ec.europa.euec.europa.eu/echo/files/evaluation/2012/final report... · 2013-06-03 · european...

European Commission DG ECHO

Preparatory study for an

Impact Assessment on the

establishment of a European

Voluntary Humanitarian Aid

Corps

Final report

March 2012

EPEC in association with

European Commission DG ECHO

Preparatory study for an

Impact Assessment on the

establishment of a European

Voluntary Humanitarian Aid

Corps

Final report

A report submitted by EPEC in association with COWI

March 2012

Specific Contract: ECHO/ADM/BUD/2011/01204

in the framework of the Lot 5 of the Multiple Framework

Contract "Provision of evaluation and evaluation related

services to DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG

EMPL), including support for Impact Assessment Activities No.

VC/2009/0054.

COWI A/S

Parallelvej 2

DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby

Denmark

Tel +45 45 97 22 11

Fax +45 45 97 22 12

www.cowi.com


Preparatory study for an Impact Assessment on the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps

U:\500 - EVALUATION SECTOR\1. Evaluations\1.2. Completed evaluations\2012\EVHAC Impact

Assessment\Reporting\22032012 Final report.docx


Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADICE Association for the Development of Civic and European Initia-

tives

ALNAP Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

BMZ Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und

Entwicklung (the German Federal Ministry for Economic

Cooperation and Development)

CP Civil Protection

CRED Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters

CV Curriculum Vitae

DANIDA Denmark’s development cooperation, under the Ministry of For-

eign Affairs.

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

DG EAC European Commission Directorate-General for Education and

Culture

DG ECHO European Commission Directorate-General for Humanitarian

Aid

DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO

DMTA European Disaster Management Training Arrangements

DRC Danish Refugee Council

EACEA Education and Culture Executive Agency

EC European Commission

ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (University

accreditation system)

ELRHA Enhancing Learning &Research for Humanitarian Response

EMERCOM Agency for Support and Coordination of Russian Participation

in International Humanitarian Operations

EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency

EU European Union

EUR Euro

EUROMED Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

EVS European Voluntary Service (DG EAC)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)

GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany)

HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

HR Human Resources

IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent

IMPACT International Mobilization and Preparation for ACTion (training

developed by IFRC)

JSI Joint Standards Initiative

MIC Monitoring and Information Centre

MS Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke (DK)

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NOHA Network On Humanitarian Action (Joint European Master)

NORCAP Norwegian Capacity (NRC Emergency Roster)





NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

PR Public Relations

RRC Irish Rapid Response Corps

SC Save the Children

SPHERE The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Stand-

ards in Disaster Response

THW Technisches Hilfswerk (German government disaster relief or-

ganization)

ToR Terms of Reference

ToT Training of Trainers

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UN OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Af-

fairs

UNDAC United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination

UNHCR United Nations High Commissariat for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

UNV United Nations Volunteers

VOICE Voluntary Organisation in Cooperation in Emergencies

VSO Voluntary Service Overseas (UK)

WFP United Nations World Food Programme





Table of Contents

Executive summary 1

Background and scope 1

Problems and objectives 2

Modules 4

Options 5

Impacts and costs 7

Methodology 12

1 Introduction 13

1.1 Structure of report 13

1.2 Information sources 13

2 Background and context – ’setting the scene’ 14

2.1 Origin and policy context 14

2.2 Previous consultations on the subject 15

2.3 Recently funded EU activities 17

2.4 The place of volunteers in humanitarian relief 19

3 Definitions and typologies 22

3.1 Volunteer definition and typology 22

3.2 The disaster management cycle and the focus of the Voluntary Corps 24

3.3 Relevance of the Voluntary Corps 25

4 The baseline 27

4.1 Current EU humanitarian volunteering outside the EU 27

4.2 Mechanisms to employ volunteers 31

4.3 Views on the voluntary corps 36

4.4 Key features and trends of the current situation 38

5 Problems and objectives 43

6 The modules 47

7 Module 1: Development of standards for identification, selection and training of volunteers 51

7.1 Background 51

7.2 Contribution to general and specific objectives 54





7.3 Module specifications 55

7.4 Costs 57

7.5 Impacts 60

8 Module 2: Development of certification mechanism 63

8.1 Background 63



8.4 Costs 66

8.5 Impacts 69

9 Module 3: Running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid 72

9.1 Background 72



9.4 Costs 84

9.5 Impacts 90

10 Module 4: EU roster of trained volunteers 94

10.1 Background 94



10.4 Costs 98

10.5 Impacts 100

11 Module 5: Develop standards for volunteer management in hosting organisations 103

11.1 Background 103



11.4 Costs 106

11.5 Impacts 107

12 Module 6: Deployment of volunteers 110

12.1 Background 110



12.4 Costs 120

12.5 Impacts 127





13 Module 7: Support for local hosting organisations for managing European volunteers via training 131

13.1 Background 131



13.4 Costs 134

13.5 Impacts 135

14 Module 8: Establishment of a community of DG ECHO Humanitarian Volunteers 138

14.1 Background 138



14.4 Costs 141

14.5 Impacts 142

15 Identification and analysis of policy options 144

15.1 Introduction 144

15.2 Four options 145

15.3 Policy option 1: Certification 147

15.4 Policy option 2: Training 151

15.5 Policy option 3: Training and demand stimulation 156

15.6 Policy option 4: Training and demand stimulation with direct management 163

16 Comparing policy options 169

Table of Appendices

Appendix A E-survey

Appendix B Module 3 - Possible organisation of training and derivation of cost factors

Appendix C Module 4 - Supporting data

Appendix D Module 5 - Supporting data

Appendix E Module 6 - Background

Appendix F Module 7 - Supporting data





Appendix G Module 8 - Establishment of a community of DG ECHO Humanitarian Volunteers

Appendix H List of stakeholders consulted

Appendix I Literature




1


Executive summary

This report presents the results of an impact assessment study of establishing a

European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps.

Background and scope

The creation of the Voluntary Corps was put forward by the Greek presidency

in 2003 and is mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 214.5). Its purpose is to

provide ‘”a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans to the

humanitarian.”

The corps would focus on volunteering in terms of providing assistance to

countries in need and in the countries in need, and it has a strong emphasis on

the disaster management cycle (i.e. prevention, preparedness, response and re-

covery) acknowledging though that in the first critical response phases, the

scope for volunteering is more limited. In operational terms, the study has iden-

tified two important features of the volunteers to be targeted by the initiative

viz.: their educational background and their prior experience in third countries

and/or in humanitarian aid experience. This is shown in the table below. It also

shows that the voluntary corps is likely to be of less relevance when the candi-

date volunteer only has basic education.




2


Educational background

Experience in third countries and/or previ-ous humanitar-ian aid experi-ence

Basic Vocational education or BA level

Masters or equivalent

No or minor experience

Less relevant, and primarily in prevention/preparedness activities

Opportunities for gaining experience in this field exist also in the EVS programme

Significant relevance, and mostly in prevention/preparedness activ-ities although depending on type of background recovery activities can also come into play

Significant relevance - depend-ing on immediate relevance of educational background this can be in all disaster cycle phases

Significant expe-rience

Some relevance, and primar-ily in preven-tion/preparedness activities

Significant relevance - depending on immediate relevance of edu-cational background this can be in all t disaster cycle phases

Those in this group with ‘immedi-ately relevant’ educational back-grounds are likely to be ‘ready for deployment’ already and to be attractive volunteers in the view of the organisations

Significant relevance in all dis-aster management phases including response.

Also, those in this group with ‘immediately relevant’ educa-tional backgrounds are likely to be ‘ready for deployment’ al-ready and to be attractive vol-unteers in the view of the or-ganisations

Problems and objectives

While the establishment of the voluntary corps is stipulated in the Treaty, it is

important to ensure that it is framed with a scope and ambition level that in the

best possible way addresses the needs of the stakeholders. Important stakehold-

ers include first and foremost the volunteers themselves, the organisations that

deliver assistance and the host communities that receive the assistance. Consid-

ering and analysing their activities and concerns and taking into account the

fact that disasters are likely to occur on an increasing scale, it is concluded that

– in the absence of the voluntary corps it can be expected that:

• volunteers will be increasingly used in humanitarian aid and development

assistance, and the individual, national organisations and NGOs will apply

their own identification and selection methods and offer training that

matches their immediate needs, their mandate and their financial limita-

tions, and synergies and transparencies across boundaries can be difficult

to realise;

• there is likely to be an ‘un-harvested’ volunteering potential in humanitari-

an aid due to lack of capacity - within the NGO community and with na-

tional governments - to develop and offer the appropriate training in that

regard, and due to the fact that it is costly to the individual NGO to provide

sufficient training to ensure that the volunteer will add value (e.g. SC esti-

mates that such costs can reach EUR 10 000 per volunteer);

• concerns about host organisations’ capacity to take the contribution proper-

ly on board and a wish to avoid crowding out national employ-

ment/volunteering also constrain use of EU volunteers;




3


• those willing to offer a committed voluntary contribution in humanitarian

aid will continue to have to act in a open ‘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;

• the impacts on host organisations and host communities will depend on the

specific volunteer sending organisation and what it does to prepare the host

organisation and the volunteer for the deployment – and also, the benefit to

the volunteer and to the hosting community will depend on the host organ-

isation’s resources and approach.

