COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
Date: 2012-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: humanitarian aid, international voluntary worker, voluntary organisation, voluntary work, young person

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.9.2012  
SWD(2012) 266 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council 

Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps 

{COM(2012) 514 final} 
{SWD(2012) 265 final} 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
  
 
BACKGROUND AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT 

The  Lisbon  Treaty  foresees  the  establishment  of  a  European  Voluntary  Humanitarian  Aid 
Corps (art. 214.5) to allow young Europeans to make a contribution to the humanitarian aid 
operations  of  the  Union.  In  November  2010  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on 
the  Voluntary  Corps.  Council  Conclusions  and  a  European  Parliament  Written  Declaration 
were  adopted  in  2011.  The  Commission  proposed  an  allocation  of  €210  Million  for  the 
Voluntary  Corps  under  the  forthcoming  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  over  the  period 
2014-2020. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Stakeholders, including the main humanitarian aid and voluntary organisations and Member 
States,  have  continuously  been  involved  in  the  process  of  setting-up  the  Voluntary  Corps 
since  the  beginning  in  early  2010.  Information  and  expertise  were  also  gathered  through 
external studies/reviews, dedicated Conferences and a public on-line consultation.  

Stakeholders  repeatedly  highlighted  the  need  for  the  Voluntary  Corps  to  be  demand-driven 
and  needs-based  so  to  ensure  a  real  impact  on  the  beneficiary  populations.  The  Voluntary 
Corps should mobilise volunteers to display the values that are at the heart of the European 
project  while  providing  humanitarian  assistance  and  aligning  the  use  of  volunteers  with  the 
trend  towards  increasing  professionalism  in  the  sector.  Some  stakeholders  also  suggested 
differentiating  between  less  qualified  young  people,  not  to  be  deployed  to  humanitarian 
operations where security is a concern, and experienced volunteers. Finally, the importance of 
local  host  organisation's  capacity  in  ensuring  that  volunteers’  contribution  has  a  sustainable 
impact on the host communities was emphasized.  

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 two rounds of pilot 
projects, running from 2011 to 2013. First lessons learned from the pilot projects have been 
used to shape this Impact Assessment.  

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY 

Recent data reveal a general upward trend in the number of volunteers active in the EU over 
the  last  ten  years.  Eurobarometers  (2010)  shows  that  solidarity  and  humanitarian  aid  is  for 
Europeans the field where volunteering plays the most important role and 88% of Europeans 
support the setting up of a Voluntary Humanitarian. While 68% are aware of the EU funding 
humanitarian  aid,  only  30%  of  Europeans  feel  well  informed.  Furthermore,  despite  the 
increased demand for volunteering to third countries in humanitarian action, the majority of 
volunteers  being  deployed  outside  the  EU  are  still  engaged  with  longer-term  development 
cooperation projects rather than humanitarian aid interventions. 

Although a number of voluntary schemes already exist, there are still important shortcomings 
and  gaps  that  hamper  voluntary  schemes  from  reaching  full  potential  in  support  of 
humanitarian  action.  The  lack  of  a  systematic  and  structured  EU  approach  towards 
volunteering,  the  significant  differences  in  the  level  of  development  of  volunteering  across 
Member  States  as  well  as  the  limited  visibility  of  volunteering  hinder  voluntary  activity  to 
fully  developing  in  the  EU,  and  limit  the  participation  of  people  having  the  good  will  or 

2 

 
eagerness  to  make  a  concrete  contribution  to  the  humanitarian  aid  operations  of  the  EU 
through volunteering.  

The following specific problems have been identified: (i) the lack of a structured EU approach 
towards  volunteering,  including  the  significant  differences  in  the  level  of  volunteering 
between Member States; (ii) the poor visibility of EU humanitarian action and solidarity with 
people  in  need,  that  entails  limited  awareness  among  Europeans  and  leads  to  greater 
difficulties  for  those  who  want  to  make  a  concrete  contribution  to  the  humanitarian  aid  in 
getting  involved;  (iii)  the  lack  of  consistent  identification  and  selection  mechanisms  to  be 
consistently used across Member States, making it difficult to match supply of volunteers and 
demand from organisations; (iv) the lack of sufficiently qualified volunteers for humanitarian 
aid  that  implies  that  in  some  circumstances  less  experienced  sending  organisations  deploy 
volunteers  without  the  minimum  skills  or  awareness  of  humanitarian  principles;  (v)  the 
shortcomings  in  surge  capacity  for  humanitarian  aid,  due  to  the  increased  number  and 
magnitude  of  humanitarian  crisis  and  greater  humanitarian  needs  that  make  it  essential  to 
improve the number of qualified resources to be deployed in crisis contexts where local and 
international relief capacity are often overwhelmed; (vi) the host organisations' weak capacity 
to ensure that volunteers' contributions have a sustainable impact on beneficiaries.  

