COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Comprehensive evaluation of the European Commission's humanitarian aid 2017-2022
Date: 2026-02-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU action, aid evaluation, cooperation policy, distribution of aid, emergency aid, financing of aid, humanitarian aid, international humanitarian law, non-governmental organisation, the EU's international role

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.2.2026  SWD(2026) 63 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Comprehensive evaluation of the European Commission's humanitarian aid  2017-2022   {SWD(2026) 62 final}  
 
 
1.  BACKGROUND 

the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on 

This  document  summarises 
the 
comprehensive evaluation of the European Commission’s humanitarian aid between 2017 
and 2022. The main source of evidence for the evaluation is an external study, which built 
upon the findings and the conclusions drawn in the 33 specific evaluations carried out during 
the evaluation period. The external study assessed both the strategic and operational levels of 
the  EU’s  humanitarian  interventions.  It  examined  the  European  Commission’s  role  as  a 
humanitarian donor in relations to its partners and the wider humanitarian aid system, as well 
as the results achieved. The evaluation assessed the effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence, 
relevance, added value, and sustainability of the Commission’s humanitarian aid actions. 

The main legal instrument governing humanitarian aid at EU level, the Humanitarian Aid 
Regulation,  lays  out  the  general  objectives  and  framework  for  the  EU’s  funding  of 
humanitarian  assistance,  relief  and  protection  operations.  The  evaluation  period  was 
marked  by  the  adoption  of  a  Communication  on  ‘The  EU’s  humanitarian  action:  new 
challenges, same principles’ (2021), a renewed strategic outlook setting out how the EU 
can address increased humanitarian needs.  

Between 2017 and 2022, the European Commission continued to be one of the world’s 
leading humanitarian aid donors. Over the evaluation period, the EU provided funding to 
partner organisations - non-governmental  organisations, international organisations, and 
specialised agencies from Member States - to support the implementation of 3,386 actions, 
with a total value of approximately EUR 13 billion.  

As  a  global  donor,  the  European  Commission  supported  humanitarian  aid  and  disaster 
relief  efforts  worldwide,  in  five  regions:  Africa  (the  region  receiving  most  funding), 
Europe, Middle East and Northern Africa,  Asia  and the Pacific,  Latin America  and the 
Caribbean.  The  European  Commission  delivered  humanitarian  assistance  in  the  core 
sectors  of  food,  nutrition,  health,  water  sanitation  and  hygiene  (WASH),  protection, 
education in emergencies, and shelter and settlements.  

2.  EFFECTIVENESS 

Overall, the evaluation provides clear evidence that the EU’s humanitarian interventions 
addressed the most pressing needs and contributed to progress towards the achievement of 
the objectives stated in the Humanitarian Aid Regulation.   

Although effectiveness varied across countries, regions and sectors, evidence indicates that 
funded actions were effective overall and generated both non-quantifiable and quantifiable 
results and impacts on the life of assisted populations. Funded actions addressed the needs 
of different vulnerable groups; infants and children under five, persons with disabilities 
and pregnant women features among the most targeted groups.  

 Sectoral  and  thematic  policies  developed  by  DG  ECHO  (Directorate-General  for 
European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations) contributed to enhancing the 
quality of the European commission’s humanitarian response.  In addition, the European 
Commission played a leading role in putting some topics at the forefront in humanitarian 
responses,  such  as  the  use  of  cash,  the  importance  of  disability  inclusion,  disaster 
preparedness, and environmental considerations. 

Some factors might have presented challenges to the effectiveness of the thematic policies, 
such  as  a  growing  number  of  thematic  policies,  in  some  cases  partners’  capacity  and 

 
 
 
      
resources to implement all policy requirements; and contextual challenges. However, these 
identified challenges did not affect implementation of thematic policies on the ground.  

DG  ECHO’s  different  partnership  models  and  new  initiatives  (e.g.,  Programmatic 
Partnerships)  enabled  more  strategic  engagement  with  partners  and  supported  the 
achievement of shared objectives.  

3.  EFFICIENCY 

The evidence suggests that the efficiency of DG ECHO’s systems and processes improved 
since  the  previous  evaluation  period  (2012-2016).  The  European  Commission  often 
considered  efficiency  when  making  strategic  choices  about  funding  allocation;  budget 
allocations were based on needs and considered actions of other donors. In addition, the 
evaluation highlighted the European Commission's flexibility to amend and top up budgets 
in response to evolving crises.  Recent or emerging needs and contextual changes were 
appropriately reflected in policy documents and funding decisions.   

