COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Pariament and the Council Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
Date: 2012-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: development aid, international organisation, international voluntary worker

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.9.2012  
SWD(2012) 265 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Pariament and the Council 

Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps 

{COM(2012) 514 final} 
{SWD(2012) 266 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

BACKGROUND AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT........................................................................... 3 

2. 

3. 

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 
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 
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 

5. 

8.  ARRANGEMENTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION........................................................ 40 
MONITORING .................................................................................................................................................... 40 
EVALUATION..................................................................................................................................................... 40 
9.  ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................................. 42 

2 

 
 
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.1The  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  M illion  (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 

July 2010 

September 2010 

November 2010 

Bilateral consultations and internal DG ECHO research 

External review on the Voluntary Corps 

Stakeholders Conference in Brussels 

Commission Communication 

February-May 2011 

Public on-line Stakeholders Consultation 

October 2011 & April 2012 

Meetings with the IASG 

June 2011 

December 2011 

Stakeholders Conference in Budapest 

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

1  How  to  express  EU  citizens’  solidarity  through  volunteering:  First  reflections  on  a  European  Voluntary 

Humanitarian Aid Corps, COMM(2010)683 

3 

 
                                                 
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  20062  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 

2  http://forum-ids.org/lang/en/research/member-papers/international-development-humanitarian-agencies/review-

concerning-the-establishment-of-a-european-voluntary-humanitarian-aid-corps-study.html 

3 “Review Concerning the Establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps”, GERMAX, 2010. 
The consultants looked at the United Nations Volunteer programme (UNV) and other relevant UN Agencies, 
the  International  Federation  of  the  Red  Cross  and  Red  Crescent  (IFRC),  the  Voluntary  Service  Overseas 
(VSO/UK), and NGOs among others. 

4 

 
                                                 
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 

4 In December 2011, the Commission also organised a seminars with the project coordinators to discuss lessons 

learnt from the first phase. 

5 For the purpose of this Impact Assessment, we apply a broad definition of volunteering, though we assume that 

volunteering is not primarily for financial benefit, and that there is a clear beneficiary beyond the volunteers. 

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. 

6 

 
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:  

(cid:57)  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).  

(cid:57)  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.  

(cid:57)  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.  

(cid:57)  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. 

(cid:57)  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.  

(cid:57)  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. 

(cid:57)  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 

7 

 
clearing, electricity, supply, water damage, bridge- building, infrastructure, water hazards, 
location, logistics, drinking water supply and oil damage. 

(cid:57)  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 

6 Volunteering in the European Union – GHK, February 2010 
7 6,300 volunteers were deployed in the EU and neighbouring countries.  
8  These figures are well above the average support that citizens normally express for EU policies in general.  
9  In particular Germax Review (2010) and GHK study (2010). See above. 

8 

 
                                                 
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 

10 A comprehensive overview of the situation of volunteering in Member States is provided in the GHK study on 
"Volunteering in the European Union". The study, as well as recent Eurobarometers, shows that the level of 
volunteering is high in Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, and the UK, while others countries such as Bulgaria, 
Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Spain  are  identified  as  having  low  or  relatively  low  levels  of 
participation in volunteering. 

11  Many  volunteers'  organisations  apply  some  identification  and  selection criteria  -either  their  own  standards  or 
they  adhere  to  standards  developed  by  collaborative  organisations  such  as  the  Humanitarian  Accountability 
Partnership (HAP, http://www.hapinternational.org) and People In Aid (http://www.peopleinaid.org) 

12 Examples of rosters include the UNV (for deployment mainly through UN Agencies, 25,000 active candidates 
on  the  roster),  UN/OCHA  (high  level  “experts  on  mission”,  usually  not  volunteers),  Weltwärts,  the  German 
Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW), the Danish Refugee Council, the Irish Aid Rapid. 

9 

 
                                                 
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 

13  In  2010  the  Commission  alone  disbursed  over  €  1,1  billion  in  humanitarian  funding  which  have  benefited 

directly and indirectly 140 million people. 

10 

 
                                                 
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: 

14  Reference  to  "humanitarian"  activities  throughout  this  document  also  covers  civil  protection  activities  of  a 

humanitarian character, without this being explicitly mentioned in every instance 

11 

 
                                                 
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.  

12 

 
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 

13 

 
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.  

15  In  particular,  Humanitarian  Accountability  Partnership  (HAP:  http://www.hapinternational.org)  and  People  in 

Aid (http://www.peopleinaid.org) have developed similar standards 

14 

 
 
                                                 
As  the  certification  may  involve  a  comprehensive  auditing  process  and  may  be  costly16  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. 

16 The experience by both the HAP and the People In Aid seems to be that such high costs have deferred many, in 
particular  small  organisations,  from  becoming  certified.  At  the  same  time,  it  needs  to  be  stressed  that  the 
existing mechanisms are not limited only to volunteers 

17 This would be similar to training organised by the Commission as part of the Civil Protection policy, which has 
been  running  in  disaster  preparedness for 7  years.  The  CP  training  consists  of  generic  and  specific  elements 
(called  ‘modules’).  The  courses  are  awarded  through  tender  procedures  and  each  contract  has  a  maximum 
duration  of  4  years.  For  further  information  consult  the  “Evaluation  of  the  EC’s  Action  in  the  field  of  Civil 
Protection”, COWI, 2010. 

15 

 
                                                 
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  

16 

 
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, 
interventions,  capacity  building  and  back-office  and 
including  classical  emergency 
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 

18  Some expert volunteers may choose for a long term deployment as part of a 'sabbatical leave' programme. But 
the Corps will equally allow those being in employment and eager to engage in humanitarian operations as part 
of surge in times of acute crises or for capacity building projects. Costs for these volunteers are expected to be 
higher than for long term volunteers. 

19 Some humanitarian volunteer deployment happens through third country ‘branches’ or affiliates of international 
humanitarian  organisations  (e.g.  Red  Cross),  in  other  cases  the  organisation  in  the  EU  that  is  recruiting 
volunteers delivers the projects in partnership with independent local organisations. 

17 

 
                                                 
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.  

18 

 
Option No 
(Modules) 

Option 1 
(1, 2) 

Option 2 
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 

Option 3 
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
7, 8 + partnership 
approach for 
deployment) 

Option 4 
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
7, 8 + 
'detachment' 
approach for 
deployment) 

Content 

1.  Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 
2.  Certification mechanism for sending organisations 

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 
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 

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 

20  For  the  calculation of  Commission  staff  the  official  figures from  DG HR on  average  salaries  in  Commission 
have  been  used,  while  the  calculation  of  management  costs  for  an  Agency  is  based  upon  the  global  ratio  of 
current  administrative  costs  against  the  current  operational  budget  of  the  Executive  Agency  in  charge  of 
Education and Culture. 

19 

 
                                                 
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. 

Stakeholder 

EU sending 
organisations 

EU volunteers 

Impacts 

Positive 

- Overall efficiency and effectiveness in 
identification and selection of volunteers 
improved 
- Visibility improved through certification 
mechanism 
- Increased transparency makes participation 
in volunteering easier 

Hosting organisations 

Local communities 

- Conditions for getting adequate and better 
trained volunteers established 
- Conditions for a more effective volunteers’ 
contribution to meeting humanitarian needs  

Negative 
- Potential burden of complying 
with certification mechanism 
- Risk of heavier administrative 
procedures  

- Actual training and 
deployment opportunities 
would still be limited  
- No capacity building activities 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

577,200 

131,200 

131,200 

0 

50,000 

50,000 

50,000 

50,000 

50,000 

250,000 

192,400 

192,400 

242,400 

50,000 

50,000 

50,000 

181,200 

958,400 

Revision 

Promotion 

Total  

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  

Development / 
update 
Maintenance/use 
Yearly take-up  
Re-certification 
Promotion 
Total  

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Tot 
2014-20 

25.000 
0 

25.000 
160.000 
8 

0
200.000
10

0
240.000
12

30.000 
55.000 

30.000 
215.000 

30.000
230.000

30.000
270.000

0
300.000
15
160.000
30.000
490.000

25.000 
400.000 
20 
200.000 
30.000 
655.000 

0 

75.000
400.000  1.700.000
85
600.000
210.000
670.000  2.585.000

20 
240.000 
30.000 

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

22 

 
 
  
 
 
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. 

21 The Register would supplement and not duplicate the existing rosters that typically target rapid response needs. 

23 

 
                                                 
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. 

Stakeholder 
EU sending 
organisations 

Volunteers 

Hosting 
organisations 

Local 
communities 

Impacts 
Positive 
- 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 

- 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 

- Trained volunteers would be more effective 
if deployed  
- Increased management capacities through 
standards 
- 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 

Contribution to the objectives 

Negative 
- Risk of duplication of existing training 
schemes 
- Risk of heavier administrative procedures 
- Costs for deployment as not covered by 
the EU  

- 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 
- Potential crowding out effects on local 
workforce/local volunteering 
- Potential burden of standards and 
certification  if difficult to follow 
- Crowding out effects on local workforce 
if paid positions are replaced by EU 
volunteers 

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.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

25 

 
 
 
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 

Administration and management 
costs 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total  
(2014-20) 

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 

N. experienced volunteers 

Tot number of volunteers 

324 

270 

594 

389 

324 

713 

467 

389 

856 

560 

467 

672 

560 

806 

672 

967 

806 

1.027 

1.232 

1.478 

1.773 

4.185 

3.488 

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. 

22  Based on  the costs of  the  three pilot  projects,  the  estimated  average  cost  per  volunteer  is reduced by  35%  in 
order to allow for an efficiency gain as the pilot projects bear some additional costs due to their explorative and 
investigative nature. 

23 We have added to that estimate EUR 500 in order to allow for some on-site support and training. 
24 The human resources needed to manage the training activities are assumed to be of about the same size as for 

the Civil Protection, namely 16 person/months per year. 

