COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Pariament and the Council Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps /* SWD/2012/0265 final */
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background and institutional context.. 3 2. Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties.. 3 Organisation
and timing.. 3 External
expertise and information gathering.. 4 Pilot
projects. 5 Summary of
the outcomes from consultations and reviews. 5 3. Problem
definition and Subsidiarity.. 7 Current
situation of volunteering in external aid.. 7 Problems. 8 EU added
value and subsidiarity.. 10 4. Objectives.. 11 General
objective. 12 Specific
objectives. 12 Operational
objective. 12 5. Policy
Options.. 12 No new EU
action option.. 12 Voluntary
Corps through the European Voluntary Service. 13 Other
policy options. 13 Option 1. 14 Option 2. 15 Option 3. 16 Option 4. 18 Summary of
the options. 18 6. Analysis
of impacts.. 19 Option 1. 19 Option 2. 23 Option 3. 28 Option 4. 34 7. Comparison
of options.. 37 8. Arrangements
for monitoring and evaluation.. 40 Monitoring.. 40 Evaluation.. 40 9. Annexes.. 42 1. Background
and institutional context The Lisbon
Treaty foresees in its article 214.5: "In order to establish a framework for joint
contributions from young Europeans to the humanitarian aid operations of the Union, a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps shall be set up. The European Parliament
and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure, shall determine the rules and procedures for the
operation of the Corps." In November 2010, based on previous reviews
and consultations (see below), the Commission adopted a Communication on the
Voluntary Corps presenting the existing situation of volunteering, the guiding
principles, gaps and necessary conditions to make a positive contribution to EU
humanitarian aid.[1]The Communication also provided a first indication on possible
options and recommended further consultations, research and testing before
setting-up the Voluntary Corps. The Council and the European Parliament
(EP) are also associated to the process. Council Conclusions were adopted in
May 2011, reaffirming the key role of the EU in promoting volunteering and
encouraging the Commission to continue with the establishment of the Voluntary
Corps. The Conclusions emphasised the possible contributions of EU volunteers
in pre and post-crisis projects, as well as for awareness raising and for
increasing EU visibility. The EP adopted a Written Declaration in November
2011, identifying the selection, training and deployment of volunteers as key
components of the Voluntary Corps. The Commission proposed an allocation of €210
Million (constant prices) for the Voluntary Corps under the forthcoming Multiannual
Financial Framework over the period 2014-2020 (under Heading 4 – "Global
Europe"). 2. Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties Organisation and timing Timing || Organisation February 2010 || Bilateral consultations and internal DG ECHO research July 2010 || External review on the Voluntary Corps September 2010 || Stakeholders Conference in Brussels November 2010 || Commission Communication February-May 2011 || Public on-line Stakeholders Consultation October 2011 & April 2012 || Meetings with the IASG June 2011 || Stakeholders Conference in Budapest December 2011 || External preparatory study supporting the IA; first seminar with pilot project coordinators Commission services have been associated in
the preparatory work on the Corps and also participated in several public
events in the framework of the European Year on Volunteering (2011). External expertise and information
gathering Stakeholders have been continuously
involved since the beginning of the process in early 2010. A series of consultations and reviews were carried-out in order to assess the current
situation, existing gaps and challenges, and identify objectives and priorities
areas for action. A first review was carried out in 2006[2] following the tabling of a proposal for a Voluntary Corps in the
discussions on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. The 2006 review concluded
that the Voluntary Corps proposal combined several appealing ideas (enthusiasm
of young people, the need to increase the pool of qualified human resources and
to enhance EU visibility) but that due consideration would need to be given to
essential lessons learnt from the field and recent trends, including the need for
capacity building, the overall effort to “professionalise” humanitarian aid and
the security and safety risks of humanitarian aid operations. Building on the outcomes of the 2006
review, and in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 2010 the
Commission launched another external study. The study analysed the current
situation of volunteering in the EU (with particular focus on volunteering in
the area of external assistance), and assessed recent evolutions and current
practices of relevant voluntary schemes, humanitarian actors, training
organisations and other institutions working with volunteers in this field.[3] Based on the analysis of the current gaps
and challenges, the study identified areas where the Voluntary Corps could have
an added value (c.f. annex 1 - Executive Summary of the study). Since the beginning of 2010, the Commission
has also consulted a range of stakeholders, including the main humanitarian aid
organisations (NGO, Red Cross and Red Crescent Family, UN agencies), and mainstream
volunteer organisations. Member States were also involved in the process: the
Council working party on humanitarian aid and food aid (COHAFA) has discussed
the establishment of the Voluntary Corps on several occasions, addressing
current gaps and the possible relationships between a European Corps and
national voluntary schemes. In September 2010 and June 2011 two
dedicated Conferences were organised (in Brussels and Budapest respectively),
with the participation of humanitarian agencies and NGOs, European volunteers,
representatives from Member States and other sending organisations. The
conferences allowed the Commission to gather additional ideas and views from a
broad range of stakeholders. In compliance with the requirements of the
“General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested
parties by the Commission”, a public on-line consultation was carried out
between 8th February and 3rd May 2011. The consultation touched upon a range of
issues including general opinions and expected impacts of the Voluntary Corps,
profiles of volunteers, types of activities and preparatory and support
measures for volunteers (cf. annex 2 the analysis report of the consultation). Pilot projects Based on the outcomes of the reviews and
consultations, and in order to test some of the possible features of the future
Voluntary Corps, the Commission launched a first round of three rounds of pilot
projects in July 2011, focusing on pre and post-crisis interventions
(prevention and recovery activities). The projects are currently being
implemented; continuous feedback mechanisms allowed the incorporation of the
first lessons learnt into this IA.[4] A
second round of pilot projects will run in the second half of 2012 and in 2013.
(c.f. annex 3 – factsheets on pilot projects). The following lessons have been learned
from the first round of pilot projects: o
The identification and selection of suitable
volunteers are real challenges for sending organisations: the high number of applications was reported as challenge to manage
(and somewhat underestimated in terms of time; human resources, and other
costs); o
Training plays a significant
role: the mix of academic knowledge and scenario-type activities allows
checking humanitarian skills and competences like resilience and acting under
pressure. It was noted that training in the EU may not be enough to send people
to the field, and was proposed to include 'apprenticeship training' (as for other
staff); o
the importance to have a wide scope of humanitarian
action, including prevention activities, preparedness
and post-crisis recovery was a common issue; o
It is important to prepare
and train host organisations in third countries to receive EU volunteers
(eventually involving local volunteers and 'multiplicators'), as well as to
work with local volunteers. Summary of the outcomes from consultations and reviews The stakeholder interviews have clearly
pointed to the need for careful consideration of how and where a Voluntary
Corps can make a difference in mobilising volunteers to display the values that
are at the heart of the European project while providing humanitarian
assistance. The following conclusions can be drawn from consultations and
reviews: ·
There is no unique and widely-accepted
definition of “volunteer”. Volunteering is defined in many dimensions that
include the profiles and characteristics of volunteers (age, education,
professional background, soft skills), the motivations (solidarity, building-up
the CV, learning, prospect of travel to a third country), the tasks and the
context in which volunteers are deployed and the duration of deployment (short
or long-term deployment, in Europe or in third countries), the level of
compensation paid.[5] ·
The use of volunteers in the framework of the Voluntary
Corps should be demand-driven and needs-based. The cost-benefit ratio of
recruiting, training and supervising volunteers is a common concern of
voluntary organisations: the Voluntary Corps needs to able to demonstrate a
positive cost-benefit ratio. ·
Stakeholders repeatedly highlighted the need to
align the use of volunteers with the trend towards increased professionalism in
humanitarian aid. While motivations and good will are important, the skills and
competencies necessary to have real impact on the beneficiary populations
should be a guiding principle. In this respect, candidates with the ability to
acquire the necessary skills and experience to go on to work in a humanitarian
context should be targeted by the Voluntary Corps. ·
In order to make a difference, the Voluntary
Corps needs to find a role in the midst of the existing volunteer schemes
through cooperative approaches. Many volunteer programmes exist but most of
them focus on individual volunteers from certain countries (national voluntary
schemes) and on longer-term development cooperation activities. The Voluntary
Corps offers the opportunity to have a specific European dimension in
volunteering, allowing so European citizens from different Member States to
collaborate in humanitarian aid operations. ·
There is a need to define both the types of
crises where volunteers would be deployed and the types of volunteers targeted
by the Corps. The contexts and types of tasks that the volunteers will perform
will depend on the profiles, skills and levels of experience. In that regard
some stakeholders suggested differentiating between less qualified young people
and experienced volunteers. Security and safety concerns should be constantly
taken into account: the complexity of humanitarian settings and interventions
-especially in conflict areas- makes great attention to security issues for
volunteers deployed in the field and in the hosting organisations essential. Young
and in-experienced volunteers should not be deployed to humanitarian operations
where security is a concern. ·
The local host organisation's capacity is
crucial to ensure that volunteers’ contribution has a sustainable impact on the
host communities. Solid in-country hosting structures are needed to
professionally manage the volunteers and ensure that good practices can be
repeated after that the volunteers have left. The Voluntary Corps should
include capacity building opportunities for third country hosting organisations
and local communities for ("South-South" and "South-North"
dimension) so as to ensure a lasting impact. ·
The deployment of EU volunteers should
contribute to the visibility of the EU aid to people in need. The Voluntary
Corps can be a way for the EU to show concrete solidarity with third countries
citizens. ·
It is important that the development of the
Voluntary Corps also takes into account and makes effective use of the existing
related Civil Protection capacities in the Member States such as training, and
supports Civil Protection activities of a humanitarian character in third
countries. ·
It is important to apply a flexible approach
that allows for constant feed-back into the design from lessons learnt.
Progressive implementation is important to ensure success. 3.
Problem definition and Subsidiarity Current situation
of volunteering in external aid There is a range of voluntary organisations involved in external
aid, and in some cases in humanitarian action. It is imperative for the
Voluntary Corps to avoid duplication with the existing systems. The main programmes in the field of internationally
deployed volunteers include: ü
The biggest public sector player in this field
is the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) Programme administered by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which deploys around 7,500 volunteers
(2009), and counts 9,500 online volunteers. In 2009 UNV volunteers came from
about 160 different countries (75% of which are developing countries), working
mostly on UN longer-term and recovery programmes (not focusing on humanitarian
aid interventions). ü
Weltwärts (German Development Cooperation BMZ) managed
3,500 volunteers in 2009. Young (18 to 28 years old) German citizens or
non-Germans permanently resident having completed a vocational training or
graduated from secondary school/university are assigned to a country from the
OECD list of developing countries. Volunteers are deployed in development cooperation
projects via local host organisations in sectors that are considered as priority
areas for German development policy. ü
UNDP Junior Professional Officer Programme (JPO),
which is funded by 20 donor countries and deploys around JPOs 360 per year in various
countries with UN operations. Young volunteers (less than 32 years old, usually
with a Master degree and some professional experience) participate to
development cooperation and recovery programmes in different areas, usually in
country offices. ü
VSO UK (and members) has around 1,500 active
volunteers over the year for both long-term and short placements worldwide.
Volunteers with minimum 2 years of professional experience are deployed to
long-term development projects linked with VSO's six development goals: health,
education, secure livelihoods, disability, HIV and AIDS, participation and
governance. ü
Malteser International-Relief agency of the
Order of Malta for humanitarian aid (80,000 trained volunteers and 20,000
staff) deploys volunteers with some working experience in foreign countries
world-wide in projects operated by Malteser in areas such as rehabilitation and
reconstruction, primary health care, water and sanitation, livelihood, and disaster
risk reduction. ü
The International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent has around 20 million active volunteers (at national level) and
uses volunteers through national societies. Only professionals are employed for
overseas missions in developing countries in a broad range of areas of
intervention, including Disaster Risk Reduction and Preparedness, humanitarian
assistance and development cooperation. ü
The German Federal Agency for Technical Relief
(THW) has today more than 76,000 volunteers throughout Germany (supported by 850 full employees). Volunteers are mainly technical experts focusing on Civil
Protection activities in a range of areas including clearing, electricity,
supply, water damage, bridge- building, infrastructure, water hazards,
location, logistics, drinking water supply and oil damage. ü
Johanniter International (JOIN Brussels) has in Germany around 29,000 volunteers with different professional profiles (social services,
health care, civil protection). At the level of the EU, there has been a
general upward trend in the number of volunteers active in the EU over the last
ten years: "there are around 92 to 94 million adults involved in
volunteering in the EU. This in turn implies that around 22% to 23% of
Europeans aged over 15 years are engaged in voluntary work".[6] Although data on the number of volunteers
being deployed from the EU to third countries in humanitarian action are not
available, recent developments indicate an increased demand for volunteering as
shown for example by two recent initiatives (the Weltwärts initiative and the
Irish Response Initiative), as well as by the high number of applicants to the Voluntary
Corps pilot projects. The main EU volunteers' programme is the
Youth in Action Programme, through its European Voluntary Scheme (EVS),[7] which offers funding opportunities for NGOs and others
organisations for placements of young volunteers (18-30 years old) in a variety
of areas. The main EVS' goal is to foster solidarity among young people and to
provide learning experiences for volunteers. The projects focus on themes such
as culture, youth, sports, social care, cultural heritage, arts, civil
protection, environment, development cooperation, etc. Only a small part of the
EVS volunteers are deployed in the framework of external aid initiatives and
mainly in development cooperation projects. Humanitarian aid interventions in
post-crisis situations are excluded. Europeans feel very positive about
humanitarian operations, as the Special Eurobarometer 384 (2012) has revealed:
88% think that humanitarian operations are important, and 84% think that even
during the current financial crises the funding of humanitarian aid as an
expression of European solidarity shall be sustained. In addition, 88% of
Europeans support the setting up of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps.[8] However, while 68% are aware of the EU funding humanitarian aid,
only 30% of Europeans feel well informed. Problems The analysis of the current situation of
volunteering, as well as recent studies and reviews, [9] show that, despite the fact that a number of schemes already
exist, there are still important shortcomings. Gaps exist that hamper voluntary
schemes from reaching full potential. The following problems have been
identified:
i. Lack of a structured EU approach
towards volunteering The volunteering landscape has become more
diverse in recent years. There are significant differences in the level of
volunteering and voluntary organisations between Member States: whilst certain
EU Member States have longstanding traditions in volunteering and well
developed voluntary sectors, in others the voluntary sector is still emerging
or poorly developed.[10] This is also due to the limited availability of financial
resources, which represent a significant challenge for the majority of
voluntary organisations across the EU. The lack of an integrated system and an EU structured
framework for volunteering are an obstacle to releasing the full potential of
voluntary activity, and limits the participation of people having the good will
or eagerness to get involved, as well the further development of solidarity
among Europeans and with people in need in third countries.
ii. Poor visibility of EU humanitarian
action and solidarity with people in need The visibility of EU humanitarian action
and the information to citizens is still poor. This is demonstrated by the most
recent reviews (2010 and 2011) and Eurobarometer (2012), indicating that only 30% of Europeans feel well informed about humanitarian aid. The limited awareness among Europeans on EU
action supporting people in need leads to greater difficulties for European
citizens who want to make a concrete contribution to the humanitarian aid
operations of the EU in making an appropriate choice and getting involved. The
prominence of EU support to third countries is also negatively affected.
iii. Lack of consistent identification
and selection mechanisms across MSs Consolidated standards for the
identification and selection of volunteers to be consistently used across
Member States do not exist. Different approaches are applied, making sometime
difficult the matching between the supply of volunteers and the demand from
organisations.[11] The criteria vary significantly as the
different 'models' reflect different aims and purposes of the voluntary
schemes: in some cases the focus is on enhancing the soft skills of young
people and the contribution to personal and professional development of
volunteers, whereas other schemes aim to contribute to disaster responses, i.e.
are active in areas where effectiveness and skills really matter. A number of
sending organisations also operate rosters for the identification and selection
of volunteers, though rosters mainly contain data on highly trained experts
rather than volunteers.[12] Existing rosters are used by individual sending organisations:
information and data on volunteers and candidates volunteers are not always
shared, leading to a certain compartmentalisation and loss of efficiency.
iv. Availability of sufficiently qualified
volunteers for humanitarian aid Training is another area of concern.
Consultations and reviews show that while the majority of volunteer sending
organisations do have established guidelines, standards and/or codes of conduct
for their volunteers, many fewer run training courses. The 2010 public
consultation survey indicated less than 40% of the organisations run training
courses for volunteers deployed. The existing training is offered to a varying
extent and in varying forms, as also shown by pilot projects. Training is often
combined with deployment of volunteers in a developing country, and in many
cases training takes place before, during and after the volunteer’s stay.