At the same time, the efficiency of the EU-funded humanitarian actions was influenced by 
both internal and external factors. The assessment of cost effectiveness of EU humanitarian 
aid actions, and more broadly in the humanitarian sector, remains challenging.  Internally, 
in some cases, due to the specificity of humanitarian assistance, complex administrative 
requirements,  short  funding  cycles,  and  the  fragmentation  across  multiple  actions  and 
partners  posed  challenges.  Externally,  factors  such  as  access  constraints,  insecurity, 
restrictive  government  policies,  high  operating  costs,  and  shocks  like  the  COVID-19 
pandemic 
the  European  Commission 
demonstrated strong flexibility in response, using budget modifications, reallocations, and 
operational adjustments to mitigate these effects.  

further  affected  efficiency.  Nonetheless, 

4.  COHERENCE 

The  European  Commission  is  recognised  as  a  principled  humanitarian  donor,  adhering 
strongly  to  the  humanitarian  principles  of  humanity,  neutrality,  impartiality,  and 
independence. Throughout the evaluation period, the European Commission implemented 
measures to ensure that these principles were consistently integrated into EU interventions. 
This was ensured through consultations with key partners and stakeholders when adopting 
or updating policies. The European Commission’s advocacy also played a crucial role in 
upholding these principles.  

The  EU’s  humanitarian  aid  interventions  were  internally  coherent  at  both  strategic  and 
operational level.  In particular, the evaluation noted the synergies with the Union Civil 
Protection Mechanism (UCPM) and the Emergency Support Instrument.  

Moreover, the EU’s humanitarian aid interventions were coherent and complementary with 
those of Member States and other donors. DG ECHO participated and/or encouraged its 
partners to participate in existing coordination mechanisms. The European Humanitarian 
Forum,  which  was  first  held  in  2022,  was  also  regarded  as  a  useful  setting  where  the 
European  Commission  could  enhance  its  strategic  dialogue  with  Member  States  and 
humanitarian partners.  

While evidence showed overall coherence between the EU’s humanitarian interventions 
and the different EU external financing instruments,  further efforts are needed to better 

2 

 
exploit  synergies,  to  facilitate  the  operationalisation  of  the  Humanitarian  Development 
Peace nexus (HDP nexus).  

5.  SUSTAINABILITY 

There was a notable increase in EU-funded humanitarian actions showcasing continuity of 
results or sustainable effects.  The European Commission prioritised actions that integrated 
strategies linking projects to longer-term goals developed with national or local authorities 
to ensure sustainability beyond the humanitarian programme cycle.  

Despite coordination challenges, there were success stories in the operationalisation of the 
HDP  nexus.  Flexibility,  coordination,  and  funding  predictability  could  be  further 
strengthened with a view to facilitating complementarity between humanitarian, peace and 
development actions.  

6.  EU ADDED VALUE 

The EU funded humanitarian aid interventions generated a clear added value compared to 
what individual Member States could have achieved. The European Commission’s added 
value included  its global and local presence compared to other donors through its unique 
network of humanitarian field offices spread in 40 countries; its  technical and thematic 
expertise;  a  programming  approach  that  was  sensitive  to  filling  in  gaps;  its  stance  as  a 
strongly principled donor; its role in coordination and advocacy; its network of partners; 
and its use of different preparedness and rapid response instruments in response to crises. 

Interrupting EU humanitarian aid interventions and funding would have severe negative 
consequences. This would create a substantial financial gap in a context where the overall 
global humanitarian funding is decreasing. 

Actions  with  the  potential  to  maximise  EU  added  value  include:  strengthening  the 
European  Commission’s  role  in  coordination;  strengthening  advocacy  activities; 
continuing efforts towards localisation and capacity-building of local  actors; supporting 
and strengthening the field network; facilitating the implementation of thematic policies 
through  capacity  building  and  engagement;  enhancing  sustainability  and  HDP  nexus 
considerations; and enhancing multi-year funding. 

7.  RELEVANCE 

The  EU's  overarching  humanitarian  aid  objectives  remained  relevant  in  the  face  of  a 
rapidly  changing  humanitarian  landscape  and  increasing  humanitarian  needs.  The  most 
relevant objective focused on saving and preserving life, alleviating human suffering, and 
maintaining  human  dignity.  In  this  regard,  DG  ECHO’s  strategies,  as  outlined  in  the 
Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs), were well aligned with the EU’s overarching 
objectives, policies and commitments. Most HIPs demonstrated the flexibility needed to 
adapt to changing conditions. 