In sum, mobilising better the volunteering capacity within the EU can provide

more capacity to support humanitarian aid activities, not necessarily only

through more deployments, but also through better prepared deployments. This

can in turn affect the benefits delivered to the hosting communities and the im-

pact that the volunteer activities have on the volunteer in question.

As mentioned, the setting up of the corps is part of the Lisbon Treaty, and thus

a voluntary corps in humanitarian aid must be established, and the challenge is

therefore to define and scope the corps in a way that provides the best possible

benefits in a cost-effective manner. To guide the analyses, objectives have been

defined and possible options have been identified. The table below shows the

identified overall objectives, general objectives and specific objectives.

Objective

level

Objectives

Overall

objective

Lisbon Treaty (Art. 214.5): "In order to establish a framework for joint contri-

butions from young Europeans to the humanitarian aid operations of the

Union, a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps shall be set up…”

General

objectives

Deliver aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way (time, quantity

and quality)

Contribute to local capacity building within host organisations and host

communities

Deliver benefits to the volunteers (training, CV building, express solidarity)

Deliver EU visibility and solidarity

Specific

objectives

Increase the number of qualified volunteers throughout Europe - through an

increased focus on professional soft and hard skills to improve the delivery

of aid, contribute to local capacity building, improve the competences of the

volunteers, and enhance the visibility of EU actions.

Improve the matching of volunteers with the need of the humanitarian aid

organisations and local hosts - that will imply improved deliverance of aid as

well as improved use of and competence-building for the volunteers through

more successful deployments will enhance the visibility of EU actions.

Improve the hosting capacity of receiving countries/humanitarian aid organi-

sations - that will enable better use and use of and competence-building for

the volunteers and so improve both the deliverance and the absorption of aid




4


Modules

The study has analysed eight different modules separately. The modules are

shown below. However, it should be emphasised that neither of the modules are

intended as a ‘stand-alone’ option. Rather, they will provide their contribution

to the above objectives through appropriate combinations. The below table pre-

sent the different individual modules and their contribution to the objectives

above. The he following section presents the combination of modules into op-

tions.

Title Objective What does it deliver? How does it relate to problems and ob-

jectives?

Module 1:

Development of

standards for

identification,

selection and

training of volun-

teers

Increased number

of qualified volun-

teers.

Improved matching

of volunteers with

the needs of hu-

manitarian aid or-

ganisations and

local hosts.

Improved hosting

capacity of receiv-

ing organisations.

EU standards that organisa-

tions must adhere to verify

that they identify, select and

train volunteers sufficiently to

provide value added to bene-

ficiaries.

Transparency of volunteer

qualifications.

Standards are assumed to attract volun-

teers with qualifications that match the

needs of a given organisation. This com-

bined with standards for training will in-

crease the number of qualified volunteers.

Furthermore, higher standards at organisa-

tions will make more people seek to be-

come volunteers.

Transparency of volunteers' hard and soft

skills will improve matching and thus effi-

ciency of deployments, hereunder by en-

couraging the raising of standards by re-

ceiving organisations.

A critical factor is the uptake of the output

(and the process) among stakeholders if

the standards become too comprehensive -

i.e. there might be a need for space for

cultural differences.

Module 2:

Development of

certification

mechanism

Increased number

of qualified volun-

teers.

Improved matching

of volunteers with

the needs of hu-

manitarian aid or-

ganisations and

local hosts.

Improved hosting

capacity of receiv-

ing organisations.

Certification mechanism de-

livering audited evidence that

certified organisations ad-

here to EU standards for

identification, selection and

training of volunteers.

Transparency of volunteer

qualifications.

It contributes to market clearing by making

the need for and availability of qualifica-

tions more transparent to volunteers and

volunteering organisations, and it adds

credibility to claims of fulfilling EU stand-

ards.

Furthermore, certified standards at organi-

sations will make more people seek to be-

come volunteers.

Critical factors would be the credibility, cost

and burdens associated with the certifica-

tion.

Module 3: Running of train-ing for volun-teers in humani-tarian aid

Increased number of qualified volun-teers

Increased number of deployments

Potentially also con-tributes to hosting capacity

Development and running of training modules

Enhances the soft skills of volunteers, thereby increasing their ‘attractiveness’ to the humanitarian aid organisations and contributing to improving the cost benefit ratio of deployment of volunteers. Increas-es the attractiveness of volunteering - e.g. giving them an identity as European volun-teers. Provides a financial incentive for using the training and thereby generates a more joint background and provides for better ‘sharing’ opportunities.

The challenge or critical factor would be to frame the contents of the training and its




5


Title Objective What does it deliver? How does it relate to problems and ob-

jectives?

implementation in a way that adds value to volunteering and not just simply replaces costs of similar activities that are already now undertaken.

Module 4: EU roster of trained volun-teers

Platform/procedures and thereby in-creased supply and demand

‘open access’ roster Improved ‘market clearing’ and enabling fast identification of suitable volunteer can-didates – better access to volunteering opportunities

The critical factor is whether the establish-ment and operation of the roster will pro-vide sufficient value added compared to the costs as a range online forums and facilities already exists – ultimately the val-ue of the roster will be dependent on its credibility - it being frequently used by or-ganisations as well as volunteers.

Module 5: Develop stand-ards for volun-teer manage-ment in hosting organisations

Hosting capacity


Standards and benchmarks for host/receiving organisa-tions

Attractiveness for volunteers and increas-ing demand for volunteers from local hosts – higher efficiency and level of reassurance for EU humanitarian aid organisations, and transparency of crisis situation capacity.

A critical factor is to leave space for cultural differences, hereunder by involving differ-ent types of hosting organisations in the development.

Module 6: Deployment of volunteers


Volunteers deployed with EU co-financing

Incentive for increasing the use of volun-teers through improving the cost-benefit ratio.

In case it is combined with the roster, it will increase the attractiveness of the training and the roster on the side of the volun-teers.

Module 7: Support of local hosting organi-sations for man-aging European volunteers

Hosting capacity

Better capability of hosting nations to generate added value from volunteers

Addressing, e.g. through training, important and shared challenges in local host organi-sations it can help to reduce this limiting factor and contribute to better value added of the efforts of the volunteers.

A critical factor is the establishment of a real partnership between the European organisation and the hosting organisations.

Module 8: Establishment of a Community of DG ECHO hu-manitarian vol-unteers

Increased number of qualified volun-teers

(platform contribu-tion)

Mentors for future volun-teers, DG ECHO 'Ambassa-dors'

Benefits from peer-to-peer contacts.

A critical factor is a fast turnover of mem-bers, especially the young ones.

Options

In the below table, the three different options are set out. They have been la-

belled ‘minimum’, ‘medium’ and ‘extensive’, and this reflects the widening

scope and the increasing costs as one moves from ‘minimum’ to ‘extensive’.




6


In Option 1, the main instrument is the development of standards in a process

that involves the organisations and which is facilitated by the Commission.

Once developed and agreed upon, a certification system will accompany the

standards. This means that organisations that adhere to the standards can be cer-

tified. Certification will make them attractive to volunteer candidates and will

mean that they can document to different donors that they act according to the

standards. The standards in themselves will build on best practice and lessons

learned throughout the humanitarian aid community, and alignment with the

standards will per se mean that quality and cost-effectiveness in the use of vol-

unteers is targeted.

In Option 2, the standards continue to be an important element. However, their

penetration in the activities of the humanitarian aid sector is supported through

the development and implementation of EU training programmes for volun-

teers. Vice versa, the standards provide the framework for developing the train-

ing programme, and the standards ensure the relevance and applicability of

training components. An EU registry or roster of EU-trained volunteers is es-

tablished to provide for transparency and easy access to the trained volunteers.

Standards for volunteer management in host organisations will support host

organisations ‘absorption capacity’ and enable them to make better use of the

volunteer’s contribution.

Option 3 consists of the same modules as option 2, but supplements them with

two important other modules. First, it includes the possibility that the actual

‘deployment’ of trained volunteers thus making it less costly to the organisa-

tions to make use of the volunteers, and second it seeks to support the actual

use of the standards for host organisations through supporting these organisa-

tions in implementing the standards.

Option 4 consists of the same modules as option 3, but it assumes that man-

agement also of training, deployments and host organisation capacity building

is undertaken by the European Commission. Commission services would thus

also be managing the recruitment and selection of volunteers into the corps.

As a result, the standards are an integral part of each of the options. The stand-

ards provide a common reference for all the actors (the volunteers, the organi-

sations and the hosts). The standards build on lessons learned and best practice

from within organisations with regard to the training of volunteers, the identifi-

cation of volunteers and the selection of volunteers.

The first option applies a certification mechanism as a means to enhancing the

use and knowledge of the standards. The second option relies on training as the

instrument for disseminating the standards whereas the third option combines

training with more explicit demand stimulation (i.e. demand for volunteers).