The  absence  of  an  initiative  at  the  EU  level  would  fail  to  address  the  issues  raised  above. 
Moreover, the lack of Union action would be inconsistent with the Lisbon Treaty that requires 
the establishment of the Voluntary Corps.  

OBJECTIVES 

Mobilising more effectively the volunteering capacity within the EU can provide a useful way 
to project a very positive image of the EU in the world. It can foster interest in pan-European 
projects  to  support  humanitarian  aid  activities,  including  civil  protection  activities  of  a 
humanitarian character, not necessarily just through more deployments but also through better 
preparation.  This  can  reinforce  the  benefits  delivered  to  the  hosting  communities  and  the 
impacts on the volunteers themselves through the development specific skills that are relevant 
to the humanitarian labour market – but also competences for life such as personal resilience 
and intercultural awareness and understanding. 

Thus,  the  Voluntary  Corps  aims  to  benefit  the  sending  organisations,  the  communities  that 
they serve, the volunteers, and in this way the EU as a whole. 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 

3 

 
•  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). 

POLICY OPTIONS 

In the absence of a Voluntary Corps (no new EU action) 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. 

This  situation  would  produce  an  ‘un-harvested’  volunteering  potential  in  humanitarian  aid 
also due to lack of capacity - within the NGO community and with national governments - to 
develop  and  offer  appropriate  training.  For  these  reasons,  sending  organisations  would  also 
continue to deploy volunteers who do not always have the necessary skills, with no insurance 
as to the quality of the placements or the actual impacts of volunteers’ engagement on local 
communities. The impact on host organisations and local communities would also be limited 
and would ultimately depend on the host organisation’s resources that are often very limited.   

Finally, the EU visibility would not be enhanced if no new action is taken at the EU level. For 
these  reasons,  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 
considered further.  

The  challenge  is  to  define  the  corps  in  a  way  that  provides  the  best  possible  benefits 
(effectiveness) in a cost-effective manner. Four policy options have been identified, resulting 
from  the  combination  of  different  ‘modules’  (the  whole  range  of  activities  that  might  be 
supported) in an incremental manner:  

Option  1  would  include  the  (1)  development  of  standards  for  identification,  selection  of 
volunteers, to ensure that the right volunteers are attracted and selected in a fair manner and 
that  they  have  the  right  abilities,  and  (2)  development  of  a  certification  mechanism  for 
sending organisations that would deliver audited evidence that certified organisations adhere 
to the EU standards. 

In addition to activities already covered in Option 1, Option 2 would include: (3) the support 
to training of volunteers, building upon humanitarian aid organisations' experiences, lessons 
learnt from pilot projects and from the training organised by the Commission as part of Civil 
Protection  policy;  (4)  the  establishment  of  a  Register  of  qualified  EU  volunteers  who  are 
available  to  engage  in  humanitarian  aid,  providing  a  platform  for  a  fast  identification  of 
suitable  volunteer  candidates  and  improved  access  to  volunteering  opportunities  for  people 
from across the EU; and (5) the development of standards and a certification mechanism for 
volunteer  management  in  hosting  organisations,  so  to  ensure  that  volunteers  skills  are 
adequately used to the benefit of local communities.  

4 

 
Option  3  would  add  to  the  activities  covered  under  Option  2:  (6)  the  deployment  of  EU 
volunteers  to  third  countries,  including  'apprenticeship  placements'  for  less  experienced 
volunteers as part of the training as well as 'regular' deployments in humanitarian aid projects 
(with a particular focus on prevention/preparedness and recovery interventions); (7) capacity-
building  in  hosting  organisations  in  order  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  standards 
developed  under  module  5  and  improve  hosting  capacities;  and  (8)  the  establishment  of  an 
'EU Network of humanitarian volunteers' through an interactive networking website allowing 
volunteers  to  engage  without  being  deployed.  It  would  be  implemented  through  an  existing 
Executive  Agency  with  relevant  experience  of  volunteer  programmes  with  appropriate 
Commission oversight. 

Finally  Option  4  would  support  the  same  combination  of  activities  as  option  3  (all  8 
modules),  but  assumes  that  each  component  is  directly  managed  by  the  European 
Commission,  including  selection,  training  and  deployment.  Such  an  approach  for  the 
deployment  of  volunteers  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 and the potential duplication with existing bodies, this option is not costed-
out further in this Impact Assessment.  

