COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Towards the World Humanitarian Summit: A global partnership for principled and effective humanitarian action
Date: 2015-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: aid policy, civil defence, common foreign and security policy, help for victims, humanitarian aid, international conflict, man-made disaster, natural disaster, third country

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.9.2015  SWD(2015) 166 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Towards the World Humanitarian Summit: A global partnership for principled and effective humanitarian action {COM(2015) 419 final}  
 
 
Introduction 

The  European  Union  (EU)  is  a  key  humanitarian  actor.  It  offers  relief  assistance  to  people 
most in need affected by conflicts and natural disasters. It also prepares communities, who are 
victims of recurrent crises, to face future emergencies. 

The Commission has strongly supported the preparations to the World Humanitarian Summit, 
which is the first multi-stakeholder occasion to review the humanitarian action. It presents a 
much-needed opportunity for a critical assessment of the current state of humanitarian affairs. 
The Summit should reinforce what works, but is should also generate a new understanding of 
how the humanitarian system should function effectively in a humanitarian landscape that is 
changing and becoming increasingly challenging. 

The European Union is at the forefront of responding to all major crises globally. It also pays 
attention to "forgotten crises", i.e. situations where important humanitarian needs persist but 
which  attract  little  donor  attention  and  therefore  require  active  humanitarian  advocacy.  The 
EU  is  one  of  the  largest  international  aid  donors  providing  over  EUR  2.3  billion  a  year  in 
partnership with NGOs, UN Agencies and Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. 

The European Union is the only humanitarian donor with global presence. The Commission 
employs  140  international  humanitarian  experts  and  320  national  staff  in  46  field  offices 
located in 41 countries. 

Complementary  to  humanitarian  assistance,  the  Union's  civil  protection  operations  offer 
immediate support with expert teams, rescue equipment, and real-time monitoring. 

Apart from being a donor and an important  operational actor, the Commission is also a key 
policy-setter.  The  Commission  have  developed  numerous  policies  and  tools  to  make 
humanitarian aid more principled and effective, including but not limited to: 

  Guidelines  on  sectoral  policies,  for  example  on  food,  nutrition,  health,  water,  sanitation 

and hygiene, protection, gender, children, disaster risk reduction; 

  Frameworks  to  improve  decision-making  for  funding  allocations,  such  as:  crisis 

assessments and the Index for Risk Management (INFORM); 

 

Instruments for more efficient delivery, for instance cash and vouchers and ECHO Flight; 

  Dedicated capacity building for humanitarian operators through the EU Aid Volunteers. 

These are already part of the EU's contribution to an improved humanitarian action expected 
from the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. 

This  Staff  Working  Document  accompanies  the  Commission  communication  "Towards  the 
World Humanitarian Summit: A global partnership for principled and effective humanitarian 
action". It identifies a sample of issues to represent: 

1.  Existing  policies  and  tools  that  have  already  proven  effective  or  have  potential  for 
success,  and  which  could  be  taken  up  and/or  scaled  up  outside  of  the  European  Union. 
These are issues the Commission will further champion in the run-up to the Summit; 

2.  Issues  that  the  humanitarian  system  should  demonstrate  to  contribute  to  improving 

humanitarian action; and 

3.  EU  internal  policy  commitments  and  operational  mechanisms  for  an  effective  and 

principled humanitarian action that could serve as an example for other regions. 

2 

 
 
 
1.  Successful and promising policies and tools for improved humanitarian action 

1.1 INFORM – Index for Risk Management 

Key message: 
The Index for Risk Management 'INFORM'1 is the first global, open-source tool for assessing 
the  risk  of  humanitarian  crises  and  disasters,  designed  to  be  used  by  governments, 
development agencies, disaster risk reduction actors and others. The purpose of INFORM is 
to  support  objective,  risk-based  decisions  to  help  prevent,  prepare  for  and  respond  to 
humanitarian crises and disasters, and build resilience. It provides common evidence base so 
all governments and organisations can work together. As a composite index, it creates a risk 
profile for every country that can be used to prioritise countries by risk and its components; to 
decide how to prepare and reduce risk; and to monitor risk trends. 

