SPEECH/06/301
Louis Michel
EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Pronounced by Antonio CAVACO, Director General of DG Humanitarian Aid “Future challenges of EU humanitarian aid and the role of Non Governmental Organisations”
Voice General Assembly Brussels, 11 May 2006 President Grossrieder, Ladies and gentlemen, members of Voice,
Thank you for inviting me to address you at the occasion of your general assembly. Non Governmental Organisations are the largest group of partners of the Commission’s humanitarian assistance, both in number of organisations (179 out of 212) and in financial volume (54% in 2005), and you [VOICE] represent about half of them.
Let me say it straight away: I am committed to a strong, reciprocal, responsible partnership between the Commission and its partner NGOs. I believe that it is much more than a donor-recipient relationship: it is a shared belief in the values and principles of humanitarian assistance and an open dialogue on the challenges that face us, both as humanitarian actors and as Europeans.
Today I wish to address three sets of issues, namely:
- How can the humanitarian system be improved to deliver aid in a faster, more effective and efficient way?
- How does the humanitarian community relate to other intervening actors in the same theatres of operation?
- How can the humanitarians best advocate a preservation of the humanitarian principles and values?
I- How can we do "more and better" in our humanitarian response?
Everybody still remembers 2005 as an annus horribilis with its stream of mega disasters. But 2005 was also marked by an intensive reflection both at the international and at the EU level on how to improve the international humanitarian response. When I addressed the Inter-Agency Standing Committee in Geneva, last December, I developed my vision and ideas on how to meet the main challenges faced by the international humanitarian community. I would like to come back here on some of the most salient issues of the humanitarian reform agenda.
Improving the global response: the humanitarian reform agenda
I have underlined, on numerous occasions, that the international humanitarian system is wider than the UN, and that the contribution of NGOs and of the Red Cross movement is essential to the elaboration and to the success of any new initiatives. I told Jan Egeland that the success of the UN humanitarian reform will ultimately depend on its inclusiveness and the real involvement of all humanitarian partners, including NGOs and donors.
Let me briefly comment on the two main aspects of the UN humanitarian reform agenda: the expanded Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and the cluster approach. With this reform agenda, the UN is trying to address two important issues: quick mobilisation of funds and field coordination. A third aspect that deserves attention is disaster preparedness.
Fund mobilisation
The main objective of the CERF is to enable a rapid response to new disasters. It also aims at ensuring greater equity in the allocation of funds and direct funds towards the deteriorating or neglected humanitarian situations.
My position so far with regards to the CERF is that it is certainly a positive development but that still needs further clarification on its governance and modus operandi and to pass the test of field reality.
For the CERF to achieve its intended objectives, one must make sure it draws on additional funds from donors and not divert funds from ongoing crises. I also have some concerns on the modalities of implementation of the CERF, not least the fact that direct access to the CERF is reserved to UN agencies, whilst NGOs can only access it as partners of the UN. In my view this might create unnecessary delays, more bureaucracy and more overheads.
As far as the question whether the Commission should fund the CERF, my answer is quite clear: the Commission contributes to the objective, but not necessarily to the instrument. The Commission has fast-track decision making procedures allowing the almost immediate mobilisation of funds and the Commission has a deliberate policy of targeting forgotten crises in its humanitarian assistance. What would be the value-added for the Commission to contribute to the CERF ?
Disaster preparedness
The capacity to respond in a timely manner is not just a question of funding. It largely depends on how organisations are prepared to respond to a disaster.
In the last four years, DG ECHO has been funding internationally mandated organisations (such as OCHA, UNHCR, WHO, WFP, UNICEF, IFRC and ICRC) through so-called thematic funding. This thematic funding has largely been oriented to helping these organisations improve their response capacities, in three key areas: pre-positioning of relief items and establishment of regional hubs and logistic units in different regions; information management systems including financial tracking; and emergency response capability.
I have the intention to articulate the next cycle of thematic funding around the theme of the implementation of the international humanitarian reform agenda. I believe that by reinforcing the capacity of the internationally mandated organisations, we can improve the conditions in which aid is delivered on the ground.
Field Co-ordination:
The second pillar of the international humanitarian reform is coordination. This is a recurrent bottleneck in humanitarian response to major sudden disasters where all type of authorities and organisations, local and international, humanitarians, military, civil protection, rush to a disaster scene sometimes only adding to the chaos. At the height of the Tsunami crisis in Sri Lanka, more than 600 "humanitarian actors" were active in the country.
