TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Background and institutional context.. 3

2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties.. 3

Organisation and timing.. 3

External expertise and information gathering.. 4

Pilot projects. 5

Summary of the outcomes from consultations and reviews. 5

3. Problem definition and Subsidiarity.. 7

Current situation of volunteering in external aid.. 7

Problems. 8

EU added value and subsidiarity.. 10

4. Objectives.. 11

General objective. 12

Specific objectives. 12

Operational objective. 12

5. Policy Options.. 12

No new EU action option.. 12

Voluntary Corps through the European Voluntary Service. 13

Other policy options. 13

Option 1. 14

Option 2. 15

Option 3. 16

Option 4. 18

Summary of the options. 18

6. Analysis of impacts.. 19

Option 1. 19

Option 2. 23

Option 3. 28

Option 4. 34

7. Comparison of options.. 37

8. Arrangements for monitoring and evaluation.. 40

Monitoring.. 40

Evaluation.. 40

9. Annexes.. 42

1. Background and institutional context

The Lisbon Treaty foresees in its article 214.5:

"In order to establish a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans to the humanitarian aid operations of the Union, a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps shall be set up. The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine the rules and procedures for the operation of the Corps."

In November 2010, based on previous reviews and consultations (see below), the Commission adopted a Communication on the Voluntary Corps presenting the existing situation of volunteering, the guiding principles, gaps and necessary conditions to make a positive contribution to EU humanitarian aid.[1]The Communication also provided a first indication on possible options and recommended further consultations, research and testing before setting-up the Voluntary Corps.

The Council and the European Parliament (EP) are also associated to the process. Council Conclusions were adopted in May 2011, reaffirming the key role of the EU in promoting volunteering and encouraging the Commission to continue with the establishment of the Voluntary Corps. The Conclusions emphasised the possible contributions of EU volunteers in pre and post-crisis projects, as well as for awareness raising and for increasing EU visibility. The EP adopted a Written Declaration in November 2011, identifying the selection, training and deployment of volunteers as key components of the Voluntary Corps.

The Commission proposed an allocation of €210 Million (constant prices) for the Voluntary Corps under the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework over the period 2014-2020 (under Heading 4 – "Global Europe").

2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

Organisation and timing

Timing || Organisation

February 2010 || Bilateral consultations and internal DG ECHO research

July 2010 || External review on the Voluntary Corps

September 2010 || Stakeholders Conference in Brussels

November 2010 || Commission Communication

February-May 2011 || Public on-line Stakeholders Consultation

October 2011 & April 2012 || Meetings with the IASG

June 2011 || Stakeholders Conference in Budapest

December 2011 || External preparatory study supporting the IA; first seminar with pilot project coordinators

Commission services have been associated in the preparatory work on the Corps and also participated in several public events in the framework of the European Year on Volunteering (2011).

External expertise and information gathering

Stakeholders have been continuously involved since the beginning of the process in early 2010. A series of consultations and reviews were carried-out in order to assess the current situation, existing gaps and challenges, and identify objectives and priorities areas for action.

A first review was carried out in 2006[2] following the tabling of a proposal for a Voluntary Corps in the discussions on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. The 2006 review concluded that the Voluntary Corps proposal combined several appealing ideas (enthusiasm of young people, the need to increase the pool of qualified human resources and to enhance EU visibility) but that due consideration would need to be given to essential lessons learnt from the field and recent trends, including the need for capacity building, the overall effort to “professionalise” humanitarian aid and the security and safety risks of humanitarian aid operations.

Building on the outcomes of the 2006 review, and in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 2010 the Commission launched another external study. The study analysed the current situation of volunteering in the EU (with particular focus on volunteering in the area of external assistance), and assessed recent evolutions and current practices of relevant voluntary schemes, humanitarian actors, training organisations and other institutions working with volunteers in this field.[3]

Based on the analysis of the current gaps and challenges, the study identified areas where the Voluntary Corps could have an added value (c.f. annex 1 - Executive Summary of the study).

Since the beginning of 2010, the Commission has also consulted a range of stakeholders, including the main humanitarian aid organisations (NGO, Red Cross and Red Crescent Family, UN agencies), and mainstream volunteer organisations. Member States were also involved in the process: the Council working party on humanitarian aid and food aid (COHAFA) has discussed the establishment of the Voluntary Corps on several occasions, addressing current gaps and the possible relationships between a European Corps and national voluntary schemes.

In September 2010 and June 2011 two dedicated Conferences were organised (in Brussels and Budapest respectively), with the participation of humanitarian agencies and NGOs, European volunteers, representatives from Member States and other sending organisations. The conferences allowed the Commission to gather additional ideas and views from a broad range of stakeholders.

In compliance with the requirements of the “General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”, a public on-line consultation was carried out between 8th February and 3rd May 2011. The consultation touched upon a range of issues including general opinions and expected impacts of the Voluntary Corps, profiles of volunteers, types of activities and preparatory and support measures for volunteers (cf. annex 2 the analysis report of the consultation).

Pilot projects

Based on the outcomes of the reviews and consultations, and in order to test some of the possible features of the future Voluntary Corps, the Commission launched a first round of three rounds of pilot projects in July 2011, focusing on pre and post-crisis interventions (prevention and recovery activities). The projects are currently being implemented; continuous feedback mechanisms allowed the incorporation of the first lessons learnt into this IA.[4] A second round of pilot projects will run in the second half of 2012 and in 2013. (c.f. annex 3 – factsheets on pilot projects).

The following lessons have been learned from the first round of pilot projects:

o The identification and selection of suitable volunteers are real challenges for sending organisations: the high number of applications was reported as challenge to manage (and somewhat underestimated in terms of time; human resources, and other costs);

o Training plays a significant role: the mix of academic knowledge and scenario-type activities allows checking humanitarian skills and competences like resilience and acting under pressure. It was noted that training in the EU may not be enough to send people to the field, and was proposed to include 'apprenticeship training' (as for other staff);

o the importance to have a wide scope of humanitarian action, including prevention activities, preparedness and post-crisis recovery was a common issue;

o It is important to prepare and train host organisations in third countries to receive EU volunteers (eventually involving local volunteers and 'multiplicators'), as well as to work with local volunteers.

Summary of the outcomes from consultations and reviews

The stakeholder interviews have clearly pointed to the need for careful consideration of how and where a Voluntary Corps can make a difference in mobilising volunteers to display the values that are at the heart of the European project while providing humanitarian assistance. The following conclusions can be drawn from consultations and reviews:

· There is no unique and widely-accepted definition of “volunteer”. Volunteering is defined in many dimensions that include the profiles and characteristics of volunteers (age, education, professional background, soft skills), the motivations (solidarity, building-up the CV, learning, prospect of travel to a third country), the tasks and the context in which volunteers are deployed and the duration of deployment (short or long-term deployment, in Europe or in third countries), the level of compensation paid.[5]

· The use of volunteers in the framework of the Voluntary Corps should be demand-driven and needs-based. The cost-benefit ratio of recruiting, training and supervising volunteers is a common concern of voluntary organisations: the Voluntary Corps needs to able to demonstrate a positive cost-benefit ratio.

· Stakeholders repeatedly highlighted the need to align the use of volunteers with the trend towards increased professionalism in humanitarian aid. While motivations and good will are important, the skills and competencies necessary to have real impact on the beneficiary populations should be a guiding principle. In this respect, candidates with the ability to acquire the necessary skills and experience to go on to work in a humanitarian context should be targeted by the Voluntary Corps.

· In order to make a difference, the Voluntary Corps needs to find a role in the midst of the existing volunteer schemes through cooperative approaches. Many volunteer programmes exist but most of them focus on individual volunteers from certain countries (national voluntary schemes) and on longer-term development cooperation activities. The Voluntary Corps offers the opportunity to have a specific European dimension in volunteering, allowing so European citizens from different Member States to collaborate in humanitarian aid operations.

· There is a need to define both the types of crises where volunteers would be deployed and the types of volunteers targeted by the Corps. The contexts and types of tasks that the volunteers will perform will depend on the profiles, skills and levels of experience. In that regard some stakeholders suggested differentiating between less qualified young people and experienced volunteers. Security and safety concerns should be constantly taken into account: the complexity of humanitarian settings and interventions -especially in conflict areas- makes great attention to security issues for volunteers deployed in the field and in the hosting organisations essential. Young and in-experienced volunteers should not be deployed to humanitarian operations where security is a concern.

· The local host organisation's capacity is crucial to ensure that volunteers’ contribution has a sustainable impact on the host communities. Solid in-country hosting structures are needed to professionally manage the volunteers and ensure that good practices can be repeated after that the volunteers have left. The Voluntary Corps should include capacity building opportunities for third country hosting organisations and local communities for ("South-South" and "South-North" dimension) so as to ensure a lasting impact.

· The deployment of EU volunteers should contribute to the visibility of the EU aid to people in need. The Voluntary Corps can be a way for the EU to show concrete solidarity with third countries citizens.

