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, help for victims, humanitarian aid, international conflict, international human rights law, international meeting, man-made disaster, natural disaster

I. 

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.9.2015  COM(2015) 419 final   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 {SWD(2015) 166 final}  
 
 
I.  The World Humanitarian Summit — reshaping humanitarian action in a changing 

landscape 

a)  Introduction 

The  United  Nations  (UN)  Secretary-General  has  called  the  first  ever  World  Humanitarian 
Summit  to  take  place  on  23-24  May  2016  in  Istanbul.  The  summit  is  as  a  response  to  an 
unprecedented  increase  in  the  number  of  people  affected  by  conflicts  and  natural  disasters, 
including the highest number of displacements since World War II. The summit presents the 
global  community  with  a  unique  opportunity  to  establish  an  international  consensus 
reaffirming  the  principles  of  humanitarian  aid  and  strengthening  humanitarian  action.  The 
summit  will  bring  together  governments,  donors,  implementing  organisations,1  the  private 
sector and representatives of affected populations who, where needed, should commit to more 
effective ways of working together for the common objective of saving lives and alleviating 
suffering.  As  a  result,  the  summit  will  influence,  and  possibly  even  change,  the  current 
humanitarian modus operandi to better serve people in need. 

The European Union (EU) and its Member States are major humanitarian  donors. Together, 
they constitute a key policy-setter with global operational experience. They are expected by 
many stakeholders to contribute to the success of the summit. This Communication, building 
on the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid,2 sets out the Union’s vision for reshaping 
humanitarian action and proposes recommendations that should be endorsed by the summit. 
The underlying message is to build and reinforce partnerships among a multitude of actors. It 
is only through linked and coordinated action that the global community can respond to the 
escalating and multifaceted crises and disasters that demand humanitarian assistance. 

b)  A changing humanitarian landscape 

Humanitarian crises have increased in number, complexity and severity over the last 25 years. 
In  2014,  there  were  more  than  400  politically-driven  conflicts  that  affected  the  lives  of  50 
million people. Over 40 of these conflicts involved conventional warfare or terrorism.3 Many 
were ideologically inspired and had dramatic regional repercussions with knock-on effects on 
access  to  humanitarian  aid,  the  protection  of  affected  populations  and  the  security  of 
humanitarian workers. The lack of willingness among some actors to find political solutions 
means that these crises become protracted,  generating needs for humanitarian assistance for 
years if not decades. 

Natural disasters — some related to climate change and linked to mega trends, such as water 
scarcity,  urbanisation  and  demographic  pressures  —  affect  the  lives  of  100  million  people 
each year.4 Many of these disasters recur before communities have time to rebuild. 

Social  and  economic  fragility  fuels  humanitarian  crises.  Since  1990,  the  proportion  of 
extremely poor people living in fragile states — where governments are unable or unwilling 
to  provide  either  basic  services  or  social  equality  —  has  increased.  This  means  that  today 
over 250 million people are either already affected by, or exposed to, humanitarian crises.5 

1 Implementing organisations deliver humanitarian aid, e.g. UN agencies, international organisations, Red Cross 

and Red Crescent Movement, NGOs. They can be international, regional, national, or community-based. 

2 The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, OJ C 25, 30.1.2008, pp. 1-12. 
3Heidelberg 

Institute 

International  Conflict  Research,  Conflict  Barometer  2014,  pp.  14-15, 

for 

http://www.hiik.de/de/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2014.pdf.  

4 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, World Disasters Report 2014, p. 223, 

https://www.ifrc.org/Global/Documents/Secretariat/201410/WDR%202014.pdf. 

5 World Bank, Fragility, Conflict and Violence, 

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/overview.  

2 

 
 
                                                            
These  trends,  and  their  interdependence,  have  led  to  unprecedented  human  suffering  and 
record humanitarian needs. In mid-2015, nearly 79 million people in 37 countries are in need 
of humanitarian assistance, including over 59 million displaced people.6 

The humanitarian system is being challenged to do more, for more people, and at greater cost. 
Given the scale of today’s crises and disasters, funding to cover humanitarian needs cannot 
keep up, despite record contributions by donors.7 