1.  Context 

INFORM  is  a  joint  initiative  of  the  European  Commission  and  the  Inter-Agency  Standing 
Committee (IASC), in partnership with Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 
(OCHA),  UK  Department  for  International  Development  (DFID),  World  Bank,  the 
Assessment  Capacities  Project  (ACAPS),  UN  agencies,  and  many  others.  It  builds  on 
the  Commission's  Global 
previously  recognised  vulnerability  assessments, 
Vulnerability and Crisis Assessment and OCHA's  Global  Focus Model, and adds  additional 
indicators to measure vulnerability and coping capacity, and extends the assessment of need 
for international humanitarian aid to include risk. INFORM simplifies information about risk 
and its components into a simple risk profile for every country. It covers natural and human 
hazards, people's exposure, vulnerability and lack of coping capacity. It covers 191 countries. 

including 

2.  Strengths 

INFORM is a  global and continuously updated tool. It can help identify countries at a high 
risk of humanitarian crises and disasters and ranks them according to the likelihood of needed 
international  assistance  in  the  near  future.  By  using  a  shared,  transparent  and  reliable 
evidence-base provided through INFORM, humanitarian donors and partners have a common 
basis  to  work  together  more  effectively  in  addressing  risks  and  building  resilience.  The 
combination  of  data  is  adaptable  to  different  mandates.  Continuous  improvement  in 
methodology and application is built-in through the partnership and open-source approach. 

3.  Challenges 

Beyond the technical challenges associated with the development of a new model, INFORM 
is neither an early warning nor a real-time assessment tool. Its primary focus on risk does not 
make it a needs assessment prioritisation tool. 

4.  Impact 

INFORM  is  an  innovative  approach  to  analysis  that  involves  INFORM  partners  working 
together,  openly  sharing  data  and  expertise,  and  coming  to  common  conclusions  to  guide 
humanitarian  work.  Although  it  is  only  one  element  of  the  decision-making  process, 
INFORM partners believe that by using a shared and reliable evidence-base on risk, they will 
together be more effective at managing risk and building resilience. 

Facts and figures 

191 countries covered – 0-10 measurement scale – 3 dimensions of risk – 50 indicators used 

1 More information: http://www.inform-index.org/ 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.2 Quality Markers 

Key message: 

The  European  Commission  introduced  in  its  humanitarian  project  cycle  management  two 
markers: gender and age, and resilience. They aim to improve the quality of humanitarian aid 
by  integrating  these  considerations  into  all  stages  of  the  project  cycle  of  Union-funded 
humanitarian actions. They are new tools, more ambitious than the existing markers, ensuring 
due consideration of these issues while allowing to reflect specificities of a given context. 

1.  Context 

The European Commission's Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection 
(DG  ECHO)  took  important  policy  commitments  on  gender-age  and  resilience.2  Integrating 
gender-age and resilience elements into humanitarian aid is crucial to improve its quality and 
effectiveness. 

2.  Strengths 

The  two  markers  build  on  lessons  learned  from  existing  markers  but  represent  a  new 
generation of quality assessment tools, taking into consideration for the first time issues such 
as  vulnerabilities  and  opportunities  to  reduce  future  humanitarian  needs.  The  two  markers 
assess both proposals and project implementation. They focus on quality criteria (to avoid a 
"tick  the  box"  cosmetic  approach)  and  they  are  collaborative  learning  tools,  engaging  both 
partners  and  staff  in  a  constructive  dialogue.  In  addition,  the  gender  and  age  marker  is 
considered as a basis to review the current IASC gender marker. 

3.  Challenges 

Integrating gender-age and resilience into humanitarian action requires capacity building and 
awareness raising efforts towards own staff and partners. A number of trainings were carried 
out by DG ECHO to support the implementation of the gender-age marker. DG ECHO also 
developed and disseminated a toolkit on the use of the markers. Based on the lessons learned 
of  the  application  of  the  gender-age  marker,  DG  ECHO  came  up  with  specific  guidance  on 
the implementation of the resilience marker. 

4.  Impact 

On  the  basis  of  the  marker,  DG  ECHO  is  currently  collaborating  with  other  relevant  actors 
(advisors of the Gender Standby Capacity Project and NGOs) to develop more practical tools 
to  enhance  humanitarian  staff’  capacity  to  mainstream  gender  and  age  at  both  proposal  and 
implementation  phase.  Two  surveys  of  the  first  six  months  of  using  the  resilience  marker 
show a positive change. 

Facts and figures 

An  internal  assessment  of  175  DG  ECHO  projects  indicated  that  most  DG  ECHO  staff 
consider the resilience marker to be a useful additional tool for quality appraisal. The VOICE 
network reviewed the resilience marker with 22 different NGO partners. 67% of respondents 
found the marker contributed to DG ECHO's resilience objectives. Only 6% disagreed. 70% 
thought the marker prompted positive action within their NGO. 