· It is important that the development of the Voluntary Corps also takes into account and makes effective use of the existing related Civil Protection capacities in the Member States such as training, and supports Civil Protection activities of a humanitarian character in third countries.

· It is important to apply a flexible approach that allows for constant feed-back into the design from lessons learnt. Progressive implementation is important to ensure success.

3. Problem definition and Subsidiarity

Current situation of volunteering in external aid

There is a range of voluntary organisations involved in external aid, and in some cases in humanitarian action. It is imperative for the Voluntary Corps to avoid duplication with the existing systems.

The main programmes in the field of internationally deployed volunteers include:

ü The biggest public sector player in this field is the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) Programme administered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which deploys around 7,500 volunteers (2009), and counts 9,500 online volunteers. In 2009 UNV volunteers came from about 160 different countries (75% of which are developing countries), working mostly on UN longer-term and recovery programmes (not focusing on humanitarian aid interventions).

ü Weltwärts (German Development Cooperation BMZ) managed 3,500 volunteers in 2009. Young (18 to 28 years old) German citizens or non-Germans permanently resident having completed a vocational training or graduated from secondary school/university are assigned to a country from the OECD list of developing countries. Volunteers are deployed in development cooperation projects via local host organisations in sectors that are considered as priority areas for German development policy.

ü UNDP Junior Professional Officer Programme (JPO), which is funded by 20 donor countries and deploys around JPOs 360 per year in various countries with UN operations. Young volunteers (less than 32 years old, usually with a Master degree and some professional experience) participate to development cooperation and recovery programmes in different areas, usually in country offices.

ü VSO UK (and members) has around 1,500 active volunteers over the year for both long-term and short placements worldwide. Volunteers with minimum 2 years of professional experience are deployed to long-term development projects linked with VSO's six development goals: health, education, secure livelihoods, disability, HIV and AIDS, participation and governance.

ü Malteser International-Relief agency of the Order of Malta for humanitarian aid (80,000 trained volunteers and 20,000 staff) deploys volunteers with some working experience in foreign countries world-wide in projects operated by Malteser in areas such as rehabilitation and reconstruction, primary health care, water and sanitation, livelihood, and disaster risk reduction.

ü The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent has around 20 million active volunteers (at national level) and uses volunteers through national societies. Only professionals are employed for overseas missions in developing countries in a broad range of areas of intervention, including Disaster Risk Reduction and Preparedness, humanitarian assistance and development cooperation.

ü The German Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) has today more than 76,000 volunteers throughout Germany (supported by 850 full employees). Volunteers are mainly technical experts focusing on Civil Protection activities in a range of areas including clearing, electricity, supply, water damage, bridge- building, infrastructure, water hazards, location, logistics, drinking water supply and oil damage.

ü Johanniter International (JOIN Brussels) has in Germany around 29,000 volunteers with different professional profiles (social services, health care, civil protection).

At the level of the EU, there has been a general upward trend in the number of volunteers active in the EU over the last ten years: "there are around 92 to 94 million adults involved in volunteering in the EU. This in turn implies that around 22% to 23% of Europeans aged over 15 years are engaged in voluntary work".[6]

Although data on the number of volunteers being deployed from the EU to third countries in humanitarian action are not available, recent developments indicate an increased demand for volunteering as shown for example by two recent initiatives (the Weltwärts initiative and the Irish Response Initiative), as well as by the high number of applicants to the Voluntary Corps pilot projects.

The main EU volunteers' programme is the Youth in Action Programme, through its European Voluntary Scheme (EVS),[7] which offers funding opportunities for NGOs and others organisations for placements of young volunteers (18-30 years old) in a variety of areas. The main EVS' goal is to foster solidarity among young people and to provide learning experiences for volunteers. The projects focus on themes such as culture, youth, sports, social care, cultural heritage, arts, civil protection, environment, development cooperation, etc. Only a small part of the EVS volunteers are deployed in the framework of external aid initiatives and mainly in development cooperation projects. Humanitarian aid interventions in post-crisis situations are excluded.

Europeans feel very positive about humanitarian operations, as the Special Eurobarometer 384 (2012) has revealed: 88% think that humanitarian operations are important, and 84% think that even during the current financial crises the funding of humanitarian aid as an expression of European solidarity shall be sustained. In addition, 88% of Europeans support the setting up of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps.[8] However, while 68% are aware of the EU funding humanitarian aid, only 30% of Europeans feel well informed.

Problems

The analysis of the current situation of volunteering, as well as recent studies and reviews, [9] show that, despite the fact that a number of schemes already exist, there are still important shortcomings. Gaps exist that hamper voluntary schemes from reaching full potential. The following problems have been identified:

i. Lack of a structured EU approach towards volunteering

The volunteering landscape has become more diverse in recent years. There are significant differences in the level of volunteering and voluntary organisations between Member States: whilst certain EU Member States have longstanding traditions in volunteering and well developed voluntary sectors, in others the voluntary sector is still emerging or poorly developed.[10] This is also due to the limited availability of financial resources, which represent a significant challenge for the majority of voluntary organisations across the EU.

The lack of an integrated system and an EU structured framework for volunteering are an obstacle to releasing the full potential of voluntary activity, and limits the participation of people having the good will or eagerness to get involved, as well the further development of solidarity among Europeans and with people in need in third countries.

ii. Poor visibility of EU humanitarian action and solidarity with people in need

The visibility of EU humanitarian action and the information to citizens is still poor. This is demonstrated by the most recent reviews (2010 and 2011) and Eurobarometer (2012), indicating that only 30% of Europeans feel well informed about humanitarian aid.

The limited awareness among Europeans on EU action supporting people in need leads to greater difficulties for European citizens who want to make a concrete contribution to the humanitarian aid operations of the EU in making an appropriate choice and getting involved. The prominence of EU support to third countries is also negatively affected.

iii. Lack of consistent identification and selection mechanisms across MSs

Consolidated standards for the identification and selection of volunteers to be consistently used across Member States do not exist. Different approaches are applied, making sometime difficult the matching between the supply of volunteers and the demand from organisations.[11]

The criteria vary significantly as the different 'models' reflect different aims and purposes of the voluntary schemes: in some cases the focus is on enhancing the soft skills of young people and the contribution to personal and professional development of volunteers, whereas other schemes aim to contribute to disaster responses, i.e. are active in areas where effectiveness and skills really matter. A number of sending organisations also operate rosters for the identification and selection of volunteers, though rosters mainly contain data on highly trained experts rather than volunteers.[12] Existing rosters are used by individual sending organisations: information and data on volunteers and candidates volunteers are not always shared, leading to a certain compartmentalisation and loss of efficiency.

iv. Availability of sufficiently qualified volunteers for humanitarian aid

Training is another area of concern. Consultations and reviews show that while the majority of volunteer sending organisations do have established guidelines, standards and/or codes of conduct for their volunteers, many fewer run training courses. The 2010 public consultation survey indicated less than 40% of the organisations run training courses for volunteers deployed. The existing training is offered to a varying extent and in varying forms, as also shown by pilot projects. Training is often combined with deployment of volunteers in a developing country, and in many cases training takes place before, during and after the volunteer’s stay. Current training schemes involve e-learning, training prior to departure (typically between 1 day and 1 week), home office work before deployment, supervision and training while on site (c.f. annex 4 - examples of existing training schemes).

The lack of adequate training, which is also due to limited availability of resources (especially for smaller organisations), implies that in some circumstances less experienced sending organisations deploy volunteers without the minimum skills or awareness of humanitarian principles. These volunteers can be a burden for hosting organisations and local community they are supposed to help.

v. Shortcomings in surge capacity

The increased number and magnitude of humanitarian crises (both natural disasters and man-made crises) put increasing pressure on the surge capacity of humanitarian aid. Currently, the majority of volunteers that are deployed in third countries are engaged with longer-term development cooperation projects rather than humanitarian aid interventions.

The greater humanitarian needs make it essential to improve the number of qualified resources (including experienced volunteers) to be deployed in crisis contexts, where local and international relief capacity are often overwhelmed.[13] In particular, due to the increasing risks of natural disasters, preventive and preparedness efforts are needed to reduce the probability of disasters happening and to reduce their impacts. Recovery from disasters, back-office and support functions in the EU such as advocacy, information and communication (to increase organisational capacities and release experienced staff to move closer to the field) are also areas where additional resources would be needed.

vi.- Capacities of hosting organisations

International volunteers have to be hosted by local organisations when they are deployed to the field. Local capacities are of vital importance in order to ensure the sustainability of results and impacts of prevention, preparedness and response actions.

Due to lack of resources and poor institutional support, the third countries’ organisations involved with the support to the most vulnerable people often do not have the required capacities to manage volunteers and fully benefit from their contribution.

EU added value and subsidiarity

In order to fill the gaps, there is the need to act at the EU level, as only the development of an EU framework for humanitarian volunteering would efficiently and effectively tackle the problems identified, make a valuable contribution to the overall capacity to respond to humanitarian crises, and enhance the EU’s profile in this area.