Current training schemes involve e-learning, training prior to departure (typically
between 1 day and 1 week), home office work before deployment, supervision and
training while on site (c.f. annex 4 - examples of existing training
schemes). The lack of adequate training, which is
also due to limited availability of resources (especially for smaller
organisations), implies that in some circumstances less experienced sending
organisations deploy volunteers without the minimum skills or awareness of
humanitarian principles. These volunteers can be a burden for hosting
organisations and local community they are supposed to help.
v. Shortcomings in surge capacity The increased number and magnitude of
humanitarian crises (both natural disasters and man-made crises) put increasing
pressure on the surge capacity of humanitarian aid. Currently, the majority of
volunteers that are deployed in third countries are engaged with longer-term
development cooperation projects rather than humanitarian aid interventions. The greater humanitarian needs make it
essential to improve the number of qualified resources (including experienced
volunteers) to be deployed in crisis contexts, where local and international
relief capacity are often overwhelmed.[13] In
particular, due to the increasing risks of natural disasters, preventive and
preparedness efforts are needed to reduce the probability of disasters
happening and to reduce their impacts. Recovery from disasters, back-office and
support functions in the EU such as advocacy, information and communication (to
increase organisational capacities and release experienced staff to move closer
to the field) are also areas where additional resources would be needed.
vi.- Capacities of hosting organisations International volunteers have to be hosted
by local organisations when they are deployed to the field. Local capacities
are of vital importance in order to ensure the sustainability of results and
impacts of prevention, preparedness and response actions. Due to lack of resources and poor
institutional support, the third countries’ organisations involved with the
support to the most vulnerable people often do not have the required capacities
to manage volunteers and fully benefit from their contribution. EU added value and subsidiarity In order to fill the gaps, there is the need to act at the EU level,
as only the development of an EU framework for humanitarian volunteering would
efficiently and effectively tackle the problems identified, make a valuable contribution to the overall capacity to respond to humanitarian
crises, and enhance the EU’s profile in this area. An EU Voluntary Corps will allow the
different national voluntary schemes and approaches to further develop in a
more coherent way based on new EU tools, systems and resources. This will enhance
mobility of European citizens and further develop solidarity and active
participation in a European project. The development of
new EU systems and tools (based on existing best national and international
practices) that facilitate the matching between the supply of volunteers and
the demand from the organisations will also benefit the voluntary organisations
that will be able to make a better use of people wanting to engage in
volunteering in humanitarian aid projects. The lack of qualified volunteers for
humanitarian aid can also be better addressed at the EU level through the
development of curricula and methods that can be applied by any organisation,
and the support to training activities that otherwise would not be organised at
national level. EU training will in particular benefit smaller organisations
that in the current system do not have the capacities to provide adequate training
to volunteers. While there is a clear EU added value in
establishing the Voluntary Corps, the Commission shall also make sure that the
duplication of existing national voluntary schemes is avoided. This will be
ensured by the fact that the Voluntary Corps will be focusing on activities
related to humanitarian aid rather than longer-term development cooperation (the
focus pf the existing schemes in e.g. France, Germany, and Ireland). Furthermore, the Voluntary Corps will build on existing systems and structures (identification
and selection criteria, training, etc.) rather than disrupting them. The new
‘EU dimension to volunteering’ will allow the national schemes to further
develop their capacities to identify, select, train and deploy volunteers using
the new tools and systems developed under the Voluntary Corps. Finally, the
Voluntary Corps will also enhance the overall support to volunteering in the EU
(leverage effect). The lack of Union action would also be
inconsistent with the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the establishment of the Voluntary
Corps (Art.214.5), and entails a strong expectation towards the Commission to
act. 4. Objectives Mobilising better the volunteering capacity of European citizens is a
useful way to project a very positive image of the EU in the world. It can
foster interest for pan-European projects in support of humanitarian aid
activities, including civil protection activities of a humanitarian character, not
only through more deployment but also through better preparation.[14] This can reinforce the benefits delivered
to the hosting organisations and local communities, and the positive impacts on
the volunteers themselves. In this way, benefits are acknowledged/ endorsed at
the level of the voluntary organisations, the communities that they serve, the
volunteers, and in this way the EU as a whole. The Voluntary Corps shall equally be designed in a way to support
the EU Youth Opportunities Initiative (COM(2011) 933) and, more generally, the
Europe 2020 strategy. Albeit arguably in a limited scope, it shall provide
opportunities for European youth to develop competences for life: personal
resilience; intercultural awareness and understanding; project management; and
dealing with unforeseen and complex situations. These considerations have been translated
into the following objectives: General objective To express EU humanitarian values and solidarity with people in
need, through the promotion of an effective and visible European Voluntary
Humanitarian Aid Corps, as an enhanced EU contribution to the overall capacity
to respond to humanitarian crises. Specific objectives
To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian
aid
To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their
working conditions
To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values
To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries
To enhance the coherence/consistency across Member States in
order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in
humanitarian aid operations
To strengthen the identification and selection criteria of
volunteers
Operational
objective ·
To establish a framework for joint contributions
from European citizens to the humanitarian aid operations of the Union (Lisbon Treaty, Art. 214.5). 5. Policy
Options No new EU
action option In the absence of a Voluntary Corps it can
be expected that volunteers would continue to be used, mostly in longer-term
development cooperation, and that the individual national voluntary schemes and
NGOs would continue to apply their own identification and selection methods. Those willing to offer a committed
voluntary contribution in humanitarian aid would continue to have to act in a
opaque ‘market’ in which it is difficult to compare the volunteering
propositions offered by different organisations and where one is to some extent
dependent on opportunities offered in one’s own national context. This situation would produce an
‘un-harvested’ volunteering potential in humanitarian aid due to lack of
capacity - within the NGO community and with national governments - to develop
and offer the appropriate training in that regard, and due to the fact that it
is costly to the individual sending organisation to provide sufficient training
to ensure that the volunteer will add value. For these reasons, sending organisations
would also continue to deploy volunteers who do not always have the necessary
qualifications and skills, with no assurance as to the quality of the
placements or the actual impacts of volunteers’ engagement on local
communities. In a worst case scenario the volunteers deployed to humanitarian
crises zones would represent a risk both to themselves and to others. The impact on host organisations and local
communities would also depend on how well the specific volunteer sending
organisation, the host organisation, and the volunteer are prepared for the
deployment. The benefit to the volunteer and to the hosting community would
depend on the host organisation’s resources (often very limited) and, if
capacities are not built, organisations with already low capacities would miss
out on the benefits of hosting a volunteer. Finally, the EU visibility would not be
enhanced if no new action is taken at the EU level. For the reasons mentioned above, and in
consideration of the fact that the Lisbon Treaty requires the establishment of
the Voluntary Corps (Art.214.5), the ‘no new EU action’ option is not assessed further.
Voluntary Corps through the European Voluntary Service The expansion of the mandate of the
existing European Voluntary Service in order to include the Voluntary Corps has
also been considered at an initial stage. This option was disregarded on the
basis of the following arguments: The objectives of the two programmes are
different: while the EVS focuses on the promotion of young people active
citizenship, social cohesion and mutual understanding within the EU, the
humanitarian Voluntary Corps aims to support the engagement of EU volunteers
but equally to assist people in need in third countries through humanitarian volunteering.
The targeted volunteers have different
profiles and backgrounds: the EVS is limited to young volunteers (18 to 30
years old), while the Voluntary Corps shall be open to all ages (including more
experienced volunteers) in order to effectively tackle the identified problems
and have positive impacts for local communities. The involvement of volunteers
with different profiles and the adaptation to the specific tasks is one of the
strengths of the programme. The scope and range of activities are
radically different: the EVS is mainly limited to deployment in EU countries
(with few exceptions), has very light elements of “accreditation” (no
certification or standards), and narrow training activities (few days
pre-departure and/or upon arrival). The level of accreditation and training is
not considered sufficient for the complex environments in which humanitarian
operations are conducted. The management modalities are different: the
EVS management is decentralised (80% of the volunteers are deployed in the
framework of projects managed by National Agencies). This option would not be
feasible for the deployment of humanitarian volunteers in third countries which
is done through specialised implementing partners. Other policy options As a Voluntary Corps in humanitarian aid shall
be established (as part of the Lisbon Treaty), and the 'no policy change'
option is not applicable, the challenge is to define the Corps in a way that
provides the best possible benefits (effectiveness) in a cost-effective manner. To guide the Impact Assessment, different 'modules' have been
identified on the basis of the outcomes from the stakeholder consultations and lessons
learned from the pilot projects. They involve the whole range of activities
that might be supported through the Voluntary Corps: 1.
Development of standards for identification,
selection of volunteers 2.
Development of a certification mechanism for
sending organisations 3.
Support to training for EU volunteers in
humanitarian aid 4.
Creation of an EU Register of trained volunteers 5.
Development of standards and a certification
mechanism for volunteer management in hosting organisations 6.
Support to deployment of EU volunteers 7.
Building capacities in third country hosting
organisations 8.
Establishment of an EU Network of humanitarian volunteers
The
four policy options result from the combination of different modules in an
incremental manner, with option 4 foreseeing a Direct Management for the
deployment of volunteers. All the options are consistent with the problems identified,
and would allow the achievement of the specific objectives, though to different
degrees. In order to achieve a minimum level of results, at least the first two
modules need to be present. Option 1 The first
policy option consists of the first 2 modules: 1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Development of certification mechanism for sending organisations The development of standards for the
identification and selection of volunteers are envisaged to ensure that the
right volunteers are attracted and selected in a fair manner, and also that
they have the right abilities. The EU standards would consolidate and expand
the standards already available,[15] also
based on the findings of the ongoing pilot projects. The EU standards will
identify which skills and competencies should be further developed for a volunteer
to be up to standard before being sent out. The EU standards would focus on issues such
as the commitment level and mobilisation time (short-term vs long-term
deployment), language capabilities, age, technical skills, soft skills,
professional record and relevant past experience/knowledge. Beyond these common
features, they may need to be adapted to the particular mandates and missions
of the different organisations involved with volunteers. The development and specification of such
standards and curricula will be a task of the Commission in collaboration with
the relevant organisations. This option does not necessarily require the
adoption of an EU Regulation, as standards can be developed through grants to
relevant organisations already operating in the humanitarian aid sector. The Standards may only be taken on to a
limited degree in the absence of additional activities that "enforce"
(encourage) their adoption. One way of doing so is the certification of
organisations that use such standards. The certification mechanism would deliver
audited evidence that certified organisations adhere to EU standards. Pursuing different
levels of certificates may be considered where "light" versions may be
suitable for small organisations operating in safer environments. As the certification may involve a
comprehensive auditing process and may be costly[16] it is
envisaged that the Commission will take the lead in arranging the setup of a
certification mechanism, but that the actual auditing system will be
outsourced. Integration with existing certification mechanisms and mutual
recognition will also be sought in order to avoid duplication. Option 2 The second policy option consists of the following modules: 1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Development of certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Support to training for EU volunteers in humanitarian aid 4. Creation of an EU Register of trained volunteers 5. Development of standards and certification mechanism for volunteer
management in hosting organisations In addition to activities already covered
in option 1, option 2 would include: the training of volunteers; the
establishment of a Register of EU volunteers; and the development of standards
and a certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting
organisations. Training activities
are likely to target young volunteers (with little or no experience) as well as
volunteers with previous experience. The contents and length of the training
will reflect the type of volunteer and their specific needs: the training for
the young volunteers will have a greater length and depth, also inspired by
current training activities carried-out in the framework of the pilot projects.
Completion certificates may be issued after completion of the training. The specific contents, curricula and scope
of the training will be framed at a later stage in consultation with
stakeholders building upon humanitarian aid organisations' experiences, best
practices and further lessons learnt from the pilot projects. Special attention
would also be paid to a transparent and clear mechanism for identifying and
selecting the volunteers to enter the training. Particular care must be taken
to ensure that there is equal access to the training throughout Europe and that Europeans are trained as far as possible together in mixed national groups,
making the EU training a true and visible European activity. The training would be prepared and
implemented under calls for tender and subsequent contracts, operated through
one or two years contracts (with possibilities for renewals), and managed by the
Commission.[17] This would also imply that the sending organisation might be
different from the training institutions, though strong coordination will be
needed in case part of the training is done on-site. This option would also include the development
and maintenance of a Register of qualified volunteers in the EU who are
available to engage in humanitarian aid. The Register would provide a platform
that would enable fast identification of suitable volunteer candidates and in
turn improve access to volunteering opportunities for people from across the
EU. As the Register would contain the details
of volunteers who have been through training, links between the Register
administrators and providers of relevant training courses will be established.
Setting up the Register would involve specification and development of a
database and an associated website, and supporting IT systems. A website and
links into the mainstream social media and to relevant volunteering websites
could also be developed. The Register would also need to remain up to date and
reflect the true availability of volunteers and would need a policy regulating
the access. Finally, option 2 would involve the development
of standards for volunteers' management in hosting organisations in third countries,
which would need to be coherent with the modules previously described. The
standards may cover practical issues, such as security and accommodation, as
well as conditions ensuring the full utilisation of volunteer skills once in
the host community. The exact scope and content of the standards would be
defined before development. The actual process of development would require the
involvement of experts and regular consultation with a number of organisations.
Mirroring the certification for sending
organisations, a certification of hosting organisations would be also developed.
Again the pursuit of different levels of certificates could be considered,
where "light" versions maybe suitable for small organisations
operating in safer environments and will have lower requirements to e.g.
security or safety aspects and multi-cultural issues. The standards and certification mechanism would
be developed under a contract issued by the Commission under competitive tender
to a qualified organisation. Typically, standards do not require much
maintenance. However, once established, they should be reviewed periodically
and updated/revised where necessary. Option 3 The third policy option consists of the following modules: 1. Development of standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Development of a certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Support to training for EU volunteers in humanitarian aid 4. Creation of an EU Register of trained volunteers 5. Development of standards and a certification mechanism for volunteer
management in hosting organisations 6. Support to deployment of EU volunteers 7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations 8.
Establishment of an EU Network of humanitarian volunteers
In addition to the activities covered under
option 2; option 3 would include: the deployment of EU volunteers to third
countries; building capacities in hosting organisations; and the establishment
of an 'EU community of humanitarian volunteers'. Option 3 would be implemented through an
existing Executive Agency with relevant experience of volunteer programs (i.e.
EACEA) with appropriate Commission oversight. Under option 3, the training activities
described above (under Option 2) would be combined with 'Apprenticeship
Placements' for less experienced volunteers of up to 6 months before actual
deployment to a field operation. These apprenticeship placements (in support
roles) may be organized by the EU sending organisations (humanitarian actors)
in a country other than the EU volunteer's home country to add a European
dimension. For 'regular' deployment, volunteers
would be placed in humanitarian aid projects in third countries, with a
particular focus on prevention/preparedness and recovery, which have identified
as relevant areas by organisations involved in the pilot projects. Deployment
of EU volunteers would in this way also contribute to a make a better link
between humanitarian aid and longer-term development cooperation, including
through the strengthening of resilience capacities of local communities. The
duration of deployment would be in function of the context, the type of
volunteer and the type of tasks: (i) deployment of less experienced volunteers
(long-term deployment of on average one year); (ii) short deployment of
experienced volunteers after a sudden on-set crisis or for capacity building purposes
(short-term deployment of on average one month).[18] Volunteers
can be used for a variety of tasks, including classical emergency interventions,
capacity building and back-office and administrative functions. The deployment would include the
integration of volunteers into projects, in particular those that receive
financial support from the EU. Deployment could also be possible in
Commission's offices and projects, and in some United Nations' organisations.
In all deployment, it will be important to maintain an uniformed approach and
visibility of the Volunteers' Corps. The Commission would select implementing
partners through calls for proposals. Co-financing arrangements would allow the
Commission's implementing partners and other sending organisations submitting a
proposal to receive additional financial support (from the Voluntary Corps
budget) for the volunteers deployed with the projects. The organisations
wanting to deploy EU volunteers will have to be certified and adhere to the Voluntary
Corps communication policy in order to ensure EU visibility. The capacity of hosting organisations in
third countries to effectively manage the deployed volunteers according to
the standards developed under module 5 is a crucial element of the delivery of
humanitarian assistance via the Voluntary Corps.[19] For
this reason, option 3 would include capacity-building elements (module 7) in
order to support the improvement of hosting capacity. This module may include
training opportunities of volunteer coaches and multiplicators; a 'Humanitarian
Leadership' programme; and regional seminars/conferences for the exchange of
good practices for management of EU volunteers in third countries. Training for hosting organisations would
focus on 'volunteer management and coaching'; tailored modules on disaster
management depending on the type of crises the organisation deals with; and
'promoting local participation and volunteering' in order to ensure that the EU
volunteers presence does promotes local engagement and employment. Training
would be provided by external training providers in third countries as the
hosting organisations are widely dispersed across the globe. Additionally, a
'Humanitarian Leadership' programme is envisaged inviting selected staff and
volunteers from these hosting organisations to humanitarian partner
organisations in the EU (South-North) or to humanitarian organisations in other
countries (South-South) for a capacity building stay of up to 3 months. Facilitating an active EU Network of
humanitarian volunteers would be the final element of Option 3. The core of
the community could be an interactive networking website. It should be linked
to mainstream social networking and relevant professional online communities.