25  The  following  Rosters  have  been  taken  as  benchmarks  for  the  calculation  of  costs:  Danish  Refugee  Council, 
Irish Response Corps, Department for International Development (DIFID, UK), Norwegian Refugee Council 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Register 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Development 

110,000  

Total 
(2014-20) 
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  

Development 
Monitoring & admin. 
Update 
Subtotal 

Certification 
mechanism  

Development 
Maintenance/use 
Yearly take-up rate 
Re-certification  
Promotion 
Subtotal 
Total Module 5 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

190.000 

148.000 

190.000 

148.000 

30.000

30.000

30.000 

70.000 
70.000 

30.000

30.000

30.000 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

25.000 
0 

25.000 
0 
0 

0
125.000
5

0 
25.000 
215.000 

40.000 
65.000 
213.000 

40.000
165.000
165.000

0
250.000
10

40.000
290.000
320.000

0
300.000
12

40.000
340.000
370.000

25.000 
375.000 
15 
125.000 
40.000 
565.000 
595.000 

0 
500.000 
20 
250.000 
40.000 
790.000 
860.000 

Total 
2014 2020 

338.000
90.000
70.000
498.000

Total 
(2014-2020) 

75.000
1.550.000
62
375.000
240.000
2.240.000
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 

26 www.sphereproject.org 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
                                                 
1.Standards 
identification, 
select., training 

2.Certification 
mechanism  

3.Training EU 
volunteers 

4.EU Register 

5.Standards & 
certification 
hosting org. 

192.400 

192.400 

242.000 

50.000 

50.000 

50.000 

181.200 

958.000 

55.000 

215.000 

230.000 

270.000 

490.000 

655.000 

670.000 

2.585.000 

3.853.880 

4.596.480 

5.042.340 

5.893.100 

7.034.640 

8.403.120 

10.045.240 

44.868.800 

110.000 

302.500 

302.500 

302.500 

330.000 

330.000 

330.000 

2.007.500 

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 

28 

 
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: 

Negative 
- Some organisations may struggle 
to accommodate additional 
volunteers 
- Some potential for additional 
unfunded costs 

- Volunteers do not have a salary, 
unlike other deployment, which 
may mean a potential income loss 

- Potential additional pressure on 
local infrastructures for receiving 
volunteers and for participating in 
training opportunities  

- Potential 'distorting' impact on 
local labour market (crowding out) 

Stakeholder 
EU sending 
organisations 

Volunteers 

Hosting 
organisations 

Beneficiaries 

Impacts 
Positive 
- 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 
- 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 
- Additional qualified resources addressing 
humanitarian needs  
- Improved management capacities and 
institutional strengthening 
- 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  

29 

 
 
 
 
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 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

Development of standards 
Monitoring & 
administration 
Update 
Subtotal 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

190.000 

148.000 

190.000 

148.000 

30.000

30.000

30.000 

70.000 
70.000 

30.000

30.000

30.000 

Certification mechanism 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 
(2014-
2020) 

338.000

90.000
70.000
498.000
Total 
(2014-
2020) 

Development 
Maintenance/use 
Yearly take-up rate 
Re-certification 
Promotion 
Subtotal  
Total Module 5 

25.000 
0 

25.000 
0 
0 

0
125.000
5

0
250.000
10

0 
25.000 
215.000 

40.000 
65.000 
213.000 

40.000
165.000
165.000

40.000
290.000
320.000

0
750.000
30

40.000
790.000
820.000

Module 6:  Deployment of volunteers 

Two components are envisaged for deployment: 

0 

25.000 

75.000
1.250.000  2.500.000  4.875.000
195
375.000
240.000
1.440.000  2.790.000  5.565.000
1.470.000  2.860.000  6.063.000

100 
250.000 
40.000 

50 
125.000 
40.000 

- 

‘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.    

31 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
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 

Costs 

0 

0 

324 

389 

467 

560 

672 

806 

3.218 

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  

Costs 

135 
2.484.000 

454 

1.128 
8.353.600  10.028.000  12.033.600  14.425.600  17.314.400  20.755.200 

545 

654 

784 

941 

4.641 
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 
Total costs regular  
deployment 
Costs regular deploy. 
for EU 80% 
Costs regular deploy. 
for partners 20% 
Total N° of 
volunteers (apprent. 
+ regular)  
Visibility package 
after deployment 
Promotion & 
communication  
Total EU 
deployment costs 

847.800 

1.017.360 

1.224.600 

1.469.520 

1.758.400 

2.110.080 

2.530.840 

10.958.600 

3.331.800 

9.370.960  11.252.600  13.503.120  16.184.000  19.424.480  23.286.040 

96.353.000 

2.665.440 

7.496.768 

9.002.080  10.802.496  12.947.200  15.539.584  18.628.832 

77.082.400 

666.360 

1.874.192 

2.250.520 

2.700.624 

3.236.800 

3.884.896 

4.657.208 

19.270.600 

270 

940 

1.129 

1.355 

1.624 

1.949 

2.337 

9.604 

270.000 

940.000 

1.129.000 

1.355.000 

1.624.000 

1.949.000 

2.337.000 

9.604.000 

1.000.000 

20.000 

20.000 

1.000.000 

20.000 

20.000 

20.000 

2.100.000 

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  

Development of 
training material  

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total  
(2014-20) 

145.000 

145.000 

20.000 

20.000 

20.000 

80.000 

20.000 

450.000 

32 

 
 
 
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    
Total N° of 
beneficiaries 

Promotion  

Total costs 

125.244 

420.462 

500.976 

608.328 

724.626 

867.762 

1.046.682 

4.294.080 

382 

682 

838 

500.000 

500.000 

45.000 

1.007 

45.000 

1.187 

45.000 

1.384 

45.000 

1.601 

45.000 

7.081 

1.225.000 

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 

Maintenance  
Evaluation 
Promotion  
Total 

250.000 

500.000

250.000 

500.000

250.000 

500.000 

250.000  2.500.000

200.000 

300.000

75.000 
1.525.000 

25.000
825.000

400.000 

400.000
50.000
25.000
675.000  1.225.000

25.000 

400.000 

400.000 

25.000 
675.000 

25.000 
925.000 

400.000  2.500.000
50.000
25.000 
225.000
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 

2.Certification 
mechanism  

3.Training EU 
volunteers 

4.EU Register 

5.Standards & 
certification 
hosting org. 

6.Deployment 
of volunteers 

7. Building 
capacities in 
hosting org. 

8. EU network 

192.400 

192.400 

242.400 

50.000 

50.000 

50.000 

181.200 

958.400 

55.000 

215.000 

230.000 

270.000 

490.000 

655.000 

670.000 

2.585.000 

3.853.880 

4.596.480 

5.042.340 

5.893.100 

7.034.640 

8.403.120  10.045.240 

44.868.800 

110.000 

302.500 

302.500 

302.500 

330.000 

330.000 

330.000 

2.007.500 

215.000 

213.000 

165.000 

320.000 

820.000 

1.470.000 

2.860.000 

6.063.000 

3.953.440  11.437.568  13.729.880  17.453.896  19.743.200  23.690.984  28.401.032  118.392.000 

1.888.124 

3.336.812 

3.341.596 

4.007.318 

4.736.086 

5.627.423 

6.521.122 

29.458.490 

1.525.000 

825.000 

675.000 

1.225.000 

675.000 

925.000 

725.000 

6.575.000 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
volunteers 

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 resources27. 

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: 

27  Based  on  DG  ECHO  experience  as  well  as  relevant  programmes  managed  by  the  Executive  Agencies,  we 

estimate that 5 more persons would be needed for the direct management of deployment. 

34 

 
                                                 
Stakeholder 
EU sending 
organisations 

Impacts 
Positive 
- Improved qualifications of volunteers 
(potential future humanitarian aid 
workers) 

Volunteers 

- Good quality of training and 
conditions of deployment  

Hosting 
organisations 

- Higher visibility vis-à-vis the EU 

Beneficiaries 

- Quality of volunteers contributions  

Negative 
- New competitive actor in the 
humanitarian aid system  
- Little control over volunteers deployed 
and less interest in getting involved  
- Reduced number of deployment 
opportunities  
- Limited contacts with local 
communities and beneficiaries 
- Reduced number of volunteers 
deployed 
- Volunteers would be more 
‘disconnected’ from organisations  
- 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 
different activities, this would not necessarily increase the consistency of the existing voluntary 
schemes  across  Member  States  as  those  organisations  would  not  be  directly  involved  in  the 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
activities  of  the  Voluntary  Corps.  The  fact  that  the  management  of  the  Voluntary  Corps’ 
activities  would  be  centralised  might  act  as  a  hindrance  to  wide-spread  EU  participation  of 
those  who  are  interested  in  volunteering  in  humanitarian  aid.  The  reduced  number  of 
opportunities for deployment would also be a limiting factor. 

6.  To strengthen the identification and selection criteria of volunteers 

The impacts would be similar to Option 3. 

Implementing costs 

The costs for modules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are assumed to be similar to the ones in option 3.28 

The main difference would regard the costs of deployment (Module 6). Management costs per 
volunteer  deployed  would  be  higher  in  a  direct  management  model,  mainly  because  the  unit 
cost  of  human  resources  and  overheads  in  Commission  services  (or  Agency)  are  higher  than 
those of external service providers – the administrative overheads of operating the programme 
will  be  proportionately  higher.  As  the  sending  organisations  would  not  been  involved  in  the 
selection of volunteers, they would be reluctant to engage in co-financing. For this reason, it is 
assumed in this option 4 that the EU would cover 100% of deployment costs. At the same time, 
should  option  4  be  chosen,  the  Commission  could  consider  asking  a  service  fee  to  the 
organisations getting trained volunteers. 

For  the  reasons  previously  mentioned,  the  direct  management  mode  is  expected  to  lead  to 
lower levels of deployment of volunteers. It is assumed that this option would lead to not more 
than 60% of deployment of those reached under the partnership model in Option 3. 

Deployment of 
EU volunteers  

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total  
(2014-20) 

Apprenticeship placements - 6 months, 100% financing 

N° of volunteers 

Costs  

0 

0 

324 

389 

467 

560 

672 

806 

3.218 

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, 100% financing 

N° of volunteers  

81 

272 

327 

392 

470 

564 

676 

2.782 

Costs 

2.146.500 

7.208.000 

8.665.500  10.388.000  12.455.000  14.946.000  17.914.000 

73.723.000 

Regular deployment - short term average 1 month, 100% financing 

N° of volunteers  

Costs 

Total cost 
deployment  

Total n. volunteers 
(apprent + regular)  

Visibility package 
after deployment 
Promotion & 
communication  

81 

97 

117 

140 

168 

201 

241 

1.045 

763.020 

913.740 

1.102.140 

1.318.800 

1.582.560 

1.893.420 

2.270.220 

9.843.900 

2.909.520 

8.121.740 

9.767.640  11.706.800  14.037.560  16.839.420  20.184.220 

83.566.900 

162 

693 

833 

999 

1198 

1437 

1723 

7.045 

162.000 

369.360 

443.460 

532.380 

638.400 

766.080 

918.840 

3.830.520 

1.500.000 

30.000 

30.000 

1.500.000 

30.000 

30.000 

30.000 

3.150.000 

28 Some variations might occur for the training of EU volunteers due to the need of higher number of staff on the 

Commission (Agency) side, which would imply higher comparative costs with respect to service providers. 