An EU Voluntary Corps will allow the different national voluntary schemes and approaches to further develop in a more coherent way based on new EU tools, systems and resources. This will enhance mobility of European citizens and further develop solidarity and active participation in a European project. The development of new EU systems and tools (based on existing best national and international practices) that facilitate the matching between the supply of volunteers and the demand from the organisations will also benefit the voluntary organisations that will be able to make a better use of people wanting to engage in volunteering in humanitarian aid projects.

The lack of qualified volunteers for humanitarian aid can also be better addressed at the EU level through the development of curricula and methods that can be applied by any organisation, and the support to training activities that otherwise would not be organised at national level. EU training will in particular benefit smaller organisations that in the current system do not have the capacities to provide adequate training to volunteers.

While there is a clear EU added value in establishing the Voluntary Corps, the Commission shall also make sure that the duplication of existing national voluntary schemes is avoided. This will be ensured by the fact that the Voluntary Corps will be focusing on activities related to humanitarian aid rather than longer-term development cooperation (the focus pf the existing schemes in e.g. France, Germany, and Ireland). Furthermore, the Voluntary Corps will build on existing systems and structures (identification and selection criteria, training, etc.) rather than disrupting them. The new ‘EU dimension to volunteering’ will allow the national schemes to further develop their capacities to identify, select, train and deploy volunteers using the new tools and systems developed under the Voluntary Corps. Finally, the Voluntary Corps will also enhance the overall support to volunteering in the EU (leverage effect).

The lack of Union action would also be inconsistent with the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the establishment of the Voluntary Corps (Art.214.5), and entails a strong expectation towards the Commission to act.

4. Objectives

Mobilising better the volunteering capacity of European citizens is a useful way to project a very positive image of the EU in the world. It can foster interest for pan-European projects in support of humanitarian aid activities, including civil protection activities of a humanitarian character, not only through more deployment but also through better preparation.[14]

This can reinforce the benefits delivered to the hosting organisations and local communities, and the positive impacts on the volunteers themselves. In this way, benefits are acknowledged/ endorsed at the level of the voluntary organisations, the communities that they serve, the volunteers, and in this way the EU as a whole.

The Voluntary Corps shall equally be designed in a way to support the EU Youth Opportunities Initiative (COM(2011) 933) and, more generally, the Europe 2020 strategy. Albeit arguably in a limited scope, it shall provide opportunities for European youth to develop competences for life: personal resilience; intercultural awareness and understanding; project management; and dealing with unforeseen and complex situations.

These considerations have been translated into the following objectives:

General objective

To express EU humanitarian values and solidarity with people in need, through the promotion of an effective and visible European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, as an enhanced EU contribution to the overall capacity to respond to humanitarian crises.

Specific objectives

To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries To enhance the coherence/consistency across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid operations To strengthen the identification and selection criteria of volunteers

Operational objective

· To establish a framework for joint contributions from European citizens to the humanitarian aid operations of the Union (Lisbon Treaty, Art. 214.5).

5. Policy Options

No new EU action option

In the absence of a Voluntary Corps it can be expected that volunteers would continue to be used, mostly in longer-term development cooperation, and that the individual national voluntary schemes and NGOs would continue to apply their own identification and selection methods.

Those willing to offer a committed voluntary contribution in humanitarian aid would continue to have to act in a opaque ‘market’ in which it is difficult to compare the volunteering propositions offered by different organisations and where one is to some extent dependent on opportunities offered in one’s own national context.

This situation would produce an ‘un-harvested’ volunteering potential in humanitarian aid due to lack of capacity - within the NGO community and with national governments - to develop and offer the appropriate training in that regard, and due to the fact that it is costly to the individual sending organisation to provide sufficient training to ensure that the volunteer will add value.

For these reasons, sending organisations would also continue to deploy volunteers who do not always have the necessary qualifications and skills, with no assurance as to the quality of the placements or the actual impacts of volunteers’ engagement on local communities. In a worst case scenario the volunteers deployed to humanitarian crises zones would represent a risk both to themselves and to others.

The impact on host organisations and local communities would also depend on how well the specific volunteer sending organisation, the host organisation, and the volunteer are prepared for the deployment. The benefit to the volunteer and to the hosting community would depend on the host organisation’s resources (often very limited) and, if capacities are not built, organisations with already low capacities would miss out on the benefits of hosting a volunteer.

Finally, the EU visibility would not be enhanced if no new action is taken at the EU level.

For the reasons mentioned above, and in consideration of the fact that the Lisbon Treaty requires the establishment of the Voluntary Corps (Art.214.5), the ‘no new EU action’ option is not assessed further.

Voluntary Corps through the European Voluntary Service

The expansion of the mandate of the existing European Voluntary Service in order to include the Voluntary Corps has also been considered at an initial stage. This option was disregarded on the basis of the following arguments:

The objectives of the two programmes are different: while the EVS focuses on the promotion of young people active citizenship, social cohesion and mutual understanding within the EU, the humanitarian Voluntary Corps aims to support the engagement of EU volunteers but equally to assist people in need in third countries through humanitarian volunteering.

The targeted volunteers have different profiles and backgrounds: the EVS is limited to young volunteers (18 to 30 years old), while the Voluntary Corps shall be open to all ages (including more experienced volunteers) in order to effectively tackle the identified problems and have positive impacts for local communities. The involvement of volunteers with different profiles and the adaptation to the specific tasks is one of the strengths of the programme.

The scope and range of activities are radically different: the EVS is mainly limited to deployment in EU countries (with few exceptions), has very light elements of “accreditation” (no certification or standards), and narrow training activities (few days pre-departure and/or upon arrival). The level of accreditation and training is not considered sufficient for the complex environments in which humanitarian operations are conducted.

The management modalities are different: the EVS management is decentralised (80% of the volunteers are deployed in the framework of projects managed by National Agencies). This option would not be feasible for the deployment of humanitarian volunteers in third countries which is done through specialised implementing partners.

Other policy options

As a Voluntary Corps in humanitarian aid shall be established (as part of the Lisbon Treaty), and the 'no policy change' option is not applicable, the challenge is to define the Corps in a way that provides the best possible benefits (effectiveness) in a cost-effective manner.

To guide the Impact Assessment, different 'modules' have been identified on the basis of the outcomes from the stakeholder consultations and lessons learned from the pilot projects. They involve the whole range of activities that might be supported through the Voluntary Corps:

1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers

2. Development of a certification mechanism for sending organisations

3. Support to training for EU volunteers in humanitarian aid

4. Creation of an EU Register of trained volunteers

5. Development of standards and a certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting organisations

6. Support to deployment of EU volunteers

7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations

8. Establishment of an EU Network of humanitarian volunteers

The four policy options result from the combination of different modules in an incremental manner, with option 4 foreseeing a Direct Management for the deployment of volunteers. All the options are consistent with the problems identified, and would allow the achievement of the specific objectives, though to different degrees. In order to achieve a minimum level of results, at least the first two modules need to be present.

Option 1

The first policy option consists of the first 2 modules:

1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers

2. Development of certification mechanism for sending organisations

The development of standards for the identification and selection of volunteers are envisaged to ensure that the right volunteers are attracted and selected in a fair manner, and also that they have the right abilities. The EU standards would consolidate and expand the standards already available,[15] also based on the findings of the ongoing pilot projects. The EU standards will identify which skills and competencies should be further developed for a volunteer to be up to standard before being sent out.

The EU standards would focus on issues such as the commitment level and mobilisation time (short-term vs long-term deployment), language capabilities, age, technical skills, soft skills, professional record and relevant past experience/knowledge. Beyond these common features, they may need to be adapted to the particular mandates and missions of the different organisations involved with volunteers.

The development and specification of such standards and curricula will be a task of the Commission in collaboration with the relevant organisations. This option does not necessarily require the adoption of an EU Regulation, as standards can be developed through grants to relevant organisations already operating in the humanitarian aid sector.

The Standards may only be taken on to a limited degree in the absence of additional activities that "enforce" (encourage) their adoption. One way of doing so is the certification of organisations that use such standards. The certification mechanism would deliver audited evidence that certified organisations adhere to EU standards. Pursuing different levels of certificates may be considered where "light" versions may be suitable for small organisations operating in safer environments.

As the certification may involve a comprehensive auditing process and may be costly[16] it is envisaged that the Commission will take the lead in arranging the setup of a certification mechanism, but that the actual auditing system will be outsourced. Integration with existing certification mechanisms and mutual recognition will also be sought in order to avoid duplication.

Option 2

The second policy option consists of the following modules:

1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers

2. Development of certification mechanism for sending organisations

3. Support to training for EU volunteers in humanitarian aid

4. Creation of an EU Register of trained volunteers

5. Development of standards and certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting organisations

In addition to activities already covered in option 1, option 2 would include: the training of volunteers; the establishment of a Register of EU volunteers; and the development of standards and a certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting organisations.

