35 EU humanitarian assistance
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny (decision reported on 22 January 2014)
|
| Document details | Commission Staff Working Paper: Annual Strategy for Humanitarian Aid in 2014: General Guidelines on Operational Priorities (35720), 17399/13 + ADD 1, SWD(13) 503.
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | International Development
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
35.1 The Commission's humanitarian operations are
led by the Directorate-General of Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO, or
European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Office).
Each year, ECHO produces a strategy outlining the key challenges
facing humanitarian actors and how the Commission plans to respond
to these over the next year.
35.2 As is customary, the 2014 Strategy for Humanitarian
Aid: General Guidelines on Operational Priorities covered policy
priorities, operational priorities and the delivery, coordination
and control of humanitarian aid. At its meeting on 8 January 2014,
when it considered the relevant Commission Staff Working Document,
the Committee was keen to hear from the Minister (Lynne Featherstone)
about whether she and her Department continued to consider ECHO
(as the Minister had put it on the previous such occasion) "very
good value for money", and whether ECHO had made progress
in those areas in which DFID's 2011 Multilateral Aid Review (MAR)
had said that there was still room for improvement.
35.3 We found it gratifying that the Minister was
able to report favourably on the areas in which DFID had wanted
to see further progress, including adopting a new gender and gender-based
violence policy.
35.4 The Minister noted the centrality in the process
of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid,[143]
and that an evaluation was to be assessed in mid-2014. If this
evaluation was not to be in the form of a depositable document,
we asked her to write before the summer recess about the findings
and of the assessment thereof.
35.5 The Minister now reports that the evaluation
report includes a range of conclusions grouped under three headings:
— harmonisation, complementarities and
the role of ECHO;
— quality of aid; and
— coherence with other forms of aid.
35.6 The evaluation's general findings were that
although the Consensus and, to a lesser extent, the Action Plan
that flowed from it, were well known at headquarters level amongst
EU institutions and EU Member States, this did not typically extend
to the field level, or to non-humanitarian headquarters departments.
Most Member States cited the Consensus as one of the determining
factors in the evolution of humanitarian aid policy and practice
over the period evaluated, but most agreed that increased cooperation
between EU Member States and EU institutions had primarily happened
through information exchange in the Council Working Group on Humanitarian
Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA), which was established in 2009. DG ECHO's
primary added value was promoting humanitarian principles and
good practice through its global presence, critical mass of funding
and the technical expertise of its staff on the ground. Overall,
the evaluation found that the amount of funding for EU humanitarian
aid remained stable over the evaluation period, despite growing
global humanitarian needs.
35.7 The evaluation produced nine recommendations,
which the Minister expects to be discussed amongst EU Member States
and with DG ECHO, through COHAFA, during the Italian Presidency.
The Government's guiding principles in these discussion will be:
· "To avoid the duplication of existing
and mandated humanitarian coordination mechanisms led by the UN;
· "To protect the valuable role of
DG ECHO as a humanitarian donor and promoter of best practice
within the EU and beyond; and
· "To ensure that any strategies, implementation
plans or mechanisms have real impact on EU humanitarian aid effectiveness
and do not detract from operational priorities."[144]
35.8 We are grateful to the Minister for having
provided this timely and informative update, which we again draw
to the attention of the International Development Committee.
35.9 We look forward to hearing from the Minister
about how these negotiations have developed when she submits the
2015 operational guidelines for scrutiny, as well as reporting
on the extent to which the Commission has been able to follow
and implement the 2014 priorities and approach, particularly with
regard to the gender and resilience components.
Full details of the documents:
Commission Staff Working Paper: Annual Strategy for
Humanitarian Aid in 2014: General Guidelines on Operational Priorities:
(35720), 17399/13 + ADD 1, SWD(13) 503.
Background
35.10 We would not normally have regarded a Commission
Staff Working Paper of this nature as warranting a Report to the
House. However, in 2013 there was a welcome, and overdue, emphasis
not simply on how ECHO planned to respond to the manifold humanitarian
crises detailed therein, vital as that was, but also — as
the Commission said — on the humanitarian community needing
to do more with less by increasing the effectiveness, efficiency
and quality of aid.