It shall encourage the exchange of experiences and mutual support of the
volunteers and promote an 'Esprit de Corps'. Target groups of the Network are
all volunteers who have participated in the Corps and they could constitute a
specific chapter of the Register of trained humanitarian volunteers identified
in Option 2. Additionally, this Network could be an
instrument to foster interest among other Europeans to engage without being
deployed. "Online volunteering" is on the rise, with more and more
citizens use their computers to make a difference by providing a range of
services such as mentoring; translation of documents or crisis mapping. These
features could expand the outreach of the Corps exponentially. Membership on
the Network will be on a voluntary basis, though strongly encouraged, with
appropriate links ensured to existing on-line initiatives. Option 4 Option 4 would essentially support the same combination of
activities as option 3 (all 8 modules), but assumes that each component of
option 3 is directly managed by the European Commission, including selection,
training and deployment, which, if they require the cooperation of humanitarian
organisations, would be done on individual and ad hoc contractual arrangements
between the Commission (or Executive Agency) and the implementing
organisations. Such an approach for the deployment of
volunteer could be organised in a number of ways, including: i) allocating
supplementary human resources within the Commission services; ii) using an
existing Executive Agency to implement (for example the Executive Agency EACEA
of DG Education And Culture); iii) establishing a new free-standing EU
Voluntary Corps Agency. Given the assumed additional administrative costs of
establishing a new Agency in the current economic climate, this option is not
costed-out further in this Impact Assessment. Summary of the options The following table resumes the policy
options. The standards for identification, selection of volunteers are part of
all the options as jointly framed and agreed-upon standards are considered a
necessary condition for development of any other activity. Option No (Modules) || Content Option 1 (1, 2) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations Option 2 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Training for EU volunteers 4. EU register 5. Standards and certification for hosting organisations Option 3 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 + partnership approach for deployment) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Training for EU volunteers 4. EU register 5. Standards and certification for hosting organisations. 6. Deployment of volunteers 7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations 8. EU Network of humanitarian volunteers Option 4 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 + 'detachment' approach for deployment) || 1. Standards for identification, selection of volunteers 2. Certification mechanism for sending organisations 3. Training for EU volunteers 4. EU register 5. Standards and certification for hosting organisations. 6. Deployment of volunteers 7. Building capacities in third country hosting organisations 8. EU Network of humanitarian volunteers 6. Analysis
of impacts This section assesses the main potential impacts of each option
(including the impacts on different stakeholders), and the extent to which each
option delivers on the specific objectives. The analysis of each option also
summarises the estimates of the implementation costs (assessment of efficiency),
working on the assumption of the adoption of the Legislative Framework for full
implementation starting in 2014. The estimates of the implementation costs also
includes the costs of management, which are assumed to be around 10% of the
overall budget if the activities are managed by the Commission staff, whereas
if the management is outsourced to an existing implementing Agency the costs
would be around 8%.[20] Option 1 The development of EU standards and the setting-up of a
certification mechanism are highly complementary: having the standards in place
is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for the Voluntary Corps to have
an added value. The impact of the EU standards on volunteering would depend on
the extent to which they are taken up and used by the organisations other than
in an ad-hoc manner. Certification is a means for allowing the standards to be
more widely adapted and used. At the same time, the certification mechanisms
itself needs a certain minimum level of uptake in order to be effective and
improve the quality of recruitment and training of volunteers. The financial
support from the Voluntary Corps would allow a larger number of organisations,
especially the smaller ones, to prepare for and comply with the certification
requirements. The existence of common criteria for the
identification and selection of volunteers and EU training curricula are conditions
for increased efficiency and effectiveness of the whole volunteering system, as
standards would ensure that the adequate mix of skills and motivations are in
place before deploying volunteers to the field. The impact of EU standards is likely to be more
important on the smaller organisations and the organisations in the Member
States that have not had the resources to develop such standards themselves. As uptake increases, the better information
provided on necessary requirements for volunteers available on 'the market'
will impact on the number of volunteers available. A higher level of transparency
across organisations will mean that European citizens would be better placed to
decide whether to engage in volunteering in humanitarian aid, and on the
organisation(s) to which they want to offer their services. At the same time, if the standards are
consistently implemented, the volunteers would benefit from getting and being
able to display higher skill levels on their CVs. Finally, the standards are likely to lead
to improvement of job quality for volunteers who are deployed to third
countries by making sure that the essential issues for successful deployment
are addressed by the training courses. This would in turn benefit the hosting
organisations receiving European volunteers, and indirectly the local
population being assisted. This option is not expected to have any
specific impact on the environment. The following table distinguishes the
impacts on the different stakeholders. || Impacts Stakeholder || Positive || Negative EU sending organisations || - Overall efficiency and effectiveness in identification and selection of volunteers improved - Visibility improved through certification mechanism || - Potential burden of complying with certification mechanism - Risk of heavier administrative procedures EU volunteers || - Increased transparency makes participation in volunteering easier || - Actual training and deployment opportunities would still be limited Hosting organisations || - Conditions for getting adequate and better trained volunteers established || - No capacity building activities Local communities || - Conditions for a more effective volunteers’ contribution to meeting humanitarian needs || Contribution to the
objectives 1.
To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid Since the module primarily focuses on the organisations
situated in the EU/sending countries, most emphasis is on ensuring that the
volunteers ready to be deployed are the right ones - i.e. that they have been properly
identified and selected. A more efficient, effective and transparent selection and
recruitment process can actually reduce the number of deployed volunteers but,
on the other hand, increase the quality of the volunteers’ contributions.
However, the impact on the overall capacity of the Union to provide
humanitarian aid would only be of an indirect nature and is likely to be very
limited. 2.
To improve the skills and competences of
volunteers and their working conditions An improved system of identification and selection
of volunteers is only a pre-condition for making sure that the right persons
are engaged. The impacts on the skills sets and abilities of volunteers would
depend on the goodwill and capacities of sending organisations to actually
provide training on the basis of the agreed curricula. 3.
To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values Impacts on the promotion of EU solidarity
within the EU will be positively linked to how far the elements within the
option are adopted and how far they come to be identified as part of an EU
initiative. Certificates would make EU volunteering standards more visible.
Impacts on the promotion of EU solidarity and EU visibility outside the EU would
be very limited, due to the fact that this option does not imply the deployment
of volunteers in third countries. 4.
To build capacities of hosting
organisations in third countries No direct contribution of this option to
this specific objective is expected under Option 1. 5.
To enhance the coherence/consistency
across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to
participate in humanitarian aid operations The development and adoption of EU
standards and a certification mechanism might encourage different organisations
in different EU Member States to align their approaches and ‘modus operandi’,
which would in turn create ‘market synergies’. EU citizens who are interested
in volunteering would have the possibility to make a better informed choice.
However, this entirely depends on the level of uptake of standards and
certification mechanisms. The smaller organisations would benefit from
standards that would not be accessible otherwise. 6.
To strengthen the identification and
selection criteria of volunteers The identification and selection criteria,
as well as the whole recruitment processes and systems would be more transparent
and effective. Implementation costs
Module 1: Development of
standards The following cost calculations are partly
based on the experiences of the HAP and the People In Aid of developing and
maintaining their respective standards, and partly by making some additional
assumptions. It is assumed that development of the standards would need three
years, based on the HAP and People In Aid. The revision of the standards would
be undertaken every five years (first revision in 2020), while the promotion would
start once the standards have been established. Costs include the outsourcing
to service providers as well as the Commission staff costs (assumed to be
around 10% of the overall staff input). Standards || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-20 Development standards || 192,400 || 192,400 || 192,400 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 577,200 Revision || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 131,200 || 131,200 Promotion || 0 || 0 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 250,000 Total || 192,400 || 192,400 || 242,400 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 50,000 || 181,200 || 958,400 Note: All values in EUR are assumed to be
in 2012 prices. There might be limited additional costs for
sending organisations for complying with standards due to slightly heavier
administrative procedures. There would not be any additional cost for
volunteers, hosting organisations and local communities. Module 2: Certification
mechanism for sending organisations The development of elements such as
checklists and auditing procedures and the establishment of an audit system are
assumed to be outsourced and to take place alongside the development of the
above standards. For this reason, the costs for developing the certification
mechanism are assumed to be much smaller than the costs for the development of
standards (around 10%). The main costs concern the use of the certification
mechanism (see table below). Given the uncertainty about the affordability for
the different organisations (many organisations, in particular the small ones,
would find it too costly to pay the costs of the auditing process), the IA
presents the cost figures of a 100% Commission-financed auditing process.
Similar to the HAP and the People In Aid, we assume that certified
organisations must be re-certified every 3 years. For the cost calculations, we
assume a cost of getting certified/audited of EUR 20,000 (based on figures from
HAP and People In Aid) and an uptake of 85 organisations by 2020 - starting
with 8 in 2015. Certification mechanism || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-20 Development / update || 25.000 || 25.000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25.000 || 0 || 75.000 Maintenance/use || 0 || 160.000 || 200.000 || 240.000 || 300.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 1.700.000 Yearly take-up || || 8 || 10 || 12 || 15 || 20 || 20 || 85 Re-certification || || || || || 160.000 || 200.000 || 240.000 || 600.000 Promotion || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 210.000 Total || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000 The implementation costs of option
1 would be as follow: Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020 1. Standards identification, selection, training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.400 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.000 2. Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000 Total || 247.400 || 407.400 || 472.000 || 320.000 || 540.000 || 705.000 || 851.200 || 3.543.000 Management Costs (10%)* || 24.700 || 40.700 || 47.200 || 32.000 || 54.000 || 70.500 || 85.120 || 354.300 * In case of outsourcing to an EA the
management costs would be 8% of the total (€283.440). Option 2 This option considers the standards developed in option 1 as the
foundation for developing and providing a training scheme for volunteers financed
by the EU. As for option 1, the overall recruiting
system for volunteers would be improved. Furthermore, sending organisations
would get access to volunteers that have undergone a comprehensive training
programme, which would in turn improve the effectiveness of deploying
volunteers, reduce the risks of mismatch and facilitate the supervision and
guidance of volunteers on the field. The establishment of a Register of trained
volunteers would also help recruiting organisations identify suitable
candidates. [21] The standards for hosting organisations
would further improve the overall contribution of volunteering in humanitarian
aid by ensuring that hosting organisations are fully capable of providing
valuable volunteer placements and of harvesting the benefits from the
volunteers’ skills, which would in turn benefit the host communities. The
standards for volunteer management would also facilitate hosting organisations’
access to partnership arrangements with volunteer recruiting organisations in
the EU and elsewhere by helping them build a reputation. For this purpose, it
should be ensured that the standards are straightforward and compatible with
the community needs or customs. The standards should integrate as much as
possible into other requirements that already exist so as to avoid unnecessary administrative
burden, especially for the smaller organisations. The risk arising is that the better
skilled/experienced volunteers replace local volunteers and/or local
employment. For this to be avoided, training must focus on inputs that could
not otherwise be provided locally, and which has the potential of stimulating local
community and volunteers. At the same time, the standards and certification for
hosting organisations can help in reinforcing their capacities and benefit
local volunteers and local communities. On the volunteers’ side, those completing
the training will have better qualifications, and they will be better placed to
secure a deployment. The training would enable them to make a better informed
decision about whether to make a career in humanitarian aid. In this way, the
training will create the conditions for facilitating the inclusion of young
people into the labour market in the EU, especially if volunteers that have
completed the EU training are provided with some formal recognition of their
work – e.g. documented qualifications. The Register would provide qualified
volunteers from across the EU with access to volunteering opportunities with
organisations that meet recognised standards in volunteer management and are
eventually certified. This would provide improve transparency as well as the
opportunities for volunteers as they would be more visible for the recruiting
organisations. Those aiming for a career in humanitarian aid and who have the
requested training could also use this Register to indicate their availability
for permanent posts (subject to configuration of the Register). The training could also have positive
environmental impacts by better preparing and sensitising future volunteers on
issues such as prevention of natural disasters, preparedness and response to
the impacts of disasters due to climate change. The standards for hosting
organisations could also contribute to better management of natural resources
in beneficiary countries. Some negative environmental impacts can be assumed by
travel of volunteers to trainings. The following table provides an overview of
the potential positive and negative impacts on the different stakeholders. || Impacts Stakeholder || Positive || Negative EU sending organisations || - Improved pool of human resources (skills of volunteers) - Improved access to EU volunteers through Register + lower searching costs - Improved working relationships with hosting organisations if standards are applied || - Risk of duplication of existing training schemes - Risk of heavier administrative procedures - Costs for deployment as not covered by the EU Volunteers || - Improved access to training across Europe - Higher skills/qualifications: volunteers more attractive for labour market - Improved visibility and access to employers - Improved access to other volunteers || - Possible economic pressure on families for supporting training if not fully covered - Rising of qualifications might lead to exclusion of less qualified volunteers - No guarantee of deployment after training Hosting organisations || - Trained volunteers would be more effective if deployed - Increased management capacities through standards || - Potential crowding out effects on local workforce/local volunteering - Potential burden of standards and certification if difficult to follow Local communities || - More qualified volunteers contribute to more effective humanitarian aid if deployed - Standards ensure that the volunteers skills are adequately used to the benefit of local communities || - Crowding out effects on local workforce if paid positions are replaced by EU volunteers Contribution
to the objectives 1.
To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid As for Option 1, the impact on the overall
capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid would only be of an indirect
nature, as improved recruitment systems and better trained volunteers are
necessary pre-conditions, but deployment opportunities would in the end still
depend on the capacities and resources of the sending organisations. 2.
To improve the skills and competences of
volunteers and their working conditions European volunteers would gain skills and
competences through the training, thus increasing their relevance for future
deployment and their career opportunities The standards for hosting
organisations would allow trained volunteers, eventually screened and selected
through the Register, to benefit from favourable environment when and if they
are ultimately deployed. 3.
To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values EU visibility would be further promoted by
a training that is widely acknowledged as highly relevant and highly
applicable. A training scheme that is operated under the EU umbrella, and which
is recognised for its quality and substance will add substantially to the promotion
of EU solidarity and credibility (a similar development has been observed for
the EU Civil Protection training). However, no visibility linked to the
deployment of volunteers in the field is achieved under this option as
volunteers will be deployed (if they are at all) by other organisations. 4.
To build capacities of hosting
organisations in third countries The standards and the certification
mechanism fully funded by the EU would significantly increase the capacities of
local organisations to make the best use of European volunteers in their
humanitarian operations. However, the fact the deployment itself is not included
leaves it up to the initiative of humanitarian organisations and availability
of funds whether these standards are actually fruitfully put into action. The
unbundling of standards from directly supported deployment may make it unlikely
that many third country organisations get interested in applying them. 5.
To enhance the coherence/consistency
across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to
participate in humanitarian aid operations Equal access to training would be
facilitated, as well as equal development of skills for all European citizens.
Consistency between different voluntary schemes would also be improved by the
fact that volunteers from different Member States having followed the training
would enrol in the Register and would then be accessible to all voluntary
organisations. The existence of an EU training would increase the
attractiveness of the volunteering experience for those who want to contribute
to humanitarian aid operations of the Union. Potential volunteers would also be
reinsured by the existence of standards for hosting organisations and by the
possibility of being more visible to sending organisations through the Register.
6.