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
Total costs EU 
(apprent.+regular) 

4.571.520  11.501.900  13.819.900  18.035.580  19.857.960  23.817.900  28.548.260  120.153.020 

The costs of deployment would be around EUR 120M (within the allocation for the MFF 2014-
2020)  for  deploying  60%  of  volunteers  compared  to  option  3.  The  costs  for  the  volunteers 
would  be  similar  to  option  3,  while  there  wouldn’t  be  any  additional  costs  for  sending 
organisation  as  100%  would  be  financed  by  the  Commission.  However,  the  administrative 
costs for staff and management would be much higher.  

The implementing costs for option 4 would be: 

Modules 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Tot 2014-
2020 

1.Standards 
identification, 
select, training 

2.Certification 
mechanism  

3.Training EU 
volunteers 

4.EU Register 

5.Standards & 
certification 
hosting org. 

6.Deployment 
of volunteers 

7. Building 
capacities in 
hosting org. 

8. EU network 
humanitarian 
volunteers 

Total 

192.400 

192.400 

242.400 

50.000 

50.000 

50.000 

181.200 

958.400 

55.000 

215.000 

230.000 

270.000 

490.000 

655.000 

670.000 

2.585.000 

3.853.880 

4.596.480 

5.042.340 

5.893.100 

7.034.640 

8.403.120  10.045.240 

44.868.800 

110.000 

302.500 

302.500 

302.500 

330.000 

330.000 

330.000 

2.007.500 

215.000 

213.000 

165.000 

320.000 

820.000 

1.470.000 

2.860.000 

6.063.000 

4.571.520  11.501.900  13.819.900  18.035.580  19.857.960  23.817.900  28.548.260  120.153.020 

1.888.124 

3.336.812 

3.341.596 

4.007.318 

4.736.086 

5.627.423 

6.521.122 

29.458.481 

1.525.000 

825.000 

675.000 

1.225.000 

675.000 

925.000 

725.000 

6.575.000 

12.410.924  21.183.092  23.818.736  30.103.498  33.993.686  41.278.443  49.880.822  212.669.201 

7.  COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

When  comparing  the  four  policy  options,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  four  options  are  of 
increasing  ambition  or  scope  i.e.  from  a  minimalist  option  1  to  an  extensive  and  directly 
managed option 4. The comparisons of the options are made by assessing how much more the 
more  extensive  options  contribute  to  the  specific  objectives  (effectiveness).  This  assessment 
can  then  be  compared  to  the  resources  needed  to  achieve  those  objectives  (efficiency).  The 
selection of the preferred option is based on this two criteria, as well as the coherence with the 
overall humanitarian aid policies. 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 

37 

 
 
 
also  contains  the  total  implementation  cost  figures  for  the  four  policy  options  to  enable  an 
approximate assessment of efficiency.  

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 

The impacts on voluntary schemes are of different nature and size. 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 
across organisations. The impacts of option 2 on voluntary schemes would also be indirect. The 
Voluntary  Corps  training  could  have  a  'leverage  effect'  on  the  training  activities  offered  by 
other  humanitarian  actors.  Voluntary  organisations  would  also  have  facilitated  access  to 
volunteers through the Register. 

Option  3  would  further  add  the  possibility  to  all  voluntary  organisations  across  the  EU  to 
benefit  from  financial  support  for  deploying  volunteers  in  humanitarian  aid  operations,  thus 
strengthening the whole sector. Option 4 would have a more limited impact in that the sending 
organisations  would  have  only  a  marginal  role  in  the  Voluntary  Corps,  especially  for  the 
deployment of volunteers. 

As  for  volunteers,  the  different  options  contribute  to  their  qualifications  to  an  increasing 
degree. Option 1 mainly enables the Voluntary Corps volunteers to display on their CVs that 
they have been selected/engaged by a certified organisation, and it provides for a higher level 
of knowledge about what to expect from volunteering through different organisations. Option 2 
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. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Option  3  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.  This  is  also  likely  to 
encourage EU citizens wanting to express their solidarity to engage in volunteering and make a 
concrete contribution to humanitarian aid (including for those who would otherwise have fewer 
opportunities).  This  will  also  contribute  to  increase  the  surge  capacity  of  the  humanitarian 
sector.  The  EU  Network  of  humanitarian  volunteers  would  also  provide  networking 
opportunities  that  would  be  particularly  useful  for  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. 

in  addition 

Option 4 contains the same modules as option 3 and would bring the same benefits as above. 
However,  the  impact  on  volunteers  would  be  limited  by  the  reduced  number  of  deployment. 
Furthermore, 
the  Commission/Agency 
management would reduce the accessibility by the partners and somewhat the participation. In 
option  4,  the  ownership  of  the  humanitarian  aid  workers  would  be  reduced  as  they  have  not 
themselves  chosen  the  candidates.  Effective  match  between  volunteers'  profiles  and  needs  in 
the field would also be more difficult. 

the  extra  administrative  costs, 

to 

All the options would promote EU visibility, but to different degrees. In option 1, the impacts 
would depend on the level of uptake and how far they come to be identified as part of an EU 
initiative.  Certificates  may  make  EU  volunteering  standards  more  visible.  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.  Option  2  would  have  an  indirect  impact  on  the 
promotion of EU visibility in third countries if and when trained volunteers are deployed. 

The direct presence and support of the Voluntary Corps in the local communities is a central 
and direct way of displaying EU visibility, in particular if combined with adequate training that 
ensures  that  volunteers  contribute  significantly  and  positively  (option  3).  Option  3  will  thus 
further reinforce the impacts of option 2, in particular in host communities. In option 3 and 4, 
the  Commission  would  be  able  to  directly  influence  how  EU  visibility  and  solidarity  will  be 
delivered with the volunteers' presence. In both option 3 and option 4 volunteers could also act 
as ‘ambassadors’ for the EU Voluntary Corps after having been deployed.  

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 deployment 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  imply  a  different 
management  approach  to  the  rest  of  humanitarian  aid  and  lack  the  opportunities  of  the 
partnership approach.  

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

39 

 
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. 

The core indicators for monitoring will be the following: 

Specific objective 

Indicators 

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 

build 

To 
of 
organisations in third countries   

capacities 

hosting 

To  enhance  coherence  across  Member 
States  in  order  to  improve  opportunities 
for  European  citizens  to  participate  in 
humanitarian aid 

To  strengthen 
selection criteria for volunteers 

the 

identification  and 

•  Number  of  volunteers  deployed  or  ready 

for deployment 

•  Number  of  certified  sending  and  hosting 

organisations  

•  Number of volunteers trained and quality 
of  training  (based  on  peer  reviews  and 
level of satisfaction)  

•  Number  of  certified  sending  and  hosting 
organisations  applying  the  standards  for 
deployment 
of 
European volunteers 

and  management 

•  European volunteers’ level of knowledge 

about EU humanitarian aid  

•  Level  of  awareness  about  the  Voluntary 
Corps  among  the  targeted  population  of 
the  Union  the  benefitting  third  countries 
communities 
international 
the 
humanitarian community  

and 

•  Number  and  type  of  capacity  building 

actions  

•  Number  of  third  country  staff  and  local 
capacity 

volunteers  participating 
building actions  

in 

•  Number 

of 

certified 

sending 

organisations  

•  Dissemination  and  replication  of 

the 
standards  for  management  of  European 
volunteers by other voluntary schemes 

•  Number of sending organisations making 

40 

 
 
 
use of standards 

• 

 Level 
organisations manager   

satisfaction 

of 

of 

sending 

These  indicators  may  be  completed  by  additional  ones  according  to  the  needs  in  terms  of 
management and decision-making. 

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. 

41 

 
9.  ANNEXES 

1. Executive summary of 2010 Review 

2. Analysis report of the open public consultation 

3. Pilot projects 2011-2012 factsheets 

4. Example of existing training schemes 

5. List of stakeholders consulted 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

FINAL REPORT  

Review concerning the 
establishment of a European 
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid 
Corps  

Implementation:  

July – October 2010 

prepared for: 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate - General for 
Humanitarian Aid and Civil 
Protection - ECHO  

ECHO 01 – Evaluation Sector 

Aachen, 26th November 2010 

EC Reference N°:  
D 284210, ECHO 
/ADM/BUD/2010/01207 

Internal Project N°: 
GMX EC 16 - 2010 

G E R M A X  

•   G E R L I   G m b H  

•  

  B i s m a r c k s t r a s s e   2 - 8  

•   D - 5 2 0 6 6   A a c h e n    

T e l .   + 4 9 - 2 4 1 - 4 0 1 0 2 4 0 0   •   F a x   + 4 9 - 2 4 1 - 4 0 1 0 2 4 0 4 0 •   i n f o @ g e r m a x . c o m  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A.1. Objectives of the Review (Section B.1.2 of the main report) 

The  article  214.5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU),  foresees  the  setting  up  of  a  European 
Voluntary  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps.  The  acronym  “EVHAC”,  which  can  be  misleading  for  several 
reasons, will be used in the present report for convenience purposes. 

The overall objective of this review is to support the Commission in setting up a European Voluntary 
Humanitarian Aid Corps by (i) conducting an analysis of existing voluntary schemes, (ii) identifying the 
structure, scope and focus of possible implementing options and (iii) assessing the cost of these options. 

The  TOR  also  took  into  consideration  current  trends  and  needs  of  volunteering,  such  as 
professionalism,  focus  on  demand-driven  approaches,  on  capacity  building  of  local  counterparts,  or 
the  wider  LRRD29  scope  of  humanitarian-related  activities  from  preparedness  and  civil 
protection to recovery. 

A.2. Approaches (Section B.1.2) 

The review was carried out over a period of 10 weeks (between July and September 2010) by a 
team of 3 consultants. All of them had taken part in the previous EVHAC Review carried out 
in 2005 and 2006, which provided comprehensive background information. 