But the humanitarian landscape has changed not only because of multiplied challenges. It is 
also  evolving  because  a  greater  number  of  more  diverse  actors  contribute  to  humanitarian 
efforts.  This  brings  additional  resources,  but  also  changes  the  way  the  humanitarian 
community plans, coordinates and responds.8 Consequently, the UN-coordinated system has 
to  adapt  to  remain  relevant  and  add  value.  Despite  progress  resulting  from  the  2005 
humanitarian reform and the 2011 Transformative Agenda,9 the system still often falls short 
of expectations on leadership, coordination and accountability. Above all, it can no longer be 
perceived  as  a  small  group  of  organisations  and  donors  driven  by  ’Western  values’.  The 
summit  should  thus  recognise  and  embrace  the  diversity  of  humanitarian  actors,  while 
reconfirming humanitarian principles and addressing shortcomings in humanitarian action. 

II.  Key recommendations for the World Humanitarian Summit 

A wide spectrum of humanitarian actors participated in the preparations for the summit and 
shared  their  ideas  on  improving  humanitarian  aid.  This  Communication  builds  on  these 
discussions.  It  recommends  a  global  partnership  to  reinforce  the  world  community’s 
solidarity with victims  of conflicts and disasters, using humanitarian principles as a starting 
point  and  advocating  for  concrete  improvements  in  the  humanitarian  system.  The 
recommendations  are  complementary  and  interrelated  and  have  a  single  aim:  to  enable  the 
humanitarian  community  to  work  together  towards  its  common  objectives  of  saving  lives, 
preventing crises and disasters, and enabling recovery. 

1.  A global partnership for principled humanitarian action 

a)  Reaffirming the values underpinning humanitarian aid and committing to action 

The  values  of  dignity,  integrity  and  solidarity  are  universal.  They  are  at  the  core  of  all 
cultures,  regardless  of  geography,  ethnicity  or  religion.  The  humanitarian  principles  of 
humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence are a concrete expression of these shared 
values.10  They  are  also  an  operational  necessity  helping  to  provide  access  to  assistance,  to 
protect the most vulnerable and to ensure the security of humanitarian workers. 

6  OCHA,  Global  Humanitarian  Overview  June  2015,  https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/programme-
cycle/space/document/global-humanitarian-overview-2015-june-status-report; UNHCR, Global Trends Report 
2014, http://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html.  

7 In 2014, the UN requested EUR 17 billion for humanitarian assistance, the highest appeal in history. Donors 
responded  with  a  record  EUR  10  billion,  but  this  still  fell  short  of  covering  all  needs.  OCHA,  Global 
Humanitarian Overview December 2014, op cit. 

8  Humanitarian  community  refers  to  the  collective  of  humanitarian  actors.  Humanitarian  actors  include  all 
entities that are involved in any aspect of humanitarian action, e.g.: governments, implementing organisations 
donors, international and regional organisations, the private actors, academia, or local communities. 

9  The  Transformative  Agenda  aims  to  improve  the  humanitarian  community’s  response  to  emergencies.  It 
focuses  on  leadership,  coordination  and  accountability.  It  builds  on  the  humanitarian  reform.  More 
information: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/iasc-transformative-agenda  

10 European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, op cit., p.1, paragraph 10. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
However,  as  comprehensive  solutions  to  crises remain  elusive,  these  basic  values  are  being 
increasingly  disregarded.  This  is  reflected  in  the  increasing  breaches  of  international 
humanitarian law, including the universally ratified Geneva Conventions, and the inability of 
States and the international community to hold perpetrators to account. 

Most  humanitarian  work  takes  place  in  conflicts  in  the  context  of  a  fragile  political 
environment  and  weak  socio-economic  development.  Solving  conflicts  that  cause  human 
suffering is not the task of humanitarian responders. Nevertheless, humanitarian actors need 
to understand the political and socio-economic environment in which they operate. While it is 
clear  that  humanitarian  aid  is  neither  a  political,  military  nor  a  peace-building  tool, 
humanitarian  actors  must  work  with  others  —  and  bring  to  their  attention  the  atrocities  of 
humanitarian crises — to enable them to take appropriate action.11 

Recommendation: 

•  The  summit  presents  a  unique  opportunity  for  a  renewed  collective  commitment 
confirming  our  collective  responsibility  to  protect  human  lives  and  to  deliver 
humanitarian  aid.  It  should  call  for  all  means,  be  they  political,  development  or 
humanitarian, to be deployed to this effect by the respective actors. The summit outcome 
should  confirm  the  common  basics:  the  values  of  dignity,  integrity  and  solidarity; 
humanitarian principles; the respect of obligations under international humanitarian law; 
and the commitment to keep humanitarian work distinct from political agendas. 

b)  Ensuring access 

Operational experience shows that humanitarian principles indeed facilitate access. Access is 
primarily  about  people’s  ability  to  benefit  from  aid,  and  facilitating  humanitarian  actors’ 
access to affected people is the fundamental precondition of humanitarian relief. 