To strengthen the identification and
selection criteria of volunteers As for Option 1, the identification and
selection criteria, as well as the whole recruitment processes and systems
would be more transparent and effective. Implementation costs
Here only additional elements are presented
(the costs already calculated for option 1 will be added to the overall costs
calculation). Module 3: Training of EU
volunteers As for the number of volunteers to be
trained, we assume an average of 12 young volunteers per Member State and an average of 10 experienced volunteers per Member State at the beginning of the
training activities. We also assume that this number increases by 20% each year
to reach a total of 1.773 volunteers trained in 2020, which represents a total
of 7.673 volunteers trained. The cost of training per young volunteer is
estimated to be EUR 7,120,[22] while training costs for volunteers with experience are assumed to
be in the same order of magnitude as the costs of the EU introductory course on
Civil Protection preparedness: EUR 3,700 per volunteer.[23] The
difference is mainly due to the different length of the training. As training activities would be outsourced,
the calculations include the costs of service providers. Some staff on the
Commission side would also be needed for procurement, assistance to training
providers and other ad-hoc activities.[24] Training for EU volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20) Administration and management costs || 48.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 128.000 || 816.000 Delivery costs - Young volunteers || 2.306.880 || 2.769.680 || 3.325.040 || 3.987.200 || 4.784.640 || 5.738.720 || 6.885.040 || 29.797.200 Delivery costs - Experienced volunteers || 999.000 || 1.198.800 || 1.439.300 || 1.727.900 || 2.072.000 || 2.486.400 || 2.982.200 || 12.905.600 Promotion & communication || 500.000 || 500.000 || 150.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 1.350.000 Total Costs || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800 N. of young volunteers || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 967 || 4.185 N. experienced volunteers || 270 || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 3.488 Tot number of volunteers || 594 || 713 || 856 || 1.027 || 1.232 || 1.478 || 1.773 || 7.673 As
there might be limited additional costs for volunteers who participate in the
training courses (travel expenses, accommodation, etc.), appropriate mechanisms
should be put in place to guarantee equal participation. No specific costs for
sending organisations are foreseen. Module 4: EU Register The costs in the table below assume 100%
Commission financing of the Register with its development and operation
outsourced to a third party through a competitive tender. The estimates for the
service contracts for developing and maintaining the Register have been based
on actual costs of other emergency rosters, with the assumption that the
register is operated by a humanitarian organisation with costs similar to those
in the organisations consulted.[25] There would also be a requirement for
Commission staff time in contract administration and oversight for which a
provision of 10% of the service contract time has been made. It is assumed that
the contract price rises to ~10% after 3 years due to increases in scale of
activity. Register || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20) Development || 110,000 || || || || || || || 110,000 Maintenance/use || || 302,500 || 302,500 || 302,500 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 1,897,500 Total || 110,000 || 302,500 || 302,500 || 302,500 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 330,000 || 2,007,500 Module 5: Standards and
certification for hosting organisations The costs are calculated on the assumption
that the work would be contracted out. Similar initiatives such as the Sphere
standards have been used as benchmark.[26] 100%
Commission financing is assumed, including the development, maintenance and
revision of the standards, the latter also covering events, workshops and other
promotional material, and the publication and dissemination of standards. As
for the Register, a requirement for Commission staff time for contract
administration and oversight of 10% of the service contract time has been made.
The development of standards is assumed to
take 2 years, based on previous experiences. A revision is foreseen every 5
years. As it may be cumbersome for organisations to implement the certification
mechanism, 100% co-funding is assumed. As organisations are scattered around
the globe a higher unit costs of certification than in Module 2 is assumed
(25.000 EUR). 2014 and 2015 would be dedicated to the development and
promotion; uptake starts in 2016 with 5 organisations growing to 20 in 2020. As for the certification for sending organisations, hosting organisations will need to
re-certify after three years. Standards and certification host organisations || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total 2014 2020 Development || 190.000 || 148.000 || || || || || || 338.000 Monitoring & admin. || || || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || || 90.000 Update || || || || || || || 70.000 || 70.000 Subtotal || 190.000 || 148.000 || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 70.000 || 498.000 Certification mechanism || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-2020) Development || 25.000 || 25.000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25.000 || 0 || 75.000 Maintenance/use || 0 || 0 || 125.000 || 250.000 || 300.000 || 375.000 || 500.000 || 1.550.000 Yearly take-up rate || || 0 || 5 || 10 || 12 || 15 || 20 || 62 Re-certification || || || || || || 125.000 || 250.000 || 375.000 Promotion || 0 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 240.000 Subtotal || 25.000 || 65.000 || 165.000 || 290.000 || 340.000 || 565.000 || 790.000 || 2.240.000 Total Module 5 || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 370.000 || 595.000 || 860.000 || 2.738.000 No additional costs for volunteers or sending
organisations are estimated. There might be limited costs for hosting organisations
for complying with standards for the certification. The table presents the implementation
costs of option 2: Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020 1.Standards identification, select., training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.000 2.Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000 3.Training EU volunteers || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800 4.EU Register || 110.000 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 2.007.500 5.Standards & certification hosting org. || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 370.000 || 595.000 || 860.000 || 2.738.000 Total || 4.426.280 || 5.518.880 || 5.981.340 || 6.835.100 || 8.274.640 || 10.033.120 || 12.096.440 || 53.157.300 Management costs (10%)* || 442.628 || 551.938 || 598.184 || 683.560 || 827.464 || 1.003.312 || 1.208.644 || 5.217.900 * In case of outsourcing to an EA management
costs would be 8% of the total (4.252.584€). Option 3 The proposed approach, according to which an existing Executive
Agency would supervise appropriate volunteers deployment options to
humanitarian organisations, would ensure that the Voluntary Corps is linked
with key stakeholders in the sector. The supervision of deployment would be
retained by the Commission through a series of means. Firstly, only those
volunteers that have passed the EU training course and been placed on the Corps
Register would be eligible for deployment. This would ensure that the
volunteers deployed are equipped to make a valuable contribution. Secondly, the
Commission would keep the control through the Agency's oversight, which would
ensure excellence and high EU visibility during deployment. Thirdly, the host
organisations that receive the volunteers would be required to comply with the
EU standards developed under Module 5. The links between the different modules and
conditions linked to deployment will help to ensure that there is a strong EU
identity attached to the operations of the Voluntary Corps. It is expected that this option would provide
added value to the assisted populations by bringing additional qualified human
resources in support of local host communities. In order to avoid possible
'distorting' impacts on the local labour market, it is essential that the
contributions provided by the European volunteers are additional and preferably
unique, offering something that local staff could not provide to the same
extent (including through possible twinning approaches). The capacity building module would strengthen
third country hosting organisations; increase their absorption capacities; and
ensure that volunteer skills and competencies are used effectively. This would
in turn produce ‘spillover benefits’ beyond the Voluntary Corps, as the
targeted organisations would be better equipped to support volunteers and
participation in local communities more generally. At the same time,
participation in the training would involve a commitment of time on the part of
the hosting organisations, which may put an extra burden on the local staff. As for volunteers, this option would allow
them to realise the full benefits from their training and gain work experience
that could be used for future employments, inside and outside the sector. In
particular, the deployment would be useful for those young people who wish to
pursue a career in humanitarian work. Deployment would also bring cultural
benefits for young volunteers, who would learn about new cultures and ways of
living. The Network of EU humanitarian volunteers
would be beneficial for all EU volunteers; for third country staff and
volunteers; and for those wanting to volunteer without deployment by providing access
to online volunteering opportunities. It would provide a learning platform to
exchange experiences; best practice; and to seek support. The Network would
also help to spread widely the benefits of the Voluntary Corps and would
contribute to increased EU visibility. Past volunteers would benefit from such
a Network, as they would be able to stay in touch with other humanitarian aid
professionals. This contact would also enhance their career development and
keep them posted on any new opportunities. Volunteers’ work with local communities and
the support to hosting organisations would also bring potential benefits to the
environment, notably through the improvement of natural disaster prevention and
preparedness capacity. Some negative environmental impacts can be assumed by
the travel of volunteers to trainings and to their locations of deployment
worldwide. The following table shows the additional
impacts on the different categories of stakeholders: || Impacts Stakeholder || Positive || Negative EU sending organisations || - Would benefit from financial support for deployment of better trained volunteers - Would benefit from 'apprenticeship placements' fully funded by Commission - Improved capacities of hosting organisations would facilitate operations - Lessons learned from volunteers would contribute to improve institutional learning || - Some organisations may struggle to accommodate additional volunteers - Some potential for additional unfunded costs Volunteers || - Work experience; contribute improving their attractiveness on the labour market. - Opportunity to learn more about different cultures - Access to advice/support from volunteers through Network - Career/professional benefits from Network || - Volunteers do not have a salary, unlike other deployment, which may mean a potential income loss Hosting organisations || - Additional qualified resources addressing humanitarian needs - Improved management capacities and institutional strengthening || - Potential additional pressure on local infrastructures for receiving volunteers and for participating in training opportunities Beneficiaries || - Additional qualified resources would primarily benefit local populations - Improved capacities of local organisations would ensure more effective local response to humanitarian needs - Exchanges through the Network would increase volunteers’ sensitiveness to local cultures and conditions || - Potential 'distorting' impact on local labour market (crowding out) Contribution to the objectives 1.
To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid The overall humanitarian aid capacity of
the Union would be improved as the volunteers who have been selected and
trained would then be deployed to field operations in the framework of EU
interventions. The contribution will vary, depending on the volunteers’ profile
and specific tasks to they will perform. Furthermore, volunteers having been
deployed could also act as ‘ambassadors’ for the EU Voluntary Corps and
Humanitarian Aid in general (also using targeted funds for post deployment
awareness raising activities). 2.
To improve the skills and competences of
volunteers and their working conditions The training and the deployment to the
field would allow EU volunteers to gain a concrete work experience in
humanitarian aid and further improve their skills set, which would make them
more attractive to the labour market. The deployment and the EU community would
in particular be useful for those wanting to start a career in humanitarian
aid. There is also a cultural benefit, as volunteers would get an opportunity
not only to help communities, but also to learn about new cultures and ways of
living. Early indications from the pilot project shows that Corps volunteers
quickly moved into humanitarian employment. 3.
To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values The EU visibility would be enhanced
through the deployment of Voluntary Corps volunteers in third countries. This
would be further enhanced by the direct support provided to hosting
organisations through capacity building activities, as well as the establishment
of the Network of humanitarian volunteers. 4.
To build capacities of hosting
organisations in third countries The deployment of EU volunteers to third
countries, associated with capacity building activities for hosting
organisations (module 7) would ensure that staff and volunteers of those
organisations will benefit from the Voluntary Corps. This is likely to produce
sustainable impacts on local communities and have multiplier effects. 5.
To enhance the coherence/consistency
across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to
participate in humanitarian aid operations This option would give the possibility to
all sending organisations across the EU to benefit from financial support for
deploying volunteers in humanitarian aid operations. This option would in
particular benefit those organisations from EU Member States where access to
national financing sources for deployment is limited. The Network would also
allow sending organisations from all over Europe to learn from the experiences
of volunteers having been deployed with the support of the Voluntary Corps,
which is likely to contribute to the improvement of institutional learning and to
a more consistent development of the voluntary sector. The combination of training;
apprenticeship placements and strengthened management capacities of the hosting
organisations in third countries would also encourage EU citizens wanting to
express their solidarity to engage in volunteering. The 'community' would allow
citizens to get involved without deployment through online volunteering
opportunities. 6.
To strengthen the identification and selection
criteria of volunteers As for Option 1 and 2, the identification
and selection criteria, as well as the whole recruitment processes and systems
would be more transparent and effective. The activities with hosting
organisations would also reinforce their own systems for managing staff and
volunteers (including identification and selection criteria). Implementation costs Module 5: Development
of standards and a certification mechanism for volunteer management in hosting
organisations It is expected that in option 3 many more
local organisations will be interested in getting certification, especially if
the deployment of EU volunteers is made conditional to these organisations
complying with the standards. As under option 2, 100% co-financing and a unit
costs of certification of 25.000 EUR is assumed. The total number of hosting
organisations being certified is expected to be higher than those of sending
organisations as typically small hosting organisations may not be able to host
more than one or two volunteers at a time whereas sending organisations
typically send larger groups of volunteers. Uptake starts in 2016 with 5
organisations growing to 100 in 2020. Standards and certification host organisations || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-2020) Development of standards || 190.000 || 148.000 || || || || || || 338.000 Monitoring & administration || || || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || || 90.000 Update || || || || || || || 70.000 || 70.000 Subtotal || 190.000 || 148.000 || || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 70.000 || 498.000 Certification mechanism || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-2020) Development || 25.000 || 25.000 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 25.000 || 0 || 75.000 Maintenance/use || 0 || 0 || 125.000 || 250.000 || 750.000 || 1.250.000 || 2.500.000 || 4.875.000 Yearly take-up rate || || 0 || 5 || 10 || 30 || 50 || 100 || 195 Re-certification || || || || || || 125.000 || 250.000 || 375.000 Promotion || 0 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 40.000 || 240.000 Subtotal || 25.000 || 65.000 || 165.000 || 290.000 || 790.000 || 1.440.000 || 2.790.000 || 5.565.000 Total Module 5 || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 820.000 || 1.470.000 || 2.860.000 || 6.063.000 Module
6: Deployment of volunteers Two components are envisaged for deployment: -
‘Apprenticeship placements' of on an average 6
months for young volunteers having been trained with the Voluntary Corps in
order to give them practical experience before direct deployment in
humanitarian aid and civil protection interventions of a humanitarian character.
