17 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 24 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-xxvi (2013-14), chapter 5 (8 January 2014), HC 83-xxiii (2013-14), chapter 8 (4 December 2013), 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 | 14 March 2014
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 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.
17.2 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.
17.3 The Commission would develop standards for recruitment,
preparation, deployment and management of volunteers, and manage
a Register of EU Aid Volunteers Organisations to select, prepare
and deploy them, who would have to be certified for compliance
with these standards. A certification mechanism would also be
established for organisations eligible to receive volunteers.
The proposed 2014-20 budget is €239.1 million.
17.4 In the first update in December 2012, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development,
(Lynne Featherstone) 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; and also
· 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.
17.5 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 21 November
2013, the Minister explained in detail the differences in the
revised draft regulation from the original proposal,[75]
which she described as hard won in negotiations in COHAFA.[76]
The Minister then commented thus:
"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'.[77]
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."
17.6 Looking ahead, the Minister stated:
"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."
Our assessment
17.7 Since the revised Council Regulation accompanying
her EM was a limité document, and thus not depositable
in the House, the Minister's detailed exposition was very helpful,
and suggested that the revised text was indeed a great improvement
on the original. However, we understood that there was to be
a further political trialogue meeting on 3 December.
17.8 We therefore asked the Minister for an update
about the outcome, with a clearer timeline as to when the Council
would have to take a position on the final text. We noted our
particular interest in any changes that shifted the management
process away from implementing to delegated Acts.
17.9 In the meantime, we continued to retain the
draft Regulation under scrutiny.
17.10 We also again drew this further update to the
attention of the International Development Committee.[78]
The Minister's letter of 13 December 2013
17.11 The Minister said that: following the 3 December
political trilogue meeting, an agreement had been reached; the
UK had indicated its approval at COREPER;[79]
and her letter set out how the final text differed from the text
discussed in her recent Explanatory Memorandum, and how this fitted
with broader UK policy objectives.
17.12 The Minister continued as follows (her emphasis):
"The Presidency had a strong negotiating
position and almost all of the Council's amendments to the Commission's
original proposal have been agreed to. There are a few minor amendments
to the final text. I do not judge any of these to be problematic,
and many of them further improve the quality of the regulation.
For example, a paragraph on strengthening the gender perspective
of EU humanitarian aid has now been included.
"The more substantive changes are around three
areas in the regulation where agreement was yet to be reached:
standards regarding candidate EU Aid Volunteers; the adoption
of indicators to monitor progress towards operational objectives;
and the balance between annual work planning and commitments
to longer-term programme objectives."
17.13 The Minister outlined the agreement reached
on these three areas thus:
"Standards — The Council position
was that the Commission should adopt implementing acts to establish
standards for the identification, selection and preparation of
candidate volunteers and the management and deployment of EU Aid
Volunteers. The European Parliament was pushing for these to be
adopted by delegated acts. The agreement reached on 3 December
separates these 'standards' into 'standards' and 'procedures',
the former to be adopted by delegated acts and the latter to be
adopted by implementing acts. I judge that where delegated acts
have been proposed, they will not have a significant impact on
programming since they concern the broader aspects of standard-setting,
such as provisions to ensure equal opportunities and non-discrimination
in the selection process for volunteers. The areas of primary
concern to the UK, such as the procedures for training, the management
of the volunteers in third countries and duty of care and safety
and security measures, are classed as 'procedures' and, therefore,
adopted through implementing acts where Member States will be
able to heavily influence the process.
"Indicators — The
Council position was previously that a monitoring framework with
indicators for the initiative should be adopted through implementing
acts. The European Parliament had resisted this. The agreement
reached now includes strengthened indicators to monitor progress
towards operational objectives in the basic act, which the Commission
will be empowered to amend through delegated acts, subject to
veto by the Council or European Parliament. Again, I judge that
this will not have a significant impact on programming. Since
delegated acts would only come into play in order to amend the
indicators, the European Parliament's right to veto amendments
would not affect the continued implementation of the initiative.