A  first  phase  of  the  review  was  dedicated  to  a  wide  literature  review  (Annex  D)  and  to  the 
preparation  of  survey  questionnaires.  An  Aide  Memoire  was  submitted  to  DG  ECHO  mid-
August. 

During the second phase, survey questionnaires were sent to 182 FPA partners of DG ECHO, 
all  HAC  members  and  Civil  Protection  National  Contact  Points,  as  well  as  to  identified 
returned volunteers. In parallel, key stakeholders were visited in Brussels, Germany, Geneva, 
UK and Paris; others were approached by phone, mail and dedicated questionnaires (Annexes 
E  -  F).  A  brief  field  mission  was  also  carried  out  in  Haiti,  to  collect  lessons  regarding  the 
involvement of international volunteers in this recent major crisis (Annex G). The draft report was 
submitted in due time before the dedicated stakeholders’ conference, at the end of September. 
The scope of work was somewhat constrained by the limited period of time allocated for the 
review, which took place mostly during the months of summer holidays.  

A.3. Key Findings and Lessons Learned (Section B.2, Annexes D - G) 

There was a consistency in the findings from the successive phases of research and from the 
variety of sources. The following paragraphs summarise the key findings and lessons by theme, 
along  with  the  conclusions  or  recommendations  which  the  team  drew  from  those  findings 
(recommendations are further detailed in B.3). Fuller details of findings themselves, organised 
by sources and stakeholders, can be found in Annex F. 

A.3.1.  Present  involvement  of  volunteers  in  humanitarian  actions  with  DG  ECHO 
partners  Of  the  respondents  to  the  DG  ECHO  partner  survey  (46  of  about  182  invited),  the 
majority stated that they involve volunteers in their humanitarian activities, although very few 
would do so in emergency relief operations / man-made crises, and never with young unskilled 

29 Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD): A communication from the European Commission to the 
at: 

and  European  Parliament 

European  Council 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COM_LRRD_en.pdf 

LRRD 

policy 

found 

can 

on 

be 

44 

 
                                                 
volunteers. Volunteers deployed to international projects are mostly used for their specialised 
technical  skills,  generally  for  periods  of  less  than  6  months.  They  are  either  young 
professionals,  freshly  graduated,  or  experienced  ones.  Where  it  relates  to  assignments  inside 
the EU, organisations generally take on as volunteers young people still undergoing studies or 
those  just  graduated  in  relevant  sectors,  essentially  for  auxiliary  support  services  or  general 
administrative work. The majority of the responding organisations also indicated that they are 
planning  to  create  new  posts  for  experienced  volunteers  or  young  professionals  in  the  near 
future,  although  the  actual  number  of  posts  is  quite  limited.  An  EVS  (European  Voluntary 
Service) National Agency stated  that the demand  from  interested  youth  is  very  high and that 
there is potential to increase the numbers of volunteers were there more funds available. 

The reality of involving volunteers in today’s humanitarian activities follows in general a needs 
based, rational approach: younger (less experienced) volunteers are mostly involved in the EU, 
and  experienced  and  well  trained  volunteers  are  deployed  to  third  countries.  The  review 
recommends that EVHAC reflect this approach to ensure the involvement of different groups 
of volunteers.   

A.3.2.  The  key  operational  criteria  for  EVHAC  are  to  respond  to  needs  and  to  do  no 
harm.  These  points  were  stressed  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  interviewees  and 
respondents  to  surveys;  they  were  also  summarised,  together  with  most  of  the  key  issues 
below,  in  a  joint  position  paper  by  ICRC,  IFRC,  OCHA  and  VOICE.  Examples  given  by 
respondents  were  that  European  volunteers  must  not  deprive  locals  of  jobs  or  their  own 
opportunities to volunteer; that volunteers must not be a security risk to themselves or others; 
that EVHAC should not distract from the sector’s move towards professionalism (see section 
A.3.2  on  training  and  standards);  that  volunteers  should  do  only  work  required  by  the 
community or the operational agency (not work primarily aimed at benefitting the volunteer).  

The  key  lesson  from  comparing  the  responses  from  Haiti  to  those  from  a  similar  visit  to  Sri 
Lanka in 2006 is that the added value of European volunteers will be affected by factors such 
as the local post-disaster situation, the local culture and particularly the strength of local civil 
society.  It  will  be  important  in  every  post-disaster  situation  for  a  needs  assessment  to  be 
undertaken to understand the skills needed and the optimal timing for the different skill levels 
of  volunteers,  as  well  as  the  capacity  of  the  country  (accommodation,  food  etc)  and 
organisations (management time, tasks identified) to receive them. 

To ensure buy-in from the humanitarian community (European and in-country) and adherence 
to  principles  of  humanitarian  action,  the  recommendations  of  the  review  are  based  on  this 
premise of responding to need. To achieve this the review advocates a transparent partnership 
approach  in  setting  up  EVHAC,  involving  potential  users  of  EVHAC  volunteers  during  the 
setting-up stage and beyond (e.g. specific working groups) to base its activities on actual needs. 
It was also clear from responses that EVHAC-supported activities need to encompass the wider 
framework of humanitarian aid, from pre- to post-disaster work, and the full range of LRRD 
activities. 

A.3.3.  EVHAC  should  add  value  to  existing  schemes,  without duplicating or competing. 
There  are  a  large  number  of  existing  volunteer  schemes  within  and  outside  Europe,  defining 
volunteer  in  many  different  ways  and  ranging  from  basic  induction  for  unskilled  youth  to 
specialised  rosters  for  professionals.  Implementing  organisations  prefer  to  seek  experienced 
experts  for  third  country  deployment,  as  well  as  some  young  professionals  as  trainees  for 
career-entry  schemes.  Rosters  for  highly  trained  experts  (including  volunteers  in  some  cases 

45 

 
 
but  not  all)  are  operated  by  civil  protection  actors,  some  UN  agencies  such  as  OCHA30,  UN 
Volunteers  and  UNHCR.    The  definition  of  what  a  volunteer  is  varies  significantly:  unpaid, 
trainee or experienced with stipend, etc. Volunteering organisations and networks often offer 
simultaneously  several  models  of  volunteering,  which  correspond  to  the  demands  of  their 
respective target groups. 

Some  respondents  provided  useful  suggestions  regarding  the  possible  role  of  EVHAC,  to  be 
focused on: (i) cooperating with the existing “diversity of actors” in EU humanitarian aid and 
civil protection, rather than setting up new schemes; and (ii) supporting actively the sector with 
services  such  as  the  development  of  common  standards  and  guidelines  as  well  as  with  the 
development of training modules for volunteers.  

In considering the different groups of volunteers, the review suggests a stepped approach (“3 
levels  of  volunteering”,  described  in  B.3.1.2)  in  order  to  ensure  EVHAC  is  of  relevance  to 
significant  numbers  of  implementing  partners  and  volunteers.  A  contribution  by  EVHAC  to 
strengthening European volunteer involvement would be to support existing schemes such as 
career  entry  schemes,  roster  services,  emergency  response  units,  youth  organisations  of 
implementing  organisations,  etc.  The  matter  of  paying  volunteers  is  dealt  with  in  A.3.5.  The 
review takes into account the respondents’ views that third country deployment of young (in-
experienced) volunteers generally provides a low added value for the beneficiaries (depending 
on  preparation,  duration,  support),  since  such  schemes  are  mostly  focused  on  the  personal 
development of the young volunteers. Coordination should also be sought with the new Youth 
on the Move initiative31, in matters of e.g. vocational training, certificates and cooperation with 
the EURES job portal32.   

There  are  several  options  for  EVHAC  to  deal  with  rosters  of  experts.  EVHAC  may  either 
operate  its  own  roster/database,  which  would  require  extensive  work  and  entail  risks  of 
duplication  or  confusion,  and/or  coordinate  with  existing  rosters.  It  could  also  delegate  the 
roster  work  for  some  specific  sectors  or  skills  to  existing  and  well-functioning  registers.  An 
alternative would be to establish a “clearing house” database which would either collate needs 
identified at field level and trigger pre-existing arrangements with rosters, or/and try to match 
needs with offers from EU civil society actors or individuals. 

A  trade-off  between  co-financing  by  EVHAC  of  humanitarian  volunteering  projects  and  co-branding 
would be favourably envisaged by many key volunteer-sending organisations, provided that modalities 
can be discussed in working or focus groups.  

A.3.4. EVHAC could add value in contributing to strengthening a conducive environment 
for volunteering. Some lessons learnt outline the frequent legal problems for volunteers (visas, 
work  permits)  and  the  lack  of  a  consistent  legal  framework  within  Europe.  A  key  role  of 
facilitation  and  coordination  on  the  legal  issues  would  be  needed  at  the  EU  level,  in 
coordination  with  e.g.  the  IDRL  (International  Disaster  Response  Laws,  Rules  and 
Principles)/IFRC and the UN. Many respondents outlined also the need for the recognition at 
EU  level  of  volunteering  assignments  and  of  skills  gained  in  this  context.  Conducive 
frameworks exist already in the UK and in Germany, although improvements may be needed. 

30  OCHA  operates  the  Emergency  Response  Roster  for  surge  capacity,  the  GenCap  (Gender  Capability)  and 
ProCap (Protection Capability) rosters, for the benefit of UN agencies. High level “experts on mission” are 
provided  exclusively  through  a  “Stand-By  Partnership  Programme”  of  12  partner  organizations,  which 
have their own rosters. 

31 Council of the European Union Resolution, 27th November 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/pdf/doc1648_en.pdf 
32 EURES Job Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/eures/ 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
Such an environment has also recently been enhanced in France, with the adoption in 2005 of a 
law  on  volunteering  contracts,  and  the  creation  in  early  2010  of  the  “France  Volontaires” 
platform.  

Recognising  that  there  are  a  variety  of  gaps  in  the  current  patterns  of  service  provision  to 
volunteers expressed by those organisations involving volunteers, the review suggests EVHAC 
address some of the priority service components for volunteering. These would include training 
support,  information  provision,  strengthening  of  recognition,  facilitation  functions  for  visa  / 
work permits, insurance matters. IFRC further recommended discussions in working groups to 
define  possible  cooperation  in  matters  of  e.g.  IDRL  and  harmonized  legal  status  and 
recognition for European volunteers in the EU and abroad.  