2 Gender in Humanitarian Aid: Different Needs, Adapted Assistance, SWD(2013) 290 final; The EU Approach 
to  Resilience,  COM(2012)  586  final;  Action  Plan  for  Resilience  in  Crisis Prone  Countries,  SWD(2013)  227 
final. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.3 Results Framework: Linking needs, input and results  

Key message: 

Having  the  right  data  at  hand  is  critical  for  strategic  decision  making,  but  also  a  powerful 
communication  and  advocacy  tool.  In  2014,  DG  ECHO  introduced  Key  Results  Indicators 
(KRI) to measure the results projects it funds in a coherent and comprehensive way, building 
on indicators on which different Clusters had already reached broad consensus. They simplify 
and  improve  project  design,  monitoring  and  reporting,  thereby  contributing  to  improved 
project  quality.  Building  on  this  experience,  DG  ECHO  is  currently  developing  a  Results 
Framework, which puts its results into the context of humanitarian needs and risks and links 
them up with DG ECHO internal processes and performance as well resources. Key metrics 
for these four dimensions are presented in a dashboard that enables a global overview as well 
as regional and country level summaries. Through this tool, DG ECHO has quantitative data 
at  hand  to  feed  into  the  narrative  on  its  humanitarian  work  and  to  guide  strategic  decision 
making based on evidence. 

1.  Context 

Globally,  humanitarian  needs  are  likely  to  continue  to  outstrip  available  resources.  At  the 
same time, in the context of overall budget limitation and calls for greater transparency and 
accountability, humanitarian actors have to be able to improve the effectiveness of their aid 
and to strengthen the way they communicate about their achievements and performance. 

2.  Strengths 

The  Results  Framework  which  builds  on  the  KRI  will  provide  DG  ECHO  with  a  powerful 
tool  which  gives  an  overview  of  its  achievements,  internal  processes  and  resources  in  the 
context of humanitarian needs and risks on global, regional and country level. This overview 
is useful for strategic decision making as it helps identifying strengths and weaknesses as well 
as  opportunities  and  bottlenecks  to  improve  aid.  It  also  helps  to  communicate  on  what  DG 
ECHO does, thereby strengthening humanitarian advocacy. 

3.  Challenges 

While  the  indicator  data  collected  through  the  KRI  and  the  Results  Framework  provides 
useful evidence, further, especially qualitative, information is needed to tell the full story and 
take strategic decisions. "Not everything that counts can be counted; and not everything that 
can be counted counts." 

Data quality remains a key challenge in order to ensure reliability of the evidence. Coherence 
among humanitarian actors in terms of collecting and presenting data is vital for system wide 
aid effectiveness, collaboration and advocacy. 

4.  Impact 

The  introduction  of  the  KRI  has  shown  first  effects  in  simplifying  project  design  and 
reporting. Further improvements will become visible with the full roll-out of the DG ECHO 
Results Framework. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
1.4 Cash-based assistance 

Key messages: 

Humanitarian assistance is  still  mainly  delivered as  in-kind assistance. But this is  changing. 
The EU, through DG ECHO, and a number of other donors, sees the potential of cash based 
assistance to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian action 

Cash-based assistance is a people-centred approach. It allows beneficiaries to prioritise their 
basic  needs,  which  vary  as  circumstances  and  events  change.  It  gives  dignity  and  choice  to 
those  who  are  most  vulnerable.  It  allows  them  to  decide  themselves  how  best  to  meet  the 
needs of their families with flexibility. And it helps start rebuilding their lives. 

The EU recognises that cash will not always be the answer and, depending on the context, the 
appropriate modality or combination will need to be put in place – this may be in-kind (where 
for  example  markets  are  weak),  vouchers  (where  specific  outcomes  are  important,  such  as 
nutrition) or cash, or a combination of all three. 

1.  Context 

There is extensive evidence that cash, as distinct even from vouchers, is a highly efficient way 
to deliver assistance.  Concerns over the impact on markets, a tendency to be  more prone to 
corruption,  or  supposed  negative  effects  on  gender  have  all  been  shown  as  unfounded. 
Instead, cash-based assistance is a challenge to the ways the humanitarian assistance has been 
delivered  so  far.  This  may  explain the  limited  extent  to  which  it  is  being  used,  which  costs 
donors  money  and  compromises  the  lives  of  those  affected  by  humanitarian  crises.  As  the 
Summit seeks to render more efficient humanitarian assistance, the potential of cash to make 
donor funding go further and to give beneficiaries what they really want is enormous. 

2.  Strengths 

Strengths of cash-based assistance are simple: dignity, flexibility and choice for beneficiaries, 
efficiency  of  delivery,  so  less  costly  for  donors,  and  effectiveness  –  we  know  that  in-kind 
assistance and even vouchers are exchanged by beneficiaries, at a loss, for cash to meet other 
needs.  By  providing  cash  from  the  outset,  this can  be  avoided  and  boost  effectiveness.  It is 
estimated that cash-based assistance brings 20% of cost efficiencies comparing to other forms. 