7


Title Mini-

mum

option

Medium

option

Exten-

sive op-

tion

Exten-

sive op-

tion with

central

man-

agement

Module 1:

Development of standards for identification, selection and training of

volunteers

X X X X

Module 2:

Development of certification mechanism

X

Module 3: Running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid

X X X

Module 4: EU roster of trained volunteers

X X X

Module 5: Develop standards for volunteer management in hosting organisa-tions

X X X


X X

Module 7: Support of local hosting organisations for managing European volun-teers

X X

Module 8: Establishment of a Community of DG ECHO humanitarian volunteers

X X X X

Impacts and costs

The below provides an overview of the estimated costs of each of the options

under consideration.

The table shows that the wider the scope of the Voluntary Corps, the more ex-

pensive will it be and the more will it contribute significantly to the objectives

that were set forth. As regards option 1, the costs are quite small, but it is im-

portant to note also that not only are the impacts assessed to be relatively small

compared to the other two options, but the realisation of these impacts are also

influenced by important risk factors. It is worth mentioning also that while the

costs of option 4 are somewhat lower than option 3, the throughput (i.e. the

number of volunteers that obtain immediate benefit in terms of apprenticeship

and the number of regular deployments) is assumed to be much higher in option

3 than in option 4. More specifically, option 3 is assumed to provide appren-

ticeships to twice as many volunteers in the training programme than option 4

and to deploy more than the double amount of volunteers (In the period 2015-

2020, option 3 is assumed to support a total of 1750 regular deployments com-

pared to 750 in option 4). On the other hand though, it can be argued that op-

tion 4 may provide more visibility. However, the two options have been as-

sessed to be quite similar in that regard, because through its higher throughput,

option 3 can also provide for high visibility.




8


Table 0-1 Comparing policy options

Policy option 1: Certification

Policy option 2: Training

Policy option 3: Training and de-mand stimulation

Policy option 4: 3 - with direct DG ECHO management

General objectives

Aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way

(+) (++) (+++) ++

Contribute to local capacity building

(+) (++) +++ (+++)

Deliver benefits to the volunteers

+ ++ +++ ++


++ (++) +++ +++

Implementation costs 2015-2020

EUR 4.5 million EUR 31.0 million EUR 83.8 million EUR 75.9 million *

Main risks

Level of uptake Wide acknowledge-ment of certification mechanism

Cumbersome for smaller organisations

Prospects for de-ployment, and so use of registry

As 2, but cumber-

some for smaller organisations

Good if deployments are available and training is uniformly accessible The as-sessment here as-sumes a lower throughout than in option 3 as regards apprenticeships

Deployment opportu-nities

n/a Full benefits of training

Sufficient deployment opportunities

Depends on extent to which volunteers can be placed in ECHO-funded projects – there is potential for deployments to be constrained by ca-pacity of the ‘ECHO system’

Host organisation capacity

n/a Absorption capacity in host organisations

Initial level of host organisation capaci-ties


Crowding out Cumbersome for small organisations

Substitution of exist-ing training opportu-nities

As 2 + substitution of

local volunteers and local employment

Sets up volunteering service parallel to existing partners

The below elaborates on the scorings presented in the above table. The main

reason why the more costly options provide for higher contributions is to be

found in the fact that option 1 delivers its impacts in an indirect manner, where-

as the other options work more directly.

The voluntary Corps is expected to provide aid to countries in need, however,

this will be achieved with some uncertainty. Achievements as well as uncer-

tainties differ between policy options. Policy option 1 contributes by encourag-

ing organisations to supply volunteers of a high standard. The contribution is,

however, of indirect nature and so the impacts may be low and uncertain - in

particular because the certification mechanism may only be embraced by some

Aid to countries in

need in the most ap-

propriate way is

achieved with some

uncertainty




9


of the large organisations. In other words, a higher impact is dependent on a

certain level of uptake across organisations to make synergy effects occur.

The contribution by policy option 2 has also the risk of being somewhat low if

it is not assured that the classroom training is accompanied by practical experi-

ence through deployment. However, if the assumption holds that there is a

training gap in the market for volunteers, the EU initiative helps fill this gap

through increasing the number of qualified volunteers available to support ben-

eficiary countries. The term qualified indicates that the training contents will

provide volunteers with stronger background and skills for delivering added

value in the host community, and the more the standards for volunteer man-

agement are picked up by the host organisations, the more will this effort be

mirrored at the recipient side, thus further strengthening the effect. The register

of volunteers can contribute to an improved market clearing which enables or-

ganisations – in a cost-efficient way – to identify the right candidates for volun-

teer positions.

Since policy option 3 finances deployments of European volunteers as well as

support to local organisations in managing the volunteers, it provides direct aid

to the beneficiary countries. However, the appropriateness as well as the size of

this aid can be matters of some uncertainty. In particular, there is a risk that the

activities of the Voluntary Corps substitute rather than add value to the work of

the local volunteers or staff. In other words, there is a risk of that the volunteers

might have a distorting impact on the local labour markets. This risk must be

taken well into account when framing the training in order to ensure that the

EU trained volunteers are capable to bring additional value to the host commu-

nity.

In policy option 4, the management of many of these risks would be internal-

ised. Efficacy and impact would thus be linked to the capacity available under

the direct management scenario to manage the Voluntary Corps operations ef-

fectively. A key issue would be the ability of Commission services to identify

and utilise sufficient meaningful volunteering operations.

Policy option 1 provides only indirect effects as regards the contributions to

local capacity building as it works mainly through the standards and the certifi-

cation of adherence to those standards. In this way, the contents of the stand-

ards and their uptake becomes determining factors for the extent to which poli-

cy option 1 can ensure a significant contribution to local capacity building.

Policy option 2 involves a translation of the standards into EU developed train-

ing. Assuming that the standards and the consequent training will put an em-

phasis on strengthening the ability of European volunteers to provide value and

to make a difference, the impact on local capacity building can be strengthened.

For instance, when volunteers can combine their specific technical skills with

managerial and coordination skills and thereby ensure the dissemination of the

technical skills at the wider community level. This effect is further reinforced

through adherence to the developed standards for host organisations’ volunteer

management.

Contributions to lo-

cal capacity building

should build on a

strong focus on en-

suring the added val-

ue of the European

volunteers to local

communities




10


In regard to the latter, there can be greater certainty that policy option 3 will

have a positive impact because it includes direct support to host organisations

thereby strengthening their ability to optimise the benefit from the volunteer’s

contribution. However, there is a risk that the initial levels of many host organi-

sation capacities are so low that even with this support element, it might be dif-

ficult to reach levels that can fully match or exploit the capabilities of the vol-

unteers recruited through the Voluntary Corps. As above, the risk that European

volunteers can crowd out local volunteers and staff should also be mentioned.

There must be an appropriate balance between residents and temporary contrib-

utors such as the European volunteers to allow for the sustainability of project

results.

The volunteers have a variety of motivations and incentives for volunteering,

ranging from wanting to build up CVs and obtain learning via having a volun-

teer career to contribute to 'a better world'. The policy options contribute to this

to an increasing degree. Policy option 1 mainly enables the Voluntary Corps

volunteers to be able to display on their CVs that they have been select-

ed/engaged by a certified organisation, and it provides for a higher level of

knowledge about what to expect from volunteering through different organisa-

tions. Also, the Community of ECHO humanitarian volunteers allow them to

share experience and search for advice and sparring from other volunteers. Pol-

icy option 2 directly contributes to their qualifications via training, which they

can put into their CV. This, in turn, can increase their chances of deployment

and thereby provide them with the documented practical experience. The train-

ing and the possible deployment also allow them to test whether the humanitar-

ian sector is the right choice of career for them. For volunteers with some expe-

rience and a relatively high level of technical skills, the training and the roster

can provide a faster entry into volunteering and in a way that ensures that their

technical skills will be put properly to use from the onset. The roster can be a

strong benefit to volunteers if it succeeds in being widely used by organisations

and projects. The standards for host organisations’ management of volunteers

will help volunteers maximise their contribution when deployed and in this way

increase their ‘job satisfaction’.

Policy option 3 helps the volunteers more get the necessary practical experience

to become attractive for subsequent deployments (through volunteering or

through paid positions (outside the scope of the Voluntary Corps)) by the dif-

ferent sending organisations and strengthening their CVs in general. Further, it

helps them to be able to express their solidarity. A full achievement of this ob-

jective requires sufficient deployment opportunities. Policy option 4 has effects

similar to policy option 3 but under different management arrangements.

Furthermore, the more comprehensive the policy option, the higher the likeli-

hood of positive EU social inclusion impacts. In other words and in particular

in policy option 4 but also in the other options, the European Commission can

pursue the inclusion of volunteers from the EU Member States with the least

developed markets for volunteering.

The wider the scope

of the Voluntary

Corps, the higher the

benefits for volun-

teers




11


All the policy options for the Voluntary Corps will deliver EU visibility and

solidarity. European coherence can be strengthened through ensuring equal ac-

cess to the offers of the Voluntary Corps initiative throughout Europe.

