8 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 | International Development
|
| Basis of consideration
| EM of 21 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports
| HC 83-xviii (2013-14), chapter 9 (23 October 2013); 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
8.1 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.
8.2 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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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 2014-20 budget is €239.1
million.
8.5 In her first update last December, the Minister
for the Department for International Development (Lynne Featherstone),
set out her approach clearly:
— to determine whether
the volunteering programme would be the most cost-effective way
of addressing the problems that had been identified;
— to 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;
— to ensure "as
a minimum" that any EU Aid Volunteers initiative not only
responded to identified need but also:
· complemented 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.
8.6 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."
8.7 Then, on 7 May 2013, although the Minister continued
to doubt the overall need for this proposal, the forthcoming timeline
she set out showed that it was plainly at the point of entering
the final stage of the legislative process. We therefore asked
her 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 8.5)
8.8 In the meantime, we retained the proposal under
scrutiny.[27]
8.9 We also again drew that chapter of our Report
to the attention of the International Development Committee.
8.10 The Minister's response of 11 October 2013,
which she said summarised "hard-won, practical, worthwhile
improvements negotiated in the EU Council Working Party on Humanitarian
Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA)", is detailed in our most recent
Report. In sum, she said they had ensured:
· a 40% reduction to
the Commission's original estimate, from €239 million (£205
million) to €147.9 million (£126.7 million);
· that Member States
would now exercise some control through the detailed discussion
of the certification mechanism, training programme, monitoring
framework and annual work programmes;
· a focus on meeting
real humanitarian needs in stricken countries and on where volunteers
can add the greatest value; strong and explicit recognition of
the need to complement and co-ordinate with established international
humanitarian mechanisms and technical standards, especially the
UN system; a sensible distinction in the management and deployment
of volunteers with differing degrees of experience, especially
with regard to more dangerous settings; Commission acceptance
of its obligation to ensure Duty of Care for all volunteers, and
to manage this rigorously through professionally organised security
systems on the ground; and earlier, more frequent, robust and
independent monitoring and evaluation, focused on humanitarian
outcomes and impact.
8.11 The Minister also noted that the Presidency
had circulated a document showing the original Commission proposals
alongside the current Council text, as a basis for "trilogue"
discussion with the European Parliament; although the European
Parliament was seeking some amendments, in her opinion these did
not threaten "the hard won improvements of the UK and other
Member States".
Our assessment
8.12 We again asked the Minister to explain why she
had not responded appropriately to the Committee's earlier request
(c.f. paragraph 8.7 above).
8.13 We also asked her to deposit the amended text
to which she referred in her letter and, in her Explanatory Memorandum,
to provide 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 8.5 above); and
· to the extent that
it did not give an explanation as to why she was nonetheless prepared
to endorse what she said was "likely to be the best we can
reasonably secure".
8.14 In the meantime, we continued to retain the
original document under scrutiny.
8.15 We are also again drew this latest update to
the attention of the International Development Committee.[28]
The Government's view
8.16 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 21 November
2013, the Minister sets out how the revised draft regulation,
negotiated in the COHAFA, has amended the original Commission
proposal and how this meets UK objectives on this regulation set
out in earlier in the scrutiny process.
8.17 With regard to why the Committee's earlier request
has not been fully addressed, the Minister says that was "due
to official oversight and changes in official portfolio responsibilities",
and asks the Committee to accept her apologies for this.
8.18 The Minister then says that:
— the differences
in the revised draft regulation from the original proposal and
the ways in which the current text meets previously outlined UK
concerns are explained in detail below; and
— the Government judges
that all key concerns of UK have now been met in the revised draft
regulation, and can therefore endorse the regulation in its improved
format.
8.19 The Minister continues as follows:
"Cost-effectiveness and value for money
— In Article 20, where the financial provisions for the
Initiative are laid out, the UK negotiated for a reduction in
the allocated budget from €239 million (£203 million)
to €147.9 million (£125.7 million), a reduction of 38%.
Additional language for Article 20 will continue to allow Member
States to scrutinise the annual work programme for the Initiative
and annual resource allocation to ensure that it is proportionate
to needs and represents value for money (VFM). In addition to
lowering the overall budget, revised language throughout the draft
regulation has emphasized a needs-based and objective-driven approach,
which will also enhance the VFM of the Initiative as a whole.
The requirement for a robust monitoring framework (article 26)
is a further opportunity to track the VFM.
"As such, the Government
judges that the draft regulation now includes sufficient provisions
to drive value for money within the Initiative and that the UK's
VFM concern has been addressed. The Government would ensure that
any VFM lessons from the pilots and the first phase of the initative
are taken into account in any annual resource allocation discussions.
"A needs-based initiative with a limited
scope — Throughout negotiations in COHAFA the UK and
many other member states emphasized that the initiative must be
needs-based and that this be reflected across the text. As can
be seen in the revised draft, references to the needs-based nature
of the initiative have been inserted across the regulation, notably
in the preamble, Chapter 1 Articles 3 and 4 and Chapter 2 Articles
12 and 15. This needs-based approach is now reflected in the overall
objectives of the initiative which is to contribute to needs-based
humanitarian assistance and to strengthen the capacity and resilience
of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities in third countries
- both priority UK policy areas. Removing other indirect objectives,
such as social inclusion, youth opportunities and active citizenship
(see Paragraph 12 in the preamble), which are not relevant to
meeting humanitarian needs, has strengthened this position. The
Government judges that this issue has now been adequately addressed.