Numbers would mirror the recruitment into the training programme. The
Commission would finance 100% of the deployment. -
‘Regular’ deployment by implementing partners,
with a Commission co-financing rate of 80%, while the remaining 20% will be
financed by sending organisations. It is assumed that 90% of those
participating in apprenticeship training would go on to participate as long
term regular volunteers, whilst 50% of those trained as 'expert volunteers'
would go on to long deployment as volunteers and 50 % on short term
deployment. The total number of these different types
of placements would amount to 9,604 in 2020. Some of the costs that the EU
would cover (for both types of deployment) include administrative costs (medical
checks, insurance, visa, and travel to/from host country and local travels), plus
a personal allowance. There would not be any additional cost for volunteers
during deployment. Finally, this module foresees a budget for visibility
packages allowing volunteers after their deployment to organize events to promote
their experience (similar to the EVS volunteers). Deployment of EU volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20) Apprenticeship placements - 6 months, 100% financing N° of volunteers || 0 || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 3.218 Costs || 0 || 2.980.800 || 3.578.800 || 4.296.400 || 5.152.000 || 6.182.400 || 7.415.200 || 29.605.600 Regular deployment - long term (average 1 year), 80% co-financing N° of volunteers || 135 || 454 || 545 || 654 || 784 || 941 || 1.128 || 4.641 Costs || 2.484.000 || 8.353.600 || 10.028.000 || 12.033.600 || 14.425.600 || 17.314.400 || 20.755.200 || 85.394.400 Regular deployment - short term (average 1 month), 80% co-financing N° of volunteers || 135 || 162 || 195 || 234 || 280 || 336 || 403 || 1.745 Costs || 847.800 || 1.017.360 || 1.224.600 || 1.469.520 || 1.758.400 || 2.110.080 || 2.530.840 || 10.958.600 Total costs regular deployment || 3.331.800 || 9.370.960 || 11.252.600 || 13.503.120 || 16.184.000 || 19.424.480 || 23.286.040 || 96.353.000 Costs regular deploy. for EU 80% || 2.665.440 || 7.496.768 || 9.002.080 || 10.802.496 || 12.947.200 || 15.539.584 || 18.628.832 || 77.082.400 Costs regular deploy. for partners 20% || 666.360 || 1.874.192 || 2.250.520 || 2.700.624 || 3.236.800 || 3.884.896 || 4.657.208 || 19.270.600 Total N° of volunteers (apprent. + regular) || 270 || 940 || 1.129 || 1.355 || 1.624 || 1.949 || 2.337 || 9.604 Visibility package after deployment || 270.000 || 940.000 || 1.129.000 || 1.355.000 || 1.624.000 || 1.949.000 || 2.337.000 || 9.604.000 Promotion & communication || 1.000.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 1.000.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 2.100.000 Total EU deployment costs || 3.935.440 || 11.437.568 || 13.729.880 || 17.453.896 || 19.743.200 || 23.690.984 || 28.401.032 || 118.392.000 This scenario assumes a Commission
co-financing rate of 80% for regular deployment. Should the Commission finance
100%, costs for deployment would be EUR19M higher. Module 7: Building
capacities in third country hosting organisations The main items that are taken into account
in the calculation of costs are the development of training material in several
languages (outsourced); the costs related to training; seminars and the
delivery of the 'Humanitarian Leadership' scheme (travel costs; per diems;
accommodation costs); and the Commission staff costs (management, supervision,
liaison with contractors, etc.). Trainings are assumed to cost on average 5,410
EUR / person and beneficiaries for the different trainings would be designated
at an averaged ratio of one trainee for every four EU volunteers deployed. For
the 'Humanitarian Leadership" programme we assume 1 participant for every
20 volunteers deployed. The total number of direct beneficiaries of all
activities would rise from 382 in 2014 to 1,601 in 2020, a cumulated total of 7,081. Capacity Building || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20) Development of training material || 145.000 || 145.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 20.000 || 80.000 || 20.000 || 450.000 Training for volunteer managers / coaches / train the trainers Total N° trained || 68 || 235 || 282 || 339 || 406 || 487 || 584 || 2.401 Costs || 367.880 || 1.271.350 || 1.525.620 || 1.833.990 || 2.196.460 || 2.634.670 || 3.159.440 || 12.989.410 Regional South-South seminars for good practice exchange N° of participants || 300 || 400 || 500 || 600 || 700 || 800 || 900 || 4.200 Costs || 750.000 || 1.000.000 || 1.250.000 || 1.500.000 || 1.750.000 || 2.000.000 || 2.250.000 || 10.500.000 "Humanitarian Leadership" programme N° of people participating || 14 || 47 || 56 || 68 || 81 || 97 || 117 || 480 Costs || 125.244 || 420.462 || 500.976 || 608.328 || 724.626 || 867.762 || 1.046.682 || 4.294.080 Total N° of beneficiaries || 382 || 682 || 838 || 1.007 || 1.187 || 1.384 || 1.601 || 7.081 Promotion || 500.000 || 500.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 45.000 || 1.225.000 Total costs || 1.888.124 || 3.336.812 || 3.341.596 || 4.007.318 || 4.736.086 || 5.627.432 || 6.521.122 || 29.458.490 Module
8: EU Network of humanitarian volunteers It is assumed that the Commission would
outsource this module to a specialised company. The costs include the technical
and administrative staff for the development, maintenance and facilitation of
the website and the interactive tools (including promotional events). EU Network of volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2012-20) System development || 1.000.000 || || || 250.000 || || || 50.000 || 1.300.000 Alumni activities, conferences/seminars || 250.000 || 500.000 || 250.000 || 500.000 || 250.000 || 500.000 || 250.000 || 2.500.000 Maintenance || 200.000 || 300.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 400.000 || 2.500.000 Evaluation || || || || 50.000 || || || || 50.000 Promotion || 75.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 25.000 || 225.000 Total || 1.525.000 || 825.000 || 675.000 || 1.225.000 || 675.000 || 925.000 || 725.000 || 6.575.000 The implementing costs for option 3 would be as follows: Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020 1.Standards identification, select, training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.400 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.400 2.Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000 3.Training EU volunteers || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800 4.EU Register || 110.000 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 2.007.500 5.Standards & certification hosting org. || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 820.000 || 1.470.000 || 2.860.000 || 6.063.000 6.Deployment of volunteers || 3.953.440 || 11.437.568 || 13.729.880 || 17.453.896 || 19.743.200 || 23.690.984 || 28.401.032 || 118.392.000 7. Building capacities in hosting org. || 1.888.124 || 3.336.812 || 3.341.596 || 4.007.318 || 4.736.086 || 5.627.423 || 6.521.122 || 29.458.490 8. EU network volunteers || 1.525.000 || 825.000 || 675.000 || 1.225.000 || 675.000 || 925.000 || 725.000 || 6.575.000 Total || 11.792.844 || 21.118.760 || 23.728.716 || 29.521.814 || 33.878.926 || 41.151.527 || 49.733.594 || 210.926.181 Management costs (10%) || 1.179.284 || 2.111.876 || 2.372.872 || 2.952.181 || 3.387.893 || 4.115.153 || 4.973.359 || 21.092.618 * In case of outsourcing to an EA
management costs would be 8% of the total (€16.874.094). Option 4 This option includes the same modules as option 3 but assumes that
each component of option 3 is directly managed by the European Commission. This way of managing the selection for
deployment of volunteers would imply the following. It would involve the same
level of control of the Commission over the training of volunteers as in option
3 and the establishment of a Register. As for deployment, the Commission or the
Agency would control the final selection and placement of volunteers, who would
then be embedded in humanitarian aid projects in the field after being selected.
This option would not follow the usual way of the Commission in delivering
humanitarian aid, i.e. working with implementing humanitarian partner
organisations. The influence that the Commission can have on visibility and
‘marketing’ of the Voluntary Corps would be the same as in option 3. Option 4 would imply a change in the
management of financial support to volunteers in the Voluntary Corps as
compared to the aid workers presently financed through partners in EU
humanitarian aid. The change would imply additional administrative costs for
the Commission in terms of human resources[27]. In order to mange effectively the
deployment of volunteers under Option 4, a robust internal governance structure and day-to-day liaison arrangements should be developed by the Commission
services. However, this set-up would limit the 'ownership' by humanitarian
partner organisations (as they would be much less involved), which would in
turn reduce the incentive for an enhanced quality in humanitarian volunteering.
It seems likely that the rate at which the scale of Voluntary Corps activities
could grow would be somewhat lower under option 4. At the same time, given this limited
‘absorption capacity’, it is likely that the deployment opportunities would be
limited, also due to the fact that humanitarian organisations may less readily
accept to deploy volunteers who have not been chosen by them. Furthermore, it
would be more difficult for the Commission (or the Executive Agency) to match
the profiles of volunteers with the needs in the field. A smaller scale of
deployment would in turn translate into more limited benefits to host
communities and to overall capacity in the sector. Volunteers would also be
more ‘disconnected’ from the implementing organisations and local communities assisted
by humanitarian aid. The environmental impacts are comparable to
those in Option 3 although slightly lower as to the carbon footprint due to
fewer deployment foreseen. The following table shows the additional
impacts on the different categories of stakeholders: || Impacts Stakeholder || Positive || Negative EU sending organisations || - Improved qualifications of volunteers (potential future humanitarian aid workers) || - New competitive actor in the humanitarian aid system - Little control over volunteers deployed and less interest in getting involved Volunteers || - Good quality of training and conditions of deployment || - Reduced number of deployment opportunities - Limited contacts with local communities and beneficiaries Hosting organisations || - Higher visibility vis-à-vis the EU || - Reduced number of volunteers deployed - Volunteers would be more ‘disconnected’ from organisations Beneficiaries || - Quality of volunteers contributions || - Reduced number of volunteers deployed - Volunteers more ‘disconnected’ from local communities Contribution to the objectives 1.
To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid The overall humanitarian aid capacity of
the Union would also be improved as in for Option 3. However, the need to
set-up of new mechanisms and management structures and the limited number of
volunteers deployed in the field hamper the potential of the Voluntary Corps to
contribute to the improvement of EU capacity in humanitarian aid. Given the
change in the implementation modalities (humanitarian partners would not be
involved in deployment), this option is expected to be less effective. 2.
To improve the skills and competences of
volunteers and their working conditions Impacts are similar to option 3: The
volunteers’ skills set would be improved through training and deployment in the
EU offices in third countries. Direct contact with the EU structures would
allow volunteers to improve their knowledge of the EU policies and
implementation mechanisms. 3.
To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values Direct management would allow for higher visibility of the EU and
the creation of an ‘esprit de Corps’. At the same time, the reduced number of
deployment in the field would limit the impact of the Voluntary Corps outside
the EU. 4.
To build capacities of hosting
organisations in third countries The impacts would be similar to option 3,
though the deployment of fewer volunteers could be a limiting factor for the
strengthening of local capacities. 5.
To enhance the coherence/consistency
across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to
participate in humanitarian aid operations While the direct management of the Voluntary Corps would ensure a
strong steering of the different activities, this would not necessarily
increase the consistency of the existing voluntary schemes across Member States
as those organisations would not be directly involved in the activities of the
Voluntary Corps. The fact that the management of the Voluntary Corps’
activities would be centralised might act as a hindrance to wide-spread EU participation
of those who are interested in volunteering in humanitarian aid. The reduced
number of opportunities for deployment would also be a limiting factor. 6.
To strengthen the identification and
selection criteria of volunteers The impacts would be similar to Option 3. Implementing costs The costs for modules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and
8 are assumed to be similar to the ones in option 3.[28] The main difference would regard the costs
of deployment (Module 6). Management costs per volunteer deployed would be
higher in a direct management model, mainly because the unit cost of human
resources and overheads in Commission services (or Agency) are higher than
those of external service providers – the administrative overheads of operating
the programme will be proportionately higher. As the sending organisations
would not been involved in the selection of volunteers, they would be reluctant
to engage in co-financing. For this reason, it is assumed in this option 4 that
the EU would cover 100% of deployment costs. At the same time, should option 4
be chosen, the Commission could consider asking a service fee to the
organisations getting trained volunteers. For the reasons previously mentioned, the
direct management mode is expected to lead to lower levels of deployment of
volunteers. It is assumed that this option would lead to not more than 60% of
deployment of those reached under the partnership model in Option 3. Deployment of EU volunteers || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Total (2014-20) Apprenticeship placements - 6 months, 100% financing N° of volunteers || 0 || 324 || 389 || 467 || 560 || 672 || 806 || 3.218 Costs || 0 || 2.980.800 || 3.578.800 || 4.296.400 || 5.152.000 || 6.182.400 || 7.415.200 || 29.605.600 Regular deployment - long-term average 1 year, 100% financing N° of volunteers || 81 || 272 || 327 || 392 || 470 || 564 || 676 || 2.782 Costs || 2.146.500 || 7.208.000 || 8.665.500 || 10.388.000 || 12.455.000 || 14.946.000 || 17.914.000 || 73.723.000 Regular deployment - short term average 1 month, 100% financing N° of volunteers || 81 || 97 || 117 || 140 || 168 || 201 || 241 || 1.045 Costs || 763.020 || 913.740 || 1.102.140 || 1.318.800 || 1.582.560 || 1.893.420 || 2.270.220 || 9.843.900 Total cost deployment || 2.909.520 || 8.121.740 || 9.767.640 || 11.706.800 || 14.037.560 || 16.839.420 || 20.184.220 || 83.566.900 Total n. volunteers (apprent + regular) || 162 || 693 || 833 || 999 || 1198 || 1437 || 1723 || 7.045 Visibility package after deployment || 162.000 || 369.360 || 443.460 || 532.380 || 638.400 || 766.080 || 918.840 || 3.830.520 Promotion & communication || 1.500.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 1.500.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 30.000 || 3.150.000 Total costs EU (apprent.+regular) || 4.571.520 || 11.501.900 || 13.819.900 || 18.035.580 || 19.857.960 || 23.817.900 || 28.548.260 || 120.153.020 The costs of deployment would be around EUR
120M (within the allocation for the MFF 2014-2020) for deploying 60% of
volunteers compared to option 3. The costs for the volunteers would be similar
to option 3, while there wouldn’t be any additional costs for sending
organisation as 100% would be financed by the Commission. However, the administrative
costs for staff and management would be much higher. The implementing costs for option 4 would be: Modules || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || Tot 2014-2020 1.Standards identification, select, training || 192.400 || 192.400 || 242.400 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 50.000 || 181.200 || 958.400 2.Certification mechanism || 55.000 || 215.000 || 230.000 || 270.000 || 490.000 || 655.000 || 670.000 || 2.585.000 3.Training EU volunteers || 3.853.880 || 4.596.480 || 5.042.340 || 5.893.100 || 7.034.640 || 8.403.120 || 10.045.240 || 44.868.800 4.EU Register || 110.000 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 302.500 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 330.000 || 2.007.500 5.Standards & certification hosting org. || 215.000 || 213.000 || 165.000 || 320.000 || 820.000 || 1.470.000 || 2.860.000 || 6.063.000 6.Deployment of volunteers || 4.571.520 || 11.501.900 || 13.819.900 || 18.035.580 || 19.857.960 || 23.817.900 || 28.548.260 || 120.153.020 7. Building capacities in hosting org. || 1.888.124 || 3.336.812 || 3.341.596 || 4.007.318 || 4.736.086 || 5.627.423 || 6.521.122 || 29.458.481 8. EU network humanitarian volunteers || 1.525.000 || 825.000 || 675.000 || 1.225.000 || 675.000 || 925.000 || 725.000 || 6.575.000 Total || 12.410.924 || 21.183.092 || 23.818.736 || 30.103.498 || 33.993.686 || 41.278.443 || 49.880.822 || 212.669.201 7. Comparison
of options When comparing the four policy options, it
should be noted that the four options are of increasing ambition or scope i.e.
from a minimalist option 1 to an extensive and directly managed option 4. The
comparisons of the options are made by assessing how much more the more
extensive options contribute to the specific objectives (effectiveness). This
assessment can then be compared to the resources needed to achieve those
objectives (efficiency). The selection of the preferred option is based on this
two criteria, as well as the coherence with the overall humanitarian aid
policies. The varying extensiveness of the different options also gives rise to
different risks during the actual implementation. The table below summarises the comparison
of options. This is done by applying a scoring system where scores from +, ++
or +++ are assigned, signifying low, medium or high positive impacts. Note that
some of the scores have been enclosed in brackets (), indicating that the
assessments are connected with more uncertainty (also linked to the risks
identified). The table also contains the total implementation cost figures for
the four policy options to enable an approximate assessment of efficiency. || Baseline scenario || Option 1 || Option 2 || Option 3 || Option 4 Specific objectives || || || || || To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid || (+) || (+) || ++ || +++ || ++ To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions || (+) || (+) || ++ || +++ || ++ To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values || (+) || (+) || + || +++ || +++ To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries || - || - || + || +++ || +++ To enhance coherence across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid || - || (+) || (++) || ++ || (+) To strengthen the identification and selection criteria for volunteers || + || ++ || ++ || +++ || +++ Implementation costs 2014-2020 || || EUR 3 million || EUR 52 million || EUR 210 million || EUR 212 million Number of volunteers deployed || - || - || - || 9.604 || 7.045 The impacts on voluntary schemes are
of different nature and size. Option 1 would create the conditions for an
increased transparency and consistency of the recruitment processes and
training of volunteers across Member States, and could encourage sending
organisations to align their approaches. However, impacts and synergies effects
depend on the level of uptake across organisations. The impacts of option 2 on
voluntary schemes would also be indirect. The Voluntary Corps training could
have a 'leverage effect' on the training activities offered by other humanitarian
actors. Voluntary organisations would also have facilitated access to
volunteers through the Register. Option 3 would further add the possibility
to all voluntary organisations across the EU to benefit from financial support
for deploying volunteers in humanitarian aid operations, thus strengthening the
whole sector. Option 4 would have a more limited impact in that the sending
organisations would have only a marginal role in the Voluntary Corps,
especially for the deployment of volunteers. As for volunteers, the different options
contribute to their qualifications to an increasing degree. Option 1 mainly
enables the Voluntary Corps volunteers to display on their CVs that they have
been selected/engaged by a certified organisation, and it provides for a higher
level of knowledge about what to expect from volunteering through different
organisations. Option 2 directly contributes to volunteer qualifications via
training, and increases their chance of deployment. Training and the Register would
also provide a faster entry into volunteering, while the standards for host
organisations would help volunteers to maximise their contribution when
deployed and increase their job satisfaction. Option 3 would help volunteers to gain a
concrete work experience in the sector and further improve their qualifications
through deployment, so to become more attractive for subsequent field
experiences and increase their opportunities for future jobs. This is also
likely to encourage EU citizens wanting to express their solidarity to engage
in volunteering and make a concrete contribution to humanitarian aid (including
for those who would otherwise have fewer opportunities). This will also
contribute to increase the surge capacity of the humanitarian sector. The EU Network
of humanitarian volunteers would also provide networking opportunities that
would be particularly useful for those wanting to start a career in
humanitarian aid. Finally, this option would bring cultural benefits, as
volunteers would get an opportunity to learn about different cultures and ways
of living. Option 4 contains the same modules as
option 3 and would bring the same benefits as above. However, the impact on
volunteers would be limited by the reduced number of deployment. Furthermore, in
addition to the extra administrative costs, the Commission/Agency management would
reduce the accessibility by the partners and somewhat the participation. In
option 4, the ownership of the humanitarian aid workers would be reduced as
they have not themselves chosen the candidates. Effective match between
volunteers' profiles and needs in the field would also be more difficult. All the options would promote EU visibility,
but to different degrees. In option 1, the impacts would depend on the level of
uptake and how far they come to be identified as part of an EU initiative.
Certificates may make EU volunteering standards more visible. Impacts on the
promotion of EU visibility outside the EU would be very limited, due to the
fact that this option does not imply any deployment. Option 2 would have an
indirect impact on the promotion of EU visibility in third countries if and
when trained volunteers are deployed. The direct presence and support of the
Voluntary Corps in the local communities is a central and direct way of
displaying EU visibility, in particular if combined with adequate training that
ensures that volunteers contribute significantly and positively (option 3).