In policy option 1, the certified organisations could display and communicate

their Voluntary Corps certificates, as will volunteers and others engaged by

these organisations - e.g. on their CVs. Furthermore, some donors might choose

to highlight that it is a plus for applicant organisations to be certified. The size

of these impacts depends of course on a wide acknowledgement of the EU cer-

tification mechanism and so its level of uptake. Similarly, the process of defin-

ing the standards and setting up the system provides some visibility, although it

will be mainly vis-à-vis the interested and immediately involved stakeholders.

Policy option 2 will both involve the set-up of a visible EU training programme

and the delivery of EU-trained volunteers. The visibility of the EU as a driver

of ‘good volunteering’ in humanitarian assistance can be very strong in this

case. The process of developing and continuously improving the training can

play an important and visible role in contributing to the efforts also of other

major actors in this area. Also, the EU will be able to offer the training on a

regular and continued basis due to the stable funding, which can also provide

for strong visibility and recognition amongst humanitarian aid actors. If these

effects materialise in terms of a wide recognition of the EU training as being

among the ‘state-of-the-art’ offers, those that benefit from it (the volunteers and

the organisations) will also feel inclined to refer to it and in that way the visibil-

ity impact will be further enlarged.

The direct presence of and support of the Voluntary Corps in the beneficiary

countries is considered to be a central and direct way of displaying EU visibil-

ity and solidarity – in particular because it is combined with training of a high

standard, which ensures that volunteers contribute significantly and positively.

Policy option 3 will thus further reinforce the visibility impacts of policy option

2, in particular in host communities. In policy option 4, DG ECHO would be

able to determine how EU visibility and solidarity should be delivered because

the services would all be directly managed.

Not surprisingly, the higher the ambitions and contributions to the Voluntary

Corps objectives, the higher the costs of the policy option. The above table il-

lustrates the estimated costs of the different options. It should be noted though

that these cost estimates are heavily influenced by 1) the assumed co-financing

rates with regard to training and deployment support, and 2) the assumed vol-

umes in terms of a) number of volunteers trained, b) number of volunteers de-

ployed, and c) the scope of the training offered.

Last, it should be noted, as described also in the previous chapter, that these

options could be further enhanced by including the certification system de-

scribed in policy option 1 and with the issuing of certificates to volunteers upon

completion of the training. Similarly, standards may be further reinforced

through introducing standard-dependent eligibility criteria into the funding op-

tions.

Voluntary Corps will

deliver EU visibility

and solidarity

The higher the ambi-

tions, the higher the

costs




12


Methodology

The Voluntary Corps will involve the introduction of something new. Today,

efforts to improve the benefits, outputs, effectiveness and efficiency of volun-

teers’ contribution and work in humanitarian assistance are guided and man-

aged for instance by the national level in some Member States, by NGOs; and

by sponsored, specific initiatives. Coordination and experience sharing are done

on a voluntary basis and can be of an ad-hoc nature. Accordingly, the options

under consideration will among other things improve experience sharing and

develop best practice-based standards, and support the impact of these stand-

ards through the provision of training (option 2) possibly combined with finan-

cial support of deployments (option 3).

Given today’s situation of many different active stakeholders in the area, who

work independently of one another in a formal sense, it is however impossible

to obtain or develop an estimate of the likely future demand for the Voluntary

Corps initiative. This challenge is further augmented by the fact that the volun-

tary corps would target the disaster management cycle; an area where needs are

likely to increase in the future, and which may also increase the demand for

volunteers.

Also, the specific contents of the different options will be highly influenced by

the standards that are envisaged to be developed under option 1. This means

that the specific contents and scope of each of the options are quite undeter-

mined at this stage, although indications of directions can be established. Simi-

larly, ongoing and planned pilot projects will provide valuable information that

can feed into the formulation of the specific options.

In order to deliver quantitative and robust assessments under these uncertain-

ties, the study consulted with a range of stakeholders. These consultations

served to establish 1) as realistic as possible assumptions about the possible

design of each of the modules, 2) motivated estimates of the likely costs that

the modules would involve, 3) an informed assessment of the likely demand for

the contents of the module in question, and 4) important uncertainties and risks

to consider.

Having established the above objectives, the study went on to assess the costs

of each of the modules and its impacts. The former assessment results in mone-

tary estimates (subject to the mentioned assumptions and uncertainties) whereas

the latter assessment is done in a qualitative manner. This assessment of the

modules is quite detailed, and the uncertainties and assumptions are explained

in detail for each of the modules. However, as mentioned the effects from the

options come from bringing a set of modules together. Therefore, the assess-

ment of each of the options builds upon the preceding assessment of the indi-

vidual modules, and this allows for a comparative analyses. These comparative

analyses not only compare the costs of each option, but also the relative merits

of each option regarding its contribution to the objectives as well as the risks

and uncertainties associated with delivering these contributions.




13


1 Introduction

This report presents the results from the impact assessment study that has been

undertaken in support of the EU initiative on a European Voluntary Corps in

humanitarian aid.

The report has been prepared in the period from June 2011 to December 2011

by COWI in collaboration with GHK and Tavistock Institute under the frame-

work contract between the European Commission (EC) and the European Poli-

cy Evaluation Consortium/COWI on ‘Provision of evaluation and evaluation-

related services to DG EMPL including support for Impact Assessment Activi-

ties’.

1.1 Structure of report

First, we present a chapter which aims to set the scene for the impact assess-

ment in terms of providing the important background information. This consti-

tutes the essential reference points for the study. Thereafter, we present the ap-

plied definitions and typologies. This is followed by a baseline description and

a chapter on problems and objectives. We then identify and describe the possi-

ble relevant measures that could be put into place to pursue the identified objec-

tives. This is followed by eight chapters which analyse each of the modules in

more detail. These chapters address in particular how the specific modules

could possibly be set up and what would be the likely costs. In addition, the

chapters provide considerations of the risks involved and the types of important

impacts that the specific modules under consideration could bring about. Then

a chapter is dedicated to defining and assessing relevant and appropriate policy

options (i.e. combinations of modules). The last chapter compares the different

options.

1.2 Information sources

The conduct of this study has been based on an extensive review of relevant

literature, preparatory studies and policy documents; on a number of personal

interviews (face-to-face or by telephone); and an e-based questionnaire survey

among relevant DG ECHO partners and other selected stakeholders. Lists of

consulted literature, interviewed stakeholders and replies to our questionnaire

survey are contained in appendices.




14


2 Background and context – ’setting the scene’

2.1 Origin and policy context

The creation of the Voluntary Corps was put forward by the Greek presidency

in 2003 and is mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 214.5). Its purpose is to

provide ‘a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans to the hu-

manitarian aid operations of the Union through a Regulation’.

Given that the Corps is formulated under the EU’s humanitarian aid policies,

the bulk of the activity is expected to take place outside the EU. Volunteers

could also be involved in back office roles supporting operations outside EU1’.

The Voluntary Corps should contribute to building European solidarity as ex-

pressed by European humanitarian aid. Furthermore, it could help building a

more cohesive European society by creating new opportunities for European

citizens' participation2.

The focus of the Voluntary Corps on humanitarian aid is an important part of

its identity, and is a feature that distinguishes it from other models of volunteer-

ing in international development assistance. It affects the types of volunteering

activity potentially covered by the Voluntary Corps, the locations in which such

volunteering might take place, and the organisations that have an interest in its

design and delivery.

Humanitarian crises can be man-made or triggered by natural disasters. There is

an important role for prevention and preparedness in mitigating the effects of

such events. This is reflected in the EU policy: ‘the EU is committed to promot-

ing disaster risk reduction and disaster preparedness in developing countries

through coherent and coordinated action at local, national and regional level’.

Similarly, ‘recovery and reconstruction in the aftermath of a disaster is a major

1 Information from kick-off meeting.

2 ‘How to express EU citizens' solidarity through volunteering: First reflections on a Euro-

pean Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps’, Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament and the Council, COM (2010) 683 final.




15


challenge, which requires structural and development action beyond immediate

emergency aid’3.

2.2 Previous consultations on the subject

The Voluntary Corps concept has been developed through previous consulta-

tions which have identified objectives, priorities areas for action and the gen-

eral operational framework. A review was carried out in 2006 and in 2010 an

explorative study was prepared based on a process that included extensive con-

sultations with a wide range of stakeholders4.

In these previous consultations with DG ECHO partners5, the most commonly

mentioned services and types of support needed were:

• volunteer identification and recruitment

• training and roster management.

DG ECHO partners consider a contribution from the Voluntary Corps mainly to

be relevant for supporting and facilitating the organisations in their volunteer-

ing activities. These organisations would prefer to retain responsibility for deci-

sion-making, management, recruitment, demand assessment and supervision.

Training, funding, logistics assistance (visas, insurance, work permissions etc),

knowledge management centre/network focal point and a possible roster are

areas where the Voluntary Corps could provide added value and contribute to

better cost-efficiency and effectiveness. In the 2010 survey only 13% of the

respondents opted for the Voluntary Corps as an implementing agency6.