3.  Challenges 

The challenges come from the humanitarian system and the way it has grown up around the 
delivery  and  supply  of  in-kind  commodities.  This  is  most  evident  in  the  case  of  food  and 
shelter. Cash-based assistance asks the humanitarian system and its actors to be open to using 
cash:  to  reconsider  way  of  working,  and  to  disassociate  humanitarian  assistance  from  the 
influence of the farm and shipping lobbies. 

4.  Impact 

At  a  practical  level,  cash-based  assistance  made  donors  and  implementers  become  more 
outcome-focused and develop appropriate indicators to measure the impact cash assistance is 
having  on  food  security,  health,  under-nutrition,  etc.  Member  States  agreed  in  the  Council 
conclusions  of  22  June  2015  on  a  set  of  common  principles  on  cash-based  assistance  in 
designing and implementing their responses. 

Facts and figures 

DG ECHO has been able to measure the amount of its assistance delivered in the form of cash 
and vouchers combined. The overall trend is increasing at a rapid rate, from under 7% in 2011 
to a little under 30% in 2014. 

6 

 
 
1.5 The EU Aid Volunteers Initiative – Local capacity-building 

Key message: 

The  EU  Aid  Volunteers  initiative  provides  opportunities  for  volunteers  to  engage  in 
humanitarian  aid.  The  initiative  is  open  to  a  variety  of  profiles,  from  newcomers  to 
experienced  humanitarian  experts.  The  initiative  also  provides  opportunities  for  local 
organisations  and  local  communities,  aiming  at  strengthening  their  capacities  to  deal  with 
disasters.  Standards  on  the  management  of  volunteers  by  humanitarian  organisations  have 
been developed in the context of this initiative. 

1.  Context 

As envisaged by Article 214 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 
the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  set  up  in  April  2014  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers 
initiative aiming to strengthen the Union’s capacity to provide needs-based humanitarian aid 
while  giving  the  European  citizens  an  opportunity  to  be  involved  in  humanitarian  action  in 
third countries showing solidarity with people in need.3 

2.  Strengths 

The initiative will contribute to strengthening the local capacity and resilience of vulnerable 
or  disaster-affected  communities  in  third  countries.  It  will  bring  together  volunteers  and 
organisations  from  different  countries  to  build partnership through joint  projects. A  training 
programme will ensure volunteers are well-trained and prepared before deployment. The on-
line  volunteer  opportunity  is  an  innovative  approach  which  will  offer  additional  ways  for 
participation.  The  need  assessments'  methodology  is  similar  to  that  for  humanitarian  aid 
actions taking into account the specificity of the EU Aid Volunteers and excluding ex-ante the 
areas with on-going armed conflict to which volunteers should not be deployed. 

3.  Challenges 

After  the adoption  of  the  legislation  in  2014,  the  implementation  of the EU  Aid  Volunteers 
initiative  will  become  operational  at  the  end  of  2015/early  2016.  It  is  important  to  have  a 
critical mass of organisations to be certified in order to respond to the call for deployment. 

4.  Impact 

The  pilot  action  of  the  EU  Aid  Volunteers  initiative  (2011-2014)  already  proved  to  be 
effective  in  testing  different  models  or  methods  of  implementing  the  distinct  dimensions  of 
Aid Volunteers.4 300 volunteers were deployed in 62 third countries. 

The  progress  and  the  quality  of  volunteering  will  be  strictly  monitored  on  the  basis  of  the 
objectives and indicators established in the legislation. A dedicated monitoring framework is 
developed  ensuring  that  the impact on  the  different actors and  stakeholders  can  be assessed 
and demonstrated. 

Facts and figures 

The budget for the EU Aid Volunteers initiative is EUR 147.9 million from 2015 to 2020. By 
2020,  18  400  opportunities  including:  4  000  deployments  of  EU  citizens  worldwide;  4  400 
people  from  local  organisations  in  non-EU,  disaster  affected  countries;  10  000  'online 
volunteering opportunities. 

3 Regulation (EU) No 375/2014 of 3 April 2014 establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps 

(‘EU Aid Volunteers initiative’), OJ L 122, 24.4.2014, p. 1. 

4  Commission  decisions  adopting  the  annual  work  programme  for  Preparatory  Action  –  European  Voluntary 

Humanitarian Aid Corps – 'EU Aid Volunteers' (EVHAC), C(2011) 9460 final and C(2013) 2 final. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
1.6 Humanitarian-development cooperation for building resilience  

Key Message: 

Resilience must be a common goal for both humanitarian and development actors in order to 
reduce humanitarian needs as well as build inclusive and stable societies. Improved services 
and opportunities, mitigation of risks and protection from shocks will improve the livelihoods 
of the most vulnerable and reduce suffering and loss. When crisis strikes, an early response 
should address immediate needs but also help affected populations to avoid future losses. 