However, the nature of conflicts has led to increased attacks on humanitarian personnel and 
theft  of  assets.  Consequently,  many  affected  regions  have  turned  into  no  go  zones  for 
humanitarian workers. As a result, vulnerable populations are routinely denied access to aid. 
Every  effort  must  be  undertaken  to  increase  awareness  of  the  universal  values  underlying 
humanitarian  action,  in  particular  in  fragile  states.  The  dialogue  with  parties  to  a  conflict, 
especially non-state actors, should refocus on the objective needs of the affected people. 

Some  host  governments  or  non-state  actors  hinder  humanitarian  access  by  imposing 
restrictions  on  movement  and  bureaucratic  obstacles  to  workers  and  supplies  or  by  not 
ensuring  their  protection.  The  ongoing  work  of  the  International  Law  Commission  on  the 
’Protection of persons in the event of disasters’ should provide guidance in this respect.12 At 
the  same  time,  implementing  organisations  occasionally  shy  away  from  being  present  in 
difficult areas. Furthermore, in some situations, certain donor governments’ counter-terrorism 
measures  can  potentially  affect  the  work  of  humanitarian  actors,  who  may  face  a  dilemma 
between not responding to humanitarian needs or risking criminal prosecution. As a result of 
all such actions, there is or can be uneven delivery of critical assistance. 

Recommendations: 

•  Humanitarian actors should engage in a more robust dialogue and advocacy with parties 
to conflicts to ensure access, protection and security. Local communities, and local civil 
society in particular, should be encouraged and empowered to advocate to the parties to a 
conflict for the universal values underlying humanitarian action. 

11 The EU's comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises, (JOIN(2013)30). 
12 International Law Commission, Protection of persons in the event of disasters, Draft Articles, GE 14-60901, 

http://legal.un.org/docs/?symbol=A/CN.4/L.831. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
•  Governments  should  first  and  foremost  ensure  a  safe  and  secure  environment  for 
humanitarian  action.  They  should  also  have  in  place  an  appropriate  legal  and  policy 
framework  to  facilitate  humanitarian  access: a)  for  relief  personnel:  as  regard  privileges 
and  immunities,  visa  and  entry  requirements,  work  permits,  freedom  of  movement;  as 
well  as  enabling  principled  humanitarian  action  in  the  context  of  counter-terrorism 
measures;  b)  for  equipment  and  goods  as  regard:  customs  requirements  and  tariffs, 
taxation and transport. 

• 

Implementing organisations should increase their presence in remote and dangerous areas 
to  ensure  proximity  to  affected  populations.  This  requires  strict  but  enabling  security 
protocols, the deployment of qualified and trained staff, and cooperation with those who 
have access. 

c)  Putting protection at the heart of the humanitarian response 

Humanitarian  crises  often  make  the  affected  populations  vulnerable  to  exploitation  and  ill-
treatment.  The  disregard  of  humanitarian  principles  and  international  humanitarian  law 
exposes them to further insecurity, discrimination, abuse or threat to lives. Children, women 
and girls, the elderly, the disabled are often the most vulnerable. It should be underlined that 
States have the primary responsibility to protect people affected by humanitarian crises. But 
when they fail or if they themselves perpetrate violations of international humanitarian law, 
humanitarian actors are bound to act. 
Protecting people has not yet been addressed in humanitarian action to the extent it should.13 
This  is the  result of factors  such as a lack of strategic direction, limited capacity, diverging 
interpretations  of  protection,  and  the  inability  to  connect  with  affected  communities  in 
conflict  environments.  There  must  be  a  renewed  call  to  place  protection  at  the  centre  of 
humanitarian response. While being solely needs-based, humanitarian activities should aim to 
ensure respect for the rights of all individuals in accordance with international humanitarian, 
human rights and refugee law. At the same time, humanitarian action should support, and not 
be a substitute for, effective existing community-based protection mechanisms. 

