This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52013DC0658
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the European Union's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Policies and their Implementation in 2012
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the European Union's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Policies and their Implementation in 2012
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the European Union's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Policies and their Implementation in 2012
/* COM/2013/0658 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the European Union's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Policies and their Implementation in 2012 /* COM/2013/0658 final */
1.
Introduction
When disaster strikes, relief is needed fast. Timely
intervention by the international community can make the difference between
life and death. The European Union (EU) and its Member States collectively provide more
than half the funding required for emergency relief to victims of man-made and
natural disasters[1]
throughout the world and actively promote respect for international
humanitarian law. This Annual Report outlines the main policy achievements
and activities of the European Commission in the field of humanitarian aid,
carried out principally through its Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid
and Civil Protection (ECHO) during 2012. While it does not describe in detail
all the work and actions undertaken, it does present the ‘headline’ activities
and developments of general interest. Since 2010 ECHO’s mandate has encompassed both
humanitarian assistance and civil protection. These are the two main mechanisms
through which the European Union can ensure rapid and effective delivery of
relief assistance to people faced with the immediate consequences of disasters. EU humanitarian aid provides relief assistance to
people in need outside the EU. It often throws a lifeline to those who are
faced with the immediate consequences of disasters. The EU’s mandate under the Humanitarian
Aid Regulation[2] is to save and preserve
life. Its role is also to prevent or reduce suffering and safeguard the
integrity and dignity of individuals by providing relief and protection at
times of humanitarian crises. The Commission also facilitates coordination with
and among the EU Member States on humanitarian action and policy. The overall priority is to ensure that the aid is managed
in the most efficient way possible, thus guaranteeing that the assistance the
EU delivers to people in need has the maximum effect and respects the
principles of international law. The EU upholds at all times the humanitarian
principles of impartiality, neutrality, humanity and independence. The EU’s other main tool for providing help is civil
protection. The Commission, through ECHO, strives to encourage and
facilitate cooperation between the 32 states participating in the Civil Protection
Mechanism[3] in order to improve the
prevention of and protection against natural, technological or man-made
disasters, both inside and outside Europe. Through these instruments, the EU provided
substantial needs-based assistance in 2012, with total funding of EUR 1 344 million
in commitments[4], including: ·
Humanitarian aid actions helping approximately 122 million
victims[5] of
natural disasters, man-made or protracted crises. Aid was provided in more than
90 non-EU countries. ·
38
activations of the Civil Protection Mechanism[6]
in 2012 (the figure includes requests for assistance, pre-alerts, and monitoring).
2.
The global context
The year 2012 was marked by a very high number of
humanitarian crises and disasters, and great vulnerability. Needs are now
beginning to outstrip available resources. The delivery of humanitarian aid
and civil protection is also becoming increasingly complex. Due to the
frequency and intensity of natural disasters with major consequences,
humanitarian crises are occurring with less warning. In the course of 2012, statistics published by the Centre
for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)[7]
and the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)[8]
show that there
were 310 natural disasters of variable magnitude. These disasters killed almost 10 000 people and affected
106 million people worldwide. At global level, Asia was the continent most affected by natural disasters. This was reflected in terms of
both the number of disasters (42 % of worldwide disasters) and the number of victims (64 %). The impact of
disasters on less-developed economies is particularly significant: for example,
the damage caused by Typhoon Bopha in the Philippines, and floods in Pakistan. Africa was severely affected both by drought and by floods. The consequences of major
disasters are devastating and varied: lives are lost, and housing, crops and
livelihoods are destroyed. Global Disaster Risk Map Internal armed conflicts remain the major cause of man-made
humanitarian disasters, with civilian populations being increasingly exposed to
violence and suffering. Conflicts of this type are often marked by the
disregard of the perpetrators for international humanitarian law (IHL) and its
principles. As a result, there has been a shrinking of the ‘humanitarian
space’, i.e. the areas in which humanitarian relief can be provided neutrally
and impartially without impediment. In this context, humanitarian access to
people in need and the safety and protection of civilian populations and
humanitarian workers have become more and more problematic. The overall
situation and working environment has deteriorated in all these respects,
particularly in Syria, Niger, Mali and the Central African Republic (CAR). In
other countries, no improvement in security has been observed since last year,
in particular in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Afghanistan. Although only a few have been mentioned by name, the
impact of these disasters has greatly stretched the response capacity of the international
humanitarian community. In 2012, the United
Nations launched a consolidated funding appeal for USD 8.9 billion and received
funding amounting to USD 5.6 billion for humanitarian needs in 21 countries.