Concerns were raised about security aspects, the cost-benefit ratio for organisa-

tions considering the use of volunteers, possible detrimental effects on the pro-

fessionalization of humanitarian assistance (see below), potential negative im-

pacts on quality (effectiveness), high costs and political aspirations versus a

demand-driven scheme. Box 2-1 summarises the position of VOICE, a network

representing 83 European non-governmental organisations active in humanitar-

ian aid worldwide, as expressed on the organisation’s website.

3 ‘Joint statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Mem-

ber States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the EC’, Joint Declara-

tions Council (2008/25/01). 4 Prolog (2006), Germax (2010) and Germax (2011).

5 See footnote 9.

6 See footnote 8.




16


Box 2-1 VOICE's position on the Voluntary Corps

VOICE’s position is that: - the Voluntary Corps should answer identified humanitarian needs and not merely serve visibility purposes; - given the increasing complexity of the contexts in which humanitarian actors operate, the Voluntary Corps should be deployed on a case-by-case basis with a special focus on the security constraints of particularly sensitive contexts; - the Voluntary Corps should contribute to the increasing professionalization of the humanitarian sector and take into account the focus on local capacity building as well as existing volunteering programmes; - the Voluntary Corps should be accountable to DG ECHO and its creation should lead to the provision of additional funding to the humanitarian aid budget.

Source: http://www.ngovoice.org/

Reflecting the concerns raised in earlier consultations, a set of necessary

conditions relating to the design and operation of the Voluntary Corps were

identified in the 2010 Communication7 and underlined by the 2010 study

8.

These are:

• the use of volunteers in the framework of the Voluntary Corps should be

demand-driven and needs-based;

• any funding should not divert funds from the core operational budget for

responding to people’s needs in disasters;

• security aspects are of fundamental importance;

• support to local capacities is of vital importance in disaster preparedness,

humanitarian disaster response, and post-disaster settings;

• the large range of voluntary organisations calls for cooperative ap-

proaches by the Commission in setting up the Voluntary Corps.

In addition, a stakeholder conference (September 2010) convened by DG

ECHO to consider the concept concluded that:

• [the Voluntary Corps should foster] a sustainable partnership with a local

community which builds local capacities is prioritised higher than a volun-

teer's experience;

• attitude and. to a lesser extent. experience, is more important than age in

providing for a successful volunteer;

7 ‘How to express EU citizens' solidarity through volunteering: First reflections on a Europe

Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps’, Communication from the Commission to the Europe-

an Parliament and the Council, COM (2010) 683 final. 8 ’Review concerning the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps,

Germax, 2010, for The EC, DG ECHO.

http://www.ngovoice.org/




17


• Voluntary Corps volunteers will receive compensation and can be de-

ployed in preparedness, disaster risk reduction (DRR) and transition situa-

tions.

It set out an ambition to:

• deliver benefits to the communities in the crisis-affected countries and con-

tribute to European solidarity;

• strengthen the humanitarian sector through:

- establishing in the minds of humanitarian actors that they develop

people for the sector and not just for their own agency;

- taking forward the professionalism agenda;

- developing the next cadre of humanitarian workers and leaders to

manage the ever-increasing number of crises.

The June 2011 stakeholder conference convened by DG ECHO to discuss the

Voluntary Corps highlighted stakeholders' concern that the Voluntary Corps

does not propagate so-called ‘voluntourism’, but instead focuses on volunteer-

ing activities that deliver real benefits to recipient communities.

2.3 Recently funded EU activities

In 2011 the Commission launched pilot actions to inform the development of

the Voluntary Corps. They are intended to generate lessons and know-how that

will contribute to the framing of the Voluntary Corps concept, in particular on

issues such as its management structure, the systems and standards for select-

ing, training, deploying and managing the volunteers, and practical experience

on matters such as the contents and accreditation of training, management

standards, and logistical issues such as visas. The pilots are means of testing

many aspects of involving volunteers in humanitarian aid actions9. Table 2-1

presents the main characteristics of the pilot project contracts awarded in 2011.

It is expected that an additional round of pilots will run in 2012/2013.

9 Stakeholder Conference: ‘The European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps – state of

play and next steps Budapest 17 June 2011’ Conference report prepared by Germax for DG

ECHO.




18


Table 2-1 Pilot actions for Voluntary Corps

Save the Children, UK10

VSO International11

French Red Cross12

Partners NOHA, Institut Bioforce Devel-opment (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 and professionalization of future hu-manitarian aid professionals including a comprehensive learning and development pro-gramme for the volunteers.

Building capacity with local or-ganisations through the deve-lopment of a volunteer mana-gement training and accredita-tion for partner organisations. Volunteers will go through a "Personal Development plan" process and get university ac-creditation (ECTS).

Follows the Red Cross approach to promote young people as ac-tors of change.

Volunteers will be treated as Red Cross staff deployed cur-rently.

Focus of deployment

Preparedness and recovery ac-tivities

Preparedness and recovery ac-tivities

Pre- or post- disaster humanita-rian aid operations.

No of volun-teers

26 40 21

Selection 50% level 1 (limited overseas experience) and 50% level 2 (completed either NOHA Ma-sters or Bioforce accredited training).

Guidelines to ensure spread of candidates from at least 7 Mem-ber States.

Volunteer experts.

Developed "Best Practise Stan-dards" and assessments tools for selection and management.

Approximately 25 years of age, relevant studies or professional experience and with an ambition to work in the humanitarian sec-tor.

Final selection based on identifi-ed demands.

10

European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, Call for proposals 2011 For Pilot Projects,

Save the Children, UK. 11


VSO International. 12


French Red Cross.




19


Save the Children, UK10

VSO International11

French Red Cross12

Training 12-month training programme based on the"Consortium of Bri-tish Humanitarian Agencies".

Trained as either Generalist Project Officers (15) or Specia-lized Logistics Officers (15).

The curriculum will be a blend of modules developed by the part-ners.

Each volunteer has a Personal Development Plan and a coach.

The coach is an aid professional working with the host agency. The coach is trained and re-ceives support from local organ-isations.

Two training sessions developed for European and hosting or-ganisations based on a nine-step volunteer management process.

Pre-deployment - two-three on-line training sessions in working overseas and the "Personal De-velopment. Passport" plus five days face-to-face training.

On arrival one week country trai-ning. During the deployment a continuous monitoring by an ex-volunteer and continuous self-re-flection in "Personal Develop-ment Pass".

Special web-site available in 5 languages in order to publish placement offers, intercultural assessment tool to check if the volunteer meets the selection standards, online learning tools used for pre-departure learning and an online Social Network tool for present and former vol-unteers.

Specific training based on IM-PACT (developed by IFRC) and modules on humanitarian aid, law and EU aid operations.

Two times five days' course in France in Red Cross training centre.

Basic training followed up by specialized training modules ba-sed on the volunteers' back-ground.

Visits to relevant institutions in Geneva and Brussels.

Development of career track.

Mentors and key local advisors will be identified and also a stress management person.

Deployment Level 1 volunteer will be deploy-ed 2 times of 4-5 months and Level 2 volunteer 1 time of 9-10 months.

Varies - contents, duration and matching decisions made in close collaboration with local organisations.

Six months.

2.4 The place of volunteers in humanitarian relief

There is no set definition of volunteers/volunteering. The 2010 DG ECHO

partner survey results13 illustrated how the various organisations that currently

recruit volunteers support several different models of volunteering, reflecting

the differing demands of their specific target groups. These models include vir-

tual/online volunteering, summer holiday camps, short to long-term assign-

ments for young graduates and professionals and also some very short-term

‘voluntourism’14. This wide spectrum of uses is likely to also reflect a much

wider coverage expanding beyond the humanitarian volunteering.

Volunteers typically receive some kind of remuneration (‘pocket money’) in

addition to the reimbursement of expenses. Some volunteers contribute finan-

cially to the voluntary arrangement to make it feasible without putting a burden

on the host organisations.

13

See footnote 9. 14

Annex D to Germax Report.




20


The 2010 survey also indicated that there are both advantages and disad-

vantages of involving volunteers in the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

These are summarised in Table 2-215.

Table 2-2 Advantages and disadvantages of involving volunteers in the delivery of

humanitarian assistance

Advantages Disadvantages

Cost savings/cost efficiency

High motivation and commitment

Flexibility and short-term availability

Resources for training, management and supervision

Qualifications

Availability at the time of need

High turnover

Source: COWI based on survey with DG ECHO partners.

Table 2-3 below summarises the main challenges raised by involving volun-

teers in work in third countries and in back/home office support functions, as

perceived by partners responding to the public consultation that was carried out

in 2010 and 2011 and reported on by Germax in 2011. The term ‘critical cost-

benefit ratio’ is a duplication of the term used in the consultation report16, and it

was interpreted to imply that – put simply – the costs exceed the benefits. The

exact definition of costs and benefits is, however, uncertain, and is likely not

only to relate (in cost terms) to direct and incurred financial costs, but also to

the demands on the organisation and the professional human resources for ex-

ample. It is interesting to note that the areas where they see challenges in re-

gards to activities in third countries largely resemble the identified advantages

and disadvantages.