1.  Context 

Resilience  requires  long-term  efforts  that  aim  to  reduce  vulnerabilities  and  strategically 
address not only the immediate consequences but also the root causes of crises. This is crucial 
to  avoid  unaffordable  and  recurrent  losses,  accelerate  recovery  and  protect  livelihoods,  and 
ultimately improve the lives of the most vulnerable. Resilience is about aid effectiveness: by 
combining  humanitarian  and  development  experiences,  we  can  optimise  resources  and  find 
durable solutions. Addressing causal reasons for vulnerability and taking pre-emptive action 
is  more  cost  effective  and  socially  responsible  than  dealing  with  the  consequences  of  un-
addressed risk and vulnerability. 

2.  Strengths 

The  Commission  has  put  in  place  strong  policy  commitments  on  resilience,  including  the 
Resilience Communication and Action Plan, the Communications on Disaster Risk Reduction 
and the Post-Hyogo framework.5 The Commission factors resilience in bilateral programmes, 
thematic  instruments  and  all  humanitarian  implementation  plans.  Its  humanitarian  and 
development  departments  increasingly  support  national  and  local  strategies  based  on  joint 
identification of risks and vulnerabilities. Implementation is supported by training, analytical 
and planning tools. In  2015, a resilience marker was introduced for all DG ECHO  projects. 
DG ECHO disaster risk reduction programme (DIPECHO) has been contributing to disaster 
risk reduction and resilience building since 1996. 

3.  Challenges 

Key  challenges  include:  the  need  for  flexible  and  predictable  funding;  addressing  extreme 
poverty and vulnerability, which is often an issue of governance; improving the aid system by 
linking humanitarian and development fora for better linkages between the two streams. 

4.  Impact 

Examples  of  concrete  impact  are  numerous.  In  2015,  the  EU  produced  a  "resilience 
compendium" with 29 different case studies where a resilience approach led to better results. 
In  Nepal,  DG  ECHO  preparedness  support  helped  the  emergency  healthcare  facilities  in 
Kathmandu  function  effectively  in  the  aftermath  of  the  earthquake.  The  resilience 
programmes - SHARE in the Horn of Africa and AGIR in West Africa - are also examples of 
the EU's successful resilience efforts. In Ethiopia, the RESET programme benefits 2.5 million 
people by strengthening their coping capacities in drought prone and food insecure areas. 

Facts and figures 

In 2014, 13% of DG ECHO's humanitarian funding went to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 
activities,  more  than  EUR  122  million.  DG  ECHO  is  committed  to  strengthening  resilience 
worldwide. More than 48% of all DG ECHO funded projects include DRR activities. 

5 The EU Approach to Resilience, COM(2012) 586 final; Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries, 

SWD(2013) 227 final; The Post-Hyogo Framework for Action, COM(2014) 216 final. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
1.7 DG ECHO's relations with military and foreign policy stakeholders 

Key message: 

DG ECHO has developed strong relations with security actors to ensure appropriate, context-
specific response in all situations. DG ECHO aims to ensure better coordination of the EU's 
foreign  policy  tools  with  humanitarian  assistance  measures.  The  use  of  military  assets  and 
capabilities in support of humanitarian operations should be a 'last resort', i.e. where there is 
no  comparable  civilian  alternative  and  only  when  military  assets  can  meet  a  critical 
humanitarian need.6 DG ECHO maintains at times a certain separation from other EU policies 
in line with humanitarian principles. DG ECHO therefore tailors its civil-military relations in 
headquarters and in the field to each specific context to ensure the highest effectiveness. 

1.  Context 

Civil and military security actors are present in crises where DG ECHO delivers humanitarian 
assistance.  Certain  humanitarian  emergencies  require  niche  capabilities  or  specialised 
equipment that is only available from the military community, for example strategic airlifts, 
engineers for road and bridge repairs. Exceptionally, assistance by the military might also be 
required  to  ensure  safety  conditions  to  humanitarian  workers  for  delivering  aid.  In  such 
situations,  coordination  is  essential  to  ensure  that  humanitarian  assistance  abides  by  the 
principles of independence, neutrality and impartiality. 

2.  Strengths 

In crises, DG ECHO's engagement with the European External Action Service has resulted in 
more  clear-cut  mandates  for  the  EU's  military  operations and  coordination  arrangements.  In 
natural disasters, standing arrangements for long-haul transport allow DG ECHO to fill gaps 
of strategic transportation with military assets, albeit for civilian purposes. 