Option 3 will thus further reinforce the impacts of option 2, in particular in host communities. In option 3 and 4, the Commission would be able to directly
influence how EU visibility and solidarity will be delivered with the
volunteers' presence. In both option 3 and option 4 volunteers could also act
as ‘ambassadors’ for the EU Voluntary Corps after having been deployed. In conclusion, option 1 would have a limited impact on the objectives, depending
on the level of uptake of standards and the willingness of voluntary
organisations to subscribe to the certification mechanisms. Option 2 would
improve the qualifications of volunteers and would create the conditions for
more effective deployment and increased contribution of volunteers to the
humanitarian aid sector. However, there would be no guarantee that the skills
acquired by volunteers would actually be put at the service of the local
populations. Option 3 would not only enhance the voluntary sector and support
to volunteers in Europe, but would also include all the necessary elements for
ensuring that volunteers actually contribute to the humanitarian aid
interventions in third countries and thus contribute to the overall
effectiveness and quality of humanitarian aid. Option 4 would imply much higher
costs and a limited number of deployment opportunities due to management
constraints, and would imply a different management approach to the rest of
humanitarian aid and lack the opportunities of the partnership approach. For these reasons, the preferred
option is the option 3. 8. Arrangements
for monitoring and evaluation Monitoring A standing monitoring system will follow
the progress of the programme in the achievement of its objectives. It will be
based on a number of indicators, consistently compiled and measured by the
implementing body. The monitoring system will allow tracking of the level of
achievement of the operational objectives of the scheme, will provide
indications as to the achievement of its specific objectives and will provide
guidance for adjusting the implementation of the programme in light of
experience. The core indicators for monitoring will be
the following: Specific objective || Indicators To improve the capacity of the Union to provide humanitarian aid || · Number of volunteers deployed or ready for deployment · Number of certified sending and hosting organisations To improve the skills and competences of volunteers and their working conditions || · Number of volunteers trained and quality of training (based on peer reviews and level of satisfaction) · Number of certified sending and hosting organisations applying the standards for deployment and management of European volunteers To promote the visibility of the Union’s humanitarian values || · European volunteers’ level of knowledge about EU humanitarian aid · Level of awareness about the Voluntary Corps among the targeted population of the Union the benefitting third countries communities and the international humanitarian community To build capacities of hosting organisations in third countries || · Number and type of capacity building actions · Number of third country staff and local volunteers participating in capacity building actions To enhance coherence across Member States in order to improve opportunities for European citizens to participate in humanitarian aid || · Number of certified sending organisations · Dissemination and replication of the standards for management of European volunteers by other voluntary schemes To strengthen the identification and selection criteria for volunteers || · Number of sending organisations making use of standards · Level of satisfaction of sending organisations manager These indicators may be completed by
additional ones according to the needs in terms of management and
decision-making. Evaluation A mid-term evaluation of the scheme will be
carried out three years after the actual start of the activities. A final
evaluation is foreseen at the end of the programme. Additional evaluation
studies on specific aspects of the scheme may be launched at any time during
the implementation of the scheme, should it appear necessary to adjust or
reshape any part of the scheme. 9. Annexes 1. Executive summary of 2010 Review 2. Analysis report of the open public
consultation 3. Pilot projects 2011-2012 factsheets 4. Example of existing training schemes 5. List of stakeholders consulted ANNEX 1 EC Reference N°: D 284210, ECHO /ADM/BUD/2010/01207 Internal Project N°: GMX EC 16 - 2010 Review Team: Mr Michel Van Bruaene (Team Leader) Mr Jonathan Potter Mr Michael Kunze
FINAL REPORT Review concerning the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps Implementation: July – October 2010 prepared for: European Commission Directorate - General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection - ECHO ECHO 01 – Evaluation Sector Aachen, 26th November 2010 GERMAX • GERLI GmbH • Bismarckstrasse 2-8 • D-52066 Aachen Tel. +49-241-40102400 • Fax +49-241-401024040• info@germax.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A.1. Objectives
of the Review (Section B.1.2 of the main report) The
article 214.5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), foresees the setting up of
a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps. The acronym “EVHAC”, which can be
misleading for several reasons, will be used in the present report for
convenience purposes. The
overall objective of this review is to support the Commission in setting up a
European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps by (i) conducting an analysis of
existing voluntary schemes, (ii) identifying the structure, scope and focus of
possible implementing options and (iii) assessing the cost of these options. The
TOR also took into consideration current trends and needs of volunteering, such
as professionalism, focus on demand-driven approaches, on capacity building of
local counterparts, or the
wider LRRD[29] scope of
humanitarian-related activities from preparedness and civil protection to
recovery. A.2.
Approaches (Section B.1.2) The
review was carried out over a period of 10 weeks (between July and September
2010) by a team of 3 consultants. All of them had taken part in the previous
EVHAC Review carried out in 2005 and 2006, which provided comprehensive
background information. A
first phase of the review was dedicated to a wide literature review (Annex D)
and to the preparation of survey questionnaires. An Aide Memoire was submitted
to DG ECHO mid-August. During
the second phase, survey questionnaires were sent to 182 FPA partners of DG
ECHO, all HAC members and Civil Protection National Contact Points, as well as
to identified returned volunteers. In parallel, key stakeholders were visited
in Brussels, Germany, Geneva, UK and Paris; others were approached by phone,
mail and dedicated questionnaires (Annexes E - F). A brief field mission was
also carried out in Haiti, to collect lessons regarding the involvement of international volunteers in this
recent major crisis (Annex G).
The draft report was submitted in due time before the dedicated stakeholders’
conference, at the end of September. The scope of work was somewhat constrained
by the limited period of time allocated for the review, which took place mostly
during the months of summer holidays. A.3. Key
Findings and Lessons Learned (Section B.2, Annexes
D - G) There
was a consistency in the findings from the successive phases of research and
from the variety of sources. The following paragraphs summarise the key
findings and lessons by theme, along with the conclusions or recommendations
which the team drew from those findings (recommendations are further detailed
in B.3). Fuller details of findings themselves, organised by sources and
stakeholders, can be found in Annex F. A.3.1.
Present involvement of volunteers in humanitarian actions with DG ECHO partners Of the respondents to the DG ECHO partner survey (46 of about 182
invited), the majority stated that they involve volunteers in their
humanitarian activities, although very few would do so in emergency relief
operations / man-made crises, and never with young unskilled volunteers.
Volunteers deployed to international projects are mostly used for their
specialised technical skills, generally for periods of less than 6 months. They
are either young professionals, freshly graduated, or experienced ones. Where it relates to assignments inside the EU, organisations
generally take on as volunteers young people still undergoing studies or those
just graduated in relevant sectors, essentially for auxiliary support services
or general administrative work. The majority of the responding organisations
also indicated that they are planning to create new posts for experienced
volunteers or young professionals in the near future, although the actual
number of posts is quite limited. An EVS (European
Voluntary Service) National Agency stated that the demand from interested youth
is very high and that there is potential to increase the numbers of volunteers
were there more funds available. The
reality of involving volunteers in today’s humanitarian activities follows in
general a needs based, rational approach: younger (less experienced) volunteers
are mostly involved in the EU, and experienced and well trained volunteers are
deployed to third countries. The review recommends that EVHAC reflect this
approach to ensure the involvement of different groups of volunteers. A.3.2. The key operational criteria for EVHAC are to respond to
needs and to do no harm. These points were stressed by
an overwhelming majority of interviewees and respondents to surveys; they were
also summarised, together with most of the key issues below, in a joint
position paper by ICRC, IFRC, OCHA and VOICE. Examples
given by respondents were that European volunteers must not deprive locals of
jobs or their own opportunities to volunteer; that volunteers must not be a
security risk to themselves or others; that EVHAC should not distract from the
sector’s move towards professionalism (see section A.3.2 on training and
standards); that volunteers should do only work required by the community or
the operational agency (not work primarily aimed at benefitting the volunteer).
The key
lesson from comparing the responses from Haiti to those from a similar visit to
Sri Lanka in 2006 is that the added value of European volunteers will be
affected by factors such as the local post-disaster situation, the local
culture and particularly the strength of local civil society. It will be
important in every post-disaster situation for a needs assessment to be
undertaken to understand the skills needed and the optimal timing for the
different skill levels of volunteers, as well as the capacity of the country
(accommodation, food etc) and organisations (management time, tasks identified)
to receive them. To ensure buy-in from
the humanitarian community (European and in-country) and adherence to
principles of humanitarian action, the recommendations of the review are based
on this premise of responding to need. To achieve this the review advocates a
transparent partnership approach in setting up EVHAC, involving potential users
of EVHAC volunteers during the setting-up stage and beyond (e.g. specific
working groups) to base its activities on actual needs. It was also clear from
responses that EVHAC-supported activities need to
encompass the wider framework of humanitarian aid, from pre- to post-disaster
work, and the full range of LRRD activities. A.3.3. EVHAC
should add value to existing schemes, without duplicating or competing. There are a
large number of existing volunteer schemes within and outside Europe, defining
volunteer in many different ways and ranging from basic induction for unskilled
youth to specialised rosters for professionals. Implementing organisations
prefer to seek experienced experts for third country deployment, as well as
some young professionals as trainees for career-entry schemes. Rosters for highly
trained experts (including volunteers in some cases but not all) are operated
by civil protection actors, some UN agencies such as OCHA[30], UN Volunteers and
UNHCR. The definition of what a volunteer is varies significantly: unpaid,
trainee or experienced with stipend, etc. Volunteering
organisations and networks often offer simultaneously several models of
volunteering, which correspond to the demands of their respective target
groups. Some respondents
provided useful suggestions regarding the possible role of EVHAC, to be focused
on: (i) cooperating with the existing “diversity of
actors” in EU humanitarian aid and civil protection, rather than setting up new
schemes; and (ii) supporting actively the sector with services such as the
development of common standards and guidelines as well as with the development
of training modules for volunteers. In
considering the different groups of volunteers, the review suggests a stepped
approach (“3 levels of volunteering”, described in B.3.1.2) in order to ensure
EVHAC is of relevance to significant numbers of implementing partners and
volunteers. A contribution by EVHAC to strengthening European volunteer
involvement would be to support existing schemes such as career entry schemes,
roster services, emergency response units, youth organisations of implementing
organisations, etc. The matter of paying volunteers is dealt with in A.3.5. The
review takes into account the respondents’ views that third country deployment
of young (in-experienced) volunteers generally provides a low added value for
the beneficiaries (depending on preparation, duration, support), since such
schemes are mostly focused on the personal development of the young volunteers.
Coordination should also be sought with the new Youth on the Move initiative[31], in matters of e.g. vocational
training, certificates and cooperation with the EURES job portal[32]. There are
several options for EVHAC to deal with rosters of experts. EVHAC may either
operate its own roster/database, which would require extensive work and entail
risks of duplication or confusion, and/or coordinate with existing rosters. It
could also delegate the roster work for some specific sectors or skills to
existing and well-functioning registers. An alternative would be to establish a
“clearing house” database which would either collate needs identified at field
level and trigger pre-existing arrangements with rosters, or/and try to match
needs with offers from EU civil society actors or individuals. A trade-off between
co-financing by EVHAC of humanitarian volunteering projects and co-branding
would be favourably envisaged by many key volunteer-sending organisations,
provided that modalities can be discussed in working or focus groups. A.3.4. EVHAC could add value in
contributing to strengthening a conducive environment for volunteering. Some lessons learnt outline the frequent
legal problems for volunteers (visas, work permits) and the lack of a
consistent legal framework within Europe. A key role of facilitation and
coordination on the legal issues would be needed at the EU level, in
coordination with e.g. the IDRL (International Disaster Response Laws, Rules
and Principles)/IFRC and the UN. Many respondents outlined also the need
for the recognition at EU level of volunteering assignments and of skills
gained in this context. Conducive frameworks exist already in the UK and in Germany, although improvements may be needed. Such an environment has also recently been
enhanced in France, with the adoption in 2005 of a law on volunteering contracts,
and the creation in early 2010 of the “France Volontaires” platform. Recognising that there are a variety of
gaps in the current patterns of service provision to volunteers expressed by
those organisations involving volunteers, the review suggests EVHAC address
some of the priority service components for volunteering. These would include
training support, information provision, strengthening of recognition,
facilitation functions for visa / work permits, insurance matters. IFRC further
recommended discussions in working groups to define possible cooperation in
matters of e.g. IDRL and harmonized legal status and recognition for European
volunteers in the EU and abroad. A.3.5. “Volunteering is not for free”. This statement by returned volunteers applies to both sending
organisations and the volunteers themselves. Almost
all Europeans/Americans (aside from the initial flood of faith-based groups)
who were volunteering in Haiti were paid more than expenses, some being paid
their full salaries by employers willing to let their staff member volunteer,
or by governments through nationally funded schemes. However, despite
receiving some kind of remuneration/stipend, many volunteers also stated that
they have contributed financially themselves to their mission. The successive
tasks of identification, recruitment, training, integration, and supervision
and returnee care services are very demanding and costly; a majority of actors
expressed therefore their need for funding and supporting services, to ensure
inclusivity and enable a larger number of volunteers to get involved in
humanitarian assistance. This finding requires EVHAC to consider and
to define remuneration and compensation schemes (e.g. by level of volunteering)
– benchmarked with the remuneration approach of existing schemes to prevent
“market distortion”. It also makes EU support for volunteering a costly
exercise but will offer opportunities for greater inclusivity. A.3.6. The
question of professionalism and training of the volunteers. Lessons learnt from volunteers’ involvements in previous
humanitarian crises point to a number of recurrent
patterns, e.g. the need for experienced, skilled volunteers rather than young
unskilled ones (at least during the first 6 months of an emergency), the need
for long-term commitments by volunteers, the need for structured training
(security, cultural sensitization, language skills), and a code of practice for
volunteers. Respondents to the different surveys confirmed the need for
targeted training and mission preparation as well as for development of common
standards and guidelines for the management and training of volunteers. The
major challenges mentioned by sending organisations are (i) the identification
and recruitment of suitable volunteers and (ii) the training and preparation of
volunteers and iii) organisational capacity to manage them. Responding to the expressed needs of the
actors for professionalism and training, one suggested field of activity for
EVHAC is to support training and promote volunteer management standards and
guidelines. The review further recommends cooperation to be established with
some EU government-funded schemes for introducing young people, often unskilled
or with fewer opportunities, to humanitarian-related values and vocational training,
through projects of variable duration in the EU or in safe areas abroad
(Weltwärts, the French Service Civique etc). Support of operational agencies
would come through any central support EVHAC would give to rosters and training
provision, and funding for enhancing their agencies’ capacity to manage
volunteers. A.3.7. Counterparting and the crucial
importance of strengthening local capacities. The
2006 review had already outlined the importance of skills transfer and support
for local organizations and volunteers, which are “faster, cheaper, and more
sustainable”. This approach was confirmed by many respondents to the present
review. In Haiti, counterparting (teaming an international volunteer
with a local for mutual benefit – as well as for the community) was mentioned
as “the best of all worlds”. To reflect the strongly-held views of its
stakeholders ECHO, in establishing EVHAC, needs to consider the inclusion of
support for in-country volunteering initiatives and the strengthening of local
capacity through volunteering. A.3.8. The possible contributions from
the private and public sectors. There are several
models of volunteering used by the private sector, identified by the review,
which may be of interest for EVHAC, such as allowing volunteering by staff or
funding others to volunteer. This may provide some highly experienced
volunteers with specific skill-sets (e.g. logistics, management, healthcare)
which are much needed to supply the surge capacity in the first hours or days
of a disaster and thereafter. In this respect, the Irish Rapid Response
initiative appears as a model. The highest level (level 3) of the
recommended model for involving volunteers under EVHAC would accommodate
private and public sector contributions of high level experts. A.3.9. Remote volunteering. There are some very interesting opportunities for humanitarian
agencies to benefit from online volunteers, either in preparatory work
(mentoring schemes) or in their operational and ordinary back-office functions
(mapping, website management, fund raising, short translations in unusual
languages etc), as they try to upscale in response to a disaster. Online
volunteering and “crowdsourcing” would also provide opportunities for young
people to contribute to a European response remotely. However, alternative
forms of volunteering raised only modest interest among returned volunteers. If EVHAC decides to support remote
volunteering, it could seek cooperation with already established platforms such
as UN Online Volunteers or existing crowdsourcing initiatives to speed up the
setting-up process (probably under co-branding agreements). A.3.10. Bearing all this in mind, how
should EVHAC be implemented? In accordance with the
above findings, a few benchmarks of potential relevance for EVHAC have been
subjected to in-depth assessments. The analyses confirmed that, although
relevant components could be found in all cases (large programmes of young
volunteers abroad, the use of experienced returned volunteers), EVHAC would not
benefit from the experience of a sufficiently compatible benchmark, and would
therefore have to define its own original structure and mode of operation,
preferably through a gradual “learning by doing” approach. The literature
review has also analysed the limitations of the current DG ECHO Regulation,
which is not adapted to the setting up of EVHAC and needs to be revised. The EAC-EA Executive agency, which already
supervises the volunteering actions of the DG EAC Youth In Action programme –
some of which are sending large numbers of young European volunteers in third
countries to implement humanitarian-related projects - appeared as the most
relevant existing management structure for a rapid setting up of EVHAC, though
even if this route is chosen a staged approach should be preferred. A.4. Options and overall
recommendations (Section B.3) Considering the
findings and lessons learned and particularly looking at the gaps and needs
identified, the review would provide the following implementation
recommendations: ·
To apply a gradual, “soft start” approach
for the launch of EVHAC during the European Year of Volunteering 2011, leaving
time for more consultation and studies, and to test-pilot options. The reasons
include e.g. the necessary coherence with other contiguous processes, the need
to set up coordination mechanisms with concerned actors etc (see B.3.1.1). ·
To adopt a do-no-harm, cooperative approach,
which would avoid disrupting already well-functioning volunteering schemes by
creating confusion and competition, and ensure that demand takes precedence
over supply. ·
To sub-divide EVHAC into three main levels,
which all have their own specific value and impact. This would reflect the wide
range of expertise found in volunteers and required by implementing agencies.