Table 2-3 Challenges of involving volunteers

Challenges in third countries Challenges in the EU

Critical cost-benefit ratio

Identifying the volunteers with the right skills set on time

Volunteers like to go to the hot spots

Management, administration and team inte-gration

Work permits and visas

Identification of the right staff

Critical cost-benefit ratio (in particular due to the high turnover of volunteers)

Time span before productive contribution (necessary training)

Management and supervision

Source: COWI based on survey with DG ECHO partners.

Humanitarian organisations attract volunteers with a wide spectrum of skills

and of varying age. They typically come with a high level of commitment and a

wish to help people. However, the use of volunteers must fit with the profes-

sionalization of humanitarian aid operations. As expressed in the 2010 Com-

munication, the changing nature of volunteers (profiles, motivations, aspira-

tions) and in particular the increasingly professional nature of staff entails new

challenges. ‘Volunteers are also confronted with increasingly demanding tasks

that require specific competences and skills, creating a potential tension be-

15

Annex E to the Germax Report. 16

See page 85 of the Germax report on the public consultation outcomes (2011) - answers

to questions regarding ECHO partners views on using volunteers in third countries




21


tween, on the one hand, demands placed on volunteers and, on the other hand,

the ability of volunteers to meet these demands and become operational rapid-

ly’.

The safety and security of humanitarian workers is an essential concern pro-

moted, among other things, through the advocacy of international humanitarian

law and the fundamental humanitarian principles17. This concern must be fully

respected in developing the Voluntary Corps, and it is relevant to note that the

number of humanitarian workers killed has tripled over the past decade18

.

17

See footnote 3. 18

‘The mid-term review of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid Action Plan –

implementing effective, principled EU humanitarian action’, Communication from the

Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM (2010) 772 final.




22


3 Definitions and typologies

In this chapter we propose a definition of volunteers and introduce important

dimensions of the characteristics of volunteers and the organisations. In regard

to the latter it is important to note that this study does not provide a mapping

according to either of the typologies. Rather, they are introduced to provide a

typological framework for undertaking the impact assessment including dis-

cussing how the different impacts are likely to be brought about, and the order

of magnitude of them.

3.1 Volunteer definition and typology

There is no unique and widely accepted definition of a volunteer19. Volunteer-

ing can be defined in many dimensions such as:

• the contribution that volunteering provides - e.g. short-term versus long-

term, contribution provided in Europe versus contribution through de-

ployment, contribution on a particular community-based project versus

contribution in office;

• the characteristics of volunteers - e.g. in terms of age, nationality, educa-

tion, professional background, language capabilities, soft skills;

• the features that differentiate volunteering from ‘normal’ paid work - e.g.

the level of ‘commitment to work’ and the compensation paid.

In the context of this study, we apply a broad definition of volunteering, yet

with the following key elements (with inspiration from sources quoted in Deve-

reux 201020):

• volunteering is not primarily for financial benefit and any financial reward

is less than the market value;

• government cannot force participation;

• there is a clear beneficiary beyond the volunteer;

19

‘International Volunteers: Cheap help or transformational solidarity toward sustainable

development’, thesis for Doctor of Philosophy by Peter Devereux, October 2010. This

source presents a thorough discussion on the concept of volunteering. 20

See the above source (Devereux).




23


• the organisational setting can be organised or informal;

• sporadic activity is possible although a sustained commitment is imagined.

Furthermore, the focus of this study is on European volunteers, i.e. citizens in

Europe that do or want to do humanitarian work on a voluntary basis in third

countries.

We therefore apply a fairly wide definition that complies with the above, but

which does not impose constraints relating to age, skills, length of involvement

or other factors on the definition. This does not imply though that factors such

as age, skills and level of commitment/involvement cannot have an influence

on the final outcome or be factors that must be distinguished between when car-

rying out the specific assessments.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that volunteers have a variety of backgrounds,

motivations and incentives for volunteering. The volunteering community

ranges from young people with only limited education and professional back-

grounds to more experienced people with strong technical skills and profes-

sional backgrounds. Volunteers will also have different soft skills (such as per-

sonal capabilities, multi-cultural understanding). With respect to motivation,

some volunteers may be driven by a solidarity incentive and a wish to contrib-

ute to ‘a better world’ (altruism), some may want to build up their CV and ob-

tain learning, and some may be motivated by the prospect of travel to a third

country (deployment) as compared to back-office support work.

For this study, we have applied a typology of volunteers with the dimensions

shown below. It is constructed from the perspective of the organisations, i.e. the

needs and barriers that they currently point to (e.g. lack of sufficient deploy-

ment experience and insufficient educational background as possible barriers to

using potential volunteering candidates).

Table 3-1 Typology of volunteers


Experience in third countries

Basic educational background Vocational education or BA level







24


3.2 The disaster management cycle and the focus of the Voluntary Corps

The activities of the Voluntary Corps would address the different elements of

the disaster management cycle (see Figure 3-1) - i.e. prevention, preparedness,

response and recovery.

Figure 3-1 Disaster management cycle

Source: Floodsite project homepage (funded under the EU 6th Framework Programme).

The Voluntary Corps could in principle support actions relating to all four

phases of the disaster management cycle. The response phase has very particu-

lar characteristics - time is critical (on site and for mobilisation); the work is

often carried out under uncertain and critical conditions (e.g. collapse of critical

infrastructures) and maybe even unsafe conditions; and the skills and experi-

ence of individual experts are essential to ensure the effectiveness of the re-

sponse operation in question. Response is at the heart of EU’s activities in hu-

manitarian aid and civil protection (CP). While the Voluntary Corps would

consider needs and competences in regard to the response phase, it is important

at the same time to be aware of these special conditions and the consequent re-

quirements, in particular in the first critical stages of the response phase.

The extensive training programme in the context of CP aims to build up and

strengthen both soft and hard skills in regard to delivering response assistance

to countries outside Europe with a focus on the first critical stage of response.




25


Volunteers with a relevant professional background can enter the CP training

(nominated by their national government) along with professionals. This is for

example an approach taken by the THW (Technisches Hilfswerk, the German

government disaster relief organization). Many national civil protection struc-

tures which cover disaster response activities in third countries are organised

around some kind of a roster from which experts are recruited and can be de-

ployed. The EU also has the MIC (Monitoring and Information Centre) teams

and CP modules registered under the MIC.

Often the experts drawn from these rosters are compensated for their time, e.g.

THW takes over the payment of their normal salary so that they do not suffer a

loss of income.

The Voluntary Corps could have a role in prevention and preparation. Com-

pared to actions in the response phase, prevention and preparedness activities

are of a more long-termed nature and carried out in a relatively safer environ-

ment.

Some of the recovery phase may relate to response (being characterised by a

high level of alertness, urgency and maybe also significant safety and security

concerns) and some may relate to more long-termed and less urgent (and tim-

ing-dependent) activities, which are on the borderline of development aid.

Last, disasters include natural disasters as well as man-made disasters. In this

study we assume that natural disasters are the prime focus. This does not, how-

ever, disregard man-made disasters.

3.3 Relevance of the Voluntary Corps

The discussion signposts points of focus and differentiation relevant to the def-

inition of the purpose and focus of the European Voluntary Corps.

The analysis suggests that it may be necessary to distinguish between the com-

petences offered and the needs of two distinct types of volunteers, characterised

by different educational backgrounds and different experience levels (Table

3-2). Although this categorisation is somewhat simplified, the needs of, and the

competences offered by these two types of volunteers are so different that it is

helpful to distinguish between them.

Finally, the table suggests that there is a need for a clear link between the char-

acteristics of the aid activities (and the capacity of the host organisations in the

beneficiary countries) and the selection/training of the volunteers. The table

seeks to capture the most important dimensions in an simple and transparent

manner. It is thus implicitly assumed that the table considers volunteer candi-

dates with a high level of commitment and engagement that extends beyond the

what is entailed in ‘voluntourism’ mentioned above.

The frame of reference is the disaster cycle. The training of the volunteers will

focus at issues which relate to the prevention, preparedness and recovery part of




26


the disaster cycle, as the involvement of volunteers in actual emergency relief

operations or response actions presently is very limited21. It is although worth

noting that there might be some (limited) room for volunteers in specific areas

of response.

Table 3-2 Focus of Voluntary Corps by type of volunteer


Experience in third countries and/or previ-ous humanitar-ian aid experi-ence

Basic educational background Vocational education or BA level



Less relevant, and primarily in prevention/preparedness activi-ties

Opportunities for gaining expe-rience in this field exist also in the EVS programme

Significant relevance, and mostly in preven-tion/preparedness activities although depending on type of background recovery activities can also come into play



Some relevance, and primarily in prevention/preparedness activities


Those in this group with ‘im-mediately relevant’ educational backgrounds are likely to be ‘ready for deployment’ already and to be attractive volunteers in the view of the organisations

Significant relevance in all dis-aster management phases including response

Also, those in this group with ‘immediately relevant’ educa-tional backgrounds are likely to be ‘ready for deployment’ al-ready and to be attractive vol-unteers in the view of the or-ganisations

21

"Review concerning the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid

Corps", Final Report, Aachen 26th. November 2010, Germax.