3.  Challenges 

In  crises,  DG  ECHO  partners  often  have  different  policies  for  their  relations  with  military 
actors  and  might  not  abide  by  humanitarian  country-team  positions  either.  While  more 
stringent policies on civil-military coordination may diminish effectiveness, laxer approaches 
may jeopardise access and security for all other actors. 

4.  Impact 

Recent  military  CSDP  (Common  Security  and  Defence  Policy)  operations,  such  as  the  EU 
military  operation  in  the  Central  African  Republic  (EUFOR  RCA)7  and  the  EU  military 
mission  to  contribute  to  the  training  of  the  Malian  Armed  Forces  (EUTM  Mali),8  have 
contributed  to  better  consistency  with  other  EU  assistance  measures    through  their  well-
crafted mandates and coordination arrangements. 

Facts and figures 

The EU system of medical evacuation from Ebola-affected countries was set up as a mix of 
military and civilian contributions. 14 medical evacuation flights were carried out by military 
aircraft  from  Ebola  affected  countries.  Dutch  naval  ship  transported  to  Ebola  affected 
countries coordinated in-kind assistance of twice 5000MT. 

6 European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, OJ C 25, 30.1.2008, para 20. 
7 
Central 
conclusions 

Council 

on 

African 

Republic, 

8 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/140666.pdf 

Council 

Mali, 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/134756.pdf 

conclusions 

Foreign 

Affairs 

3217th 

on 

Council 

meeting 

9 

 
 
                                                 
1.8 Copernicus Emergency Management Service (EMS) 

Key message: 
The  Copernicus  Emergency  Management  Service  (EMS)9  supports  planning  and  decision-
making  processes  in  all  disaster  risk  management  areas:  prevention,  preparedness,  response 
and  recovery.  Managed  by  the  European  Commission,  EMS  provides  timely  and  accurate 
geospatial information derived from satellite, aerial and other geospatial data.  EMS is global, 
free  and  its  activation  requests  are  processed  by the  Commission's  Emergency  Response 
Coordination Centre (ERCC). 

1.  Context 

Copernicus  is  an  EU  Programme  aimed  at  developing  European  information  services  based 
on Earth Observation and in-situ data analyses to support a broad range of environmental and 
security  applications  and  decisions  including  the  efficient  management  of  emergency 
situations  and  the  improvement  of  the  security  and  safety  of  the  citizen.  The  programme’s 
Emergency  Management  Service  provides  geospatial  information  to  serve  all  disaster  risk 
management work by the EU and its partners. 

2.  Strengths 

The EMS is global in scope and operates a free and open information access policy. It is fully 
operational 24/7/365 since April 2012, providing fast (hours-days) and reliable information to 
enhance the response capability of rescue and relief operations.  EMS integrates information 
from European and Global situational awareness systems10 to improve its timeliness. Through 
its  Risk  &  Recovery  Mapping  component,  EMS  supports  activities  beyond  the  response 
phase. EMS serves the geospatial information needs of all actors engaged in all disaster risk 
management areas, helping all to be more effective in managing risks and disasters. Through 
its validation component, EMS strives to improve its processes and information products. 

3.  Challenges 

Being fully operational, the EMS must continuously keep abreast of, and integrate, advances 
in processing and analysis methods as well as technologies to ensure it consistently delivers 
relevant,  reliable  and  timely  information.  The  EC  is  enhancing  the  promotion  of  the  EMS 
Risk  &  Recovery  Mapping  component  to  ensure  its  effectiveness  in  serving  longer  term 
prevention and post-disaster processes beyond the emergency phase. 

4.  Impact 

Until  July  2015,  142  EMS  activations  globally  of  which  43%  were  triggered in  response  to 
risks,  emergencies  and  humanitarian  crises  outside  the  EU.  Its  main  impact  has  been  to 
support  civil  protection,  rescue  and  humanitarian  aid  operations  where  its  information  has 
assisted in establishing situational awareness before, during and after disasters. 

Facts and figures 

Since April 2012, 61 EMS activations outside the EU: 7 in support to disaster risk mitigation 
planning  and  reconstruction  monitoring  activities  (e.g.  Nepal,  Haiti)  and  54  in  support  to 
emergency planning (e.g. Nepal earthquake and Typhoon Haiyan). 

9 More information: http://emergency.copernicus.eu/ 
10 GDACS, EFAS and EFFIS: http://www.gdacs.org/, https://www.efas.eu, http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/effis/  

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.  Contribution from the humanitarian system 

Key message: 

The  current  Inter-Agency  Standing  Committee  (IASC)-based  humanitarian  system  requires 
improvement.  In  view  of  changed  geopolitical  realities  and  unprecedented  humanitarian 
challenges,  it  has  to  be  more  inclusive  and  effective  by  applying  different  modus  operandi 
depending on the context and available capacities. The Transformative Agenda has to be fully 
rolled out and systematically implemented for a strengthened and coordinated response. 