Humanitarian actors alone cannot ensure the protection of beneficiaries. Stronger links should 
be forged between humanitarian actors and the human rights community. However, it must be 
clear  that  humanitarian  action  should  remain  neutral,  impartial  and  independent  to  avoid 
exposing the affected population and relief workers to attacks from parties to a conflict, and 
to the risk of being denied access.14 

Recommendations: 

•  The humanitarian community should systematically integrate protection into humanitarian 
response,  taking  into  account  the  vulnerabilities  and  capacities  of  specific  population 
groups  in  given  contexts  and the threats  they  face.  Implementing  organisations,  through 
relevant coordination mechanisms such as humanitarian country teams or clusters, should 
develop  comprehensive  protection  strategies  covering  analysis,  programming,  and 
monitoring, and should have dedicated staff working on protection. 

13 

Placing 

UNHCR, 

Protection 

2015, 
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/557ea67c4.pdf; IASC, Principals' Statement on the Centrality of Protection in 
Humanitarian  Action  2015,  https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/protection-priority-global-protection-
2015, 
on 
cluster; 
https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/documents/oom_protection_english.pdf . 

Humanitarian 

Background 

Protection 

OCHA, 

Centre 

Action 

Paper 

the 

at 

of 

14  Action  Plan on Human  Rights  and Democracy  (2015-2019)  -  Keeping  human  rights  at  the heart of  the  EU 

agenda, (JOIN(2015)16). 

5 

 
 
                                                            
•  Cooperation  between  the  humanitarian  and  human  rights  communities,  both  being 
protection  actors,  should  be  reinforced.  However,  humanitarian  staff  should  remain 
exempt  from  reporting  requirements  that  could  compromise  their  neutrality,  impartiality 
and independence, or be harmful to access. 

2. A global partnership for effective humanitarian action 

a)  A global partnership on the basics of humanitarian effectiveness 

The changing humanitarian landscape requires the humanitarian community to be much more 
effective  than  today.  No  humanitarian  crisis  is  the  same  —  situations  differ.  Yet,  in  many 
respects,  the  humanitarian  system  still  follows  a  one-size-fits-all  approach,  which  does  not 
always adequately meet needs or ensure the most efficient delivery. Moreover, currently there 
are  no  reliable  and  comparable  assessments  of  humanitarian  needs.  The  current  system 
involves multiple data collections and disparate analyses leading to differing assessments and 
competition for funds. These inefficiencies cannot continue. 

Effective  humanitarian  action  requires  reliable  disaggregated  information  on  needs  and 
available  capacities,  including  non-traditional  actors  if  they  make  a  relevant  contribution. 
This  requires  systematic  data  collection  by  those  present  on  the  ground.  Once  data  is 
collected,  it  should  be  shared  among  humanitarian  actors  and  used  for  joint  analysis  and 
coordinated needs assessments. 

Quality,  results,  cost-efficiency  and  accountability  to  affected  populations  are  also  key 
elements of humanitarian effectiveness. There is a need for common tools to measure whether 
the assistance addresses actual needs and brings the expected impact. In parallel, in order to 
maximise the reach and relevance of action, there should be mechanisms in place to ensure 
that  the  views  of  affected  populations,  particularly  women,  are  considered  throughout  the 
response.  All  of  these  efforts  should  be  underpinned  by  functioning  financial  tracking,  if 
possible  to  the  level  of  actual  aid  delivered  to  beneficiaries,  to  avoid  gaps  and  overlaps.  It 
turn, this approach should facilitate evaluation of results to make further improvements. 

Research,  innovation,  and  scientific  solutions  can  help  improve  the  effectiveness  of 
humanitarian action, both as regard decision-making and aid delivery. Apart from traditional 
partnerships,  cooperation  with  academic 
research  networks,  scientific 
institutions, 
communities, and the private sector is crucial in this regard. 

Humanitarian  effectiveness  is  about  putting  collective  responsibility  above  individual 
institutional interests. It is only through the pooling of all knowledge, expertise and resources 
that  the  humanitarian  community  can  achieve  greater  impact.  The  UN  system  should  be  an 
integral  part  of  this  effort  and  its  individual  parts  must  deliver  on  their  mandates  in  a 
coordinated  and  efficient  manner.  Otherwise,  there  will  be  a  need  to  rethink  the  current 
working  methods  in  search  for  more  effectiveness.  The  full  roll  out  of  the  Transformative 
Agenda remains crucial in this regard. 