27


4 The baseline

A baseline scenario is needed in order to provide a reference against which – in

a comparable manner – to assess the impacts from the different policy options

under consideration. This baseline appraisal therefore aims to assess how the

volunteering for humanitarian relief would evolve in the absence of a ‘Volun-

tary Corps’ policy initiative.

In this particular instance, while the baseline is a ‘no further policy’ descrip-

tion, the ‘no further policy’ is not an option. The Voluntary Corps must be es-

tablished as there would otherwise be a conflict with the requirements of the

Lisbon Treaty’s Article 214.5.

4.1 Current EU humanitarian volunteering outside the EU

Humanitarian aid organisations are active in recruiting, training, using and de-

ploying volunteers in the EU and elsewhere around the world. There is a wide

range of volunteer-sending organisations and organisations that apply volun-

teers in general, and there is a wide range of volunteers and volunteer candi-

dates. Examples of organisations deploying volunteers from within Europe in-

clude:

• Save the Children

• Weltwärts Scheme, German Development Cooperation (BMZ).

• Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO)/UK and members

• Malteser International

• Johanitter International

• Comhlámh

• France Voluntaires

• The International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC)

In addition, the European Voluntary Scheme (EVS), through its Youth in Ac-

tion Programme, also offers funding opportunities for NGOs and others to un-

dertake specific actions in this field.

While it has proven impossible in this study to obtain an overview of the cur-

rent scope for volunteering outside Europe, some figures are illustrative:

• the Weltwärts, Germany’s development voluntary service sends out about

1,000 volunteers per year. About 5% are from other European countries;




28


• France Voluntaires, which has member organisations in the humanitarian

aid field, sends out about 200 volunteers per year;

• Save the Children UK has approximately 80 volunteers or trainees per

year.

EVS activities are largely managed by national agencies. However, some pro-

jects are administered by the EU’s Education, Audiovisual and Culture Agency

Executive Agency (EACEA). The tables below provide an overview of the

number of young people that have been sent out through centrally administered

projects (these represent only a fraction of the total EVS volunteers). It should

be noted that apart from not covering all EVS activities in this area, the table

includes a variety of different types of ‘deployments’ in terms of host country,

host organisation, activities and duration. The data suggest that the scheme is

much more used by citizens of the EU-15 than by the new Member States –

EU12 - (although they do also cover a high fraction of the population), and that

a few countries dominate.

Table 4-1 Overview of deployments within the

EVS scheme - old Member States.

EU-15 2008 2009 2010

Austria 7 4 7

Belgium 2 1 7

Germany 93 11 21

Denmark 2 0 0

Spain 19 5 12

Finland 6 2 4

France 56 72 121

Greece 18 2 2

Ireland 2 1 2

Italy 16 4 39

Netherlands 14 5 6

Portugal 13 23 18

Sweden 1 2 3

UK 16 4 15

Total EU-15 265 136 257

Share of all, % 83 61 90

Source: Figures provided by Education, Audiovisual,

and Culture Executive Agency.




29


Table 4-2 Overview of deployments within the

EVS scheme - New Member State

EU-12 2008 2009 2010

Bulgaria 1 1 5

Czech Republic 3 1 0

Estonia 4 3 1

Hungary 6 2 1

Lithuania 2 0 2

Latvia 2 3 2

Malta 2 8 2

Poland 24 59 10

Romania 4 2 0

Slovakia 8 4 3

Slovenia 0 3 2

Total EU-12 56 86 28

Share of all, % 17 39 10

Source: Figures provided by Education, Audiovisual,

and Culture Executive Agency.

The Association for the Development of Civic and European Initiatives

(ADICE22) sends out some 600 volunteers annually in and outside Europe. This

includes both young and less skilled as well as highly skilled volunteers. Glob-

ally, more than 2,600 volunteers contributed during 2010 to the development

with VSO23, of which 29% were from developing countries, and 280 took part

in VSO’s programme for young people (although not all of whom were de-

ployed)24.

The EVS25 is open to young people who do not have experience relevant to

their volunteering activity. There are no selection criteria as such, but there is

an age criterion. The EVS is thus conceptually different to the Voluntary Corps.

Also, while the organisations listed above do apply selection and identification

criteria, they are more active in developing aid activities rather than humanitar-

ian aid that relates in some way to disasters.

According to the 2010 Communication26, volunteering is on the rise. Data on

the number of volunteers currently deployed in humanitarian action from the

EU to third countries are not available. Still, recent developments indicate an

increased demand for volunteering as evidenced for example by the more re-

22

http://www.adice.asso.fr/ 23

http://www.vso.org.uk/ 24

VSO Annual Report 2010-2011. 25

The EVS targets youth and has no entry criteria at all. It aims to build up the participants'

inter-cultural understanding as well as their soft skills (e.g. independence and social skills).

The participants receive a youth pass to document their participation. The EVS could be a

recruitment base for the Voluntary Corps. 26

See footnote 2.




30


cent substantial Weltwärts initiative and by the Irish Response Initiative (see

below).

The interviews and the questionnaire survey carried out under this study indi-

cate that host community and host organisations capacity is a matter of concern

for many stakeholders. The below provides extracts from the interviews that

elaborate on this:

• solid in-country structures are needed to accommodate the volunteers.

Failure in this may have the downside that the volunteers develop counter-

productive views (e.g. racism);

• In times of crisis, it is important that the host organisation has the capacity

to deal also with the managerial issues related to the volunteers;

• differences in remuneration levels can cause friction;

• Capacity building is becoming more and more important. It enhances sus-

tainability and it keeps cost down.

The evidence from past studies and investigations also suggests that when it

comes to emergency relief operations (where volunteers in general tend to be

less frequently deployed), the people deployed are mostly professionals with

more (>5 years) or less (< 5 years) experience and a relevant educational back-

ground. Most typically, volunteers do tasks in the form of specialised technical

services and auxiliary support services related to project implementation.

Past research on factors that influence organisations’ propensity to deploy vol-

unteers in third countries has found that:

• the organisations sending volunteers have a general preference for experi-

enced volunteers over young, and less experienced, volunteers;

• safety concerns mean that volunteers are rarely used in cases of man-made

disasters and in cases of immediate disaster relief.

• the organisations emphasise the need for the volunteer to add value to the

recipient organisation and/or community. European volunteers should not

deprive local people from the job opportunities or from their opportunities

to volunteer;

• the organisations experience that the cost-benefit ratio can be critical – this

can be interpreted to imply that the significant costs involved in identify-

ing, recruiting, training and supervising the volunteers exceed the benefits

of doing so.

The interviews and questionnaire survey conducted as part of this study also

point to relevant examples where volunteers have been used in these areas:




31


• A project operated by ADICE in Thailand where three volunteers work in

Civil Protection (CP) creating a training centre to help refugees out of the

refugee camps.

• ‘European volunteers for development’ where 500 German, Irish and

French volunteers were sent to partner organisations to help implement de-

velopment projects that included also reforestation in Western Africa,

which can be comparable to a prevention project. This was operated jointly

by France Volontaires and the GIZ.

4.2 Mechanisms to employ volunteers

4.2.1 Selection

Organisations that are explicitly targeted towards the response area - where ur-

gency, skills and effectiveness are of utmost importance - have fairly strict

identification and selection methods. Therefore, both the THW and the Irish

Response Initiative carry out in-depth interviews prior to including a particular

expert on their roster. These organisations, however, have - through a govern-

mental agreement - mechanisms for compensating their volunteers for lost in-

come during the deployment period. In this way, they are not comparable to the

Voluntary Corps. The THW estimates that it deploys about 20 experts per year

(this can, however, vary substantially from one year to another) and the Irish

Response Initiative currently deploys about 140 experts for assignments of be-

tween 3 and 5 months. Both the THW and the Irish Response Initiative run and

use introduction courses on e.g. humanitarian issues and safety and security.

Some organisations are very systematic and transparent in their approach to

identifying and selecting volunteers. Organisations such as the VSO which de-

ploys people for relatively long periods, and often as individual placements in

organisations in the host country (rather than as members of an international

project team) put strong emphasis on preparation. This is done in order to en-

sure that expectations are properly aligned and that the volunteer is adequately

assessed and trained in order to be able to provide real added-value to the oper-

ation that the volunteer becomes assigned to. This high level of investment in

the identification and selection aims to reduce the risk of ‘mismatch’ which is

at the cost of the beneficiary, the organisation and the volunteer him/herself.

Organisations do generally have defined identification and selection criteria.

For Weltwärts, for instance, the criteria and the evaluation methods are clearly

explained on the organisation’s website and the same goes for Comhlámh in

Ireland.