A.3.5. “Volunteering is not for free”. This statement by returned volunteers applies to both 
sending organisations and the volunteers  themselves. Almost all Europeans/Americans  (aside 
from  the  initial  flood  of  faith-based  groups)  who  were  volunteering  in  Haiti  were  paid  more 
than expenses, some being paid their full salaries by employers willing to let their staff member 
volunteer, or by governments through nationally funded schemes. However, despite receiving 
some  kind  of  remuneration/stipend,  many  volunteers  also  stated  that  they  have  contributed 
financially  themselves  to  their  mission.  The  successive  tasks  of  identification,  recruitment, 
training, integration, and supervision and returnee care services are very demanding and costly; 
a  majority  of  actors  expressed  therefore  their  need  for  funding  and  supporting  services,  to 
ensure  inclusivity  and  enable  a  larger  number  of  volunteers  to  get  involved  in  humanitarian 
assistance. 

This  finding  requires  EVHAC  to  consider  and  to  define  remuneration  and  compensation 
schemes  (e.g.  by  level  of  volunteering)  –  benchmarked  with  the  remuneration  approach  of 
existing schemes to prevent “market distortion”. It also makes EU support for volunteering a 
costly exercise but will offer opportunities for greater inclusivity. 

A.3.6. The question of professionalism and training of the volunteers. Lessons learnt from 
volunteers’  involvements  in  previous  humanitarian  crises  point  to  a  number  of  recurrent 
patterns, e.g. the need for experienced, skilled volunteers rather than young unskilled ones (at 
least  during  the  first  6  months  of  an  emergency),  the  need  for  long-term  commitments  by 
volunteers,  the  need  for  structured  training  (security,  cultural  sensitization,  language  skills), 
and a code of practice for volunteers. Respondents to the different surveys confirmed the need 
for targeted training and mission preparation as well as for development of common standards 
and guidelines for the management and training of volunteers. The major challenges mentioned 
by sending organisations are (i) the identification and recruitment of suitable volunteers and (ii) 
the training and preparation of volunteers and iii) organisational capacity to manage them. 

Responding  to  the  expressed  needs  of  the  actors  for  professionalism  and  training,  one 
suggested  field  of  activity  for  EVHAC  is  to  support  training  and  promote  volunteer 
management  standards  and  guidelines.  The  review  further  recommends  cooperation  to  be 
established  with  some  EU  government-funded  schemes  for  introducing  young  people,  often 
unskilled  or  with  fewer  opportunities,  to  humanitarian-related  values  and  vocational  training, 
through projects of variable duration in the EU or in safe areas abroad (Weltwärts, the French 
Service Civique etc). Support of operational agencies would come through any central support 
EVHAC  would  give  to  rosters  and  training  provision,  and  funding  for  enhancing  their 
agencies’ capacity to manage volunteers. 

A.3.7.  Counterparting  and  the  crucial  importance  of  strengthening  local  capacities.  The 
2006  review  had  already  outlined  the  importance  of  skills  transfer  and  support  for  local 

47 

 
organizations and volunteers, which are “faster, cheaper, and more sustainable”. This approach 
was confirmed by many respondents to the present review. In Haiti, counterparting (teaming an 
international  volunteer  with  a  local  for  mutual  benefit  –  as  well  as  for  the  community)  was 
mentioned as “the best of all worlds”. 

To reflect the strongly-held views of its stakeholders ECHO, in establishing EVHAC, needs to 
consider the inclusion of support for in-country volunteering initiatives and the strengthening 
of local capacity through volunteering. 

A.3.8.  The  possible  contributions  from  the  private  and  public  sectors.  There  are  several 
models of volunteering used by the private sector, identified by the review, which may be of 
interest for EVHAC, such as allowing volunteering by staff or funding others to volunteer. This 
may  provide  some  highly  experienced  volunteers  with  specific  skill-sets  (e.g.  logistics, 
management, healthcare) which are much needed to supply the surge capacity in the first hours 
or days of a disaster and thereafter. In this respect, the Irish Rapid Response initiative appears 
as a model. 

The highest level (level 3) of the recommended model for involving volunteers under EVHAC 
would accommodate private and public sector contributions of high level experts.  

A.3.9. Remote volunteering.  There are some very interesting opportunities for humanitarian 
agencies to benefit from online volunteers, either in preparatory work (mentoring schemes) or 
in  their  operational  and  ordinary  back-office  functions  (mapping,  website  management,  fund 
raising,  short  translations  in  unusual  languages  etc),  as  they  try  to  upscale  in  response  to  a 
disaster. Online volunteering and “crowdsourcing” would also provide opportunities for young 
people  to  contribute  to  a  European  response  remotely.  However,  alternative  forms  of 
volunteering raised only modest interest among returned volunteers. 

If  EVHAC  decides  to  support  remote  volunteering,  it  could  seek  cooperation  with  already 
established  platforms  such  as  UN  Online  Volunteers  or  existing  crowdsourcing  initiatives  to 
speed up the setting-up process (probably under co-branding agreements).  

A.3.10. Bearing all this in mind, how should EVHAC be implemented? In accordance with 
the above findings, a few benchmarks of potential relevance for EVHAC have been subjected 
to in-depth assessments. The analyses confirmed that, although relevant components could be 
found  in  all  cases  (large  programmes  of  young  volunteers  abroad,  the  use  of  experienced 
returned  volunteers),  EVHAC  would  not  benefit  from  the  experience  of  a  sufficiently 
compatible benchmark, and would therefore have to define its own original structure and mode 
of operation, preferably through a gradual “learning by doing” approach. The literature review 
has also analysed the limitations of the current DG ECHO Regulation, which is not adapted to 
the setting up of EVHAC and needs to be revised.  

The EAC-EA Executive agency, which already supervises the volunteering actions of the DG 
EAC  Youth  In  Action  programme  –  some  of  which  are  sending  large  numbers  of  young 
European volunteers in third countries to implement humanitarian-related projects - appeared 
as the most relevant existing management structure for a rapid setting up of EVHAC, though 
even if this route is chosen a staged approach should be preferred.  

A.4. Options and overall recommendations (Section B.3) 

Considering  the  findings  and  lessons  learned  and  particularly  looking  at  the  gaps  and  needs 
identified, the review would provide the following implementation recommendations:   

48 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

To  apply  a  gradual,  “soft  start”  approach  for  the  launch  of  EVHAC  during  the 
European Year of Volunteering 2011, leaving time for more consultation and studies, and 
to  test-pilot  options.  The  reasons  include  e.g.  the  necessary  coherence  with  other 
contiguous processes, the need to set up coordination mechanisms with concerned actors 
etc (see B.3.1.1). 

To  adopt  a  do-no-harm,  cooperative  approach,  which  would  avoid  disrupting  already 
well-functioning volunteering schemes by creating confusion and competition, and ensure 
that demand takes precedence over supply.   

To sub-divide EVHAC into three main levels, which all have their own specific value 
and  impact.  This  would  reflect  the  wide  range  of  expertise  found  in  volunteers  and 
required by implementing agencies. It would offer adapted approaches,  from the gradual 
induction of young unskilled volunteers to humanitarian-related projects and principles, to 
junior professionals, and finally to experienced volunteers (professionals) who can be used 
for surge capacity in disaster response (B.3.1.2).  

To  outsource  the  management  (e.g.  to  the  EAC-EA  Executive  Agency),  considering 
that DG ECHO’s clear intention is not to divert budgetary resources from current projects 
to  EVHAC.  An  adapted  governance  body  for  EVHAC  should  be  set  up,  which  would 
include  DG  ECHO  together  with  representatives  of  the  Member  States  and  the  main 
partners,  to  ensure  close  coordination  with  the  principles  and  activities  of  DG  ECHO 
(B.3.1.3).  

In this framework, three options have been presented for the implementation of EVHAC:  

- a relatively limited grant scheme (B.3.3),  
- a pro-active funding and supporting organisation (B.3.4),  
- and a more ambitious programming and implementing agency (B.3.5).  

Minimum Option (1) 

Variable/ Medium Option (2) 

Maximum Option (3) 

GRANT SCHEME 

FUNDING AND SUPPORTING ORGANISATION 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

Core activities of EVHAC: 

Core activities of EVHAC: 

Core activities of EVHAC: 

Funding 
eligible 
of 
volunteer-sending  partners 
(FPA  partners  of  DG 
ex-partners 
of 
ECHO, 
Youth 
for 
In  Action 
humanitarian-related 
projects  in  third  countries, 
civil 
protection 
organisations,  VSOs  from 
etc), 
Members  States 
responding 
requests 
from  eligible  partners  and 
according 
to  pre-defined 
criteria for funding. 

to 

-  Funding  of  eligible  volunteer-sending  partners 
(equivalent to option 1) 

-  Provision  of  adapted  forms  of  support  via  a 
number  of  “service  components”  to  humanitarian 
and  civil  protection  actors  involving  volunteers 
(e.g. training, promotion of values and standards, 
information  campaigns,  rosters,  local  capacity 
building etc.) 

- Formulation and development of various stages 
of  volunteering  induction  programmes  (according 
to skills)  

•  Programming and implementation 
by EVHAC of own volunteering 
functions / programmes 

•  Management of projects and 
programmes by field offices under 
EVHAC´s own responsibility 

•  Optional funding of programmes 
and projects implemented by 
eligible partners, where relevant 

Direction of increased complexity and risks/ responsibility for the Commission (various factors) 

The  preferred  option  of  the  review  (also  confirmed  by  a  majority  of  respondents)  is  the 
“medium”  implementing  option  2  as  the  most  adequate  in  a  situation  where  EVHAC  has  to 

49 

 
insert itself into a complex framework of EU volunteer-sending organisations and volunteering 
schemes without disrupting what already exists and functions. EVHAC should on the contrary 
be  in  a  position  to  add  the  value  of  a  European  dimension  for  necessary  harmonization  and 
promotion, and provide funds where relevant schemes may be in need – in a “win-win” trade 
off for EU visibility.  

Option 2 would also leave the implementation of projects to the partners, who would continue 
using  their  own  established  procedures,  (provided  that  these  remain  consistent  with  new 
proposed standards). 