Field coordination is something that can, at least partly, be prepared beforehand, with ready-made modus operandi. In this sense, I welcome the UN proposals regarding the cluster system. Whether it works in practice will largely depend on the people that are sent to the field, the means that are put at their disposal, and –last but not least- whether all stakeholders are involved. This puts an onus both on the UN, who have to be truly inclusive, and on the other partners –notably the NGOs- who must be willing to play the coordination game.
The humanitarian reform agenda is, so far, clearly UN-driven. I have heard and read different opinions from some NGO. I would personally like to see a clearer stance from the NGO community, notably the European one. Your concerns and views will be better heard if voiced in a coherent and united manner.
As you may know, I have been invited, in my personal capacity, to take part in the UN High Level panel on UN reform –which includes a humanitarian segment. The Commission is also engaged in a permanent dialogue with the UN in which the humanitarian reform is a recurrent subject of discussion. I am eager to hear your views on the CERF, on the cluster approach and, more generally, on the humanitarian reform agenda.
I am convinced that you can bring a lot to the quality of this reform process. And I strongly encourage you to take part, in an organised manner, to this debate.
The Commission's agenda for improving disaster response:
As an active donor, the Commission's agenda for improving disaster response revolves around three aspects: 1) supporting the international humanitarian reform agenda (as outlined above), 2) improving the Commission's own preparedness and operating conditions for our partners, and 3) emphasising the preparedness of disaster-prone countries and communities.
Improving the Commission's own response capacity
The Commission's humanitarian disaster response rests mainly on its capacity to mobilise funds in a quick manner and to deploy teams to the field to conduct needs and situation assessments and work with the partners on the project proposals for humanitarian assistance. In this context, the network of ECHO experts has been expanded from 75 to 100 with an ultimate target of 150. The regional support offices of ECHO have been reinforced with a “surge capacity” made of senior staff trained in rapid needs assessments and sectoral experts. In the event of major disaster, a sufficiently large team should be deployed to the affected area within 24 hours.
Improving operating conditions for NGOs
In both the Tsunami and the South Asia earthquake, logistics and transport were a bottleneck. The Commission funds logistics and transport, through the United Nations, through the Red Cross and directly through specialised NGOs. In Eastern and Central Africa, the Commission is even directly providing air transport facilities to humanitarian operators (through ECHO Flight). But in major crises, this is not enough. I have instructed my services to look into means of improving transport and logistical capacity for emergency response and I would be eager to hear your views on the subject.
Improving preparedness in disaster-prone countries
Risk reduction and more generally disaster preparedness, mitigation and preparation in the areas prone to disasters is extremely important. The approach that I am promoting, with my double-hat, as Commissioner for both humanitarian and development policies, is to complement the DIPECHO programme, managed by DG ECHO, with a more comprehensive approach of integrating risk reduction in development cooperation programmes, The new generation of country strategy papers under the 10th EDF (European Development Fund) will integrate a risk mapping analysis and specific programmes where relevant.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me now turn to the second part of my exposé.
II- How does the humanitarian community relate to other intervening actors?
As the humanitarian community is looking into ways of improving the efficiency of its response, other actors are increasingly keen to play a role in disaster response. I am thinking particularly of the military, but also of civil protection forces. While there is a risk of confusion of roles, there is also scope for cooperation.
Humanitarian-military proximity in complex emergencies:
The proximity and the dialogue between humanitarians and the military in the field is nothing new. Let us just recall that the other name of International Humanitarian Law is the Law of warfare.
Now, the context has obviously changed. In some crisis theatres Western humanitarian organisations, providing relief and assistance, co-exist with Western military forces whose military agenda sometimes also includes providing relief and assistance.
I personally believe that humanitarian organisations should approach this issue in a principled but non-ideological manner. When Western military forces are engaged in combat and use aid as a tool for "winning hearts and minds" or gathering intelligence, it is certainly wiser to remain at arms' length and insist on clear identification if not ending of such practices which dangerously blur the roles. But there are also circumstances where the military are deployed, sometimes even at the request of the humanitarians, to ensure minimal security conditions for the civilian population, as well as the international relief effort. In those cases, cooperation and dialogue are necessary and desirable. We can refer to the successful Artemis operation led by the EU in Eastern Congo.