There is an increasing mismatch between rising global humanitarian needs,
on the one hand, and the increasingly scarce financial resources available to
respond to these needs, on the other. This is especially the case in the light
of the economic and financial crisis that has hit many western donor countries.
The chronic vulnerability seen in many parts of the world is compounded by the global
economic crisis. It also means that donors have to step up their efforts to
respond to disasters in a more efficient manner, by making even better use of
their limited resources. For the Commission, this translates into identifying
efficiency gains when working with its partners. In this vein ECHO launched the ‘process
review’ – an internal initiative, aimed at transforming the business
processes and support systems to achieve both efficiency gains and higher quality/effectiveness.
The aim
should be to enable them to cope better with disasters, thereby reducing
the devastating impact on affected populations and their livelihoods. The EU —
as part of the overall international humanitarian system — also plays a
key role in encouraging other countries and regions to increase their
participation in humanitarian preparedness and response in order to mobilise
more effectively the growing resources of emerging economies for humanitarian
action and disaster response. At the same time, further synergies between
humanitarian aid and civil protection are being developed. Preparations
continued in 2012 for the opening in 2013 of the Emergency Response Centre
(ERC) with the aim of enhancing the Commission civil protection 'hub' capacity
and better coordinating civil protection and humanitarian aid responses to
disasters. The
importance of building up preparedness and resilience of vulnerable communities
is demonstrated by the long-term impact on lives and livelihoods in the
aftermath of major crises, such as the 2010 earthquake in Haiti and recurrent drought in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel. These disasters demonstrate how
crucial it is to appropriately address longer-term rehabilitation and development
needs at the very earliest stages of a humanitarian response. Only if
humanitarians and development actors work hand in hand will they have a chance
to reduce the devastating impact of recurring disasters and genuinely improve
the prospects for sustainable development. That is why the Commission is
developing an action plan and guidelines on resilience and Linking between
relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD). The Commission is actively
working towards improving LRRD and developing stronger cooperation with other
Commission services and other donors. The year also saw humanitarian organisations
being faced with increasing problems in gaining access to people that need
help. Governments and militia or armed groups often shrink the humanitarian
space and sometimes disregard the most basic protection guaranteed under IHL.
Access restrictions faced by humanitarian organisations were most prevalent in
areas of conflict and/or where there was a marked absence of the rule of law
due to political obstacles (e.g. Syria, Mali, Somalia or Sudan/South Sudan). In
many conflict zones (e.g. the DRC, Somalia, Sudan) humanitarian workers witnessed
particularly brutal methods of warfare. These included the targeting of
civilians and the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. The incidence of attacks on humanitarian aid
workers, including kidnappings, expulsions and killings, was on the rise in
2012. Donors have had to manage and mitigate risks to the safety of
humanitarian staff, and the funding and to the infrastructure that they
provide. Some governments have been expropriating or ‘borrowing’ funds and
properties financed by donors, and have expelled some humanitarian aid
organisations once they have been stripped of their assets. This is a worrying
trend.
2.1.