Recommendations: 

•  The  humanitarian  community  should  develop  a  comprehensive  dashboard  for 
humanitarian  effectiveness  to  facilitate  the  entire  response  cycle.  All  actors  involved  in 
humanitarian response should feed into this framework and use it. It could include: 

  repository of shared data on needs, risks, vulnerabilities, and access; 
  inventory of available capacities; 
  platform for joint risk analysis and for coordination of needs assessments; 

6 

 
 
  database  for  full  tracking  of  all  financial  allocations  from  all  sources  and  on  sub-

contracting to local partners all the way to beneficiaries; 

  shared quality markers; 
  common result indicators; 
  evaluation of results and impact;  
  and research. 

•  Donors  should  require  implementing  organisations  to  coordinate  needs  assessments, 
taking into account context and capacities, using disaggregated data and quality markers. 
Donors should use such assessments in decisions on funding allocations. They should also 
commit to streamline their contractual and reporting mechanisms, while complying with 
legal  obligations  and  ensuring  accountability  to  their  constituencies.  Implementing 
organisations should report against quality and results. 

•  Donors  should  commit  to  the  systematic  inclusion  of  accountability  to  affected 
populations in programmes funded by them. Implementing organisations should establish 
standards  on  engaging  affected  populations  throughout  the  response  cycle,  including 
sensitive approaches to specific groups, and set up adequate mechanisms. 

•  The UN and other implementing organisations represented on the Inter-Agency Standing 
Committee  (IASC)  should  demonstrate  the  full  roll  out  of  the  Transformative  Agenda, 
and  its  systematic  application  thereafter.  Donors  should  monitor  and  incentivise  this 
implementation  and  should  consider  in  which  areas  a  review  of  the  international 
humanitarian working methods or architecture would be warranted to ensure results. 

b)  Partnership with local, national and regional actors: subsidiarity and solidarity 

Humanitarian effectiveness also requires better use of the whole range of capacities available 
from  all  actors.  The  international  humanitarian  system,  as  established  by  UN  General 
Assembly  Resolution  46/182,  is  based  on  the  premise  that  governments  have  the  primary 
responsibility  for  meeting  the  humanitarian  needs  of  affected  populations.  Many  local, 
national  and  regional  actors,  especially  in  middle-income  countries,  have  improved  their 
capacity to deal with emergencies, in particular natural disasters. The increasing role of these 
actors  needs to  be  recognised  more  clearly  in  the way international  responses are designed, 
coordinated and implemented. 

Humanitarian aid should be based on the twin principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, with 
local,  national  and  regional  actors  as  first  responders,  and  the  international  community 
stepping  in  with  complementary  support,  where  necessary.  The  international  community 
should act only when the capacity of local responders is overwhelmed, when these actors are 
unwilling or unable to meet the needs of all affected populations, or when they are incapable 
of avoiding spillover effects of emergencies into neighbouring countries. 

The international system must connect with the wider group of responders, and must become 
inclusive to facilitate work of all relevant actors, depending on the specificities of each crisis. 
There must be a concerted effort to foster interaction and interoperability in order to minimise 
gaps  and  overlaps.  For  this  to  be  effective,  the  global  community  could  envisage  a 
comprehensive worldwide inventory of assets that can be called upon in a response. Equally, 
there  should  be  an  effort  by  governments  and  all  implementing  actors  to  ensure  that  their 
actions are compatible with key international standards. 

This approach requires a clear understanding of when the international humanitarian system 
should  step  in,  and  to  what  extent.  For  example,  a  breach  of  humanitarian  principles  and 

7 

 
 
international humanitarian law should be a clear trigger for international assistance in order to 
meet the needs of affected populations. 

Governments  and  development  actors  —  helped  by  the  humanitarian  community  —  should 
invest in building sustainable local capacity to empower local communities to withstand the 
consequences of a disaster and to facilitate the humanitarian response. Regional organisations 
should  support  these  efforts  by  facilitating  the  exchange  of  know-how  and  coordinating 
assistance among States. Furthermore, cooperation between different regions of the world in 
disaster  management  and  crisis  response  can  further  enhance  interoperability,  reduce  the 
impacts of crises, improve planning and better prepare for crises and disasters. 