"Thematic priorities and working planning
— The European Parliament sought
an amendment which would give it power to veto multiannual work
programmes for the initiative through delegated acts. The Presidency
made it clear that this would be unacceptable to the Council.
The agreement reached outlines ranges for percentage allocations
of the overall financial envelope across thematic priority areas
in an annex. If these need to be amended following the mid-term
evaluation of the initiative, the Commission would be empowered
to adopt delegated acts in order to do so. Should exceptional
circumstances require the Commission to make adjustments outside
of the mid-term evaluation, an urgency procedure has also been
included. From a policy perspective, the ranges outlined are not
problematic, and the ranges included allow sufficient flexibility
for needs-based annual work planning to be meaningful. I judge
that the possibility of amendment by delegated acts following
the mid-term review will not have a significant impact on programming
since the European Parliament's right to veto amendments would
not affect the continued implementation of the initiative."
17.14 With regard to the proposed timetable, the
Minister says:
"Following the European Parliament Development
Committee's vote on compromise agreement, there will be a period
where lawyers and linguists check the final text. This process
is expected to take around eight weeks. Following this, there
will be a plenary vote in the European Parliament and then the
Council will be expected to take a final position. Under the current
timescales proposed this would, therefore, fall towards the end
of February or into March."
Our assessment
17.15 The Minister included with her letter
a copy of the full consolidated text of the final compromise package,
with amendments to the original Commission proposal indicated
therein. This was helpful so far as it went; but, as it remained
a limité document, we could again do little more
than report the contents of the Minister's letter to the House.
Before the Council took a final position, we therefore asked
the Minister to deposit the final version, with no privacy limitation,
along with a final Explanatory Memorandum. As well as summarising
how it met her original objections and overall UK objectives,
we asked her to confirm that it contained no provisions that increased
the Commission's power of independent action via the enhanced
use of delegated acts other than the ones she had outlined in
her letter.
17.16 We also again drew this further update to the
attention of the International Development Committee.
The Minister's letter of 24 February 2014
17.17 The Minister says that the European Parliament
is scheduled to consider the regulation in the plenary between
24 and 27 February; it is then currently scheduled
for consideration by COREPER on 12 March, and for adoption by
the Council on 14 March. Despite this, she says, "a final,
clean English version of the text will not be made available until
5 March."
17.18 The Minister then continues as follows:
"Although I cannot deposit a non-limité
version of the regulation with the Committee, I can provide the
assurances that the Committee is seeking since there have been
no substantive changes to the text since my previous EM, and only
minor linguistic ones.
"I can, therefore, confirm to the Committee
that there are no further provisions for delegated acts included
in the regulation than those outlined in my previous letter."
17.19 The Minister then summarises the extent to
which UK objectives have been met as follows:
— "Cost-effectiveness and value for
money — The UK and other Member States successfully negotiated
for a reduction in the allocated budget from €239 million
(£196 million) to €147.9 million (£121 million),
a reduction of 38%. The UK and other Member States in the Council
also successfully negotiated for the annual work programme for
the initiative to be adopted through implementing acts, which
will ensure Member State consultation and the ability to feed
in lessons learned on an annual basis to increase its effectiveness.
The effectiveness of the initiative will also be measured against
a more robust set of indicators which will allow greater scrutiny
of the value for money offered by particular activities under
the initiative;
— "Scope of initiative limited to
where there are identified needs — Throughout negotiations
in the Council Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid
(COHAFA) the UK and other member states emphasized that the initiative
must be needs-based and that this be reflected across the text;
this has been achieved. By securing the adoption of the annual
work programme through implementing acts, the UK and other Member
States will be able to retain oversight and influence over how
needs are assessed and addressed by the initiative. The UK also
sought to remove other objectives, such as social inclusion and
visibility from the objectives of the regulation and succeeded
in doing so. The UK also successfully negotiated with others
to ensure that the arrangements for the training programme for
the volunteers and the procedure for assessing the volunteers'
readiness for deployment will be adopted through implementing
acts so that Member States can continue to influence this;
— "Complementarity to existing initiatives
within the international system — The language on complementarity
within the regulation text has been strengthened to help ensure
that the EU Aid Volunteers Initiative avoids duplication and overlap.