Humanitarian
aid interventions
Natural disasters continued to cause
human suffering and severe damage throughout the world in 2012. In dealing with
this type of disaster, the Commission has adopted a two-pronged strategy: ·
Rapid
response, by providing humanitarian aid and by facilitating and coordinating
civil protection assistance. The latter is provided on a voluntary basis by EU
Member States to other countries (within or outside the EU) participating in
the Civil Protection Mechanism; ·
Disaster
preparedness, by identifying those geographical areas and populations which are
most vulnerable to natural disasters and for which specific disaster
preparedness programmes are established. In 2012, the EU
continued its support to DIPECHO[9] programmes in Southern Africa, the
Caucasus, Central Asia, South-East Asia and Central America. During the
year, the EU provided humanitarian assistance to cope with the consequences of
the following disasters: ·
earthquakes in Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Philippines; ·
droughts in West Africa (Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mali, Niger,
Chad), in the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia) and in
Afghanistan; ·
floods in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines,
Myanmar, Fiji, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Panama, Nigeria,
Niger, Senegal, Benin, Gambia, and Southern Africa; ·
cyclones/hurricanes/tropical storms in India, South-East Asia
(Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam), the Caribbean (Haiti,
Cuba, the Dominican Republic) and the Indian Ocean (Madagascar, Mozambique); ·
epidemics, mainly in West Africa, the DRC, Sudan, South Sudan,
Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, El Salvador, Laos and Pakistan. In terms of ‘man-made crises’, the far-reaching conflict
and civil war in Syria, with a big exodus of Syrian refugees to
neighbouring countries, including Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, clearly
required a very significant humanitarian response from the EU. By the
end of 2012, EU
humanitarian funding for Syria totalled EUR 149.3 million, providing
life-saving assistance both inside Syria and to those who had been forced to
flee the violence in the country. This humanitarian assistance covered: ·
In Syria — for Syrian internally displaced persons (IDPs) and host
communities: inter alia, medical emergency relief, protection, food and nutritional
items, water, sanitation, shelter, winter preparation and psychosocial support.
It also covered the needs of the most vulnerable Palestinian refugees. ·
Outside
Syria — for people who fled their homes to seek protection in neighbouring
countries and host communities: inter alia, shelter, winter preparation,
food, water & sanitation, emergency medical rehabilitation to prevent
further disabilities among the wounded, and legal assistance. Many coordination meetings were held between
the different services of the Commission[10]
to avoid duplication of effort and double funding, and to ensure that the
activities complemented each other. Another example of man-made crisis is the case of Colombia. Although it is going through a crucial peace process, the humanitarian
consequences are still present: violation of human rights, impunity,
displacement and massacres of civilians, and citizens ‘trapped’ in the
conflict. Colombia has the second highest IDP rate after Syria, with a total, annual (increasing) figure of between 200 000 and 300 000. The accumulated
total of displaced persons is 5 million according to NGOs, and 3.5 million
according to the Colombian Government. The EU also called for additional funding from other donors, and sought
to ensure that additional assistance would address the needs of displaced
populations throughout Syria and not just in the ‘hotspots’. The EU also pushed
to increase the number of humanitarian organisations authorised to provide
assistance inside Syria to cope with increasing needs, requiring that civilians
(including humanitarian workers and medical personnel) and facilities be
properly protected, and that unfettered access be given to conflict zones
throughout the country. The post-electoral crisis in Côte d’Ivoire continued, affecting neighbouring countries, particularly Liberia and Ghana, due to the continued presence of refugees. In Mali, the war, together with
the food and nutrition crisis, increased the vulnerability of the population.
In both countries, ECHO actively supported refugees, by restoring access to
healthcare, focusing on nutrition and food assistance and providing protection
assistance. In India, inter-communal violence broke out in Assam, resulting in the displacement of hundreds
of thousands of people, and inter-communal violence also occurred in Rakhine State. The EU provided basic services such as safe drinking water, sanitation, shelter, non-food
items (NFIs), protection, nutrition and medical care. 126 000 people
were displaced in Myanmar and the country saw many aid agencies
suspending their operations and evacuating staff due to strong anti-UN/NGO
sentiment. In some instances this resulted in the arrest of humanitarian staff.