1.  Context 

Two  main  humanitarian  reform  initiatives,  namely  the  2005  humanitarian  reform  and  the 
2011 Transformative Agenda, have aimed to make the multilateral system more predictable, 
effective  and  accountable.  However,  the  system  has  been  challenged  by  too  many  too 
complex crises stretching its capacities and resources beyond limits. 

2.  Strengths 

The  system  has  shown  progress  in  the  recent  years  and  it  is  capable  of  providing  effective 
response  where  there  is  good  access,  adequate  funding,  and  sufficient  visibility.  There  are 
many  examples  of  humanitarian  system  having  a  positive  impact  in  crises  in  terms  of 
addressing  needs,  ensuring  coordination,  engaging  with  affected  populations,  scaling  up 
structures and personnel, cooperating with new actors such as the private sector, and finding 
durable solutions to improving resilience in the future. Recent examples include response to 
Haiyan and famine in Sahel. The system is still relevant as it steps in when governments do 
not  have  the  capacity  or  are  unwilling  to  respond  to  a  crisis,  it  ensures  coordination,  and, 
ultimately, it is the only universally accepted system, backed by all UN Member States. 

3.  Challenges 

The  humanitarian  system  faces  some  criticism  due  to  real  or  perceived  weaknesses  in 
leadership and technical capacity, especially in the field; avoiding direct involvement in areas 
with significant security and logistical issues; lack of flexibility and effectiveness in decision-
making, in particular where a number of multi-mandated UN agencies have a responsibility to 
respond; as well as high administrative and transaction costs. There are too many drivers of 
change, sometimes with competing interests, while the reform agenda is one. The system has 
struggled  to  align  efforts  across  agencies  and  NGOs,  reconcile  competing  mandates  and 
produce  basic  information  for  strategic  decision-making.  Numerous  actors  and  in  particular 
UN agencies compete for the same limited humanitarian funding, claim a lead role based on 
their individual mandates and prefer not to be coordinated. Rapid deployment of humanitarian 
coordinators (HCs) remains at times a challenge and multiple-hatted HCs struggle to ensure 
principled  humanitarian  action.  The  coordination  model  for  mixed  settings  between  OCHA 
and UNHCR has not been fully rolled out in a pragmatic manner depending on the context. 
Clusters  are  crucial  for  effective  humanitarian  coordination  in-country  but  require  adequate 
resources and better inter-cluster coordination. They should also establish a systemic linkage 
to  development  fora.  Further  progress  also  has  to  be  made  in  integrating  accountability  to 
affected populations throughout the programme cycle. 

4.  Impact 

The  IASC  Transformative  Agenda  has  the  potential  to  address  main  weaknesses  and 
shortcomings of the multilateral system. Its successful full implementation is a prerequisite to 
ensure  truly  coordinated  humanitarian  action  based  on  strong  humanitarian  leadership, 
effective coordination and due accountability to affected populations and donors. 

11 

 
 
 
3.  EU internal policies and mechanisms as an example for other regions 

3.1 European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid 

Key message: 

Since 2007, the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid has been the strategic framework 
guiding the actions of the EU to deliver effective and quality humanitarian assistance.11 It is 
an expression of the highest political commitment by the Council, the European Parliament, 
the Commission, and the EU Member States to a common objective of providing principled 
and  needs-based  emergency  response  aimed  at  preserving  life,  preventing  and  alleviating 
human suffering and maintaining human dignity in the midst of natural and man-made crises.  
The  Consensus  has  been  a  catalyst  behind  policy  development  and  increasing  coordination 
and  cooperation  at  the  EU  level.  It  has  also  supported  EU  engagement  at  the  international 
level, including on good donorship practices, systemic improvements, and partnerships. 

1.  Context 

As needs are outstripping resources in an increasingly challenging global context, it is more 
important  than  ever  to  deliver  more  effectively  and  in  a  more  coordinated  and  principled 
manner. The Consensus sets a common and forward-looking framework for the EU, a major 
humanitarian donor, to pursue such a course and also inspire and engage other actors in the 
context of the World Humanitarian Summit to follow suit. 