Recommendations: 

• 

Internationally and nationally facilitated coordination structures should include all actors 
involved in each specific response. This could be done, for example, by the opening up of 
the IASC humanitarian country teams or clusters. In case cooperation within the existing 
coordination  mechanisms  is  not  possible,  the  UN  Office  for  the  Coordination  of 
Humanitarian  Affairs 
for  ensuring 
interoperability of systems. 

facilitate  other  methods 

(OCHA)  should 

•  The  humanitarian  response  should  be  primarily  based  on  the  subsidiarity  and  solidarity 
principles.  There  should  be  risk  assessments  or  fragility  analysis  established  for  all 
countries.  There  should  be  an  overview  of  the  preparedness  and  response  capacities  of 
relevant local, national, regional, and international actors. At the international level, such 
multi-stakeholder mapping could be facilitated by OCHA. 

•  The humanitarian community should develop guidance on context-specific scenarios that 
clarify  the  roles  of  responders  and  establish  triggers  for  international  assistance.  This 
should be accompanied by a mechanism to ensure discipline in the systematic application 
of  these  different  approaches.  OCHA  could  facilitate  such  process  in  cooperation  with 
relevant partners. 

•  Governments  and  donors  should  support  the  capacity  building  of  local  responders  and 

should consider supporting them, where appropriate, during the response. 

•  Regional  organisations  should  be  supported  in  establishing  a  network  for  experience 
sharing  and  training  exercises.  Regional  organisations  should  be  encouraged  to  include 
solidarity  provisions  in  their  mandates  to  provide  assistance  to  members  affected  by  a 
natural or man-made disaster. 

c)  Partnership  with  donors, 

the  private  sector,  charities, 

foundations,  and 

implementing organisations for efficient and sufficient humanitarian financing 

Humanitarian outcomes must be adequately resourced. This should be addressed in two ways: 
by ensuring the most efficient use of every euro of aid and by broadening the funding base. 

Actual and perceived inefficiencies in humanitarian spending can undermine both the impact 
and the credibility of the humanitarian response. It is necessary to establish a complete and 
coherent  picture  of  all  needs  that  will  in  turn  support  a  greater  coordination  of  appeals  and 
improved financial contingency planning. Encouraging innovative delivery methods, such as 
cash-based approaches wherever suitable to the context, can reduce overheads, and unit and 
transaction  costs.  All  these  actions  require  close  partnerships  between  representatives  of 
beneficiaries, implementing organisations, and donors, and with the private sector. 

8 

 
 
While  improving  the  efficiency  of  humanitarian  funding  is  essential,  it  is  clear  that  current 
funding levels are not sufficient to meet humanitarian needs worldwide. Protracted crises are 
particularly affected, as they fade from public view and are overtaken by new emergencies. 

The system has suffered from over-dependence on a few donors. While donors, who are not 
members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), and the private sector — 
including  charities  and  foundations  —  have  in  some  crises  been  real  game-changers,  the 
system has not yet found the right way to engage them in the best possible way and unlock 
their full potential. The system needs to become more attractive to new and diverse actors by 
highlighting their vital contribution, demonstrating the impact of the support they provide and 
facilitating partnership on the ground. The international system should concentrate on finding 
incentives  for  new  actors,  establishing  more  regular  dialogue,  and  identifying  contexts  in 
which their participation would be of particular interest to them. 

Recommendations: 

•  The  architecture  and  efficiency  of  humanitarian  action  need  to  improve.  Implementing 
organisations,  under  the  guidance  of  the  IASC,  should  reform  the  appeals  system  to 
ensure it reflects a complete picture of needs and funding requirements  — this could be 
done  via  a  tracking  tool  in  the  dashboard  proposed  above.  Individual  implementing 
organisations should ideally merge into this system and avoid issuing individual appeals 
in humanitarian emergencies. Instead, they should coordinate their efforts to avoid undue 
competition at the expense of efficiency. At the same time, appeals should facilitate the 
delivery of quality aid. Reporting on realizing appeals should cover data both on the needs 
that were met and those that were not met. 

•  Donors should systematically coordinate their efforts and evaluate the delivery practices 
of implementing organisation to identify their added value and possible cost efficiencies, 
based on common humanitarian standards.15 

•  Donors  and  implementing  organisations  should  increase  the  proportion  of  people 
receiving  cash-based  assistance  while  taking  the  specific  context  into  account.  A  target 
could be envisaged. 