Training activities are likely to target young volunteers (with little or no experience) as well as volunteers with previous experience. The contents and length of the training will reflect the type of volunteer and their specific needs: the training for the young volunteers will have a greater length and depth, also inspired by current training activities carried-out in the framework of the pilot projects. Completion certificates may be issued after completion of the training.

The specific contents, curricula and scope of the training will be framed at a la­ter stage in consultation with stakeholders buil­ding upon huma­ni­tarian aid organisations' experiences, best practices and further lessons learnt from the pilot projects. Special attention would also be paid to a transparent and clear mechanism for identifying and selecting the volunteers to enter the training. Particular care must be taken to ensure that there is equal access to the training throughout Europe and that Europeans are trained as far as possible together in mixed national groups, making the EU training a true and visible European activity.

The training would be prepared and implemented under calls for tender and subsequent contracts, operated through one or two years contracts (with possibilities for renew­als), and managed by the Commission.[17] This would also imply that the sending organisation might be different from the training institutions, though strong coordination will be needed in case part of the training is done on-site.

This option would also include the development and maintenance of a Register of qualified volunteers in the EU who are available to engage in humanitarian aid. The Register would provide a platform that would enable fast identification of suitable volunteer candidates and in turn improve access to volunteering opportunities for people from across the EU.

As the Register would contain the details of volunteers who have been through training, links between the Register administrators and providers of relevant training courses will be established. Setting up the Register would involve specification and development of a database and an associated website, and supporting IT systems. A website and links into the mainstream social media and to relevant volunteering websites could also be developed. The Register would also need to remain up to date and reflect the true availability of volunteers and would need a policy regulating the access.

Finally, option 2 would involve the development of standards for volunteers' management in hosting organisations in third countries, which would need to be coherent with the modules previously described. The standards may cover practical issues, such as security and accommodation, as well as conditions ensuring the full utilisation of volunteer skills once in the host community. The exact scope and content of the standards would be defined before development. The actual process of development would require the involvement of experts and regular consultation with a number of organisations.

Mirroring the certification for sending organisations, a certification of hosting organisations would be also developed. Again the pursuit of different levels of certificates could be considered, where "light" versions maybe suitable for small organisations operating in safer environments and will have lower requirements to e.g. security or safety aspects and multi-cultural issues.

The standards and certification mechanism would be developed under a contract issued by the Commission under competitive tender to a qualified organisation. Typically, standards do not require much maintenance. However, once established, they should be reviewed periodically and updated/revised where necessary.

Option 3

The third policy option consists of the following modules:

1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers

2. Development of a certification mechanism for sending organisations

3. Support to training for EU volunteers in humanitarian aid

4. Creation of an EU Register of trained volunteers

5. Development of standards and a certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting organisations

6. Support to deployment of EU volunteers

7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations

8. Establishment of an EU Network of humanitarian volunteers

In addition to the activities covered under option 2; option 3 would include: the deployment of EU volunteers to third countries; building capacities in hosting organisations; and the establishment of an 'EU community of humanitarian volunteers'.

Option 3 would be implemented through an existing Executive Agency with relevant experience of volunteer programs (i.e. EACEA) with appropriate Commission oversight.

Under option 3, the training activities described above (under Option 2) would be combined with 'Apprenticeship Placements' for less experienced volunteers of up to 6 months before actual deployment to a field operation. These apprenticeship placements (in support roles) may be organized by the EU sending organisations (humanitarian actors) in a country other than the EU volunteer's home country to add a European dimension.

For 'regular' deployment, volunteers would be placed in humanitarian aid projects in third countries, with a particular focus on prevention/preparedness and recovery, which have identified as relevant areas by organisations involved in the pilot projects. Deployment of EU volunteers would in this way also contribute to a make a better link between humanitarian aid and longer-term development cooperation, including through the strengthening of resilience capacities of local communities. The duration of deployment would be in function of the context, the type of volunteer and the type of tasks: (i) deployment of less experienced volunteers (long-term deployment of on average one year); (ii) short deployment of experienced volunteers after a sudden on-set crisis or for capacity building purposes (short-term deployment of on average one month).[18] Volunteers can be used for a variety of tasks, including classical emergency interventions, capacity building and back-office and administrative functions.

The deployment would include the integration of volunteers into projects, in particular those that receive financial support from the EU. Deployment could also be possible in Commission's offices and projects, and in some United Nations' organisations. In all deployment, it will be important to maintain an uniformed approach and visibility of the Volunteers' Corps.

The Commission would select implementing partners through calls for proposals. Co-financing arrangements would allow the Commission's implementing partners and other sending organisations submitting a proposal to receive additional financial support (from the Voluntary Corps budget) for the volunteers deployed with the projects. The organisations wanting to deploy EU volunteers will have to be certified and adhere to the Voluntary Corps communication policy in order to ensure EU visibility.

The capacity of hosting organisations in third countries to effectively manage the deployed volunteers according to the standards developed under module 5 is a crucial element of the delivery of humanitarian assistance via the Voluntary Corps.[19] For this reason, option 3 would include capacity-building elements (module 7) in order to support the improvement of hosting capacity. This module may include training opportunities of volunteer coaches and multiplicators; a 'Humanitarian Leadership' programme; and regional seminars/conferences for the exchange of good practices for management of EU volunteers in third countries.

Training for hosting organisations would focus on 'volunteer management and coaching'; tailored modules on disaster management depending on the type of crises the organisation deals with; and 'promoting local participation and volunteering' in order to ensure that the EU volunteers presence does promotes local engagement and employment. Training would be provided by external training providers in third countries as the hosting organisations are widely dispersed across the globe. Additionally, a 'Humanitarian Leadership' programme is envisaged inviting selected staff and volunteers from these hosting organisations to humanitarian partner organisations in the EU (South-North) or to humanitarian organisations in other countries (South-South) for a capacity building stay of up to 3 months.

Facilitating an active EU Network of humanitarian volunteers would be the final element of Option 3. The core of the community could be an interactive networking website. It should be linked to mainstream social networking and relevant professional online communities. It shall encourage the exchange of experiences and mutual support of the volunteers and promote an 'Esprit de Corps'. Target groups of the Network are all volunteers who have participated in the Corps and they could constitute a specific chapter of the Register of trained humanitarian volunteers identified in Option 2.

Additionally, this Network could be an instrument to foster interest among other Europeans to engage without being deployed. "Online volunteering" is on the rise, with more and more citizens use their computers to make a difference by providing a range of services such as mentoring; translation of documents or crisis mapping. These features could expand the outreach of the Corps exponentially. Membership on the Network will be on a voluntary basis, though strongly encouraged, with appropriate links ensured to existing on-line initiatives.

Option 4

Option 4 would essentially support the same combination of activities as option 3 (all 8 modules), but assumes that each component of option 3 is directly managed by the European Commission, including selection, training and deployment, which, if they require the cooperation of humanitarian organisations, would be done on individual and ad hoc contractual arrangements between the Commission (or Executive Agency) and the implementing organisations.

Such an approach for the deployment of volunteer could be organised in a number of ways, including: i) allocating supplementary human resources within the Commission services; ii) using an existing Executive Agency to implement (for example the Executive Agency EACEA of DG Education And Culture); iii) establishing a new free-standing EU Voluntary Corps Agency. Given the assumed additional administrative costs of establishing a new Agency in the current economic climate, this option is not costed-out further in this Impact Assessment.

Summary of the options

The following table resumes the policy options. The standards for identification, selection of volunteers are part of all the options as jointly framed and agreed-upon standards are considered a necessary condition for development of any other activity.

Option No (Modules) || Content

Option 1 (1, 2) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations

Option 2 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Training for EU volunteers 4. EU register 5. Standards and certification for hosting organisations

Option 3 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 + partnership approach for deployment) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Training for EU volunteers 4. EU register 5. Standards and certification for hosting organisations. 6. Deployment of volunteers 7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations 8. EU Network of humanitarian volunteers

Option 4 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 + 'detachment' approach for deployment) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Training for EU volunteers 4. EU register 5. Standards and certification for hosting organisations. 6. Deployment of volunteers 7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations 8. EU Network of humanitarian volunteers

6. Analysis of impacts

This section assesses the main potential impacts of each option (including the impacts on different stakeholders), and the extent to which each option delivers on the specific objectives. The analysis of each option also summarises the estimates of the implementation costs (assessment of efficiency), working on the assumption of the adoption of the Legislative Framework for full implementation starting in 2014.

The estimates of the implementation costs also includes the costs of management, which are assumed to be around 10% of the overall budget if the activities are managed by the Commission staff, whereas if the management is outsourced to an existing implementing Agency the costs would be around 8%.[20]

Option 1

The development of EU standards and the setting-up of a certification mechanism are highly complementary: having the standards in place is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for the Voluntary Corps to have an added value. The impact of the EU standards on volunteering would depend on the extent to which they are taken up and used by the organisations other than in an ad-hoc manner. Certification is a means for allowing the standards to be more widely adapted and used. At the same time, the certification mechanisms itself needs a certain minimum level of uptake in order to be effective and improve the quality of recruitment and training of volunteers. The financial support from the Voluntary Corps would allow a larger number of organisations, especially the smaller ones, to prepare for and comply with the certification requirements.