35.11 Many other such Commission documents also contained
worthy intentions about increasing VFM, effectiveness, efficiency
and so on. Now, however, in 2013 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department for International Development (Lynne
Featherstone) said that her Department would be formally assessing
ECHO's progress against the areas identified in its 2011 Multilateral
Aid Review (MAR); and thus, presumably, whether it remained (as
the Minister put it) "very good value for money", and
had made progress in those areas in which the MAR had said that
there was still room for improvement. She accordingly welcomed
the intention stated in the 2013 Strategy Document to prioritise
aid effectiveness, results and impact, as well as engaging more
with non-DAC donors and advancing the UN's Transformative Agenda
— "areas which the UK recommended ECHO had room for
improvements in the MAR and in subsequent lobbying". The
Committee accordingly asked the Minister to report on these issues
and on the outcome of the MAR review in particular when she submitted
the 2014 operational guidelines for scrutiny.
35.12 As is customary, those 2014 guidelines covered
policy priorities, operational priorities and the delivery, coordination
and control of humanitarian aid. In 2014, the Commission's geographical
focus would be on Africa (particularly the CAR), the Middle East
(particularly Syria) and the "forgotten crises". Operationally,
the focus would be on enhancing response to humanitarian emergencies,
resilience and disaster risk reduction, and improving aid effectiveness.
Following the June 2013 Resilience Action Plan, the Commission
would integrate resilience as a driver for quality and aid effectiveness
of its humanitarian response and development assistance. The Commission
would also increasingly be involved in joint planning processes
with those Member States that had the potential to play a key
role in supporting the resilience agenda — which, of course,
included the UK. The Commission also noted that operational and
funding priorities had been based on the "Integrated Analysis
Framework" (IAF), a new tool for humanitarian need and situation
assessment developed by ECHO — part of the overall "process
review" carried out by the service with the aim to improve
quality/effectiveness (aid effectiveness, policy leverage, visibility
and accountability to taxpayer), and improve further evidence-based
decision-making.[145]
35.13 In our conclusions, we noted that DG ECHO is
plainly a major force for good in dealing with the many, and growing,
humanitarian crises, and in many respects a global leader.
35.14 We also found it gratifying that the Minister
was able to report favourably on the areas in which DFID had wanted
to see further progress, including adopting a new gender and gender-based
violence policy. But, as she implied, policy was one thing, implementation
another: in this regard, we recalled the recent report on the
GAP programme, which showed how slow progress had been in actually
implementing, especially in EU delegations on the ground, a policy
on gender mainstreaming that was agreed as long ago as 2010, and
which we had recommended for debate in European Committee B.[146]
35.15 The Minister noted the centrality in the process
of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, and an evaluation
that was to be assessed in mid-2014. However, she did not say
if this evaluation was to be in the form of a depositable document:
if not, we asked her to write before the summer recess about the
findings of the evaluation and of the assessment thereof.
35.16 Beyond that, we asked her, when she submitted
the 2015 guidelines for scrutiny, to report on the extent to which
the Commission had been able to follow and implement the 2014
priorities and approach, particularly with regard to the gender
and resilience components.
35.17 In the meantime, we cleared this Commission
Staff Working Document from scrutiny, and drew these matters to
the attention of the International Development Committee.
The Minister's letter of 17 July 2014
35.18 The Minister says that she is writing about
the Evaluation of the Implementation of the European Consensus
on Humanitarian Aid (which she says was published in late June),
as an update to her 17 January 2014 Explanatory Memorandum on
the 2014 General Guidelines on Operational Priorities (17399/13).
35.19 She notes that:
— the European Consensus on Humanitarian
Aid was signed in 2007, containing commitments to humanitarian
principles and good practice and providing a common framework
for humanitarian aid in the EU based on coordination, coherence
and complementarity within the EU as well as with other humanitarian
actors;
— in 2008, the Commission presented a five-year
Action Plan outlining practical measures to implement the European
Consensus; and
— the evaluation provides an independent
assessment of the implementation of the European Consensus on
Humanitarian Aid over the period 2008-2012.