In Kachin State, the internal conflict continued with significant humanitarian
impact on the civilian population (75 000 people displaced).
IDPs received
food assistance, WASH, shelter/NFIs, health and protection. As access
was seriously constrained, close to 40 000 IDPs could not be
reached by aid agencies. The Commission responded to several protracted
and complex emergencies, including in the following instances: ·
Sudan and South Sudan: since the separation
of Sudan into two countries in July 2011, there has been continuous conflict in
the Sudanese border states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile. This has resulted
in 173 000 refugees fleeing to South Sudan and 35 000 to Ethiopia. Conditions in the refugee camps near the border were very difficult in 2012. By
year-end substantial assistance was still needed by the 1.7 million IDPs in Darfur, Sudan. Periodic outbreaks of inter-ethnic conflict in South Sudan led to 183 000 people
being displaced from their homes. The Commission has intervened by mainly providing access to
food, safe water, sanitation, nutrition and health services. Prevention/preparedness
activities and a vaccination campaign have also been implemented. · In Palestine the population continued to experience severe hardship and social distress.
A protracted socio-economic crisis, characterised by severe restrictions on
movement and the recurrent destruction of physical assets, led to continued
high levels of poverty and unemployment. In the West Bank, Israeli settlement
growth, settlers’ violence against Palestinians, demolitions, evictions, and land
and asset confiscations — leading to forced population transfers — increased
and continued to affect everyday life. Strict controls remained in place on
Palestinians’ entry to Israel and East Jerusalem, and farmers had increasing
difficulty accessing their land near the security barrier and settlements. In
addition, the eight-day conflict in Gaza in November added another layer to the
vulnerability of the population in Gaza. The Commission is still providing direct assistance in the water and
sanitation, food assistance and health sectors. It is also continuing its
strategic shift from a classical humanitarian programme to an increasing focus
on protection and advocacy. ·
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 2.5 million
displaced people out of a total population of approx. 60 million, the
humanitarian situation remained precarious. This is especially so in the east
of the country, where numerous armed groups and the Congolese army were
fighting to control territory and the rich resources of the region. The
redeployment of Congolese army battalions to North Kivu to fight M23 rebels led
to security vacuums in North and South Kivu. As a result of this insecurity
tens of thousands of Congolese sought refuge in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi in 2012. The
Commission continued providing direct assistance to IDPs and refugees while
also advocating better preparedness and improved access to vulnerable groups. · In the Central African Republic, a crisis blew up at the end of the year when the rebel Seleka
coalition began to march on Bangui, the capital, meeting little resistance
along the way and taking control of town after town. Tens of thousands of
people had to flee their homes. Humanitarian workers had to be evacuated, and
some humanitarian bases were pillaged before an uneasy truce and negotiations
led to a return to something like normality. This is a forgotten crisis, where the
EU was one of the few humanitarian donors present. The Commission provided support in
several areas including protection and access to healthcare, as well as
provision of basic household items, clean drinking water, sanitation, nutrition
and food assistance. Overall, the
EU’s comprehensive response to crises remained driven by needs, varied and
multi-sectorial. It included components such as health (including psychological
support, financing of clinics), protection (including activities addressing
sexual violence), food and non-food items, shelter, water/sanitation,
reconstruction and rehabilitation. The table below shows the distribution of
aid per sector of intervention in 2012:[11]
2.2.