50 

 
 
ANNEX 2 

ANALYSIS REPORT  

Analysis of the Open Public 
Consultation concerning the 
establishment of a European 
Voluntary Humanitarian Aid 
Corps 

Implementation:  

December 2010 - May 2011 

prepared for: 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate - General for 
Humanitarian Aid and Civil 
Protection - ECHO  

ECHO A1 – Evaluation Sector 

Aachen, 8th June 2011 

G E R M A X  

•   G E R L I   G m b H  

•  

  B i s m a r c k s t r a s s e   2 - 8  

•   D - 5 2 0 6 6   A a c h e n    

T e l .   + 4 9 - 2 4 1 - 4 0 1 0 2 4 0 0   •   F a x   + 4 9 - 2 4 1 - 4 0 1 0 2 4 0 4 0 •   i n f o @ g e r m a x . c o m  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary  

Background 

The  Lisbon  Treaty  foresees  the  establishment  of  a  European  Voluntary  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps 
(Humanitarian  Aid  Corps),  Art  214.5  TFEU.  A  Communication  presenting  the  main  principles  and 
options has been adopted on the 23rd of November33. 

Some gaps and areas where the Humanitarian Aid Corps is likely to have an added value are identified. 
These include: (i) identification and selection of volunteers (aimed at having the right people at the right 
place at the right time); (ii) training, through the development of common standards, good practices and 
possibly  modules;  (iii)  deployment,  in  order  to  benefit  from  volunteers  in  EU  humanitarian  aid 
operations. 

In  order  to  gather  ideas  and  opinions  for  the  establishment  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  an  Open 
Public Consultation was carried out between 8th February and 3rd May 2011. Responses were requested 
on a range of issues, which include: 

•  general opinion and expected impact of the Humanitarian Aid Corps; 

•  profiles of volunteers and “Levels of Volunteering”; 

• 

• 

• 

types of activities for the Humanitarian Aid Corps volunteers; 

types of preparatory and support measures for volunteers; 

implementing options of the Humanitarian Aid Corps . 

Methodology 

To allow for wide participation and dialogue, a survey was formulated which requested feedback on the 
essential  principles  and  opinions  presented  in  the  Communication  of  the  Commission  on  the 
establishment of Humanitarian Aid Corps. Respondents were offered statements with which they could 
agree or disagree in a graded way (i.e. strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree). 
This  questionnaire  was  encoded  in  the  web-based  survey  tool  of  the  Commission  (IPM  –  Interactive 
Policy  Making)  to  facilitate  the  contribution  process  by  interested  individuals  and  organisations.  The 
survey was made available in three languages (English, French and German) and followed the “General 
principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”34 

With  the  objective  to  stimulate  wide  participation,  the  Commission  published  a  press  release  and 
provided the link to the online Consultation at the DG ECHO web-site and the DG MARKT web-site 
“Your voice in Europe”. Furthermore, the  major associations of volunteering organisations in the EU 
(CEV,  AVSO  and  the  Alliance  of  European  Voluntary  Organisations)  and  the  VOICE35  network  of 
NGOs have been informed and around 200 different organisations in the EU and abroad were directly 
invited to contribute to the Consultation.  

The  Consultation  was  open  to  all  interested  individuals  and  organisations  inside  and  outside  the 
European Union.  

33 Communication of the Commission - COM(2010)683 final 
34 Communication from the Commission, “Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and 
minimum  standards  for  consultation  of  interested  parties  by  the  Commission”,  COM(2002)704  final,  Brussels, 
11.12.2002 

35 VOICE stands for Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies (a network currently representing 83 European 

non governmental organisations active in humanitarian aid worldwide) 

52 

 
 
                                                 
The Open Public Consultation forms an essential contribution to the establishment of the Humanitarian 
Aid  Corps,  adding  to  the  findings  of  earlier  opinion  polling  exercises  at  the  level  of  specialised 
humanitarian  stakeholders36,  particularly  at  the  level  of  DG  ECHO  FPA  partners,  Volunteer  Sending 
Organisations and NGO networks and in addition returned volunteers which served abroad.  

The results of the Consultation will be presented at a stakeholder conference in June 2011 in Budapest 
and a brief factual report will be published at the DG ECHO and DG MARKT web-sites.  

Summary findings 

The Open Public Consultation concerning the establishment of the Humanitarian Aid Corps generated 
126 contributions in total, 92 from individual respondents and 34 from respondents representing 
an organisation. The responding population is not very homogeneous. The responding organisations, 
from 16 EU Member States and two third countries, vary in type, where the most frequent responses are 
from humanitarian and development cooperation NGOs, followed by civil society or community-based 
associations. The majority of responding individuals are persons with volunteering experience (74 out 
92 respondents).  

Despite  the  variations  in  the  composition  of  respondents,  the  Consultation  provides  quite  a  clear 
message  on  most  topics  addressed.  When  looking  at  the  main  topics  (general  opinion,  profiles  of 
volunteers,  type  of  activities  and  preparatory  and  support  measures),  a  majority  of  respondents  from 
both  groups, individuals  and organisations,  agree  with  the proposed statements (often near to 80% of 
the respondents). Next to the very supportive overall evaluation, the respondents used the opportunity to 
provide  “free  text”  responses  to    express  their  concern  about  particular  issues  (e.g.  advisability 
adequacy of involving young or inexperienced volunteers in humanitarian assistance, cost-efficiency of 
involving  higher  number  of  volunteers  in  humanitarian  operations,  security  concerns,  the  impact  of 
inexperienced  volunteers  on  the  sector’s  professionalisation  agenda,  risk  of  duplication  of  structures, 
and several others).   

In general there is a tendency that organisations agree slightly more with the statements provided in the 
Consultation, compared with the feedback of individual respondents.  

Topic  1  -  General  opinion  and  expected  impact  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  –  An 
overwhelming  proportion  of  the  respondents  agree  or  somewhat  agree  with  the  statements  under  this 
section37,  which  were  formulated  in  line  with  the  concept  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  and  the 
anticipated  impact38.  Responding  organisations  are  particularly  convinced  that  the  Humanitarian  Aid 
Corps has the potential to be the right platform to promote structured training, common standards and 
good practices for involving volunteers (in cooperation with existing actors).  

The  free  text  comments  under  this  section  highlight  the  relevance  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  to 
three key concerns:  

1. 

2. 

the possibility to show solidarity with people in need;  

the opportunity to practice active EU citizenship (mostly individual respondents);  

36  Surveys  for  DG  ECHO  FPA  partners  and  returned  volunteers  in  the  context  of  the  preparatory  study  “Humanitarian  Aid 
at 
This 

Corps 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/evaluation/2010/EVHAC_Final_Report.pdf 

available 

review 

review 

2010”. 

37  Expected  impact  (9  statements  of  the  Consultation  –  for  complete  statements  see  Annex  I):  positive  contribution  to  the 
humanitarian  and  civil  protection  sectors;  promotes  active  EU  citizenship;  shows  solidarity  with  people  in  need, 
helps people in need; creates positive links with people in need; contributes to increase coordination and coherence 
in the sector; promotes professionalism and safety for volunteers; helps with harmonising existing approaches; right 
platform to promote standards and good practices. 

38  As  defined  in  the  Communication  of  the  Commission  on  the  establishment  of  the European  Voluntary  Humanitarian  Aid 

is 

Corps, COM(2010)683 final 

53 

 
                                                 
3. 

the  potential  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  to  increase  coordination  and  coherence  in  EU 
humanitarian volunteering.  

Some more critical voices question the added value of increased number of volunteers in humanitarian 
operations, and others highlight the importance of avoiding duplication of structures.  

Topic  2  -  Profiles  of  volunteers  and  “Level  of  Volunteering”  –  The  Consultation  addressed  five 
issues39  related  to  the  profiles  of  volunteers  to  be  deployed  under  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  with 
respect  to  varying  age  groups  and  experience.  The  majority  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  the 
Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  should  enable  different  types  of  volunteers  to  get  involved  in  humanitarian 
operations. This also includes the support of young or less experienced volunteers (school graduates / 
students) in situations where there are no security problems. A large proportion of the respondents are 
of  the  opinion  that  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  should  help  young  professionals  to  gather  work 
experience and to develop career opportunities in the humanitarian sector (87% of the individuals / 84% 
of  the  organisations).  Specifically,  the  responding  organisations  would  like  to  see  the  involvement  of 
experienced volunteers from the private sector in situations of need for highly specialised experts.  

When  looking  at  the  question  if  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  should  focus  primarily  on  experienced 
volunteers,  on  condition  that  they  do  not  replace  staff  positions,  individual  respondents  and 
organisations  had  divergent  views.  Around  62  %  of  the  responding  organisations  agree  with  this 
statement, whereas only 36% of the individual respondents do so. It appears that – also confirmed by 
the  free  text  comments  –  the  organisations  tend  to  see  young  or  inexperienced  volunteers  serving  in 
support  positions  in  the  EU  but  not  so  much  at  field  level,  where  they  clearly  vote  for  experienced 
volunteers and professionals when involving volunteers in humanitarian field work.  

We note a consensus amongst the respondents when looking at the free text comments to this section. 
All  respondents  require  a  professional  managed  deployment  environment  for  the  Humanitarian  Aid 
Corps volunteers and demand that the Humanitarian Aid Corps should not have any negative impact on 
the professionalisation of the humanitarian sector. Core issues addressed were:  

o  professional recruitment and selection of candidates; 

o  matching between the tasks and the skills and capacities of the volunteers; 

o  adequate training and mission preparation for the volunteers; 

o  security issues should be a priority when deploying volunteers.  

Some  critical  voices  questioned  the  usefulness  of  involving  young  or  inexperienced  people  in 
humanitarian  operations  and  suggested  that  their  contribution  should  be  limited  to  supporting 
humanitarian actors in the EU or in their home countries.  

Topic 3 - Type of activities for the Humanitarian Aid Corps volunteers – There are large numbers 
of possible types of activities for volunteers. This section of the consultation asked for the opinion of 
the respondents concerning 6 concrete types of activities in which particularly young and inexperienced 
volunteers could be involved. The organisations evaluated the suggested activities quite positively – a 
clear  majority  agreed  with  the  suggested  concepts  /  types  of  activities.  Individual  respondents  were 
proportionally  less  in  agreement  with  the  suggested  concepts  –  this  is  certainly  caused  by  personal 
preferences of the individual respondents whereas the organisations tend to judge more on the basis of 
value-adding in the framework of their operational requirements.  

Amongst all others, local capacity building in third countries (particularly disaster preparedness, post-
crisis  recovery  and  civil  society  strengthening)  and  twinning  or  exchange  programmes  received  the 

39 Profiles of volunteers (5 issues addressed in the Consultation – for complete statements see Annex I): The Humanitarian 
Aid  Corps  should  involve  of  different  types  of  volunteers;  should  involve  of  young  /  less  experienced  volunteers; 
should  help  young  volunteers  to  gather  work  experience;  should  enable  the  involvement  of  volunteers  from  the 
private sector; should concentrate on the involvement of experienced volunteers.  

