Scholars have intensively investigated the global policies for relief and reconstruction in the last few decades, producing a wide and rich variety of analyses. The setting up of global emergency action involves different types of actors, institutions and agencies, procedures, norms, decisions, and practices. Among non-state actors, NGOs are the most controversial and visible players of emergency policy-making and implementation, not only for the quantity of materials and scale of logistics they are able to deploy, but also because they possess specific competencies and capabilities which have proven their practical utility in peace-building and reconstruction activities. NGOs have their own approach to providing services to people affected by natural disasters and conflicts. In principle, this approach is complementary to the states’ and International Governmental Organisations’ (IGOs) alternative approach. In practice, however, it can differ considerably. Therefore, NGOs’ activities sometimes clash with the programmes the states and IGOs develop at sites of humanitarian intervention, but most of the time, they coordinate with the states and IGOs and contribute, directly or indirectly, to shaping the whole humanitarian system.
With respect to such development, the EU humanitarian aid policy is a particularly interesting and exemplary case and, even though scholars have investigated many aspects of such policy, the topic is still under-evaluated and deserves further research. On the one hand, the relations with international aid institutions and NGOs have been strongly developed over the years through aid programmes and within the Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) activities. On the other, NGOs have developed and strengthened direct relations with the member states, performing executive tasks and playing the role of implementing actors. The result is a multi-layered policy process in which national interests, common values, universal principles, and global duties clash and interact.
Based on an assumption that in the current phase of world politics, global institutions and the relations among civil society and institutions in public policy-making are undergoing a process of change, this book aims at deepening trends and changes in the EU humanitarian aid policy by focusing on the relations between governmental and non-governmental dimensions.
In particular, NGOs’ performances and their relationship with member states and EU institutions are analysed theoretically and empirically.
This research can obviously not be exhaustive or conclusive; it rather aims at shedding new light on a policy which is still undervalued and it also contributes to a debate which will grow in the near future, given the increasing complexity of internal and external crises the EU is facing and the effect of some structural phenomena like Brexit, which have just started to make an impact.
The framework fits into International Relations theories and combines the literature on the role of NGOs in the humanitarian system with contributions on the EU aid policy and the management of transboundary crises.
The research aims at replying to some specific questions:
- 1.What is the propensity of member states to support NGOs in fulfilling their humanitarian agendas?
- 2.Is there a difference between member states and ECHO in the allocation of funds to projects implemented by NGOs?
- 3.Are member states pursuing a humanitarian agenda which is coherent with the EU strategy?
1.1 Rationale of the Book
What is the purpose of studying NGOs today and why is an investigation into their funding relevant? The topic definitely constitutes a challenge for scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers. Currently, all these categories of actors are more and more concerned with the increasing ‘interference’ of civil society organisations in many political issues and in contemporary crises, like migrants and refugee flows. NGOs, as the most organised and visible part of civil society, have clearly demonstrated their controversial nature; however, they are strongly connected to the humanitarian system, and provide functional help that states and IGOs need and request.
The EU humanitarian aid policy is an excellent example of how this is happening. The policy has slowly progressed over the years, marked by member states’ prerogatives and the Commission’s attempts to promote more common activities. Additionally, the policy was designed to efficaciously address the complexity of new crises and to develop proper capacities to tackle transboundary events occurring outside the EU.
Initially created with the task of ensuring and coordinating the delivery of EU aid to third countries, the DG ECHO was upgraded in 2010, with expansion of its competencies to manage crises even within the EU. By bringing together humanitarian aid and civil protection, the Commission aimed at creating a robust and comprehensive set of mechanisms of response and distribution of aid. Thus, the role of ECHO expanded in quantitative and financial terms but, more importantly, it was entrusted with the task of showcasing the humanitarian face of the EU to the world. Technical aspects of delivery, selection of partners, identification of priorities, and funding are all parts of the same sensitive process. The core of ECHO activities remains the funding of various humanitarian actors, which is essential for implementing projects and executing the EU goals and priorities. It provides funding to more than 200 partner organisations, including international organisations, UN agencies, and NGOs.