Civil
protection operations
The civil protection mechanism was
activated 38 times during the year. 31 of these instances related to natural disasters
(snowstorms, severe cold weather, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches,
storms, forest fires), and seven involved man-made disasters (explosions, setting
up of refugee settlement camps, marine pollution). 16 activations concerned
countries that operate within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM) and 22
concerned countries elsewhere. As regards natural disasters, the
Mechanism was activated in respect of forest fires in
Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, and
countries in the Western Balkans; floods in Bulgaria, the Comoros Islands, Chad
and Nigeria; and severe weather conditions in Central and Eastern Europe. The
EUCPM also responded to tropical cyclones in France (New Caledonia), the United States, the Philippines, Fiji and Haiti, and earthquakes in Italy, Mexico, Guatemala and Indonesia. Countries participating in the EUCPM offered assistance to
Turkey and Jordan to support the efforts of national governments in building
refugee camps following the Syria crisis. Complementarity between humanitarian
and civil protection assistance was ensured with, for example, additional NFI
support for refugees in Zaatari camp in Jordan. The mechanism was also
activated for explosions in Bulgaria and the Republic of the Congo, and for marine pollution in Italy. ECHO’s Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) monitors all
these disasters. It also acts as an information hub and entry point for
requests for assistance, and coordinates assistance provided by countries
participating in the EUCPM. Preparations continued in 2012 to upgrade the MIC
and transform it into the new Emergency Response Center (ERC),
with enhanced capacity to coordinate civil protection
response to disasters and also to serve as a coordination platform for disaster
response for civil protection and humanitarian aid within ECHO. The ERC will,
as from 2013, also play an important role in promoting awareness of situations
requiring a disaster response within the Commission, other institutions and
Member States, having the capacity to deal with
several simultaneous emergencies in different time zones, collecting and analysing
real-time information on disasters, monitoring hazards, preparing plans for the
deployment of experts, teams and equipment, and working with Member States to
map available assets and coordinate the EU’s disaster response efforts by
matching offers of assistance to the needs of the disaster-stricken country. As part of civil protection policy, and in
cooperation with Member States, the Commission also supports disaster
preparedness and prevention activities within the EU. This covers inter alia
the training of civil protection personnel and large-scale simulation
exercises, exchange of experts, and cooperation projects on prevention and
preparedness, involving actors from two or more Member States. In 2012, in support of field operations, the
Commission provided EU Member States and associated users with satellite
imagery using the GIO-EMS service (GMES Initial Operations-Emergency Management
Service). This became operational as of 1 April 2012, by having the
MIC in ECHO as the single entry point for activation. By the end of 2012, the
service had been activated 23 times and more than 170 satellite maps were
produced for various types of disasters or crises.
2.3.
Financial
and human resources
The initial EU budget of EUR 874 million for
humanitarian aid was increased several times in order to respond to new crises
and natural disasters occurring during the year. Examples of this include the
outbreak of conflict in Syria, the conflicts in Mali, the deepened drought in
the Sahel, increased conflict and refugee flows in Sudan and South Sudan, the
upsurge of conflict in the east of the DRC, the outbreak of inter-communal
violence in Myanmar, and hurricane Sandy. Extra money was mainly obtained by
transferring funds from the Emergency Aid Reserve and some additional transfers
from the 10th European Development Fund, part of which is reserved for
humanitarian aid in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It was also
supplemented by EFTA contributions and by transfers from other budget lines
within the EU budget’s Heading 4 for external aid, adding up to a final 2012
budget of EUR 1 344 million in commitment
appropriations[12], which represents a record annual
budget for EU humanitarian aid and civil protection. This funding was provided to the following
regions (rounded figures, in EUR millions of commitment appropriations):[13] Region/country || || Amount || || % || || || || Africa || || 681 || || 51% || || || || Sudan & Chad || || 207 || || || || || || Central Africa || || 92 || || || || || || Horn of Africa || || 162 || || || || || || Southern Africa, Indian Ocean || || 32 || || || || || || West Africa || || 188 || || || || || || Middle East, Mediterranean || || 265 || || 20% || || || || Middle East || || 255 || || || || || || Mediterranean || || 10 || || || || || || Asia, Pacific || || 198 || || 15% || || || || Central and South West Asia || || 110 || || || || || || Central South Asia || || 32 || || || || || || South East Asia and Pacific || || 56 || || || || || || Latin America, Caribbean || || 68 || || 5% || || || || Latin America || || 30 || || || || || || Caribbean || || 38 || || || || || || Worldwide disasters || || 19 || || 1% || || || || Civil protection || || 27 || || 2% || || || || Inside the EU || || 21 || || || || || || Outside the EU || || 6 || || || || || || Worldwide assistance and support || || 86 || || 6% || || || || TOTAL || || 1 344 || || 100 % The bulk of EU funding in 2012 was, as in
previous years, allocated to Africa (51 %).