2.  Strengths 

The Consensus confirms commitment to humanitarian principles and needs-based assistance, 
and  confirms  that  humanitarian  aid  is  not  a  crisis  management  tool.  The  respect  of 
international law and Good Humanitarian Donorship are laid down as guiding principles for 
EU  action.  The  EU  pursues  coordination,  coherence  and  complementarity  internally  and 
externally, and supports quality, effectiveness and accountability of its actions while engaging 
with a variety of implementing partners. The Consensus recognises that civil protection  and 
military assets and capabilities can only be used in particular circumstances and in line with 
relevant guidelines and complying with the humanitarian principles. The EU is committed to 
support  the  development  of  UN-led  international  humanitarian  action  to  increase  global 
capacity  and  avoid  duplication  of  efforts.12  The  Consensus  emphasises  the  importance  of 
enhancing the aid continuum from preparedness all the way to transition to development. 

3.  Challenges 

The political commitment expressed in the Consensus is strong but in order to have a tangible 
impact it requires implementation both in policy frameworks at EU and Member State level 
and, ultimately, in actions on the ground. 

4.  Impact 

The Consensus has triggered changes to the humanitarian aid approaches of several European 
donors. It prompted the creation of Council's Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food 
Aid  (COHAFA).  It  helped  to  develop  common  strategic  positions  at  international  fora.  DG 
ECHO  in  particular  has  greatly  advanced  on  thematic  policy  guidance,  led  on  several  best 
practice and policy initiatives, including resilience and disaster risk reduction, and stepped up 
its activities on civil-military coordination and engagement with civil protection actors. 

11 European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, op cit., p. 1. 
12 For example, the Migrants in Countries in Crisis initiative aims at improving the ability of States and other 
stakeholders to prepare for, respond to, alleviate suffering, and protect the dignity and rights of migrants caught 
in countries in situations of acute crisis. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
3.2 Civil Protection mechanism 

Key message: 

Since  2001,  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  ("UCPM")  provides  a  comprehensive 
framework for EU civil protection cooperation.13 All 28 Member States and six neighbouring 
states participate in the UCPM to effectively prevent, protect against and respond to disasters. 
It covers numerous actions for disaster prevention (risk assessments, projects), preparedness 
(training, exercises, early warnings), and response (coordination, transport co-financing, field 
missions). It is supported by a 24/7 Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and a 
voluntary pool of pre-committed assets for better planned and predictable response. 

1.  Context 

The  role  of  the  European  Commission  in  UCPM  is  to  encourage  and  promote  cooperation 
between the Participating States on all issues related to disaster (risk) management, including 
running of the Brussels-based ERCC, the real-time Common Emergency Communication and 
Information  System  ("CECIS"),  and  the  ERCC.  The  Commission  manages  also  the  EU  co-
financing of many prevention and preparedness actions. 

2.  Strengths 

The UCPM combines expertise of 34 highly professional and well equipped civil protection 
organisations.  The  individual  experts  and  teams  are  highly  connected  and  used  to 
collaborating efficiently together under stress. When responding to disasters outside Europe, 
the ERCC is facilitating the coordination among the UCPM countries and support the overall 
international relief efforts led by the UN. The voluntary  pool  of response  capacities has  the 
ability  to  provide  highly  specialised  and  certified  response  teams  around  the  world  at  the 
request  of  an  affected  state,  the  UN  or  a  number  of  international  organisations.  A  limited 
UCPM  capacity  programme  has  the  potential  to  develop  highly  specialised  assets  for 
extraordinary disasters, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). 

3.  Challenges 

Many experts are available mainly for the immediate response phase. New models of closer 
cooperation with the UN are currently being explored to improve access to disaster areas. 

4.  Impact 

Examples  are  numerous.  Bosnia  floods:  23  countries  provided  assistance  consisting  of:  850 
rescuers, 1750 people rescued/evacuated persons by helicopter or boats by the EU teams; 311 
flights  for  rescue  and  aid  delivery  operations;  4  billion  litres  of  water  pumped;  1.3  million 
litres  of  water  purified.  Ebola:  the  Dutch  vessel  Karel  Doorman  transported  from  The 
Netherlands to West Africa a relief cargo from 11 European countries, UNICEF and WFP. It 
sailed twice with vehicles, ambulances, mobile hospitals, protective and medical equipment, 
medicines, and non-food relief items. The UCPM co-financed the transport costs. 

Facts and figures 

34  Participating  States  in  the  UCPM,  215  activations  since  2001,  24/7  ERCC  availability, 
provider of more than 1000 satellite maps in recent years, more than 100 flights co-financed 
for  Ebola  crisis  in  2014  alone.  7500  training  places  since  2001,  36  full  scale  European 
exercises,  EUR  34.5  million  of  grants  for  specialised  cooperation  projects,  800  experts  in 
exchange programmes. 

13  Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  No  1313/2013/EU  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection 

Mechanism, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924. 

13