It would offer adapted approaches, from the gradual induction of young
unskilled volunteers to humanitarian-related projects and principles, to junior
professionals, and finally to experienced volunteers (professionals) who can be
used for surge capacity in disaster response (B.3.1.2). ·
To outsource the management (e.g. to the
EAC-EA Executive Agency), considering that DG ECHO’s clear intention is not to
divert budgetary resources from current projects to EVHAC. An adapted
governance body for EVHAC should be set up, which would include DG ECHO
together with representatives of the Member States and the main partners, to
ensure close coordination with the principles and activities of DG ECHO
(B.3.1.3). In this framework, three options
have been presented for the implementation of EVHAC: -
a relatively limited grant scheme (B.3.3), -
a pro-active funding and supporting organisation (B.3.4), -
and a more ambitious programming and implementing agency (B.3.5). The preferred option of the review (also confirmed by a
majority of respondents) is the “medium” implementing option 2 as the
most adequate in a situation where EVHAC has to insert itself into a complex
framework of EU volunteer-sending organisations and volunteering schemes
without disrupting what already exists and functions. EVHAC should on the
contrary be in a position to add the value of a European dimension for
necessary harmonization and promotion, and provide funds where relevant schemes
may be in need – in a “win-win” trade off for EU visibility. Option 2 would
also leave the implementation of projects to the partners, who would continue
using their own established procedures, (provided that these remain consistent
with new proposed standards). ANNEX 2 EC Reference N°: ECHO/ADM/BUD/2010/01213 Internal Project N°: GMX EC 16/2 - 2010 Team Members: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Kunze (TL) Mr Jonathan Potter Mr Michel Van Bruaene
Executive Summary Background The Lisbon Treaty
foresees the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps
(Humanitarian Aid Corps), Art 214.5 TFEU. A Communication presenting the main
principles and options has been adopted on the 23rd of November[33]. Some gaps and
areas where the Humanitarian Aid Corps is likely to have an added value are
identified. These include: (i) identification and selection of volunteers
(aimed at having the right people at the right place at the right time); (ii)
training, through the development of common standards, good practices and
possibly modules; (iii) deployment, in order to benefit from volunteers in EU
humanitarian aid operations. In order to gather
ideas and opinions for the establishment of the Humanitarian Aid Corps an Open
Public Consultation was carried out between 8th February and 3rd
May 2011. Responses were requested on a range of issues, which include: ·
general opinion and
expected impact of the Humanitarian Aid Corps; ·
profiles of volunteers
and “Levels of Volunteering”; ·
types of activities for
the Humanitarian Aid Corps volunteers; ·
types of preparatory
and support measures for volunteers; ·
implementing options of
the Humanitarian Aid Corps . Methodology To allow for wide
participation and dialogue, a survey was formulated which requested feedback on
the essential principles and opinions presented in the Communication of the
Commission on the establishment of Humanitarian Aid Corps. Respondents were
offered statements with which they could agree or disagree in a graded way
(i.e. strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree). This
questionnaire was encoded in the web-based survey tool of the Commission (IPM –
Interactive Policy Making) to facilitate the contribution process by interested
individuals and organisations. The survey was made available in three languages
(English, French and German) and followed the “General principles and minimum
standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”[34] With the objective
to stimulate wide participation, the Commission published a press release and
provided the link to the online Consultation at the DG ECHO web-site and the DG
MARKT web-site “Your voice in Europe”. Furthermore, the major associations of
volunteering organisations in the EU (CEV, AVSO and the Alliance of European
Voluntary Organisations) and the VOICE[35]
network of NGOs have been informed and around 200 different organisations in
the EU and abroad were directly invited to contribute to the Consultation. The Consultation
was open to all interested individuals and organisations inside and outside the
European Union. The Open Public
Consultation forms an essential contribution to the establishment of the
Humanitarian Aid Corps, adding to the findings of earlier opinion polling
exercises at the level of specialised humanitarian stakeholders[36], particularly at the level of
DG ECHO FPA partners, Volunteer Sending Organisations and NGO networks and in
addition returned volunteers which served abroad. The results of the
Consultation will be presented at a stakeholder conference in June 2011 in Budapest and a brief factual report will be published at the DG ECHO and DG MARKT web-sites. Summary findings The Open Public
Consultation concerning the establishment of the Humanitarian Aid Corps generated
126 contributions in total, 92 from individual respondents and 34
from respondents representing an organisation. The responding population is
not very homogeneous. The responding organisations, from 16 EU Member States
and two third countries, vary in type, where the most frequent responses are
from humanitarian and development cooperation NGOs, followed by civil society
or community-based associations. The majority of responding individuals are
persons with volunteering experience (74 out 92 respondents). Despite the
variations in the composition of respondents, the Consultation provides quite a
clear message on most topics addressed. When looking at the main topics
(general opinion, profiles of volunteers, type of activities and preparatory
and support measures), a majority of respondents from both groups, individuals
and organisations, agree with the proposed statements (often near to 80% of the
respondents). Next to the very supportive overall evaluation, the respondents
used the opportunity to provide “free text” responses to express their concern
about particular issues (e.g. advisability adequacy of involving young or
inexperienced volunteers in humanitarian assistance, cost-efficiency of
involving higher number of volunteers in humanitarian operations, security
concerns, the impact of inexperienced volunteers on the sector’s
professionalisation agenda, risk of duplication of structures, and several
others). In general there
is a tendency that organisations agree slightly more with the statements
provided in the Consultation, compared with the feedback of individual
respondents. Topic 1 -
General opinion and expected impact of the Humanitarian Aid Corps – An overwhelming proportion of the
respondents agree or somewhat agree with the statements under this section[37], which were formulated in line
with the concept of the Humanitarian Aid Corps and the anticipated impact[38]. Responding organisations are
particularly convinced that the Humanitarian Aid Corps has the potential to be
the right platform to promote structured training, common standards and good
practices for involving volunteers (in cooperation with existing actors). The free text
comments under this section highlight the relevance of the Humanitarian Aid
Corps to three key concerns: 1. the possibility to show solidarity with
people in need; 2.
the opportunity to
practice active EU citizenship (mostly individual respondents); 3.
the potential of the
Humanitarian Aid Corps to increase coordination and coherence in EU
humanitarian volunteering. Some more critical
voices question the added value of increased number of volunteers in
humanitarian operations, and others highlight the importance of avoiding
duplication of structures. Topic 2 -
Profiles of volunteers and “Level of Volunteering” – The Consultation addressed five issues[39] related to the profiles of
volunteers to be deployed under the Humanitarian Aid Corps with respect to
varying age groups and experience. The majority of the respondents agreed that
the Humanitarian Aid Corps should enable different types of volunteers to get
involved in humanitarian operations. This also includes the support of young or
less experienced volunteers (school graduates / students) in situations where
there are no security problems. A large proportion of the respondents are of
the opinion that the Humanitarian Aid Corps should help young professionals to
gather work experience and to develop career opportunities in the humanitarian
sector (87% of the individuals / 84% of the organisations). Specifically, the
responding organisations would like to see the involvement of experienced
volunteers from the private sector in situations of need for highly specialised
experts. When looking at
the question if the Humanitarian Aid Corps should focus primarily on
experienced volunteers, on condition that they do not replace staff positions,
individual respondents and organisations had divergent views. Around 62 % of
the responding organisations agree with this statement, whereas only 36% of the
individual respondents do so. It appears that – also confirmed by the free text
comments – the organisations tend to see young or inexperienced volunteers
serving in support positions in the EU but not so much at field level, where
they clearly vote for experienced volunteers and professionals when involving
volunteers in humanitarian field work. We note a
consensus amongst the respondents when looking at the free text comments to
this section. All respondents require a professional managed deployment
environment for the Humanitarian Aid Corps volunteers and demand that the
Humanitarian Aid Corps should not have any negative impact on the
professionalisation of the humanitarian sector. Core issues addressed were: o
professional
recruitment and selection of candidates; o
matching between the tasks
and the skills and capacities of the volunteers; o
adequate training and
mission preparation for the volunteers; o
security issues should
be a priority when deploying volunteers. Some critical
voices questioned the usefulness of involving young or inexperienced people in
humanitarian operations and suggested that their contribution should be limited
to supporting humanitarian actors in the EU or in their home countries. Topic 3 - Type
of activities for the Humanitarian Aid Corps volunteers – There are large numbers of possible
types of activities for volunteers. This section of the consultation asked for
the opinion of the respondents concerning 6 concrete types of activities in
which particularly young and inexperienced volunteers could be involved. The organisations
evaluated the suggested activities quite positively – a clear majority agreed
with the suggested concepts / types of activities. Individual respondents were
proportionally less in agreement with the suggested concepts – this is
certainly caused by personal preferences of the individual respondents whereas
the organisations tend to judge more on the basis of value-adding in the
framework of their operational requirements. Amongst all
others, local capacity building in third countries (particularly disaster
preparedness, post-crisis recovery and civil society strengthening) and
twinning or exchange programmes received the highest degree of agreement from
both organisations and individual respondents. The organisations furthermore
strongly favoured “EU back-office support” and “online-volunteering” as being
adequate types of activities for less experienced volunteers. The free text
responses to this section highlighted a number of concerns, which mainly
focussed on the fact that humanitarian operations in general and particularly
emergency relief operations need to be staffed with experienced professionals
and are not suitable for younger or less experienced volunteers. Furthermore,
there is again a consensus that any deployment of volunteers needs proper
training, mission preparation and supporting measures and care services. Topic 4 - Types
of preparatory and support measures for volunteers – By their nature, the humanitarian actions of the
European Union often take place in difficult situations (security, health
risks, accessibility, etc.). The Consultation suggested a number of preparatory
and support measures[40]
for volunteers and asked the respondents about the importance of these
measures. The majority of
the respondents evaluated all nine suggested measures as indispensable or very
important. “security training” and “mission preparation” ranked highest for
both respondent groups, individuals and organisations. “Logistical support”
(travel, visa, etc.) ranked lowest amongst all suggested measures. For some
measures there is a surprisingly high deviation in the appreciation between
individuals and organisations, especially “introduction to humanitarian
principles” and “technical training”, where for example the organisations give
more importance to technical training than the responding individuals. Next to the
suggested measures, the respondents recommended a number of additional
preparatory and support measures, which are listed below: ·
health and stress
management support; ·
medical examination to
prove that candidates are fit for their assignments; ·
intercultural relations
training and comprehensive information provision on the historical context ; ·
psycho social care
services after return and counselling if needed; ·
introduction to general
development issues, next to the “introduction to humanitarian principles”. Several
respondents suggested that the support measures should be tailored to the
different possible groups of volunteers to be deployed under the Humanitarian
Aid Corps. Topic 5 -
Implementation options for the Humanitarian Aid Corps – There are several different possibilities
for the implementation and the institutional establishment of the Humanitarian
Aid Corps. The Communication highlights three basic options for the
implementation and at the same time advocates for a strong cooperative approach
for the Humanitarian Aid Corps – meaning to build on existing structures and
volunteering schemes, rather than duplicating them. In the Consultation,
respondents were asked to vote for the most adequate option among the three. The respondents
clearly favoured Option 2 and Option 3, Option 1 received the least votes.