Substantial assistance was also provided in the Middle East (Syria and neighbouring countries), for the Myanmar/Burma crisis, and for the natural disasters in
South-East Asia and the Caribbean. In 2012 the Commission had 302 staff members
working at its ECHO headquarters in Brussels. To be able to respond
to disasters in non-EU countries, the Commission has maintained its unique
network of ECHO field experts available throughout the world, employing 145
field experts and 293 local staff, making a total of 438 people working in the Commission’s
ECHO field offices as of 31 December 2012. These were located in 38
countries. Immediately following a disaster, humanitarian experts are
deployed on the spot to carry out needs assessments and they are also
responsible for monitoring the implementation of the EU-funded humanitarian
projects. The Commission does not implement assistance
programmes itself.[14] As a humanitarian aid donor, it fulfils
its mission by funding EU humanitarian actions through partner organisations
which have signed ECHO’s Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA). The Commission’s
partners include a wide range of professional bodies — European NGOs and
international organisations such as the Red Cross and the various agencies of
the United Nations with which the Commission has signed a Financial and
Administrative Framework Agreement (FAFA). The specialised agencies of Member
States are also considered as partners. This wide range of implementing partners
enables the EU to cover a growing list of needs in different parts of the
world, often in increasingly complex situations. Commission-managed grants and
contributions are made by selecting the best proposals received. The 2012
breakdown for Humanitarian Agreements signed was: 47 % of
actions carried out by NGOs (118 partners), 44 % by UN
agencies (15 partners) and 9 % by international organisations (3
partners). From the security point of view, the Commission took
further steps to strengthen its own security management system. This was
accomplished both at headquarters and in the field through improved
coordination and collaboration with humanitarian partners, by
monitoring and visiting projects, and by carrying out ex-ante controls, audits
and evaluations.
3.
Humanitarian and civil protection assistance policy
At policy level, the Commission invested time
and effort in several initiatives of strategic importance: ·
The Commission continued negotiations with the Council and the
European Parliament on the new EU Civil Protection Mechanism legislation,[15] aiming to support,
coordinate and supplement the actions of Member States in the field of civil
protection to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing, preparing
for and responding to natural and man-made disasters. In this connection, the
Commission proposed a series of innovative initiatives, the most important of
which were: o
the creation of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response
capacities (ranging from search and rescue teams to field hospitals and relief
supplies). These resources would be made available by the Member States
concerned for EU civil protection missions, and quality criteria and a
certification process would be developed; o
a gap identification process with the possibility of funding
specific types of response capacities at EU level; o
a training network; o
a new approach to support Member States in the field of disaster
risk management. ·
Preparatory work on the creation of a voluntary corps.[16] Preparations for
launching the
EU Aid Volunteers legislative initiative advanced significantly in 2012
and the proposal to establish the programme was adopted in September. The
proposal provided for financial support to train and deploy volunteers to
complement humanitarian aid actions in non-EU countries, and to build capacity
for volunteering in non-EU countries. In parallel the Commission continued the
preparatory work started in 2011 and 2012. Financial support, focusing on
building up resilience and civil protection capacity, was agreed for an
additional five pilot projects involving approximately 150 volunteers. The Commission continued to put emphasis on
the commitments stemming from the ‘European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid’
and selected horizontal policy priorities. The year 2012 saw continued progress
in the implementation of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. EU Member
States and the Commission maintained their efforts to put in place the key
elements of the Consensus Action Plan using both internal and external