At the same time, aid interventions should be complemented and reinforced by those of the member states, according to humanitarian principles, international law, and the common EU objectives. Member states can finance bilateral and collective assistance in parallel, by making direct donations to a foreign country as well as indirect donations via the EU’s budget allocation to assistance programmes. NGOs have learned to adapt to such procedures. The activities NGOs have carried out over the last few decades fit smoothly into the overall policy framework developed by EU institutions and the member states, starting with development policy. Member states have made extensive use of the expertise of NGOs—both national and international—and delegated a variety of functions and executive tasks to them as the NGOs are the implementing actors in the field.
Even though ECHO represents the privileged channel through which their activities can be funded and sustained, NGOs continue to maintain bilateral relations with member states, as a result of established traditions and, in most cases, legally disciplined frameworks. The investigation into the performances of such actors within the framework of the EU humanitarian policy may be useful in understanding actual trends and attempting to reflect on potential future expectations.
1.2 Structure of the Book
The book consists of three main parts. The first one introduces the argument and explains what is currently happening in the scholarly debate on the topic. Chapter 2 assesses the current scenario and explains why the policy is still relevant and deserves additional research. In particular, the EU humanitarian aid policy emerges as a big platform, dominated by both governmental and non-governmental dimensions in which member states, ECHO, and NGOs interact in parallel ways according to the same principles, but play different roles and prioritise diverse approaches.
Therefore, the EU humanitarian aid policy constitutes a paradigmatic example of how both governmental and non-governmental dimensions interact directly and indirectly.
In the second part, a theoretical introduction to the main arguments is presented, based on International Relations theories, as well as the main interdisciplinary debate. Chapter 3 introduces literature on the tasks and relevance of NGOs in humanitarian actions, before exploring their innovative contributions during complex emergencies and transboundary crises, and then finally combining diverse literatures for postulating a more comprehensive framework which can be used to analyse empirical data and offering some preliminary conclusions.
The last part provides the most innovative features of this research, that is, an empirical analysis to fulfil the expectations built up through the theoretical discussion. In chapter, the analysis is made on aggregate data and focuses on the funding (in euros) of projects implemented by NGOs in third countries, by ECHO and EU member states, in the period 2005–2016 when the reformed funding mechanisms came into force. Data are taken from the European Disaster Response Information System (EDRIS) dataset, which contains real-time information on contributions to humanitarian aid by ECHO and the EU member states. EDRIS offers a comprehensive set of data and information related to aid provided by EU member states and ECHO, to a wide range of crises and countries. The reliability of these data is assured as all information contained in EDRIS is electronically transmitted to the Financial Tracking System (FTS) managed by the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Geneva.
The comparison of allocation of funds by ECHO and member states to projects implemented by NGOs is used to understand, firstly, whether there is a difference between the support provided by ECHO and that given by the states; secondly, the propensity of member states to support NGOs in fulfilling their humanitarian agendas; and, thirdly, whether member states are pursuing a humanitarian agenda which is coherent with the EU strategy, particularly in the area of selection of recipients of aid.
Some general conclusions and reflections on the EU humanitarian policy are offered. Firstly, there is a growing tendency to cooperate with NGOs and to delegate executive functions to them. Humanitarian aid should involve a set of tools, mechanisms, and competencies which go well beyond the traditional ones. Despite their problems, NGOs are quite functional and, more importantly, fulfil the need for more legitimate feedback from local communities and recipients of aid, and can make the intervention itself more acceptable.
Secondly, a substantial convergence among member states and EU institutions can be ensured, via support to NGOs. Thirdly, member states—at least the Big Donors, which are quite representative of the new face of the EU—tend to consistently follow the principles and priorities of EU humanitarian aid.
The debate on the EU humanitarian policy and its double channels and components is destined to grow.