•  The  UN  system  and  the  traditional  donor  community  should  engage  in  closer  dialogue 
with  non-DAC  donors,  middle-income  countries,  regional  organisations,  the  private 
sector, charities  and  foundations  in  funding  humanitarian  action.  This  could  be  done  by 
regular,  formal  or  informal,  meetings  under  the  OCHA  Donor  Support  Group16  or  the 
Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative.17 

•  The private sector should be given incentives to contribute to humanitarian assistance, for 

example when committing to corporate social responsibility targets. 

d)  Partnership with development actors  

The  heavier  humanitarian  caseload  has  made  the  partnership  between  humanitarian  and 
development actors all the more important. Recurrent and protracted humanitarian crises and 
prolonged forced displacement mean that emergency humanitarian aid can no longer carry the 
burden  on  its  own.  There  is  a  compelling  need  to  reframe  the  humanitarian-development 
cooperation  so  that  this  partnership  reinforces  the  outcomes  of  both  streams.  Stronger 
resilience has already emerged as a shared objective for both humanitarian and development 
actors. 

15 Such standards aim to ensure quality of aid, e.g. on: accountability, management, coordination, etc. 
16 More information: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/partnerships/relations/ocha-odsg_en. 
17 More information: http://www.ghdinitiative.org/.  

9 

 
 
                                                            
The  interaction  between  humanitarian  aid  and  development  cooperation  should  start  at  the 
pre-crisis stage, with a joint analysis that should include, inter alia, risks and vulnerabilities, 
followed by investments in resilience and risk reduction in order to better anticipate, prepare 
for, and respond to a  crisis or disaster.18 During and in the aftermath of a crisis or disaster, 
joint  strategic  planning  and  multiannual  programming  should  be  established.  Such  joint 
planning  should  map  the  combined  efforts,  build  synergies  on  respective  strengths,  and  — 
where relevant — outline a flexible transition from humanitarian to development aid based on 
clear exit points where humanitarian action should give way to development efforts. 

Funding should come from humanitarian and development instruments, with a clear division 
of  labour  as  per  the  respective  added  value  to  combine  covering  immediate  needs  with 
medium- and long-term response targeted at root causes. Long-term development funding is 
particularly important in protracted crises to pave way for sustainable solutions, especially to 
enhance the capacity of host and local communities to cater for the displaced population. 

Recommendations: 

•  There  is  a  need  for  a  new  model  for  humanitarian-development  cooperation.  It  should 
include  joint  multi-hazard  risk  analysis  and,  where  relevant,  multiannual  programming 
and financing, and exit strategies for humanitarian actors. It should address issues such as 
preparedness  and  refugees  and  internally-displaced  populations,  especially  in  protracted 
situations. 

•  Donors should seek to facilitate more predictable multiannual financing through joined-up 

humanitarian and development funds, especially for protracted crises. 

•  Donors  should  consider  introducing  crisis  modifiers  in  development  programmes  that 
allow the reallocation of resources for crisis response, enabling a more flexible approach. 

III. EU contribution and next steps 

The  World  Humanitarian  Summit  and  the  process  leading  up  to  it  create  the  political 
momentum  to  strengthen  the  global  community  of  solidarity  with  people  affected  by 
humanitarian crisis and disasters. It is an occasion to reach out to third countries, European 
citizens,  and  other  partners  to  communicate  on  the  moral  obligation  of  helping  victims  of 
conflicts and disasters and of avoiding spillover effects, such as instability and displacements. 
The  Commission  invites  Member  States  and  other  partners  to  share  experience  and 
collaborate to this effect. 

The summit will be an important milestone for principled and effective humanitarian action 
and  will  set  the  agenda  for  a  number  of  changes  to  the  system.  The  implementation  of  its 
outcomes  will  thus  require  efforts  from  the  global  community  and  its  individual  actors. 
Therefore, the commitments taken in Istanbul should be verifiable and measureable. It would 
be useful to take stock of their realisation at regular intervals to keep the focus on progress. 

After the summit, the Commission will set out the specific EU contribution to implement the 
summit outcomes. The Staff Working Document accompanying this Communication outlines 
some examples of work already ongoing within the EU to make humanitarian action more fit 
for purpose. 

18 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. 

10