An amendment negotiated in COHAFA now ensures that certification
for hosting and sending organisations will be based on existing
certification mechanisms and procedures and adopted through implementing
acts. The procedures for the identification, selection and preparation
of the volunteers will also be adopted through implementing acts,
so there will be an opportunity for Member States and relevant
experts to ensure that this, too, is complimentary;
— "Objectives grounded in humanitarian
principles — Although present in the original proposal,
further focus on principled humanitarian action is now included
in the regulation. The objective of the initiative, as outlined
in the revised article 4 of the regulation, now reads "The
objective of the EU Aid Volunteers 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 strengthen the
capacity and resilience of vulnerable or disaster-affected communities
in third countries, particularly by means of disaster preparedness,
disaster risk reduction and by enhancing the link between relief,
rehabilitation and development";
— "Duty of care for volunteers —
The UK secured additional language in the text which strengthens
provisions for the safety, security and proper management of deployed
volunteers. Further detail on duty of care and safety and security
of volunteers will be adopted through implementing acts ensuring
experts and Member States can continue to influence this;
— "Monitoring and evaluation —
The UK and other Member States pushed for additional and more
robust indicators to be included in the regulation against which
the effectiveness of the initiative could be judged. The UK and
others also pushed for the inclusion of a requirement that the
Commission report to the Council annually on progress of implementation,
results and, as far as possible, outcomes of the initiative.
An interim evaluation report will be completed by 31 December
2018 and a full ex-post evaluation by 31 December 2021."
17.20 In summary, the Minister says, "I judge
that the UK's initial policy objectives for the negotiation of
this regulation have been met sufficiently for the UK to adopt
the regulation."
Conclusion
17.21 We accept, and are grateful, that the Minister
and her officials have done their best to reconcile the timelines
set out above with our wish to have the final clean text of the
draft regulation deposited before it is adopted.
17.22 We accept the Minister's assurance that
there are no further provisions for delegated acts included in
the regulation other than those outlined in her previous letter.
17.23 As the Minister notes, Member States endorsed
the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
when they signed the Lisbon Treaty. At an earlier point, justifiably,
the Minister described this project as "originally framed
as a flag for Europe and a feel-good activity for young Europeans".
The Minister is thus to be congratulated, along with other like-minded
Member States, for having ensured that it will now be established
on a proper footing. We can but hope that, as it is taken forward,
those who do so volunteer will be able to add value in the way
intended to the EU's highly-regarded humanitarian work, and to
do so under appropriate conditions of safety, security, and general
management. We look forward to receiving the first monitoring
and evaluation report in due course.
17.24 In the meantime, we now clear the draft
Regulation.
75 See our Report of 23 October 2013 for details. Back
76
The Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA) is
the main forum within the EU for policy debate between Member
States and the Commission on humanitarian issues and food assistance. Back
77
Article 214(5) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
2010. Back
78
See headnote: HC 83-xxiii (2013-14), chapter 8 (4 December 2013). Back
79
COREPER, from French Comité des représentants permanents,
is the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the European
Union, made up of the head or deputy head of mission from the
EU member states in Brussels. Its job is to prepare the agenda
for the ministerial Council meetings; it may also take some procedural
decisions. It oversees and coordinates the work of some 250 committees
and working parties made up of civil servants from the member
states who work on issues at the technical level to be discussed
later by COREPER and the Council. It is chaired by the Presidency
of the Council of the European Union. There are in fact two committees:
COREPER I consists of deputy heads of mission and deals largely
with social and economic issues; COREPER II consists of heads
of mission (Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary) and
deals largely with political, financial and foreign policy issues. Back
| 