initiatives. As a follow-up to the Council conclusions, the Commission prepared
the first Annual Report on the implementation of the Consensus in the previous
year, which provided an overview of actions undertaken by the EU, including on
a coordinated and joined-up approach of EU Member States and the Commission. Enhancing coherence and coordination between the EU and
its Member States in response to a disaster or protracted crisis is a key issue
for improving the efficiency of the overall EU aid contribution. Since 2009
coordination with Member States has mainly taken place in the Council Working
Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA). On a strategic level, COHAFA has
allowed the EU to increase the coherence and complementarity of the Commission’s
and Member States’ humanitarian aid activities: there is an annual exchange on
policies/strategies, information and analysis produced by the Commission are
used by Member States, and individual EU donor activities in specific crises
are better coordinated. The Commission also increased its efforts to follow
and contribute to the work of EP committees. The European Parliament was
briefed about policy initiatives and priorities, as well as about the
Commission’s response to specific crises. Building
up the resilience of affected populations to future crises continued to be
a key priority throughout the year. A Commission Communication sought to step
up the resilience-building effort in EU external action. The lessons learnt
from the recent Horn of Africa and Sahel food crises provided input into the
policy framework. The Communication underlined the EU’s commitment to stronger links
between humanitarian and development aspects, in order to address both the
symptoms and the underlying causes of crises. The preparation of a joint action
plan was launched to kick-start the initiative. The
Commission launched a public consultation to gather stakeholders’ views on the
challenges, objectives and options for further enhancing the effectiveness and
impact of EU humanitarian aid. It took into account the changing global context
at the outset of the 21st century. The results of the consultation, entitled ‘The
Union’s humanitarian aid: Fit for purpose’, will feed into the
Commission’s future initiatives in 2013 and 2014 to further increase the impact
of EU humanitarian aid. Throughout
the year, the Commission also maintained regular contact with relevant international
organisations, in particular the UN and the Red Cross Movement, on policy
development and operational issues. Regular meetings were held with key
partners. Special emphasis was placed on close cooperation with the UN
Emergency Relief Coordinator, in particular on efforts to obtain a more inclusive
humanitarian system through outreach to new partners, and the Transformative
Agenda which the IASC[17] agreed
in 2011. The Transformative Agenda seeks to strengthen the international
humanitarian system in the areas of leadership (especially the role of
Humanitarian Coordinators), coordination (more efficient cluster systems) and
accountability (including more coordinated needs assessments). The Commission remained actively involved in
the negotiations for a new Food Assistance Convention on behalf of the
EU, which was ratified in November 2012. The Food Assistance Convention is an
international instrument which reaffirms the commitment of donors to addressing
the food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable. The roll-out of the humanitarian food
assistance policy was also pursued. Preparations were made jointly with DG Development and
Cooperation - EuropeAid for a Communication to enhance maternal and
child nutrition. Work was also started on a Staff Working Document ‘Addressing
Under-nutrition in Emergencies’ to accompany the Communication and translate it
into operational guidance. The Commission prepared a Staff Working
Document on Humanitarian Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, capturing best practice
in this important humanitarian sector and providing operational guidance. The Commission also remained committed to
supporting the development and strengthening of the collective global
humanitarian preparedness and response capacity. In 2012, EUR 23 million was
made available for enhanced humanitarian response capacity programmes.
These were undertaken within UN agencies, NGOs and the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The
programmes focus on: ·
increasing the effectiveness and reinforcing the capacity of
international humanitarian organisations and non-governmental organisations.