The existence of common criteria for the identification and selection of volunteers and EU training curricula are conditions for increased efficiency and effectiveness of the whole volunteering system, as standards would ensure that the adequate mix of skills and motivations are in place before deploying volunteers to the field.

The impact of EU standards is likely to be more important on the smaller organisations and the organisations in the Member States that have not had the resources to develop such standards themselves.

As uptake increases, the better information provided on necessary requirements for volunteers available on 'the market' will impact on the number of volunteers available. A higher level of transparency across organisations will mean that European citizens would be better placed to decide whether to engage in volunteering in humanitarian aid, and on the organisation(s) to which they want to offer their services.

At the same time, if the standards are consistently implemented, the volunteers would benefit from getting and being able to display higher skill levels on their CVs.

Finally, the standards are likely to lead to improvement of job quality for volunteers who are deployed to third countries by making sure that the essential issues for successful deployment are addressed by the training courses. This would in turn benefit the hosting organisations receiving European volunteers, and indirectly the local population being assisted.

This option is not expected to have any specific impact on the environment.

The following table distinguishes the impacts on the different stakeholders.

|| Impacts

Stakeholder || Positive || Negative

EU sending organisations || - Overall efficiency and effectiveness in identification and selection of volunteers improved - Visibility improved through certification mechanism || - Potential burden of complying with certification mechanism - Risk of heavier administrative procedures

EU volunteers || - Increased transparency makes participation in volunteering easier || - Actual training and deployment opportunities would still be limited

Hosting organisations || - Conditions for getting adequate and better trained volunteers established || - No capacity building activities

Local communities || - Conditions for a more effective volunteers’ contribution to meeting humanitarian needs ||

Contribution to the objectives

1. To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid

Since the module primarily focuses on the organisations situated in the EU/sending countries, most emphasis is on ensuring that the volunteers ready to be deployed are the right ones - i.e. that they have been properly identified and selected. A more efficient, effective and transparent selection and recruitment process can actually reduce the number of deployed volunteers but, on the other hand, increase the quality of the volunteers’ contributions. However, the impact on the overall capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid would only be of an indirect nature and is likely to be very limited.

2. To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions

An improved system of identification and selection of volunteers is only a pre-condition for making sure that the right persons are engaged. The impacts on the skills sets and abilities of volunteers would depend on the goodwill and capacities of sending organisations to actually provide training on the basis of the agreed curricula.

3. To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values

Impacts on the promotion of EU solidarity within the EU will be positively linked to how far the elements within the option are adopted and how far they come to be identified as part of an EU initiative. Certificates would make EU volunteering standards more visible. Impacts on the promotion of EU solidarity and EU visibility outside the EU would be very limited, due to the fact that this option does not imply the deployment of volunteers in third countries.

4. To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries

No direct contribution of this option to this specific objective is expected under Option 1.

5. To enhance the coherence/consistency across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid operations

The development and adoption of EU standards and a certification mechanism might encourage different organisations in different EU Member States to align their approaches and ‘modus operandi’, which would in turn create ‘market synergies’. EU citizens who are interested in volunteering would have the possibility to make a better informed choice. However, this entirely depends on the level of uptake of standards and certification mechanisms. The smaller organisations would benefit from standards that would not be accessible otherwise.

6. To strengthen the identification and selection criteria of volunteers

The identification and selection criteria, as well as the whole recruitment processes and systems would be more transparent and effective.

Implementation costs

Module 1: Development of standards

The following cost calculations are partly based on the experiences of the HAP and the People In Aid of developing and maintaining their respective standards, and partly by making some additional assumptions. It is assumed that development of the standards would need three years, based on the HAP and People In Aid. The revision of the standards would be undertaken every five years (first revision in 2020), while the promotion would start once the standards have been established. Costs include the outsourcing to service providers as well as the Commission staff costs (assumed to be around 10% of the overall staff input).

Standards || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-20

Development standards || 192,400 || 192,400 || 192,400 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 577,200

Revision || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 131,200 || 131,200

Promotion || 0 || 0 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 250,000

Total || 192,400 || 192,400 || 242,400 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 181,200 || 958,400

Note: All values in EUR are assumed to be in 2012 prices.

There might be limited additional costs for sending organisations for complying with standards due to slightly heavier administrative procedures. There would not be any additional cost for volunteers, hosting organisations and local communities.

Module 2: Certification mechanism for sending organisations

The development of elements such as checklists and auditing procedures and the establishment of an audit system are assumed to be outsourced and to take place alongside the development of the above standards. For this reason, the costs for developing the certification mechanism are assumed to be much smaller than the costs for the development of standards (around 10%).

The main costs concern the use of the certification mechanism (see table below). Given the uncertainty about the affordability for the different organisations (many organisations, in particular the small ones, would find it too costly to pay the costs of the auditing process), the IA presents the cost figures of a 100% Commission-financed auditing process. Similar to the HAP and the People In Aid, we assume that certified organisations must be re-certified every 3 years. For the cost calculations, we assume a cost of getting certified/audited of EUR 20,000 (based on figures from HAP and People In Aid) and an uptake of 85 organisations by 2020 - starting with 8 in 2015.

Certification mechanism || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-20

Development / update || 25.000 || 25.000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25.000 || 0 || 75.000

Maintenance/use || 0 || 160.000 || 200.000 || 240.000 || 300.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 1.700.000

Yearly take-up || || 8 || 10 || 12 || 15 || 20 || 20 || 85

Re-certification || || || || || 160.000 || 200.000 || 240.000 || 600.000

Promotion || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 210.000

Total || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000

The implementation costs of option 1 would be as follow:

Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020

1. Standards identification, selection, training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.400 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.000

2. Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000

Total || 247.400 || 407.400 || 472.000 || 320.000 || 540.000 || 705.000 || 851.200 || 3.543.000

Management Costs (10%)* || 24.700 || 40.700 || 47.200 || 32.000 || 54.000 || 70.500 || 85.120 || 354.300

* In case of outsourcing to an EA the management costs would be 8% of the total (€283.440).

Option 2

This option considers the standards developed in option 1 as the foundation for developing and providing a training scheme for volunteers financed by the EU.

As for option 1, the overall recruiting system for volunteers would be improved. Furthermore, sending organisations would get access to volunteers that have undergone a comprehensive training programme, which would in turn improve the effectiveness of deploying volunteers, reduce the risks of mismatch and facilitate the supervision and guidance of volunteers on the field. The establishment of a Register of trained volunteers would also help recruiting organisations identify suitable candidates. [21]

The standards for hosting organisations would further improve the overall contribution of volunteering in humanitarian aid by ensuring that hosting organisations are fully capable of providing valuable volunteer placements and of harvesting the benefits from the volunteers’ skills, which would in turn benefit the host communities. The standards for volunteer management would also facilitate hosting organisations’ access to partnership arrangements with volunteer recruiting organisations in the EU and elsewhere by helping them build a reputation. For this purpose, it should be ensured that the standards are straightforward and compatible with the community needs or customs. The standards should integrate as much as possible into other requirements that already exist so as to avoid unnecessary administrative burden, especially for the smaller organisations.

The risk arising is that the better skilled/experienced volunteers replace local volunteers and/or local employment. For this to be avoided, training must focus on inputs that could not otherwise be provided locally, and which has the potential of stimulating local community and volunteers. At the same time, the standards and certification for hosting organisations can help in reinforcing their capacities and benefit local volunteers and local communities.

On the volunteers’ side, those completing the training will have better qualifications, and they will be better placed to secure a deployment. The training would enable them to make a better informed decision about whether to make a career in humanitarian aid. In this way, the training will create the conditions for facilitating the inclusion of young people into the labour market in the EU, especially if volunteers that have completed the EU training are provided with some formal recognition of their work – e.g. documented qualifications.

The Register would provide qualified volunteers from across the EU with access to volunteering opportunities with organisations that meet recognised standards in volunteer management and are eventually certified. This would provide improve transparency as well as the opportunities for volunteers as they would be more visible for the recruiting organisations. Those aiming for a career in humanitarian aid and who have the requested training could also use this Register to indicate their availability for permanent posts (subject to configuration of the Register).