Overall,  DG  ECHO’s  thematic  policies  provided  essential  frameworks  for  guiding  and 
prioritising funded actions, and were generally comprehensive and up to date, though this 
varied by policy. The use of cash-based modalities increased throughout the evaluation 
period,  influenced  by  the  European  Commission’s  advocacy.  The  EU’s  commitments 
towards forgotten crises (devote 15% of its initial humanitarian budget to forgotten crises) 

3 

 
and Education in Emergencies (commitment to aim to dedicate 10% of the humanitarian 
assistance  as  of  2019)  –  were  relevant  to  addressing  significant  underfunding  and 
increasing needs. 

The  range  of  partnership  approaches  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  enabled 
appropriate  responses  to  various  crises.  Strategic  dialogues  with  some  partners  enabled 
strategic discussions and leveraging partners' capabilities. 

8.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

The  EU's  overarching  humanitarian  aid  objectives  enshrined  in  the  Humanitarian  Aid 
Regulation remain relevant in the face of a rapidly changing humanitarian landscape and 
increasing humanitarian needs. EU’s humanitarian interventions were effective overall and 
addressed the most pressing needs, although effectiveness varied across countries, regions 
and  sectors.    The  European  Commission’s  funding  is  considered  essential  by  its 
humanitarian partners across different regions, including more geographically remote ones 
where its presence is more limited.  

The key features of the European Commission in delivering principled humanitarian aid 
and disaster relief include: a strong and flexible emergency response capacity, a broad and 
diverse partner network, well-developed thematic policies and expertise, and a significant 
field presence that enhances contextual understanding and response. Its active advocacy 
role and leadership on humanitarian policy, firmly rooted in humanitarian principles and 
international law, further reinforce its global impact. 

A qualitative, accountable, and principled humanitarian action by the EU stands as a strong 
confirmation  of  its  commitment  to  global  solidarity  and  human  rights,  enhancing  its 
reputation and influence on the world stage. Investment in humanitarian assistance also 
contributes  to  global  stability,  helping  to  prevent  crises  from  escalating  into  security 
threats, economic shocks, and the prospect of failed states.  

The  importance  of  further  promoting  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  humanitarian 
action  in  all  sectors  is  underscored,  including  by  strengthening  the  HDP  nexus, 
promoting quality funding, locally led responses, and cash assistance where relevant and 
possible. 

The European Commission is confirmed as a key humanitarian player and should 
continue strengthening its engagement and leadership in global humanitarian affairs. 
Its  needs-based  approach,  focus  on  forgotten  crises,  and  principled  stance  –  including 
strong  support  for  international  humanitarian  law  (IHL)  –  remain  highly  relevant  and 
impactful. The Commission continues to shape the global humanitarian agenda, mobilise 
support among like-minded and emerging donors, and advocates across multilateral fora.  

Thematic  policies  are  essential  for  driving  quality  in  humanitarian  responses. 
Continued  efforts  should  be  maintained  to  ensure  their  visibility,  integration  across  the 
programming cycle, and alignment with emerging needs. Recent steps include the adoption 
of  minimum  environmental  requirements  for  humanitarian  aid,  the  launch  of  policy 
updates  in  key  sectors,  and  the  publication  of  guidance  on  promoting  compliance  with 
International Humanitarian Law. 

In a global context where the humanitarian system is underfunded and the overall 
gap  between  available  resources  and  humanitarian  needs  is  expected  to  grow,  the 

4 

 
 
 
need  to  further  enhance  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  EU  humanitarian  aid 
interventions is confirmed. The European Commission has expanded the use of quality 
and flexible funding – including multi-year and multipurpose cash transfers – and launched 
the Programmatic Partnership model to support longer-term, strategic collaboration with 
partners. These efforts enhance predictability and alignment with shared priorities. Work 
on  localisation  is  advancing,  notably  through  the  rollout  of  guidance  on  equitable 
partnerships. In parallel, disaster preparedness and anticipatory action are being scaled up, 
supported  by  a  dedicated  roadmap  and  increased  funding.  The  Commission  is  also 
investing  in  supply  chain  and  logistics  coordination,  encouraging  joint  approaches  and 
resource pooling to increase cost-efficiency. 

The  European  Commission’s  humanitarian  aid  unique  features  (field  network, 
network of partners, internal tools and instruments) have proven to add value to the 
humanitarian system.  

DG  ECHO  is  adapting  its  evaluation  and  monitoring  systems  to  make  them  more 
suitable to analysing the effectiveness and efficiency of its actions. Efforts to strengthen 
data  collection,  analysis,  and  indicator  harmonisation  are  also  reinforcing  the  evidence 
base for programming. 

In sum, the European Commission’s combined policy leadership, scientific evidence and 
analytical  tools,  operational  flexibility,  strong  partnerships,  and  robust  field  network 
remain  essential  assets  in  delivering  timely,  principled,  and  effective  humanitarian 
assistance in an increasingly complex and underfunded global context. 

5