This includes the ability to assess, analyse, prepare for and respond to
humanitarian needs, during man-made and/or natural disasters and in their immediate
aftermath, in a coordinated and inclusive manner; and ·
reinforcing the capacity of international humanitarian
organisations and non-governmental organisations to deliver more varied and
appropriate forms of food assistance, during emergencies and in their immediate
aftermath. During 2012, the EU provided funding for a
project to identify how humanitarian principles are applied in practice, with a
view to strengthening their implementation, and further support to provide
training in IHL and related humanitarian norms to armed non-state actors. Assistance
was also given to increase awareness of IHL and humanitarian principles among
European humanitarian organisations and their implementing partners working in
conflict-prone or post-conflict countries.
4.
Conclusion
The Commission responded
effectively in 2012 to the ever increasing need for emergency response and
relief aid worldwide. Though more assistance was given in 2012 than in previous
years, the EU was unable to fully meet the needs of all victims due to the
increase in the number of disasters globally. With global warming already a
reality, this trend is set to continue. Within the context of the financial
crisis an even more concerted effort has been made to make every euro count.
This has not only meant ensuring that the right aid reaches those most in need at
the right time, but also finding ways of doing more with less. In 2012,
significant emphasis was placed on increasing speed and efficiency and cutting
out duplication of processes and actions. In addition, progress was made on
major new initiatives, including working towards opening the Emergency Response
Centre, which will greatly enhance our ability to carry forward the work done
by the Commission into 2013 and beyond. Financial information on the
Commission’s 2012 performance on humanitarian aid and civil protection can be
found at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding/key_figures/echo_en.htm Operational information can be
found at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/about/annual_reports_en.htm [1] According to the most recent (2012) data available
(Global Humanitarian Assistance: http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org). [2] Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning
humanitarian aid. [3] The EU
Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM) is made up of 32 states (27 EU Member States
plus Croatia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and
Norway) which cooperate in the field of civil protection. The assistance can
take the form of in-kind assistance, equipment and teams, or involve sending
experts to carry out assessments. It relies on government resources and, if
assistance is required in third countries, usually works in parallel with or
hands over to humanitarian aid. The operational heart of CPM is the European
Emergency Response Centre (ERC — formerly MIC —
Monitoring and Information Centre) accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. Any country inside or outside the EU affected by a disaster and
overwhelmed by its magnitude can make an appeal for assistance through the MIC/ERC. [4] € 1317 million for humanitarian aid and € 27 million for civil
protection. [5] Of which 108 million people were helped through humanitarian aid
and food assistance and 14 million people through disaster preparedness
programmes. [6] As detailed in paragraph 2.2, a total of 16
activations concerned countries within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism
(EUCPM) and 22 concerned countries outside the Mechanism. [7] www.cred.be. [8] www.unisdr.org. [9] DIPECHO (Disaster Preparedness ECHO) is a specific
programme dedicated to disaster preparedness. It targets highly vulnerable
communities living in some of the most disaster-prone regions of the world. [10] Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO), Development and
Cooperation – EuropAid (DEVCO), Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), European
External Action Service (EEAS), Home Affairs (HOME), Enlargement (ELARG), Economic
and Financial Affairs (ECFIN), Budget (BUDG) [11] This breakdown is
simplified in that it associates projects to one single sector. In practice,
most projects are linked to more than one sector. For instance, the figure for
disaster preparedness (5.49 %) refers to those
projects financed by the EU primarily linked to disaster preparedness.
Nevertheless, if we take into account all the contracts including significant
disaster preparedness components but for which the main sector of intervention
is not DP, we reach a total of 15 %. [12] EUR 1 109 million in payment appropriations (82 % of commitment
appropriations). [13] For civil protection the figures in the table are not broken down
by country/region. [14] One operation is
delivered directly, namely the ECHO Flight programme in DRC and Kenya to provide logistical support in a region prone to access problems. [15] (COM(2011) 934 final). [16] Article 214(5) of the Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). [17] Inter-Agency Standing
Committee Task Force.