The training could also have positive environmental impacts by better preparing and sensitising future volunteers on issues such as prevention of natural disasters, preparedness and response to the impacts of disasters due to climate change. The standards for hosting organisations could also contribute to better management of natural resources in beneficiary countries. Some negative environmental impacts can be assumed by travel of volunteers to trainings. The following table provides an overview of the potential positive and negative impacts on the different stakeholders.

|| Impacts

Stakeholder || Positive || Negative

EU sending organisations || - Improved pool of human resources (skills of volunteers) - Improved access to EU volunteers through Register + lower searching costs - Improved working relationships with hosting organisations if standards are applied || - Risk of duplication of existing training schemes - Risk of heavier administrative procedures - Costs for deployment as not covered by the EU

Volunteers || - Improved access to training across Europe - Higher skills/qua­lifications: volunteers more attractive for labour market - Improved visibility and access to employers - Improved access to other volunteers || - Possible economic pressure on families for supporting training if not fully covered - Rising of qualifications might lead to exclusion of less qualified volunteers - No guarantee of deployment after training

Hosting organisations || - Trained volunteers would be more effective if deployed - Increased management capacities through standards || - Potential crowding out effects on local workforce/local volunteering - Potential burden of standards and certification if difficult to follow

Local communities || - More qualified volunteers contribute to more effective humanitarian aid if deployed - Standards ensure that the volunteers skills are adequately used to the benefit of local communities || - Crowding out effects on local workforce if paid positions are replaced by EU volunteers

Contribution to the objectives

1. To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid

As for Option 1, the impact on the overall capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid would only be of an indirect nature, as improved recruitment systems and better trained volunteers are necessary pre-conditions, but deployment opportunities would in the end still depend on the capacities and resources of the sending organisations.

2. To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions

European volunteers would gain skills and competences through the training, thus increasing their relevance for future deployment and their career opportunities The standards for hosting organisations would allow trained volunteers, eventually screened and selected through the Register, to benefit from favourable environment when and if they are ultimately deployed.

3. To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values

EU visibility would be further promoted by a training that is widely acknowledged as highly relevant and highly applicable. A training scheme that is operated under the EU umbrella, and which is recognised for its quality and substance will add substantially to the promotion of EU solidarity and credibility (a similar development has been observed for the EU Civil Protection training). However, no visibility linked to the deployment of volunteers in the field is achieved under this option as volunteers will be deployed (if they are at all) by other organisations.

4. To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries

The standards and the certification mechanism fully funded by the EU would significantly increase the capacities of local organisations to make the best use of European volunteers in their humanitarian operations. However, the fact the deployment itself is not included leaves it up to the initiative of humanitarian organisations and availability of funds whether these standards are actually fruitfully put into action. The unbundling of standards from directly supported deployment may make it unlikely that many third country organisations get interested in applying them.

5. To enhance the coherence/consistency across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid operations

Equal access to training would be facilitated, as well as equal development of skills for all European citizens. Consistency between different voluntary schemes would also be improved by the fact that volunteers from different Member States having followed the training would enrol in the Register and would then be accessible to all voluntary organisations. The existence of an EU training would increase the attractiveness of the volunteering experience for those who want to contribute to humanitarian aid operations of the Union. Potential volunteers would also be reinsured by the existence of standards for hosting organisations and by the possibility of being more visible to sending organisations through the Register.

6. To strengthen the identification and selection criteria of volunteers

As for Option 1, the identification and selection criteria, as well as the whole recruitment processes and systems would be more transparent and effective.

Implementation costs

Here only additional elements are presented (the costs already calculated for option 1 will be added to the overall costs calculation).

Module 3: Training of EU volunteers

As for the number of volunteers to be trained, we assume an average of 12 young volunteers per Member State and an average of 10 experienced volunteers per Member State at the beginning of the training activities. We also assume that this number increases by 20% each year to reach a total of 1.773 volunteers trained in 2020, which represents a total of 7.673 volunteers trained.

The cost of training per young volunteer is estimated to be EUR 7,120,[22] while training costs for volunteers with experience are assumed to be in the same order of magnitude as the costs of the EU introductory course on Civil Protection preparedness: EUR 3,700 per volunteer.[23] The difference is mainly due to the different length of the training.

As training activities would be outsourced, the calculations include the costs of service providers. Some staff on the Commission side would also be needed for procurement, assistance to training providers and other ad-hoc activities.[24]

Training for EU volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20)

Administration and management costs || 48.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 816.000

Delivery costs - Young volunteers || 2.306.880 || 2.769.680 || 3.325.040 || 3.987.200 || 4.784.640 || 5.738.720 || 6.885.040 || 29.797.200

Delivery costs - Experienced volunteers || 999.000 || 1.198.800 || 1.439.300 || 1.727.900 || 2.072.000 || 2.486.400 || 2.982.200 || 12.905.600

Promotion & communication || 500.000 || 500.000 || 150.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 1.350.000

Total Costs || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800

N. of young volunteers || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 967 || 4.185

N. experienced volunteers || 270 || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 3.488

Tot number of volunteers || 594 || 713 || 856 || 1.027 || 1.232 || 1.478 || 1.773 || 7.673

As there might be limited additional costs for volunteers who participate in the training courses (travel expenses, accommodation, etc.), appropriate mechanisms should be put in place to guarantee equal participation. No specific costs for sending organisations are foreseen.

Module 4: EU Register

The costs in the table below assume 100% Commission financing of the Register with its development and operation outsourced to a third party through a competitive tender. The estimates for the service contracts for developing and maintaining the Register have been based on actual costs of other emergency rosters, with the assumption that the register is operated by a humanitarian organisation with costs similar to those in the organisations consulted.[25]

There would also be a requirement for Commission staff time in contract administration and oversight for which a provision of 10% of the service contract time has been made. It is assumed that the contract price rises to ~10% after 3 years due to increases in scale of activity.

Register || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20)

Development || 110,000 || || || || || || || 110,000

Maintenance/use || || 302,500 || 302,500 || 302,500 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 1,897,500

Total || 110,000 || 302,500 || 302,500 || 302,500 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 2,007,500

Module 5: Standards and certification for hosting organisations

The costs are calculated on the assumption that the work would be contracted out. Similar initiatives such as the Sphere standards have been used as benchmark.[26] 100% Commission financing is assumed, including the development, maintenance and revision of the standards, the latter also covering events, workshops and other promotional material, and the publication and dissemination of standards. As for the Register, a requirement for Commission staff time for contract administration and oversight of 10% of the service contract time has been made.

The development of standards is assumed to take 2 years, based on previous experiences. A revision is foreseen every 5 years. As it may be cumbersome for organisations to implement the certification mechanism, 100% co-funding is assumed. As organisations are scattered around the globe a higher unit costs of certification than in Module 2 is assumed (25.000 EUR). 2014 and 2015 would be dedicated to the development and promotion; uptake starts in 2016 with 5 organisations growing to 20 in 2020. As for the certification for sending organisations, hosting organisations will need to re-certify after three years.

Standards and certification host organisations || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total 2014 2020

Development || 190.000 || 148.000 || || || || || || 338.000

Monitoring & admin. || || || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || || 90.000

Update || || || || || || || 70.000 || 70.000

Subtotal || 190.000 || 148.000 || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 70.000 || 498.000

Certification mechanism || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-2020)

Development || 25.000 || 25.000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25.000 || 0 || 75.000

Maintenance/use || 0 || 0 || 125.000 || 250.000 || 300.000 || 375.000 || 500.000 || 1.550.000

Yearly take-up rate || || 0 || 5 || 10 || 12 || 15 || 20 || 62

Re-certification || || || || || || 125.000 || 250.000 || 375.000

Promotion || 0 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 240.000

Subtotal || 25.000 || 65.000 || 165.000 || 290.000 || 340.000 || 565.000 || 790.000 || 2.240.000

Total Module 5 || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 370.000 || 595.000 || 860.000 || 2.738.000

No additional costs for volunteers or sending organisations are estimated. There might be limited costs for hosting organisations for complying with standards for the certification.

The table presents the implementation costs of option 2:

Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020

1.Standards identification, select., training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.000

2.Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000

3.Training EU volunteers || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800

4.EU Register || 110.000 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 2.007.500

5.Standards & certification hosting org. || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 370.000 || 595.000 || 860.000 || 2.738.000

Total || 4.426.280 || 5.518.880 || 5.981.340 || 6.835.100 || 8.274.640 || 10.033.120 || 12.096.440 || 53.157.300

Management costs (10%)* || 442.628 || 551.938 || 598.184 || 683.560 || 827.464 || 1.003.312 || 1.208.644 || 5.217.900

* In case of outsourcing to an EA management costs would be 8% of the total (4.252.584€).

Option 3

The proposed approach, according to which an existing Executive Agency would supervise appropriate volunteers deployment options to humanitarian organisations, would ensure that the Voluntary Corps is linked with key stakeholders in the sector. The supervision of deployment would be retained by the Commission through a series of means. Firstly, only those volunteers that have passed the EU training course and been placed on the Corps Register would be eligible for deployment. This would ensure that the volunteers deployed are equipped to make a valuable contribution. Secondly, the Commission would keep the control through the Agency's oversight, which would ensure excellence and high EU visibility during deployment. Thirdly, the host organisations that receive the volunteers would be required to comply with the EU standards developed under Module 5.

The links between the different modules and conditions linked to deployment will help to ensure that there is a strong EU identity attached to the operations of the Voluntary Corps.

