why she is nonetheless prepared to endorse what
she now says is "likely to be the best we can reasonably
secure".
9.16 In the meantime, we shall continue to retain
the original document under scrutiny.
9.17 We are also again drawing this latest update
to the attention of the International Development Committee.
52 See headnote: HC 83-iv (2013-14), chapter 6 (5
June 2013). Back
| 