35.20 The Minister goes on to explain that the evaluation
report includes a range of conclusions grouped under three headings:
harmonisation, complementarities and the role of ECHO; quality
of aid; and coherence with other forms of aid.
35.21 Turning to the evaluation's findings, the Minister
continues as follows:
"General findings are that although the
Consensus and, to a lesser extent, the Action Plan, are well known
at headquarters level amongst EU institutions and EU Member States,
this does not typically extend to the field level or to non-humanitarian
headquarters departments. Although some Member States cited the
Consensus as one of the determining factors in the evolution of
humanitarian aid policy and practice over the period evaluated,
it was only one factor amongst many. Most agreed that increased
cooperation between EU Member States and EU institutions had primarily
happened through information exchange in the Council Working Group
on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA), which was established
in 2009. The evaluation identifies that the primary added value
of the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
(DG ECHO) was promoting humanitarian principles and good practice
through its global presence, critical mass of funding and the
technical expertise of its staff on the ground. Overall, the evaluation
finds that the amount of funding for EU humanitarian aid remained
stable over the evaluation period, despite growing global humanitarian
needs.
"The evaluation finds that both EU Member
States and EU institutions have put coherence between humanitarian
and development aid high on their agendas and have taken several
initiatives to try to improve this."
35.22 The Minister then details the evaluation's
nine recommendations:
· Replace the Action Plan with a strategic
implementation plan that promotes greater Member State involvement,
flexible implementation mechanisms and rolling objectives;
· Design and implement a communication strategy
for the European Consensus, targeting audiences both within the
realm of humanitarian aid and audiences outside that circle that
are in close interaction with humanitarian aid;
· Maintain the organisational and procedural
independence of humanitarian aid in the EU institutions;
· Advocate for all EU Member States to establish
a minimum bilateral humanitarian aid budget;
· Clarify the objectives of coordination
and complementarities, the role of DG ECHO, and the relationship
with the role of the UN;
· Devise approaches to ensure that EU institutions
and EU Member States have a more consistent approach to upholding
humanitarian principles in specific contexts and crises;
· Clarify the objectives of EU institutions
and EU Member States in terms of common visibility;
· Improve resource allocation on the basis
of need, notably by standardising methods used by EU donors at
a global level and harmonising implementing partner approaches
at field level; and
· Pursue and enhance coherence between humanitarian
and development assistance, whilst recognising the fundamental
differences in approach between these two fields.
35.23 Looking ahead, the Minister expects these recommendations
to be discussed amongst EU Member States and with DG ECHO through
COHAFA during the Italian Presidency, and says:
"Since the evaluation has only just been published,
officials in DFID are now drawing together a consolidated UK position.
The UK will enter into these discussions with the following guiding
principles:
· "To avoid the duplication of existing
and mandated humanitarian coordination mechanisms led by the UN;
· "To protect the valuable role of
DG ECHO as a humanitarian donor and promoter of best practice
within the EU and beyond; and
· "To ensure that any strategies, implementation
plans or mechanisms have real impact on EU humanitarian aid effectiveness
and do not detract from operational priorities."
Previous Committee Reports
Thirty-first Report HC-xxviii (2013-14), chapter
13 (22 January 2014).
143 The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid
was signed in 2007, containing commitments to humanitarian principles
and good practice and providing a common framework for humanitarian
aid in the EU based on coordination, coherence and complementarity
within the EU as well as with other humanitarian actors. Back
144
See the "Background" section of this chapter of our
Report for full details. Back
145
See our previous Report for full details; Thirty-first Report:
HC-xxviii (2013-14), chapter 13 (22 January 2014). Back
146
See our Report at (35635), 17432/13: Twenty-ninth Report: HC 83-xxvi
(2013-14), chapter 1 (8 January 2014). The record of the subsequent
European Committee is available at (Gen Co Deb, European
Committee B, 6 March 2014, cols 3-21). Back
| 