It is expected that this option would provide added value to the assisted populations by bringing additional qualified human resources in support of local host communities. In order to avoid possible 'distorting' impacts on the local labour market, it is essential that the contributions provided by the European volunteers are additional and preferably unique, offering something that local staff could not provide to the same extent (including through possible twinning approaches).

The capacity building module would strengthen third country hosting organisations; increase their absorption capacities; and ensure that volunteer skills and competencies are used effectively. This would in turn produce ‘spillover benefits’ beyond the Voluntary Corps, as the targeted organisations would be better equipped to support volunteers and participation in local communities more generally. At the same time, participation in the training would involve a commitment of time on the part of the hosting organisations, which may put an extra burden on the local staff.

As for volunteers, this option would allow them to realise the full benefits from their training and gain work experience that could be used for future employments, inside and outside the sector. In particular, the deployment would be useful for those young people who wish to pursue a career in humanitarian work.

Deployment would also bring cultural benefits for young volunteers, who would learn about new cultures and ways of living.

The Network of EU humanitarian volunteers would be beneficial for all EU volunteers; for third country staff and volunteers; and for those wanting to volunteer without deployment by providing access to online volunteering opportunities. It would provide a learning platform to exchange experiences; best practice; and to seek support. The Network would also help to spread widely the benefits of the Voluntary Corps and would contribute to increased EU visibility. Past volunteers would benefit from such a Network, as they would be able to stay in touch with other humanitarian aid professionals. This contact would also enhance their career development and keep them posted on any new opportunities.

Volunteers’ work with local communities and the support to hosting organisations would also bring potential benefits to the environment, notably through the improvement of natural disaster prevention and preparedness capacity. Some negative environmental impacts can be assumed by the travel of volunteers to trainings and to their locations of deployment worldwide.

The following table shows the additional impacts on the different categories of stakeholders:

|| Impacts

Stakeholder || Positive || Negative

EU sending organisations || - Would benefit from financial support for deployment of better trained volunteers - Would benefit from 'apprenticeship placements' fully funded by Commission - Improved capacities of hosting organisations would facilitate operations - Lessons learned from volunteers would contribute to improve institutional learning || - Some organisations may struggle to accommodate additional volunteers - Some potential for additional unfunded costs

Volunteers || - Work experience; contribute improving their attractiveness on the labour market. - Opportunity to learn more about different cultures - Access to advice/support from volunteers through Network - Career/professional benefits from Network || - Volunteers do not have a salary, unlike other deployment, which may mean a potential income loss

Hosting organisations || - Additional qualified resources addressing humanitarian needs - Improved management capacities and institutional strengthening || - Potential additional pressure on local infrastructures for receiving volunteers and for participating in training opportunities

Beneficiaries || - Additional qualified resources would primarily benefit local populations - Improved capacities of local organisations would ensure more effective local response to humanitarian needs - Exchanges through the Network would increase volunteers’ sensitiveness to local cultures and conditions || - Potential 'distorting' impact on local labour market (crowding out)

Contribution to the objectives

1. To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid

The overall humanitarian aid capacity of the Union would be improved as the volunteers who have been selected and trained would then be deployed to field operations in the framework of EU interventions. The contribution will vary, depending on the volunteers’ profile and specific tasks to they will perform. Furthermore, volunteers having been deployed could also act as ‘ambassadors’ for the EU Voluntary Corps and Humanitarian Aid in general (also using targeted funds for post deployment awareness raising activities).

2. To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions

The training and the deployment to the field would allow EU volunteers to gain a concrete work experience in humanitarian aid and further improve their skills set, which would make them more attractive to the labour market. The deployment and the EU community would in particular be useful for those wanting to start a career in humanitarian aid. There is also a cultural benefit, as volunteers would get an opportunity not only to help communities, but also to learn about new cultures and ways of living. Early indications from the pilot project shows that Corps volunteers quickly moved into humanitarian employment.

3. To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values

The EU visibility would be enhanced through the deployment of Voluntary Corps volunteers in third countries. This would be further enhanced by the direct support provided to hosting organisations through capacity building activities, as well as the establishment of the Network of humanitarian volunteers.

4. To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries

The deployment of EU volunteers to third countries, associated with capacity building activities for hosting organisations (module 7) would ensure that staff and volunteers of those organisations will benefit from the Voluntary Corps. This is likely to produce sustainable impacts on local communities and have multiplier effects.

5. To enhance the coherence/consistency across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid operations

This option would give the possibility to all sending organisations across the EU to benefit from financial support for deploying volunteers in humanitarian aid operations. This option would in particular benefit those organisations from EU Member States where access to national financing sources for deployment is limited. The Network would also allow sending organisations from all over Europe to learn from the experiences of volunteers having been deployed with the support of the Voluntary Corps, which is likely to contribute to the improvement of institutional learning and to a more consistent development of the voluntary sector. The combination of training; apprenticeship placements and strengthened management capacities of the hosting organisations in third countries would also encourage EU citizens wanting to express their solidarity to engage in volunteering. The 'community' would allow citizens to get involved without deployment through online volunteering opportunities.

6. To strengthen the identification and selection criteria of volunteers

As for Option 1 and 2, the identification and selection criteria, as well as the whole recruitment processes and systems would be more transparent and effective. The activities with hosting organisations would also reinforce their own systems for managing staff and volunteers (including identification and selection criteria).

Implementation costs

Module 5: Development of standards and a certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting organisations

It is expected that in option 3 many more local organisations will be interested in getting certification, especially if the deployment of EU volunteers is made conditional to these organisations complying with the standards. As under option 2, 100% co-financing and a unit costs of certification of 25.000 EUR is assumed. The total number of hosting organisations being certified is expected to be higher than those of sending organisations as typically small hosting organisations may not be able to host more than one or two volunteers at a time whereas sending organisations typically send larger groups of volunteers. Uptake starts in 2016 with 5 organisations growing to 100 in 2020.

Standards and certification host organisations || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-2020)

Development of standards || 190.000 || 148.000 || || || || || || 338.000

Monitoring & administration || || || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || || 90.000

Update || || || || || || || 70.000 || 70.000

Subtotal || 190.000 || 148.000 || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 70.000 || 498.000

Certification mechanism || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-2020)

Development || 25.000 || 25.000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25.000 || 0 || 75.000

Maintenance/use || 0 || 0 || 125.000 || 250.000 || 750.000 || 1.250.000 || 2.500.000 || 4.875.000

Yearly take-up rate || || 0 || 5 || 10 || 30 || 50 || 100 || 195

Re-certification || || || || || || 125.000 || 250.000 || 375.000

Promotion || 0 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 240.000

Subtotal || 25.000 || 65.000 || 165.000 || 290.000 || 790.000 || 1.440.000 || 2.790.000 || 5.565.000

Total Module 5 || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 820.000 || 1.470.000 || 2.860.000 || 6.063.000

Module 6: Deployment of volunteers

Two components are envisaged for deployment:

- ‘Apprenticeship placements' of on an average 6 months for young volunteers having been trained with the Voluntary Corps in order to give them practical experience before direct deployment in humanitarian aid and civil protection interventions of a humanitarian character. Numbers would mirror the recruitment into the training programme. The Commission would finance 100% of the deployment.

- ‘Regular’ deployment by implementing partners, with a Commission co-financing rate of 80%, while the remaining 20% will be financed by sending organisations.

It is assumed that 90% of those participating in apprenticeship training would go on to participate as long term regular volunteers, whilst 50% of those trained as 'expert volunteers' would go on to long deployment as volunteers and 50 % on short term deployment.

The total number of these different types of placements would amount to 9,604 in 2020. Some of the costs that the EU would cover (for both types of deployment) include administrative costs (medical checks, insurance, visa, and travel to/from host country and local travels), plus a personal allowance. There would not be any additional cost for volunteers during deployment. Finally, this module foresees a budget for visibility packages allowing volunteers after their deployment to organize events to promote their experience (similar to the EVS volunteers).