With the development of European crisis management and military operations outside the EU, it is essential to ensure that the rules of engagement of the military do provide for the clear respect and recognition of the specificity of humanitarian operations.
The use of military and civil protection assets in disaster response:
In certain contexts, the use of military and civil defence assets may be required. This is often due to the magnitude of a given disaster (Tsunami), or problems of access (Pakistan). As foreseen in the two sets of UN guidelines on the use of military assets in natural disasters and in complex emergencies (Oslo and MCDA guidelines), the military are a last resort. They should be called upon when there is a need that cannot reasonably be covered by civilian means and where the military have a particular advantage. I would not want to see humanitarian organisations requesting military transport or logistics simply because they believe they can get it for free.
The Council is now engaged in a reflection on the contribution that the EU military could provide to disaster response. The stance that I am defending is that in the case of an international relief response, it is up to the competent humanitarian bodies to call for the use of military assets, only if strictly necessary and in compliance with the humanitarian rules of engagement. The same goes for the civil protection interventions. The Commission has an instrument for facilitating the deployment of member states' civil protection bodies in the event of disasters, both inside and outside the EU. For the latter dimension, I believe that any intervention of EU civil protection in a disaster with humanitarian implications must be part of the overall humanitarian response to ensure efficiency, coherence and compliance with internationally agreed principles.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me now move to the last part of my exposé.
III- How to go about a preservation of humanitarian principles and space?
The context for humanitarian action is a rapidly evolving one. The number and complexity of crises is growing whilst resources are scarce, and tend to go where the cameras are. Other actors are increasingly involved in the relief effort without necessarily abiding by the humanitarian principles. Humanitarian action is viewed by some as a western concept. Continuing "business as usual", providing humanitarian aid in isolation from the bigger political picture is a dangerous course of action.
Securing a constituency for humanitarian action:
In order to secure political and financial support for European humanitarian action, it is important to mobilise a constituency in favour of a principled, equitable humanitarian aid. European NGOs have a crucial role to play, as members of the European Civil society, in terms of awareness-raising of the public and of advocacy towards political decision-makers.
To do so, we need to work harder in terms of communication. European citizens should be made more aware that the EU is the leading humanitarian donor in the world, that the taxpayers money is put to best use, and that an impartial, needs-based and well-funded European humanitarian aid policy makes a difference to the lives of millions. To create this awareness, European NGOs and the European Commission must work together. When I insist on "EU visibility" it is not to self-congratulate the Commission, it is to ensure public support for humanitarian aid in the EU, without which we will not be given the resources to continue providing humanitarian aid impartially, on the basis of needs and through our partners.
The corollary of awareness-raising is advocacy towards the decision makers, i.e. the Council, the Parliament and the national decision makers, both for the financing of humanitarian aid and for the preservation of its principles. From the Commission side, I have already started this process of putting humanitarian aid on the political agenda by instigating a regular dialogue with the member states on humanitarian aid policy in the context of the Council, at ministerial and at working group level. Humanitarian aid must also be put on the agenda of the European Parliament, by engaging more frequently in exchanges of views with the development committee.
Building a political partnership between European NGOs and the European Commission:
I am convinced that NGOs and the Commission have a clear common interest in preserving humanitarian principles and the humanitarian budget. As Commissioner for humanitarian aid policy, I intend to intensify the dialogue with other EU institutions, other donors as well as with the UN, in order to push forward a humanitarian agenda that will promote effectiveness of humanitarian response, equity in the distribution of aid, security of humanitarian aid workers, protection of the most vulnerable, and that will insist on clarifying the rules of engagement of non-humanitarian actors that intervene in humanitarian disasters. I am keen to hear and read the views of European NGOs on these matters, and would invite VOICE to instigate the appropriate discussions and papers.
I also hope that from the NGO side, you will be able and willing to engage in advocacy activities in a well-articulated, more united approach towards the European institutions on policy matters. I am willing to engage with the humanitarian partners in promoting the humanitarian agenda in the EU institutions and the EU policy debate,
As final words of conclusion, I can only but stress again the importance for both the Commission and you, the NGO community to develop a genuine partnership that move up gear to a more political level. Obviously Partnership does not mean agreeing on everything, but nurturing an open dialogue, with a shared understanding of the humanitarian consensus we want to promote and preserve
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for your attention.