54 

 
                                                 
highest  degree  of  agreement  from  both  organisations  and  individual  respondents.  The  organisations 
furthermore  strongly  favoured  “EU  back-office  support”  and  “online-volunteering”  as  being  adequate 
types of activities for less experienced volunteers.  

The free text responses to this section highlighted a number of concerns, which mainly focussed on the 
fact  that  humanitarian  operations  in  general  and  particularly  emergency  relief  operations  need  to  be 
staffed with experienced professionals and are not suitable for younger or less experienced volunteers. 
Furthermore,  there  is  again  a  consensus  that  any  deployment  of  volunteers  needs  proper  training, 
mission preparation and supporting measures and care services.  

Topic  4  -  Types  of  preparatory  and  support  measures  for  volunteers  –  By  their  nature,  the 
humanitarian  actions  of  the  European  Union  often  take  place  in  difficult  situations  (security,  health 
risks, accessibility, etc.). The Consultation suggested a number of preparatory and support measures40 
for volunteers and asked the respondents about the importance of these measures.  

The  majority  of  the  respondents  evaluated  all  nine  suggested  measures  as  indispensable  or  very 
important.  “security  training”  and  “mission  preparation”  ranked  highest  for  both  respondent  groups, 
individuals  and  organisations.  “Logistical  support”  (travel,  visa,  etc.)  ranked  lowest  amongst  all 
suggested  measures.  For  some  measures  there  is  a  surprisingly  high  deviation  in  the  appreciation 
between  individuals  and  organisations,  especially  “introduction  to  humanitarian  principles”  and 
“technical  training”,  where  for  example  the  organisations  give  more  importance  to  technical  training 
than the responding individuals. 

Next to the suggested measures, the respondents recommended a number of additional preparatory and 
support measures, which are listed below:  

•  health and stress management support; 

•  medical examination to prove that candidates are fit for their assignments; 

• 

intercultural  relations  training  and  comprehensive  information  provision  on  the  historical 
context ; 

•  psycho social care services after return and counselling if needed; 

• 

introduction  to  general  development  issues,  next  to  the  “introduction  to  humanitarian 
principles”. 

Several  respondents  suggested  that  the  support  measures  should  be  tailored  to  the  different  possible 
groups of volunteers to be deployed under the Humanitarian Aid Corps.  

Topic  5  -  Implementation  options  for  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  –  There  are  several  different 
possibilities for the implementation and the institutional establishment of the Humanitarian Aid Corps. 
The  Communication  highlights  three  basic  options  for  the  implementation  and  at  the  same  time 
advocates  for  a  strong  cooperative  approach  for  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  –  meaning  to  build  on 
existing  structures  and  volunteering  schemes,  rather  than  duplicating  them.  In  the  Consultation, 
respondents were asked to vote for the most adequate option among the three.  

40 Suggested preparatory and support measures (9 measures suggested in the Consultation): introduction to humanitarian 
principles;  security  training;  technical  training;  introduction  to  local  culture  in  matters  of  concern  and  languages; 
logistic support like travel, visas, etc.; insurance coverage; in-depth mission preparation; continuous local coaching 
and mentoring / supervision; care services after return of volunteers. 

55 

 
                                                 
Definition of the suggested options: 

Option  1  –    The  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  should  address  the  challenges  expressed  by  volunteer 
organisations regarding generally agreed standards of selection and training for volunteers, including 
in some specialised niches such as volunteer management, some back-office functions, or prevention 
and  preparedness  activities  –  possibly  including  the  establishment  of  an  “EU  certification 
mechanism” for organisations respecting those standards. 

Option 2 –  The Humanitarian Aid Corps should combine Option 1 described above, which focuses 
on training, with additional activities including the funding of recruitment, training and deployment 
for the benefit of organisations involved in humanitarian disaster relief (NGOs, Red Cross and UN), 
especially targeting experienced staff to be deployed in key functions. 

Option 3 – The Humanitarian Aid Corps should be established as a fully-fledged volunteer scheme 
including selection, training, matching and deployment of volunteers (similar to some to the existing 
volunteer schemes in the humanitarian sphere). 

Which of the shown options would be the most adequate implementing option for the 
Humanitarian Aid Corps?
Opinions by type of respondent (Individuals / Organisations)

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

50

40

30

20

10

0

31

33

Individual respondents

18

8

13

12

Organisations

1

1

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

None of the options

Options as further definded in the documentation of the Consultation

The  respondents  clearly  favoured  Option  2  and  Option  3,  Option  1  received  the  least  votes. 
Organisations and individual respondents replied in a proportionally quite similar way.  

The  free  text  responses  revealed  that  there  is  a  consensus  amongst  the  respondents  that  the 
Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  should  not  duplicate  existing  structures  and  that,  where  possible,  existing 
actors should be used for the actual deployment of volunteers (remark: which clearly is in line with the 
Communication on the establishment of the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps).  

Many  respondents  call  for  close  coordination  between  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  and  the  existing 
humanitarian  actors.  Some  voices  call  for  intense  involvement  of  local  structures  in  the  affected 
counties  (e.g.  local  NGOs)  and  several  respondents  suggest  using  existing  structures  at  EC  level  to 
implement the Humanitarian Aid Corps (e.g. EVS).  

Conclusion 

56 

 
 
 
 
The  findings  of  this  Consultation  align  closely  with  the  Communication  of  the  Commission  on  the 
establishment  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Corps41,  which  has  formed  the  basis  for  the  Consultation  in 
terms of structure, content and priority issues addressed.  

Next  to  the  very  supportive  statements  and  the  generally  strong  agreement  received  from  the 
respondents  in  the  closed  questions  sections  of  the  Consultation,  also  the  expressed  opinions  of  the 
respondents  in  the  free  text  areas  of  the  Consultation  coincide  with  the  main  conditions  for  the 
Humanitarian  Aid  Corps  to  bring  a  positive  contribution  to  humanitarian  aid  operations  which  are 
defined in the Communication of the Commission and are listed hereunder:  

(cid:190)  avoid duplication and support/complement existing voluntary organisations 

(cid:190) 

take  into  account  the  increased  professionalization  of  the  humanitarian  sector,  including  the  need 
for volunteers deployed through the Humanitarian Aid Corps to provide real added value 

(cid:190)  security:  young  and  un-experienced  volunteers  will  be  dealing  with  pre  and  post  crisis  activities 

rather than emergency response ones (Disaster Risk Reduction and activities in transition contexts) 

(cid:190)  support to the development of local capacities, including exchange and pairing programmes 

(cid:190)  allocation of additional funds, in order to avoid diverting operational humanitarian aid budget 

The results of the Consultation are encouraging and should make the European Commission confident 
in taking the Humanitarian Aid Corps to the next stage.   

41 Communication of the Commission  - COM(2010)683 final 

57 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3 

Pilot projects 2011-2012 

Summary table 

Partners 

Aim 

Focus of 
deployment 
No of 
volunteers 
Selection 

Training 

Save the Children, UK 
NOHA, Institut Bioforce 
Development (France), 
Red Barnet Denmark, Die 
Johanitter 
Building humanitarian 
talent, professionalization 
of future humanitarian aid 
professionals including a 
comprehensive learning 
and development 
programme for the vo-
lunteers 

Preparedness and recovery 
activities 
25 

66% with limited overseas 
experience, and 34% 
having completed either 
NOHA Masters or 
Bioforce training. 
Candidates from at least 7 
Member States 
12-month training 
programme: as either 
Generalist Project Officers 
(15) or Specialized 
Logistics Officers (15). 
The curriculum is a blend 
of modules developed by 
partners. Personal Develop 
Plan and a coach for each 
volunteer. The coach is an 
aid professional working 
with the host agency, is 
trained and receives sup-
port from local 
organisations. 

VSO International 
VSO (Netherland), Pro 
Vobis  (National Resource 
Centre for Volunteering, 
Romania) 
Building capacity of local 
organisations through 
development of volunteer 
management training and 
accreditation for partner 
organisations. Volunteers 
follow Personal Develop. 
Plan process and get 
university accreditation 
Preparedness and recovery 
activities 
40 

Volunteer experts. 
Developed "Best Practise 
Standards" and 
assessments tools for 
selection and management.

Two training sessions 
developed for European 
and hosting organisations 
based on a volunteer 
management process. 
Pre-deployment: 2-3 on-
line training sessions + 5 
days face-to-face training. 
On arrival: 1 week country 
training. During 
deployment: monitoring 
by an ex-volunteer 
Special web-site available 
in 5 languages also used 
for online learning tools. 

Deployment  Level 1 volunteer deploy-
ed 2 times of 4-5 months 
and Level 2 volunteer 1 
time of 9-10 months 

Varies -contexts, duration 
and matching decisions 
made in collaboration with 
local organisations. 

French Red Cross 
Austrian, Bulgarian and 
German Red Cross 

Follows the Red Cross 
approach to promote 
young people as actors of 
change. 
Volunteers are treated as 
Red Cross staff usually 
deployed. 

Pre- or post- disaster 
humanitarian aid 
21 

24-34 years old, relevant 
studies or professional 
experience, ambition to 
work in the humanitarian 
sector. 
Final selection based on 
identified demands. 
Specific training based on 
IMPACT (developed by 
IFRC) and modules on 
humanitarian aid, law and 
EU aid operations. 
Two times 5 days' course 
in Red Cross training 
centre. Basic training 
followed up by specialized 
training modules + visits 
to institutions (Geneva, 
Brussels). Development of 
career track. Mentors, key 
local advisors and a stress 
management person 
identified. 
Six months. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Factsheets 

59 

 
 
60 

 
61 

 
 
62 

 
 
63 

 
 
64 

 
Name 

NOHA 42 

Organisati
on 

International 
association 
composed  of 
9  European 
Universities 

ELRHA 43  Collaborative 

network  

MS 
Global 
Contact 

NGO 

Non-Govern-
mental  Orga-
nisation 

Bioforce 

Non-profit 
organisation  

Weltwärts   Public 

voluntary 
service 

ANNEX 4 

Examples of existing training 

Focus 

Training 

Selection criteria 

Enhancement 
of 
professionalism  by 
providing 
cer-
tificated  high  level 
courses;  promoting 
research  and  policy 
papers 

Partnership 
between 
education 
and 
organisations  

higher 
institut. 
humanitarian 

Development 
assistance 

the 
Maximizing 
impact 
aid 
of 
programmes and in-
creasing 
of 
effectiveness 
mission 
the 
in 
public health sector 

towards 

More 
development 
assistance  

The  NOHA  Master's  Programme  is 
made of 3 semesters (90 ECTS credits). 
Structured  around  4  main  components 
covering  Geopolitics,  Anthropology, 
International 
Law,  Management, 
in 
Medicine 
Humanitarian  Action.  Possible  to  sign 
up for specific courses. 

and  Public  Health 

Bachelor  degree  in  study 
discipline,  relevant  field 
experience,  multicultural 
sensitivity, 
their 
and 
linguistic abilities 

access 

Facilitating 
different 
university  courses,  Research  Centres 
and  professional 
courses 
training 
regarding more specific topics 

to 

Preparatory course of 5 days, including 
experiences  of  other  volunteers,  prac-
ticalities and details about the stay. 