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The IA assesses the main potential impacts of each option (including the impacts on different 
stakeholders),  the  extent  to  which  each  option  delivers  on  the  specific  objectives,  and  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, whereas if the management is outsourced to an existing Executive Agency the 
costs would be around 8%. 

Option 1 

Option  1  would  create  the  conditions  for  an  increased  transparency  and  consistency  of  the 
recruitment processes and training of volunteers across Member States, and could encourage 
sending  organisations  to  align  their  approaches.  However,  impacts  and  synergies  effects 
depend on the level of uptake of standards and certification mechanisms across organisations. 
As for volunteers, Option 1 would mainly enable volunteers to display on their CVs that they 
have been selected/engaged by a certified organisation, and would provide for a higher level 
of knowledge about what to expect from volunteering through different organisations. 

Impacts on the promotion of EU visibility outside the EU would be very limited, due to the 
fact that this option does not imply any deployment. For this same reason, there would only 
be potential indirect impacts on local communities and hosting organisations.  

In conclusion, option 1 would have a limited impact on the objectives, depending on the level 
of  uptake  of  standards  and  the  willingness  of  voluntary  organisations  to  subscribe  to  the 
certification mechanisms. 

5 

 
The implementing costs of option 1 would be around €3.5 million over the period 2014-2020. 

Option 2 

As  for  option  1,  option  2  would  ensure  the  conditions  for  a  possible  improvement  of  the 
recruiting  system  for  volunteers.  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. 

This  option  directly  contributes  to  volunteer  qualifications  via  training,  and  increases  their 
chance  of  deployment.  Training  and  the  Register  would  also  provide  a  faster  entry  into 
volunteering,  while  the  standards  for  host  organisations  would  help  volunteers  to  maximise 
their contribution when deployed and increase their job satisfaction. Option 2 would also have 
an  impact  on  local  communities  and  hosting  organisations  and  on  EU  visibility  in  third 
countries only if and when trained volunteers are deployed. 

Overall,  option  2  would  improve  the  qualifications  of  volunteers  and  would  create  the 
conditions  for  more  effective  deployments  and  increased  contribution  of  volunteers  to  the 
humanitarian aid sector. However, there would be no guarantee neither that the skills acquired 
by  volunteers  would  actually  be  put  at  the  service  of  the  local  populations,  nor  that  the  EU 
solidarity is promoted in third countries. 

The implementing costs of option 2 would be €53 million over the period 2014-2020. 

Option 3 

Option  3  would  further  add  to  the  previous  options  the  support  for  the  deployment  of 
volunteers in humanitarian  aid operations, building capacity  in local host organisations,  and 
the establishment of the ‘EU Network of humanitarian volunteers’. 

The  proposed  approach,  according  to  which  an  existing  Executive  Agency  would  propose 
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 strong EU identity attached to the operations of the Voluntary Corps. 

This option would help volunteers to gain a concrete work experience in the sector and further 
improve their qualifications through deployment, so to become more attractive for subsequent 
field experiences and increase their opportunities for future jobs as well as the surge capacity 
of  the  humanitarian  sector.  This  is  also  likely  to  encourage  EU  citizens  wanting  to  express 
their  solidarity  to  engage  in  volunteering  and  make  a  concrete  contribution  to  the 
humanitarian aid cause (including for those who would otherwise have fewer opportunities). 
The EU Network of humanitarian volunteers would also provide networking opportunities for 

6 

 
those wanting to start a career in humanitarian aid. Finally, this option would bring cultural 
benefits, as volunteers would get an opportunity to learn about different cultures and ways of 
living. 

The direct presence and support of the Voluntary Corps in the local communities is a central 
and  direct  way  of  displaying  EU  solidarity  and  increase  EU  visibility,  in  particular  if 
combined  with  adequate  training  that  ensures  that  volunteers  contribute  significantly  and 
positively.  

Option  3  would  not  only  enhance  the  voluntary  sector  and  support  to  volunteers  in  Europe, 
but  would  also  include  all  the  necessary  elements  for  ensuring  that  volunteers  actually 
contribute to the humanitarian aid interventions in third countries and thus contribute to the 
overall effectiveness and quality of humanitarian aid.  

The implementing costs of option 3 would be €210 million over the period 2014-2020. 