"Complementarity to existing initiatives
within the international system — Although the original
Commission proposal included Article 6 on 'Coherence and complementarities
of the Union action', amendments to Paragraphs 1 and 2 have
strengthened the language on complementarity. This will help ensure
that the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative avoids duplication and overlap
with other instruments and policies whilst building on relevant
best practice from existing initiatives. Language inserted into
Articles 9, 10 and 12, on the standards, certification and training
scheme for the Initiative, will also help promote complementarity
and avoid duplication. As well as complementarity to other initiatives,
language inserted into the draft regulation now also emphasizes
that this initiative should support the overall coordinating role
of the United Nations in responding to humanitarian crises (e.g.
Paragraph 4a. in the preamble and in Article 4). The Government
judges that this issue has now been adequately addressed.
"Objectives grounded in humanitarian principles
— Although the original proposal contained some references
to humanitarian principles, language negotiated in the revised
proposal places these front and centre of the Initiative and its
objectives. For example, the addition of Paragraph 18 in the preamble
emphasizes the importance of upholding these for volunteers and
implementing organisations. Further important additions include
in Article 7, where the operational objectives of the Initiative
are laid out. The increased focus on meeting needs and principled
humanitarian objectives also increases the strength of this position.
For example, in the revised Article 3, the objective of the initiative
shall be to "contribute to strengthening the Union's capacity
to provide needs-based humanitarian aid aimed at preserving life,
preventing and alleviating human suffering and maintaining human
dignity and to build the capacity and resilience of vulnerable
or disaster-affected communities in third countries". The
Government judges that this issue has now been adequately addressed.
"Duty of care for volunteers —
This was a UK priority for strengthening the draft regulation.
In the preamble, additional language in Paragraph 9 ensures that
the security and safety of volunteers will remain a subject of
importance and for discussion between volunteers, organisations,
the Commission and Member States. There are also vital additions
to Article 9 in reference to minimum conditions and requirements
for volunteer management, duty of care and appropriate safety
and security. Language added to Article 14 also re-emphasizes
that inexperienced volunteers should not be deployed to operations
conducted in the context of international and non-international
armed conflicts. The Government judges that this issue has been
covered as far as possible within the basic act for this regulation.
Member States will continue to address the issues of standards
and certification, both of which are due to be adopted by implementing
acts of the regulation.
"Monitoring and evaluation — The
UK and other Member States pushed for more robust language and
provisions for monitoring and evaluating the results and impact
of the Initiative. As such, suggested indicators were removed
from the basic act at Article 7 and instead the development of
a more robust monitoring framework was included in Article 26.
This framework will specify activities, timeframes and qualitative
and quantitative indicators to systematically measure progress
towards the achievement of results and operational objectives.
There is also additional language about the standards to be used
for evaluating the impact of the Initiative. An interim evaluation
report will be completed by 31 December 2018, and a full ex-post
evaluation by 31 December 2021 (Article 26). The Government judges
that this issue has been adequately addressed in the draft regulation."
8.20 The Minister then comments thus:
"The changes above were
hard won in negotiations in COHAFA. A like-minded group of Member
States worked effectively together to improve the draft regulation
and to build a strong Council position before the regulation entered
the trialogue process. The Government judges that previous UK
concerns have now been met in the revised draft regulation.
"The Government, along
with all other Member States, endorsed the establishment of European
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps when it signed the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (Article 214(5)). The role
of the Council and the European Parliament now, as co-legislators,
is therefore to "determine the rules and procedures for the
operation of the Corps[29]".
The Government considers that it has made important improvements
to these rules and procedures. It has also negotiated important
parts of the regulation (e.g. training, certification, standards)
be adopted through implementing acts to ensure that Member States
can continue to scrutinise these parts of the regulation. This
is important since feedback from pilot schemes is on-going, and
will need to be incorporated appropriately into the functioning
of the initiative."
8.21 Looking ahead, the Minister says:
"As mentioned in my
previous letter, the draft regulation is currently going through
the process of political trialogue with the European Parliament.
The UK and other Member States have provided a strong negotiating
position to the Presidency of the Council and the compromises
suggested so far in this process do not appear to threaten the
improvements to the draft regulation that were agreed in COHAFA.
UK officials will continue to follow the trialogue process to
ensure that the gains made are not reversed."
8.22 Finally, with regard to Impact and Financial
Implications the Minister says:
— UK nationals and
residents will be eligible to participate and UK humanitarian
aid organisations will be eligible to apply for accreditation
as a "sending organisation";
— the revised proposal
is for a total commitment of €147.9 million from the Humanitarian
Aid Instrument; which amount will be taken from the overall allocation
provided to DG ECHO from the EU Budget under the Multiannual Financial
Framework for 2014-2020, the negotiations for which are being
carried out in parallel.
Conclusion
8.23 We are grateful to the Minister for having
finally responded to our request, and accept her apologies for
the delay in doing so. Since the revised Council Regulation accompanying
her EM is a limité document, and thus not depositable
in the House, her detailed exposition is very helpful, and suggests
that the revised text is indeed a great improvement on the original,
which the Minister previously described as "originally framed
as a flag for Europe and a feel-good activity for young Europeans".
8.24 However, we understand that there is to be
a further political trialogue meeting on 3 December, and that
the compromise proposal tabled does not threaten UK objectives,
nor the improvements to the original draft regulation negotiated
in COHAFA. We therefore look forward to an update from the Minister
about the outcome of this meeting, with a clearer timeline as
to when the Council will have to take a position on the final
text. We are particularly interested in any changes that shift
the management process away from implementing to delegated Acts.
8.25 In the meantime, we shall retain the draft
Regulation under scrutiny.
8.26 We also again draw this chapter of our Report
to the attention of the International Development Committee.
27 See headnote: HC 83-iv (2013-14), chapter 6 (5 June
2013). Back
28
HC 83-xviii (2013-14), chapter 9 (23 October 2013). Back
29
Article 214(5) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
2010 Back
| 
