Commissioner Poul Nielson at Annual ECHO Experts' Seminar

Good morning,

I am very happy to have the privilege of opening this seminar and of welcoming you here.

Once again, I would like to start by acknowledging the excellent work you are doing. You are at the core of ECHO operational activities. ECHO needs your first-hand knowledge and your experience in the field to perform in the best possible way and to achieve its objectives. Thank you so much for your work and your commitment.

At a time when I am preparing my departure from the Commission, and when we are all preparing our strategy for next year, I would like to seize this opportunity to take stock of my work with ECHO, and also stress that 2005 is again going to be another extremely challenging year, and this for many reasons on which I shall revert to later on.

Let me start with my work with ECHO, and let me list what my declared objectives where in 1999 when I took up my position as Commissioner for humanitarian aid.

"To protect ECHO's budget, freedom of action and core activities, it is necessary to be more careful in drawing a line between what are and what are not core activities."

The 1999 budget of the Humanitarian Aid Office of the European Commission (ECHO) was exceptionally high due to the funds used for Kosovo. Since then, ECHO's budget has increased slowly but surely. Where necessary, (a flexibility instrument) an emergency reserve is activated.

Under my guidance, and together with Costanza Adinolfi, I'm proud to say that ECHO has clarified its core mandate and policy by drawing up a mission statement, setting up annual aid strategy frameworks and developing policy guidelines on how to link relief, rehabilitation and development and on disaster preparedness.

I have been, I think, a strong defender of the needs-based, neutral and non-discriminatory status of humanitarian aid. ECHO continues to focus on forgotten crises where there is little or no interest from political or media viewpoints or where other donors are reluctant to intervene. ECHO' support to forgotten crises has been steadily growing, reaching 20% of its budget in 2003.

I also declared: "The relationship between humanitarian assistance and Development assistance needs a firm hand. I think Europe can propose the type of solution really needed on transitional assistance".

As clearly stated in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on "Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD)", LRRD should become a priority for external relations and development cooperation. LRRD is not easy to measure as it is influenced by the willingness of other donors to engage in the process and also by the specific situation in a given country.

I am happy that ECHO was able to be very proactive in trying to implement this policy.

This brings me to my third declaration: "We have to talk hard about the exit strategies for ECHO".

Since 1999, ECHO has accomplished significant progress in phasing out from the Balkans, Kenya, Mexico, partially phasing out or handing over sectors in Afghanistan (health), Cambodia (de-mining), Colombia (internally displaced people), India (education), and Cuba (health).

Phasing out has usually been done in a way that ensures that another aid instrument takes over once humanitarian aid is no longer appropriate.

On the issue of co-ordination, I have declared in 1999:

"We are trying to create an international society...the different partners involved should talk together so we can pre-plan for some contingencies the UN systems should be given an important role in the efforts...The EU should be more open and willing to cooperate on humanitarian aid.

I will also encourage close cooperation with other major actors".

In line with the Communication prepared by the Commission on Building an Effective Partnership with the United Nations in the Fields of Development and Humanitarian Affairs, ECHO has been playing a very active role in promoting coordination, but also building a common support to the humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence. My overarching objective has always been to ensure effective coordination and to preserve an independent "humanitarian space" in crisis situations, preserving the dignity of populations in humanitarian disasters.

I am also very happy to state that ECHO has pursued a proactive strategy to defend the principles of international humanitarian law, supporting the adoption of the Principles and Good Practices of Humanitarian Donorship in Stockholm, confirming that humanitarian funding should be allocated on the basis of needs assessment. The Principles also call on donors to support the Guidelines on the use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to support

United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies.

Finally, and as late statement, I declared that "I will continue to encourage on the spot checks as well as evaluations conducted by independent experts".

Here again, I must say how pleased I am that evaluation has become an integral part of ECHO's working practices. It corresponds with the Commission's constant efforts to improve the mechanisms for defining policy priorities and allocating resources.

Evaluations cover not only reviews of ECHO-funded operations, but also thematic issues and major partners. It is intended to increase the level of coordination with other Commission services, EU Member States and other major donors.

I will now turn to the main challenges ahead.

I'm afraid they basically remain the same than those I was referring to a year ago.

I am very pleased that, for the first time in the history of the European Union, we will have in the future constitutional Treaty an article specifically devoted to humanitarian aid as a shared competence between Member States and the European Union.

The provision lays down the objective of humanitarian aid, that is, to provide assistance relief and protection to victims of natural or man-made disasters in order to meet the humanitarian needs arising from these situations.

It stresses that humanitarian aid operations shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of international humanitarian law, in particular (but not limited to) impartiality and non-discrimination.

No matter the number of times we have stressed these principles in the past, humanity, neutrality, impartiality and non-discrimination in the delivery of aid are the cornerstones of humanitarian aid. These principles should guarantee the security of humanitarian personnel and the access to the victims in conflict situations. Humanitarian assistance must remain neutral to avoid being taken hostage by political considerations and jeopardising humanitarian workers in the field thus making the delivery of aid impossible.

It is my strong concern to avoid all possible encroachment of the humanitarian space by military actors: not only for security reasons and to avoid humanitarian actors to become war targets, but also for the effective and professional accomplishment of the humanitarian operations. Humanitarian focus and expertise cannot be improvised.

A good example in this sense is Operation Artemis in support of the MONUC, in the province of Ituri, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The liaison between the military and the humanitarian side has been constructive and the results clearly are positive.

To conclude, after having recognised your role in the implementation of our tasks, I would like to seize this opportunity again to praise and thank ECHO staff and its Management for their efforts to make ECHO an internationally recognised and respected donor that can contribute to alleviate the plight of innocent victims of humanitarian emergencies. It is not a surprise therefore if the College has decided a week ago to transform ECHO into a fully-fledged Directorate general. Finally, and as a concluding statement, I would like in particular to thank Costanza Adinolfi for her indefectible commitment during these last 5 years.

I look forward to hearing your questions and comments.

Thank you.

| Top |