Organisations and individual respondents replied in a proportionally quite
similar way. The free text
responses revealed that there is a consensus amongst the respondents that the
Humanitarian Aid Corps should not duplicate existing structures and that, where
possible, existing actors should be used for the actual deployment of
volunteers (remark: which clearly is in line with the Communication on the
establishment of the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps). Many respondents
call for close coordination between the Humanitarian Aid Corps and the existing
humanitarian actors. Some voices call for intense involvement of local
structures in the affected counties (e.g. local NGOs) and several respondents
suggest using existing structures at EC level to implement the Humanitarian Aid
Corps (e.g. EVS). Conclusion The findings of
this Consultation align closely with the Communication of the Commission on the
establishment of the Humanitarian Aid Corps[41],
which has formed the basis for the Consultation in terms of structure, content
and priority issues addressed. Next to the very
supportive statements and the generally strong agreement received from the
respondents in the closed questions sections of the Consultation, also the
expressed opinions of the respondents in the free text areas of the
Consultation coincide with the main conditions for the Humanitarian Aid Corps
to bring a positive contribution to humanitarian aid operations which are
defined in the Communication of the Commission and are listed hereunder: Ø
avoid duplication and
support/complement existing voluntary organisations Ø
take into account the
increased professionalization of the humanitarian sector, including the need
for volunteers deployed through the Humanitarian Aid Corps to provide real
added value Ø
security: young and
un-experienced volunteers will be dealing with pre and post crisis activities
rather than emergency response ones (Disaster Risk Reduction and activities in
transition contexts) Ø
support to the
development of local capacities, including exchange and pairing programmes Ø
allocation of
additional funds, in order to avoid diverting operational humanitarian aid
budget The results of the
Consultation are encouraging and should make the European Commission confident
in taking the Humanitarian Aid Corps to the next stage. ANNEX 3 Pilot projects 2011-2012 Summary
table || Save the Children, UK || VSO International || French Red Cross Partners || NOHA, Institut Bioforce Development (France), Red Barnet Denmark, Die Johanitter || VSO (Netherland), Pro Vobis (National Resource Centre for Volunteering, Romania) || Austrian, Bulgarian and German Red Cross Aim || Building humanitarian talent, professionalization of future humanitarian aid professionals including a comprehensive learning and development programme for the volunteers || Building capacity of local organisations through development of volunteer management training and accreditation for partner organisations. Volunteers follow Personal Develop. Plan process and get university accreditation || Follows the Red Cross approach to promote young people as actors of change. Volunteers are treated as Red Cross staff usually deployed. Focus of deployment || Preparedness and recovery activities || Preparedness and recovery activities || Pre- or post- disaster humanitarian aid No of volunteers || 25 || 40 || 21 Selection || 66% with limited overseas experience, and 34% having completed either NOHA Masters or Bioforce training. Candidates from at least 7 Member States || Volunteer experts. Developed "Best Practise Standards" and assessments tools for selection and management. || 24-34 years old, relevant studies or professional experience, ambition to work in the humanitarian sector. Final selection based on identified demands. Training || 12-month training programme: as either Generalist Project Officers (15) or Specialized Logistics Officers (15). The curriculum is a blend of modules developed by partners. Personal Develop Plan and a coach for each volunteer. The coach is an aid professional working with the host agency, is trained and receives support from local organisations. || Two training sessions developed for European and hosting organisations based on a volunteer management process. Pre-deployment: 2-3 online training sessions + 5 days face-to-face training. On arrival: 1 week country training. During deployment: monitoring by an ex-volunteer Special web-site available in 5 languages also used for online learning tools. || Specific training based on IMPACT (developed by IFRC) and modules on humanitarian aid, law and EU aid operations. Two times 5 days' course in Red Cross training centre. Basic training followed up by specialized training modules + visits to institutions (Geneva, Brussels). Development of career track. Mentors, key local advisors and a stress management person identified. Deployment || Level 1 volunteer deployed 2 times of 4-5 months and Level 2 volunteer 1 time of 9-10 months || Varies -contexts, duration and matching decisions made in collaboration with local organisations. || Six months. Factsheets
ANNEX 4 Examples of existing training Name || Organisation || Focus || Training || Selection criteria NOHA [42] || International association composed of 9 European Universities || Enhancement of professionalism by providing certificated high level courses; promoting research and policy papers || The NOHA Master's Programme is made of 3 semesters (90 ECTS credits). Structured around 4 main components covering Geopolitics, Anthropology, International Law, Management, Medicine and Public Health in Humanitarian Action. Possible to sign up for specific courses. || Bachelor degree in study discipline, relevant field experience, multicultural sensitivity, and their linguistic abilities ELRHA [43] || Collaborative network || Partnership between higher education institut. and humanitarian organisations || Facilitating access to different university courses, Research Centres and professional training courses regarding more specific topics || MS Global Contact || NGO Non-Governmental Organisation || Development assistance || Preparatory course of 5 days, including experiences of other volunteers, practicalities and details about the stay. 4 weeks stay and training at Global Platform on cultural issues, development and general build up of soft skills followed by actual deployment of up to 12 months. 3 days return event || All above 18 years are eligible. Must go through training. Bioforce || Non-profit organisation || Maximizing the impact of aid programmes and increasing effectiveness of mission in the public health sector || 6 professional programmes including 4 certified courses, a bachelor degree course and a European M.Sc. (Human Programme Manager) in partnership with University of Liverpool. More than 50 refreshment courses. Runs training centres in West Africa. || Selection based on relevance of training to applicants' profession Weltwärts || Public voluntary service || More towards development assistance || A support programme + language courses must total at least 25 days of compulsory seminar. Priority fields of learning are: intercultural communication and cooperation, development policy, knowledge of the country, project management and language skills || People between 18 and 29 graduated from secondary school or achieved higher education level Save the Children, UK[44] (pilot project) || NGO || Prevention, preparedness and recovery activities || 12-month training programme based on "Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies". Trained as either a Generalist Project Officers or Specialized Logistics Officers. Training organised in 4-weeks pre deployment scenario training and 3 weeks field training during deployment. In addition, distance learning modules are available. || 66% volunteers with limited overseas experience (level 1) and 34%, who has completed either NOHA Masters or Bioforce accredited training (level 2). French Red Cross (pilot project) || National Society - Red Cross Family || Prevention, preparedness and recovery activities || Training modules on humanitarian aid, international humanitarian law, EU humanitarian aid operations, also depend on university/professional background of volunteers and future deployment. 2 times 5 days residential course in the Red Cross training centre+ E-learning modules + Visits of Geneva and Brussels (ECHO office) || Young qualified and inexperienced volunteers, relevant studies or professional experience, ambition to work in humanitarian sector VSO (pilot project) || VSO International, VSO Netherlands, ProVobis Romania || Preparedness and recovery activities || Two training sessions developed for European and hosting organisations based on a 9-steps volunteer management process. Pre-deployment: 2-3 online training sessions in working overseas and “Personal Development Passport” + 5 days face to face training On arrival: 1 week in country training. During deployment: monitoring by ex-volunteers Special web-site available in 5 languages also used for online learning tools || “Volunteers experts” chosen according to “Best Practice Standards” and assessment tools for selection and management ANNEX 5 List of stakeholders consulted 1 || Action Contre la Faim 2 || ADICE - l’Association pour le Développement des Initiatives Citoyennes et Européennes 3 || ADRA - Adventist Development and Relief Agency 4 || AEGEE-PECS - European Students Association 5 || African-Hungarian Union 6 || Alliance Française de Szeged 7 || Alternative for India Development 8 || ANPAS - ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE PUBBLICHE ASSISTENZE 9 || Arche noVa e.V 10 || Artemisszio Foundation 11 || Asamblea de Cooperación Por la Paz 12 || ASB - Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Deutschland 13 || Associação Cultural e Juvenil BY Portugal 14 || AVSO - Association of voluntary Service Organisations 15 || Babuka Nonprofit kft 16 || Belgian Ministry for Development Cooperation 17 || Belgian Ministry of Home Affairs 18 || BOCS Foundation 19 || CARITAS Europa 20 || CARITAS Hungary 21 || CARITAS Luxemburg 22 || CEV - European Volunteer Centre 23 || CLONG-Volontariat - Comité de Liaison des ONGs de Volontariat 24 || COOPI Cooperazione Internazionale 25 || Cordaid 26 || Corvinus University of Budapest 27 || COSV - Comitato per il Coordinamento delle Organizzazione di Volontariato 28 || CSD - Centre for Safety and Development 29 || Danish Refugee Council 30 || DEKOM 31 || DHL 32 || DKKV - German Committee for Disaster Reduction 33 || DRK - German Red Cross 34 || Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs 35 || EU Affairs, New Europe 36 || EU-CORD - Network of Christian Organisations in Relief and Development 37 || Finish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 38 || Foundation for Africa Hungary 39 || France Volontaires 40 || French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs 41 || Fundação AMI 42 || GCVC - Global Corporate Volunteer Council 43 || German Committe for Disaster Reduction (DKKV) 44 || German Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) 45 || German Federal Foreign Office 46 || German Federal Ministry of the Interior 47 || German Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance 48 || Germax Gerli GmbH 49 || GIZ Germany Federal Organisation for International Cooperation 50 || Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs 51 || GVC - Gruppo Volontariato Civile 52 || HAP - Humanitarian Accountability Partnership 53 || HelpAge International 54 || Hungarian Baptist Aid 55 || Hungarian Interchurch Aid 56 || Hungarian Maltese Charity Service 57 || Hungarian Ministry of Defence 58 || Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 59 || Hungarian Red Cross 60 || Hungarian Volunteer Sending Foundation 61 || Icelandic Mission to the EU 62 || ICEY International Cultural Youth Exchange 63 || ICRC - International Committee of the Red Cross 64 || IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 65 || Institut Bioforce Développement 66 || Institut d'Etudes Humanitaires Internationales Université Paul Cezanne 67 || Institut en Sciences du Risque 68 || International Art of Living Foundation 69 || International Medical Corps UK 70 || INTERSOS - Humanitarian Organisation 71 || IOM - International Organisation of Migration 72 || Irish Aid - Department of Foreign Affairs 73 || Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 74 || Italian Prime Minister Office - Civil Protection 75 || Johanniter International 76 || Johanniter-Unfall Hilfe e.V. (German branch) 77 || John Wesley College 78 || KIM 79 || KPMG 80 || LINK2007 - Cooperazione in rete 81 || Lithuanian Delegation to NATO 82 || Magyar Maltai Meretetszolgalat 83 || Mahatma Gandhi 84 || Malteser International 85 || MapAction 86 || Masaryk University 87 || Medici con l’Africa Cuamm 88 || MEMISA Belgian Non-profit Organisation 89 || Mission East 90 || MSF Medecins sans Frontières 91 || Muslim Aid UK 92 || National Directorate General for Disaster Management 93 || NOHA - Network On Humanitarian Assistance 94 || North Lanarkshire Arts Association 95 || Norwegian Refugee Council 96 || OCHA - Liaison Office to EC 97 || OIKOS Association 98 || OXFAM 99 || Oxfam Solidarité 100 || People in Aid 101 || Permanent Representation of Belgium to the EU 102 || Permanent Representation of Bulgaria to the EU 103 || Permanent Representation of France to the EU 104 || Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU 105 || Permanent Representation of Greece to the EU 106 || Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU 107 || Permanent Representation of Italy to the EU 108 || Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU 109 || Permanent Representation of Romania to the EU 110 || Permanent Representation of Slovenia to the EU 111 || Permanent Representation of Sweden to the EU 112 || Permanent Representation of UK to the EU 113 || Polish Ministy of Foreign Affairs 114 || Pro Vobis National Resource Center for Volunteering 115 || Profilantrop Association 116 || Prolog Consult 117 || PSO Capacity Building in Developing Countries (Holland) 118 || Red Cross Austria 119 || Red Cross Belgium 120 || Red Cross Bulgaria 121 || Red Cross EU Office 122 || Red Cross Finland 123 || Red Cross France 124 || Red Cross Germany 125 || Red Cross Italy 126 || Red Cross Netherlands 127 || Red Cross Sweden 128 || RedR UK 129 || Relief International 130 || Rucinski Consultancy 131 || Samariter International 132 || Save the Children Denmark 133 || Save the Children UK 134 || Service Civique Volontaire 135 || Service Volontaire International, asbl 136 || SOLIDAR 137 || Solidaridad International 138 || Taita Foundation for African Children 139 || Terre des Hommes International Federation 140 || The Main School of Fire Service in Warsaw 141 || THW - German Civil Protection 142 || UNDP - United Nations Development Programme 143 || UNHABITAT 144 || UNHCR - Bureau of Europe 145 || UNICEF - United Nations Children's Fund 146 || Universidad de Deuso 147 || UNOPS - United Nations Office for Project Services 148 || UNRWA - United Nations Relief and Works Agency 149 || UNV United Nations Volunteers 150 || UN-WFP - World Food Programme 151 || VOICE - Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation in Emergencies 152 || Voluntary Service Overseas VSO UK 153 || VSO International 154 || VSO Netherlands 155 || Weltwarts - BMZ development volunteer service 156 || World Scout Bureau 157 || World Vision European Union Liaison Office 158 || ZOA Refugee Care [1] How to express EU citizens’ solidarity through volunteering: First
reflections on a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, COMM(2010)683 [2] http://forum-ids.org/lang/en/research/member-papers/international-development-humanitarian-agencies/review-concerning-the-establishment-of-a-european-voluntary-humanitarian-aid-corps-study.html [3] “Review Concerning the Establishment of a European Voluntary
Humanitarian Aid Corps”, GERMAX, 2010. The consultants looked at the United Nations Volunteer programme (UNV) and other relevant UN
Agencies, the International Federation of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent (IFRC), the Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO/UK), and NGOs
among others. [4] In December 2011, the Commission also organised a seminars with the
project coordinators to discuss lessons learnt from the first phase. [5] For the purpose of this Impact Assessment, we apply a broad
definition of volunteering, though we assume that volunteering is not primarily
for financial benefit, and that there is a clear beneficiary beyond the
volunteers. [6] Volunteering in the European Union – GHK, February 2010 [7] 6,300 volunteers were deployed in the EU and neighbouring
countries. [8] These figures are well above the average support that citizens
normally express for EU policies in general. [9] In particular Germax Review (2010) and GHK study (2010). See
above. [10] A comprehensive overview of the situation of volunteering in Member
States is provided in the GHK study on "Volunteering in the European
Union". The study, as well as recent Eurobarometers, shows that the level
of volunteering is high in Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, and the UK, while
others countries such as Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania and
Spain are identified as having low or relatively low levels of participation in
volunteering. [11] Many volunteers' organisations apply some identification and
selection criteria -either their own standards or they adhere to standards
developed by collaborative organisations such as the Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership (HAP, http://www.hapinternational.org)
and People In Aid (http://www.peopleinaid.org) [12] Examples of rosters include the UNV (for deployment mainly through
UN Agencies, 25,000 active candidates on the roster), UN/OCHA (high level
“experts on mission”, usually not volunteers), Weltwärts, the German Federal
Agency for Technical Relief (THW), the Danish Refugee Council, the Irish Aid
Rapid. [13] In 2010 the Commission alone disbursed over € 1,1 billion in
humanitarian funding which have benefited directly and indirectly 140 million
people. [14] Reference to "humanitarian" activities throughout this
document also covers civil protection activities of a humanitarian character,
without this being explicitly mentioned in every instance [15] In particular, Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP: http://www.hapinternational.org)
and People in Aid (http://www.peopleinaid.org)
have developed similar standards [16] The experience by both the HAP and the People In Aid seems to be
that such high costs have deferred many, in particular small organisations,
from becoming certified. At the same time, it needs to be stressed that the
existing mechanisms are not limited only to volunteers [17] This would be similar to training organised by the Commission as
part of the Civil Protection policy, which has been running in disaster preparedness
for 7 years. The CP training consists of generic and specific elements (called
‘modules’). The courses are awarded through tender procedures and each contract
has a maximum duration of 4 years. For further information consult the
“Evaluation of the EC’s Action in the field of Civil Protection”, COWI, 2010. [18] Some expert volunteers may choose for a long term deployment as
part of a 'sabbatical leave' programme. But the Corps will equally allow those
being in employment and eager to engage in humanitarian operations as part of
surge in times of acute crises or for capacity building projects. Costs for
these volunteers are expected to be higher than for long term volunteers. [19] Some humanitarian volunteer deployment happens through third
country ‘branches’ or affiliates of international humanitarian organisations
(e.g. Red Cross), in other cases the organisation in the EU that is recruiting
volunteers delivers the projects in partnership with independent local
organisations. [20] For the calculation of Commission staff the official figures from
DG HR on average salaries in Commission have been used, while the calculation
of management costs for an Agency is based upon the global ratio of current administrative costs against
the current operational budget of the Executive Agency in charge of Education
and Culture. [21] The Register would supplement and not duplicate the existing
rosters that typically target rapid response needs. [22] Based on the costs of the three pilot projects, the estimated
average cost per volunteer is reduced by 35% in order to allow for an
efficiency gain as the pilot projects bear some additional costs due to their
explorative and investigative nature. [23] We have added to that estimate EUR 500 in order to allow for some on-site support and training. [24] The human resources needed to manage the training activities are
assumed to be of about the same size as for the Civil Protection, namely 16 person/months
per year. [25] The following Rosters have been taken as benchmarks for the
calculation of costs: Danish Refugee Council, Irish Response Corps, Department
for International Development (DIFID, UK), Norwegian Refugee Council [26] www.sphereproject.org [27] Based on DG ECHO experience as well as relevant programmes managed
by the Executive Agencies, we estimate that 5 more persons would be needed for
the direct management of deployment. [28] Some variations might occur for the training of EU volunteers due
to the need of higher number of staff on the Commission (Agency) side, which
would imply higher comparative costs with respect to service providers. [29] Linking Relief Rehabilitation and
Development (LRRD): A communication from the European Commission to the
European Council and European Parliament on LRRD policy can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COM_LRRD_en.pdf [30] OCHA operates the Emergency Response
Roster for surge capacity, the GenCap (Gender Capability) and ProCap
(Protection Capability) rosters, for the benefit of UN agencies. High level
“experts on mission” are provided exclusively through a “Stand-By Partnership
Programme” of 12 partner organizations, which have their own rosters. [31] Council of the European Union
Resolution, 27th November 2009:
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/pdf/doc1648_en.pdf [32] EURES Job Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/eures/ [33] Communication of the Commission - COM(2010)683 final [34] Communication from the Commission, “Towards a
reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”,
COM(2002)704 final, Brussels, 11.12.2002 [35] VOICE stands for Voluntary Organisations in Cooperation
in Emergencies (a network currently representing 83 European non governmental
organisations active in humanitarian aid worldwide) [36] Surveys for DG ECHO FPA partners and returned
volunteers in the context of the preparatory study “Humanitarian Aid Corps
review 2010”. This review is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/evaluation/2010/EVHAC_Final_Report.pdf [37] Expected impact (9 statements of the Consultation – for
complete statements see Annex I): positive contribution to the humanitarian and
civil protection sectors; promotes active EU citizenship; shows solidarity with
people in need, helps people in need; creates positive links with people in
need; contributes to increase coordination and coherence in the sector;
promotes professionalism and safety for volunteers; helps with harmonising
existing approaches; right platform to promote standards and good practices. [38] As defined in the Communication of the Commission on
the establishment of the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, COM(2010)683
final [39] Profiles of volunteers (5 issues addressed in
the Consultation – for complete statements see Annex I): The Humanitarian Aid
Corps should involve of different types of volunteers; should involve of young
/ less experienced volunteers; should help young volunteers to gather work
experience; should enable the involvement of volunteers from the private
sector; should concentrate on the involvement of experienced volunteers. [40] Suggested
preparatory and support measures (9 measures suggested in the Consultation): introduction to humanitarian
principles; security training; technical training; introduction to local
culture in matters of concern and languages; logistic support like travel,
visas, etc.; insurance coverage; in-depth mission preparation; continuous local
coaching and mentoring / supervision; care services after return of volunteers. [41] Communication of the Commission - COM(2010)683 final [42] Network on Humanitarian Assistance - http://www.nohanet.org/ [43] Enhancing Learning & Research for Humanitarian Assistance - http://www.elrha.org/. [44] European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, Pilot Projects Call for
proposals 2011, Save the Children, UK