Option 4 

The fact that each component of this Option would be directly managed by the Commission 
would  imply  the  following.  It  would  involve  the  same  level  of  control  of  the  Commission 
over  the  training  of  volunteers  and  the  establishment  of  a  Register  as  in  option  3.  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. The influence that the Commission can have on EU 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. Commission services are not expected to have the 
same leverage potential and outreach to place volunteers in the field, and humanitarian partner 
organisations are likely to feel less overall 'ownership', which may hinder the effectiveness of 
deployment  and  could  reduce  the  incentive  for  an  enhanced  quality  in  humanitarian 
volunteering.  To  compensate  this,  it  would  be  advisable  to  develop  a  robust  internal 
governance  structure  and  day-to-day  liaison  arrangements  in  order  to  ensure  that  the 
Voluntary Corps is well integrated into the delivery of humanitarian aid from the EU. 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  the  limited  ‘absorption  capacity’,  it  is  likely  that  this  way  of 
managing would struggle to supply a rising number of deployment opportunities. A smaller 
scale of deployments would in turn translate into more limited benefits to host communities 
and to overall capacity in the sector. Furthermore, direct  and centralised  management  could 
reduce the accessibility and participation to volunteering for EU citizens. 

Keeping the implementing costs of option 4 within the limit of the available MFF budget over 
the period 2014-2020 (€210 million), there w ould be 60% less volunteers deployed.  

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

When comparing the four policy options, it should be borne in mind that the four options are 
of increasing  ambition  or scope i.e.  from  a  minimalist  option  1  to  an  extensive  and  directly 

7 

 
managed option 4. The comparisons of the options are made by assessing how much more the 
more  extensive  options  contribute  to  the  specific  objectives.  This  assessment  can  then  be 
compared to the higher costs of the more extensive options. The varying extensiveness of the 
different options also gives rise to different risks during the actual implementation.  

The  table  below  summarises  the  comparison  of  options.  This  is  done  by  applying  a  scoring 
system where scores from +, ++ or +++ are assigned, signifying low, medium or high positive 
impacts.  Note  that  some  of  the  scores  have  been  enclosed  in  brackets  (),  indicating  that  the 
assessments  are  connected  with  more  uncertainty  (also  linked  to  the  risks  identified).  The 
table also contains the total implementation cost figures for the four policy options to enable 
an approximate cost-effectiveness assessment.  

Baseline 
scenario 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

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 coherence across 
Member States in order to improve 
opportunities for European citizens 
to participate in humanitarian aid  
To strengthen the identification and 
selection criteria for volunteers 

Implementation costs 2014-2020 

Number of volunteers deployed  

(+) 

(+) 

(+) 

- 

- 

+ 

- 

(+) 

(+) 

(+) 

- 

(+) 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

(++) 

++ 

(+) 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

EUR 3 million 

EUR 52  
million 

EUR 210 
million 

EUR 212 
million  

- 

- 

9.604 

7.045 

In conclusion, option 1 would have a limited impact on the objectives, depending on the level 
of  uptake  of  standards  and  the  willingness  of  voluntary  organisations  to  subscribe  to  the 
certification mechanisms. Option 2 would improve the qualifications of volunteers and would 
create the conditions for more effective deployments and increased contribution of volunteers 
to the humanitarian aid sector. However, there would be no guarantee that the skills acquired 
by volunteers would actually be put at the service of the local populations. Option 3 would not 
only enhance the voluntary sector and support to volunteers in Europe, but would also include 
all the necessary elements for ensuring that volunteers actually contribute to the humanitarian 
aid interventions in third countries and thus contribute to the overall effectiveness and quality 
of  humanitarian  aid.  Option  4  would  imply  much  higher  costs  and  a  limited  number  of 
deployment  opportunities  due  to  management  constraints,  and  would  miss  the  opportunities 
arising from implementing through a partnership approach.  

For these reasons, the preferred option is the option 3. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ARRANGEMENTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring 

A standing monitoring system will follow the progress of the programme in the achievement 
of  its  objectives.  It  will  be  based  on  a  number  of  indicators,  consistently  compiled  and 
measured by the implementing body.  The monitoring system will allow tracking of the level 
of achievement of the operational objectives of the scheme, will provide indications as to the 
achievement  of  its  specific  objectives  and  will  provide  guidance  for  adjusting  the 
implementation of the programme in light of experience. 

Evaluation 

A mid-term evaluation of the scheme will be carried out three years after the actual start of the 
activities. A final evaluation is foreseen at the end of the programme. Additional evaluation 
studies  on  specific  aspects  of  the  scheme  may  be  launched  at  any  time  during  the 
implementation of the scheme, should it appear necessary to adjust or reshape any part of the 
scheme. 

9