Deployment of EU volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20)

Apprenticeship placements - 6 months, 100% financing

N° of volunteers || 0 || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 3.218

Costs || 0 || 2.980.800 || 3.578.800 || 4.296.400 || 5.152.000 || 6.182.400 || 7.415.200 || 29.605.600

Regular deployment - long term (average 1 year), 80% co-financing

N° of volunteers || 135 || 454 || 545 || 654 || 784 || 941 || 1.128 || 4.641

Costs || 2.484.000 || 8.353.600 || 10.028.000 || 12.033.600 || 14.425.600 || 17.314.400 || 20.755.200 || 85.394.400

Regular deployment - short term (average 1 month), 80% co-financing

N° of volunteers || 135 || 162 || 195 || 234 || 280 || 336 || 403 || 1.745

Costs || 847.800 || 1.017.360 || 1.224.600 || 1.469.520 || 1.758.400 || 2.110.080 || 2.530.840 || 10.958.600

Total costs regular deployment || 3.331.800 || 9.370.960 || 11.252.600 || 13.503.120 || 16.184.000 || 19.424.480 || 23.286.040 || 96.353.000

Costs regular deploy. for EU 80% || 2.665.440 || 7.496.768 || 9.002.080 || 10.802.496 || 12.947.200 || 15.539.584 || 18.628.832 || 77.082.400

Costs regular deploy. for partners 20% || 666.360 || 1.874.192 || 2.250.520 || 2.700.624 || 3.236.800 || 3.884.896 || 4.657.208 || 19.270.600

Total N° of volunteers (apprent. + regular) || 270 || 940 || 1.129 || 1.355 || 1.624 || 1.949 || 2.337 || 9.604

Visibility package after deployment || 270.000 || 940.000 || 1.129.000 || 1.355.000 || 1.624.000 || 1.949.000 || 2.337.000 || 9.604.000

Promotion & communication || 1.000.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 1.000.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 2.100.000

Total EU deployment costs || 3.935.440 || 11.437.568 || 13.729.880 || 17.453.896 || 19.743.200 || 23.690.984 || 28.401.032 || 118.392.000

This scenario assumes a Commission co-financing rate of 80% for regular deployment. Should the Commission finance 100%, costs for deployment would be EUR19M higher.

Module 7: Building capacities in third country hosting organisations

The main items that are taken into account in the calculation of costs are the development of training material in several languages (outsourced); the costs related to training; seminars and the delivery of the 'Humanitarian Leadership' scheme (travel costs; per diems; accommodation costs); and the Commission staff costs (management, supervision, liaison with contractors, etc.). Trainings are assumed to cost on average 5,410 EUR / person and beneficiaries for the different trainings would be designated at an averaged ratio of one trainee for every four EU volunteers deployed. For the 'Humanitarian Leadership" programme we assume 1 participant for every 20 volunteers deployed. The total number of direct beneficiaries of all activities would rise from 382 in 2014 to 1,601 in 2020, a cumulated total of 7,081.

Capacity Building || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20)

Development of training material || 145.000 || 145.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 80.000 || 20.000 || 450.000

Training for volunteer managers / coaches / train the trainers

Total N° trained || 68 || 235 || 282 || 339 || 406 || 487 || 584 || 2.401

Costs || 367.880 || 1.271.350 || 1.525.620 || 1.833.990 || 2.196.460 || 2.634.670 || 3.159.440 || 12.989.410

Regional South-South seminars for good practice exchange

N° of participants || 300 || 400 || 500 || 600 || 700 || 800 || 900 || 4.200

Costs || 750.000 || 1.000.000 || 1.250.000 || 1.500.000 || 1.750.000 || 2.000.000 || 2.250.000 || 10.500.000

"Humanitarian Leadership" programme

N° of people participating || 14 || 47 || 56 || 68 || 81 || 97 || 117 || 480

Costs || 125.244 || 420.462 || 500.976 || 608.328 || 724.626 || 867.762 || 1.046.682 || 4.294.080

Total N° of beneficiaries || 382 || 682 || 838 || 1.007 || 1.187 || 1.384 || 1.601 || 7.081

Promotion || 500.000 || 500.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 1.225.000

Total costs || 1.888.124 || 3.336.812 || 3.341.596 || 4.007.318 || 4.736.086 || 5.627.432 || 6.521.122 || 29.458.490

Module 8: EU Network of humanitarian volunteers

It is assumed that the Commission would outsource this module to a specialised company. The costs include the technical and administrative staff for the development, maintenance and facilitation of the website and the interactive tools (including promotional events).

EU Network of volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2012-20)

System development || 1.000.000 || || || 250.000 || || || 50.000 || 1.300.000

Alumni activities, conferences/seminars || 250.000 || 500.000 || 250.000 || 500.000 || 250.000 || 500.000 || 250.000 || 2.500.000

Maintenance || 200.000 || 300.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 2.500.000

Evaluation || || || || 50.000 || || || || 50.000

Promotion || 75.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 225.000

Total || 1.525.000 || 825.000 || 675.000 || 1.225.000 || 675.000 || 925.000 || 725.000 || 6.575.000

The implementing costs for option 3 would be as follows:

Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020

1.Standards identification, select, training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.400 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.400

2.Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000

3.Training EU volunteers || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800

4.EU Register || 110.000 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 2.007.500

5.Standards & certification hosting org. || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 820.000 || 1.470.000 || 2.860.000 || 6.063.000

6.Deployment of volunteers || 3.953.440 || 11.437.568 || 13.729.880 || 17.453.896 || 19.743.200 || 23.690.984 || 28.401.032 || 118.392.000

7. Building capacities in hosting org. || 1.888.124 || 3.336.812 || 3.341.596 || 4.007.318 || 4.736.086 || 5.627.423 || 6.521.122 || 29.458.490

8. EU network volunteers || 1.525.000 || 825.000 || 675.000 || 1.225.000 || 675.000 || 925.000 || 725.000 || 6.575.000

Total || 11.792.844 || 21.118.760 || 23.728.716 || 29.521.814 || 33.878.926 || 41.151.527 || 49.733.594 || 210.926.181

Management costs (10%) || 1.179.284 || 2.111.876 || 2.372.872 || 2.952.181 || 3.387.893 || 4.115.153 || 4.973.359 || 21.092.618

* In case of outsourcing to an EA management costs would be 8% of the total (€16.874.094).

Option 4

This option includes the same modules as option 3 but assumes that each component of option 3 is directly managed by the European Commission.

This way of managing the selection for deployment of volunteers would imply the following. It would involve the same level of control of the Commission over the training of volunteers as in option 3 and the establishment of a Register. As for deployment, the Commission or the Agency would control the final selection and placement of volunteers, who would then be embedded in humanitarian aid projects in the field after being selected. This option would not follow the usual way of the Commission in delivering humanitarian aid, i.e. working with implementing humanitarian partner organisations. The influence that the Commission can have on visibility and ‘marketing’ of the Voluntary Corps would be the same as in option 3.

Option 4 would imply a change in the management of financial support to volunteers in the Voluntary Corps as compared to the aid workers presently financed through partners in EU humanitarian aid. The change would imply additional administrative costs for the Commission in terms of human resources[27].

In order to mange effectively the deployment of volunteers under Option 4, a robust internal governance structure and day-to-day liaison arrangements should be developed by the Commission services. However, this set-up would limit the 'ownership' by humanitarian partner organisations (as they would be much less involved), which would in turn reduce the incentive for an enhanced quality in humanitarian volunteering. It seems likely that the rate at which the scale of Voluntary Corps activities could grow would be somewhat lower under option 4.

At the same time, given this limited ‘absorption capacity’, it is likely that the deployment opportunities would be limited, also due to the fact that humanitarian organisations may less readily accept to deploy volunteers who have not been chosen by them. Furthermore, it would be more difficult for the Commission (or the Executive Agency) to match the profiles of volunteers with the needs in the field. A smaller scale of deployment would in turn translate into more limited benefits to host communities and to overall capacity in the sector. Volunteers would also be more ‘disconnected’ from the implementing organisations and local communities assisted by humanitarian aid.

The environmental impacts are comparable to those in Option 3 although slightly lower as to the carbon footprint due to fewer deployment foreseen.

The following table shows the additional impacts on the different categories of stakeholders:

|| Impacts

Stakeholder || Positive || Negative

EU sending organisations || - Improved qualifications of volunteers (potential future humanitarian aid workers) || - New competitive actor in the humanitarian aid system - Little control over volunteers deployed and less interest in getting involved

Volunteers || - Good quality of training and conditions of deployment || - Reduced number of deployment opportunities - Limited contacts with local communities and beneficiaries

Hosting organisations || - Higher visibility vis-à-vis the EU || - Reduced number of volunteers deployed - Volunteers would be more ‘disconnected’ from organisations

Beneficiaries || - Quality of volunteers contributions || - Reduced number of volunteers deployed - Volunteers more ‘disconnected’ from local communities

Contribution to the objectives

1. To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid

The overall humanitarian aid capacity of the Union would also be improved as in for Option 3. However, the need to set-up of new mechanisms and management structures and the limited number of volunteers deployed in the field hamper the potential of the Voluntary Corps to contribute to the improvement of EU capacity in humanitarian aid. Given the change in the implementation modalities (humanitarian partners would not be involved in deployment), this option is expected to be less effective.

2. To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions

Impacts are similar to option 3: The volunteers’ skills set would be improved through training and deployment in the EU offices in third countries. Direct contact with the EU structures would allow volunteers to improve their knowledge of the EU policies and implementation mechanisms.

3. To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values

Direct management would allow for higher visibility of the EU and the creation of an ‘esprit de Corps’. At the same time, the reduced number of deployment in the field would limit the impact of the Voluntary Corps outside the EU.

4. To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries

The impacts would be similar to option 3, though the deployment of fewer volunteers could be a limiting factor for the strengthening of local capacities.

5. To enhance the coherence/consistency across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid operations

While the direct management of the Voluntary Corps would ensure a strong steering of the