All  above  18  years  are 
eligible.  Must  go  through 
training. 

on 

cultural 

4  weeks  stay  and  training  at  Global 
issues, 
Platform 
development  and  general  build  up  of 
soft 
actual 
followed 
deployment of up to 12 months. 3 days 
return event 

skills 

by 

6  professional  programmes  including  4 
certified  courses,  a  bachelor  degree 
course  and  a  European  M.Sc.  (Human 
Programme  Manager)  in  partnership 
with University of Liverpool. More than 
50  refreshment  courses.  Runs  training 
centres in West Africa. 

based 

Selection 
on 
relevance  of  training  to 
applicants' profession 

language 
A  support  programme  + 
courses  must  total  at  least  25  days  of 
compulsory  seminar.  Priority  fields  of 
intercultural 
learning 
cooperation, 
communication 
development  policy,  knowledge  of  the 
country,  project  management 
and 
language skills 

are: 

and 

People between 18 and 29 
graduated  from  secondary 
school  or  achieved  higher 
education level 

42 Network on Humanitarian Assistance - http://www.nohanet.org/  
43 Enhancing Learning & Research for Humanitarian Assistance - http://www.elrha.org/.  

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
NGO 

the 

Save 
Children, 
UK44 
(pilot 
project) 

Prevention, 
and 
preparedness 
recovery activities  

French 
Red  Cross 
(pilot 
project) 

National 
Society - Red 
Cross Family 

Prevention, 
preparedness 
and 
recovery activities  

Preparedness and 
recovery activities 

VSO 

(pilot 
project) 

VSO 
International, 
VSO 
Netherlands, 
ProVobis 
Romania 

12-month training programme based on 
"Consortium  of  British  Humanitarian 
Agencies".  Trained  as  either  a  Gene-
ralist  Project  Officers  or  Specialized 
Logistics Officers. 

in  4-weeks  pre 
Training  organised 
deployment  scenario  training  and  3 
weeks field training during deployment. 
In  addition,  distance  learning  modules 
are available.  

Training  modules  on  humanitarian  aid, 
law,  EU 
international  humanitarian 
humanitarian 
also 
university/professional 
on 
depend 
background  of  volunteers  and  future 
deployment. 

aid  operations, 

2 times 5 days residential course in the 
Red  Cross  training  centre+  E-learning 
modules  +  Visits  of  Geneva  and 
Brussels (ECHO office) 

Two training sessions developed for 
European and hosting organisations 
based on a 9-steps volunteer 
management process. 

Pre-deployment: 2-3 online training 
sessions in working overseas and 
“Personal Development Passport” + 5 
days face to face training  

On arrival: 1 week in country training. 
During deployment: monitoring by ex-
volunteers 

Special web-site available in 5 
languages also used for online learning 
tools  

volunteers  with 
66% 
overseas 
limited 
experience  (level  1)  and 
34%,  who  has  completed 
either  NOHA  Masters  or 
accredited 
Bioforce 
training (level 2). 

qualified 

Young 
and 
inexperienced volunteers,  
relevant studies or 
professional 
ambition 
humanitarian sector 

experience, 
in 

to  work 

“Volunteers experts” 
chosen according to “Best 
Practice Standards” and 
assessment tools for 
selection and management 

44 European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, Pilot Projects Call for proposals 2011, Save the Children, UK 

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 5 

List of stakeholders consulted 

1  Action Contre la Faim 
2  ADICE - l’Association pour le Développement des Initiatives Citoyennes et Européennes
3  ADRA - Adventist Development and Relief Agency 
4  AEGEE-PECS - European Students Association 
5  African-Hungarian Union 
6  Alliance Française de Szeged 
7  Alternative for India Development 
8  ANPAS - ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE PUBBLICHE ASSISTENZE 
9  Arche noVa e.V 
10  Artemisszio Foundation 
11  Asamblea de Cooperación Por la Paz 
12  ASB - Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Deutschland 
13  Associação Cultural e Juvenil BY Portugal 
14  AVSO - Association of voluntary Service Organisations 
15  Babuka Nonprofit kft 
16  Belgian Ministry for Development Cooperation 
17  Belgian Ministry of Home Affairs 
18  BOCS Foundation 
19  CARITAS Europa 
20  CARITAS Hungary 
21  CARITAS Luxemburg 
22  CEV - European Volunteer Centre 
23  CLONG-Volontariat - Comité de Liaison des ONGs de Volontariat 
24  COOPI Cooperazione Internazionale 
25  Cordaid 
26  Corvinus University of Budapest 
27  COSV - Comitato per il Coordinamento delle Organizzazione di Volontariato 
28  CSD - Centre for Safety and Development 
29  Danish Refugee Council 
30  DEKOM  
31  DHL 
32  DKKV - German Committee for Disaster Reduction 
33  DRK - German Red Cross 
34  Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
35  EU Affairs, New Europe 
36  EU-CORD - Network of Christian Organisations in Relief and Development 
37  Finish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

67 

 
 
 
38  Foundation for Africa Hungary 
39  France Volontaires 
40  French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs  
41  Fundação AMI 
42  GCVC - Global Corporate Volunteer Council 
43  German Committe for Disaster Reduction (DKKV) 
44  German Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) 
45  German Federal Foreign Office 
46  German Federal Ministry of the Interior 
47  German Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance 
48  Germax Gerli GmbH 
49  GIZ Germany Federal Organisation for International Cooperation  
50  Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
51  GVC - Gruppo Volontariato Civile 
52  HAP - Humanitarian Accountability Partnership 
53  HelpAge International  
54  Hungarian Baptist Aid 
55  Hungarian Interchurch Aid 
56  Hungarian Maltese Charity Service 
57  Hungarian Ministry of Defence 
58  Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
59  Hungarian Red Cross 
60  Hungarian Volunteer Sending Foundation 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78  KIM 
79  KPMG 

Icelandic Mission to the EU 
ICEY International Cultural Youth Exchange 
ICRC - International Committee of the Red Cross 
IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 
Institut Bioforce Développement 
Institut d'Etudes Humanitaires Internationales Université Paul Cezanne 
Institut en Sciences du Risque 
International Art of Living Foundation 
International Medical Corps UK 
INTERSOS - Humanitarian Organisation 
IOM - International Organisation of Migration 
Irish Aid - Department of Foreign Affairs 
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
Italian Prime Minister Office - Civil Protection 
Johanniter International 
Johanniter-Unfall Hilfe e.V. (German branch) 
John Wesley College 

68 

 
80  LINK2007 - Cooperazione in rete 
81  Lithuanian Delegation to NATO 
82  Magyar Maltai Meretetszolgalat 
83  Mahatma Gandhi 
84  Malteser International 
85  MapAction 
86  Masaryk University 
87  Medici con l’Africa Cuamm 
88  MEMISA Belgian Non-profit Organisation 
89  Mission East 
90  MSF Medecins sans Frontières 
91  Muslim Aid UK 
92  National Directorate General for Disaster Management 
93  NOHA - Network On Humanitarian Assistance 
94  North Lanarkshire Arts Association 
95  Norwegian Refugee Council 
96  OCHA - Liaison Office to EC 
97  OIKOS Association 
98  OXFAM 
99  Oxfam Solidarité 
100  People in Aid 
101  Permanent Representation of Belgium to the EU  
102  Permanent Representation of Bulgaria to the EU  
103  Permanent Representation of France to the EU  
104  Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU  
105  Permanent Representation of Greece to the EU  
106  Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU  
107  Permanent Representation of Italy to the EU  
108  Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU  
109  Permanent Representation of Romania to the EU  
110  Permanent Representation of Slovenia to the EU  
111  Permanent Representation of Sweden to the EU  
112  Permanent Representation of UK to the EU  
113  Polish Ministy of Foreign Affairs 
114  Pro Vobis National Resource Center for Volunteering 
115  Profilantrop Association 
116  Prolog Consult 
117  PSO Capacity Building in Developing Countries (Holland) 
118  Red Cross Austria 
119  Red Cross Belgium 
120  Red Cross Bulgaria 
121  Red Cross EU Office 

69 

 
122  Red Cross Finland 
123  Red Cross France 
124  Red Cross Germany 
125  Red Cross Italy 
126  Red Cross Netherlands 
127  Red Cross Sweden 
128  RedR UK 
129  Relief International 
130  Rucinski Consultancy 
131  Samariter International 
132  Save the Children Denmark 
133  Save the Children UK 
134  Service Civique Volontaire 
135  Service Volontaire International, asbl 
136  SOLIDAR 
137  Solidaridad International 
138  Taita Foundation for African Children 
139  Terre des Hommes International Federation 
140  The Main School of Fire Service in Warsaw 
141  THW - German Civil Protection 
142  UNDP - United Nations Development Programme 
143  UNHABITAT 
144  UNHCR - Bureau of Europe 
145  UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund 
146  Universidad de Deuso 
147  UNOPS - United Nations Office for Project Services 
148  UNRWA - United Nations Relief and Works Agency 
149  UNV United Nations Volunteers 
150  UN-WFP - World Food Programme 
151  VOICE - Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies 
152  Voluntary Service Overseas VSO UK  
153  VSO International 
154  VSO Netherlands 
155  Weltwarts - BMZ development volunteer service  
156  World Scout Bureau  
157  World Vision European Union Liaison Office 
158  ZOA Refugee Care 

70