At the same time, the Germax study and responses in interviews conducted dur-

ing this study indicate support for an EU effort to strengthen training, selection

and identification aspects of humanitarian volunteering.




32


Virtually all main organisations involved in volunteering in developing coun-

tries apply either their own standards or they adhere to standards developed by

collaborative organisations such as the Humanitarian Accountability Partner-

ship27 (HAP) and People In Aid28. While the HAP focuses on standards for

delivering aid to beneficiaries, the People In Aid has more of a focus on stand-

ards for management and support of aid personnel. This means that the former

guides the organisations to make humanitarian action accountable to its intend-

ed beneficiaries through self-regulation, compliance verification and quality

assurance certification. The latter guides the organisations towards effective

management of people by advocating, supporting and recognising good prac-

tices. Both organisations are supported by donors to ensure that costs are not a

barrier to the individual organisation in applying the systems (see Chapters 7

and 8 for more).

The organisations’ own standards are all framed around essentially the same

elements: clear identification and selection criteria, a code of conduct for those

deployed and an understanding of humanitarian aid. Standards for training are

in many organisations less explicit, although it does appear that many have

more or less pre-defined training curricula in place.

4.2.2 Training

The public consultation survey that was carried out in 2010 indicated that while

the majority of volunteer-sending organisations do have established guidelines,

standards and/or codes of conduct for their volunteers29, many fewer run

training courses. Slightly less than 40% of the organisations that responded

have training courses for volunteers deployed, where more have training cours-

es for EU-based volunteers, presumably reflecting that more respondents do not

or only rarely deploy volunteers.

As regards training there are differences. For example the United Nations Vol-

unteers (UNV) and the VSO use e-learning fairly extensively, the Red Cross

operates its own training, the THW makes use also of the CP training offered

by DG ECHO; NOHA has developed a Masters Programme; Global Contact30

carries out the bulk of its training in the regional training centres (platforms)

and Save the Children runs what it prefers to call a trainee programme with six

months in the head office followed by six months in the field. Save the Chil-

dren considers a six month deployment as a minimum entry requirement into

the sector.

The below describes the training schemes applied by the VSO and Global Con-

tact in the UK and in Denmark, respectively. They serve merely to provide a

few examples of this type of training.

27

http://www.hapinternational.org/ 28

http://www.peopleinaid.org/ 29

Out of 36 respondents, 83% (corresponding to 30 organisations) have guidelines, stand-

ards and codes of conduct. 30

www.globalcontact.dk/.

http://www.globalcontact.dk/




33


Box 4-1 VSO training schemes

VSO scheme for the deployment of volunteers

The VSO was established in the UK in 1958 and has grown to become what it claims to be: ‘the world’s leading independent international development organisation that works through volunteers to fight poverty in developing countries’. Therefore, volunteering and deployment of volunteers is at the heart of the organisation. The VSO offers different op-portunities for volunteering:

- long-term (two-year post-qualification experience, duration of one-two years);

- short-term (5-year post-qualification experience, duration up to six months);

- youth volunteering.

The VSO is explicit about the basic requirements that must be fulfilled. Apart from the assignment-specific technical skills and documented educational background, the VSO also emphasises that a VSO volunteer must 1) be willing to work for a modest living al-lowance and to live in conditions similar to those of local colleagues, 2) be prepared to invest time in self-briefing and training before going to his/her placement, 3) be willing to learn the basics of the local language of where he/she will be working, 4) pass the VSO's medical clearance requirements and criminal records checks. Furthermore, a VSO volun-teer must have soft skills such as self-assurance, flexibility and adaptability, problem-solving, team spirit, sensitivity of the needs of others, desire to learn and a positive and realistic attitude. The VSO runs assessment days and offer potential volunteers to have these soft skills tested.

The training programme run by the VSO is characterised by a learning approach in which volunteers, in pre-departure training, combine a minimum of 15 hours of self-briefing and interactive online learning with a five days' face-to-face training course. The training pro-gramme explores issues related to personal preparation, health and security, the role of values and behaviours in intercultural settings, the broader development context and ways that volunteers can involve their family, friends and communities in their overseas experience. Arriving in the country of their placement volunteers will be provided with in-country training. This training will focus on information specific to the country and region of placement. Topics can range from very practical (health, safety and security) to lan-guage training, cultural orientation and development issues.

The total costs of volunteer training in 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11 were £782 983, £573 346 and £462 609 respectively. The number of volunteer days training provided in the same years was 3 162, 3 170 and 2 488, while the number of volunteers deployed was 546, 453 and 434. The average cost of training per volunteer day with training provided and per volunteer deployed over the 2008-11 period was therefore £206 and £1 269, re-spectively.

Source: http://www.vso.org.uk/

http://www.vso.org.uk/




34


Box 4-2 Global Contact training schemes

Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke (MS) was founded in Denmark in 1944 to work in favour of reconciliation and reconstruction in post World War Europe. In 1963 the MS received a grant from the Danish state to post the first team of so-called volunteers to Eastern Africa - the technical assistance which was later to become the backbone of the MS's develop-ment efforts in the South. Today the MS fights poverty by promoting the political empow-erment of the world’s poor. The MS supports long-term development work, education programmes and campaigns as well as the exchange of experience and knowledge be-tween people. The MS is part of ActionAid International.

Volunteers are deployed through Global Contact, which is part of the MS and the leading volunteer programme in Denmark. Every year Global Contact sends out more than 600 volunteers to 20 different countries in Africa, Asia, Latin American and the Middle East. According to the organisation, the tours are unique as they combine education and volun-teer work. There are no professional requirements, but emphasis on a number of soft skills such as social engagement, motivation, intercultural competences, open minded-ness etc. Anyone above 18 years of age can take part in the volunteer programme.

The training programme run by Global Contact consists of a compulsory pre-departure course (five days for young people age 18-25, and two days for people aged 26+), and a home-coming three days weekend course. Arriving at the country of their placement, the young volunteers (18-25) receive a one-month education in globalisation, developing problems, history and culture. Afterwards they live three-four months together with a local family and participate in the work of a local NGO.

The deployments of volunteers are largely financed by the volunteers themselves. As a result, the total revenue of Global Contact activities accounts for 5% of total revenues (EUR 32 million), and costs likewise 5% of the total expenditures (EUR 31.6 million). With 8%-10% of the volunteers' fee covering the compulsory courses, the associated costs account for approximately EUR 134 400-161 290. With assumed 600 volunteers deployed annually, this would equal approximately EUR 670 in average per volunteer.

Source: www.globalcontact.dk/





35


Box 4-3 Weltwärts training schemes

Welwärts Volunteer Service

In 2007, Weltwärts launched its scheme for a new volunteer service. It targets young peo-ple between the age of 18 and 29 with a high motivation and commitment and who have completed a vocational training course, graduated from secondary school (or equivalent) or achieved a higher education level.

The scheme combines voluntary work and training. It is framed around three partners: the partner project, the sending organisation and the volunteer. The partner project must have an expressed need and must give proper introduction, support and work anchored in a mentorship. There must be clear agreements between the partner organisation and the sending organisation. Volunteers must not replace paid positions. Sending agencies ‘bear full responsibility for the success of the volunteer service’. To that end, the agencies are the key point of contact and coordination. Their tasks include: selection and identification of candidates, supporting the volunteers and the volunteer posts, executing payment of ex-penses and insurance of volunteers and providing a comprehensive in-service programme of training. Sending agencies are committed to provide support which considers the follow-ing aspects: 1) orientation phase/selection of volunteers, 2) organising the stay abroad, 3) preparing the volunteers, 4) support during the assignment, and 5) post-assignment ar-rangements. The support programme plus the language courses must total at least 25 days of compulsory seminar days. Priority fields of learning are: intercultural communica-tion/cooperation, development policy, knowledge of the country in question, project man-agement and language skills. Emphasis is put on networking with other sending agencies and/or using umbrella organisations.

The maximum amount of compensation is EUR 580/volunteer/month of which up to EUR 350 are for pocket money, board and lodging, insurance, travel to seminars, travel to and from the project country, and to support the partner project. An additional sum of up to EUR 230 is available for special educational support and to support the partner country (up to 20% can be transferred from one of the uses to the other). A maximum of 75% of the total cost of the volunteer assignment can be financially supported. Assignments can be anything from 6 to 24 months, but are typically 12 -18 months - thus allowing sufficient time for the volunteer’s integration into the host organisation and host community. Class sizes should not exceed 15.

Current training schemes thus involve one or more of the following compo-

nents:

• E-learning

• Training modules – typically between one day and one week - prior to de-

parture

• Use of EU training in CP

• Home office work before deployment

• Supervision and training while on site

• Home-coming support and/or home-coming event

With regard to disaster-related activities, DG ECHO’s CP offers extensive and

widely acknowledged training already which focuses mainly on the more im-

mediate disaster response activities.

4.2.3 Rosters

Many organisations operate rosters of their own. This relates for example to

the GIZ (Weltwärts). Their roster currently holds details of 185 volunteers -

people who have been selected and approved, but whose services are not yet

needed.




36


The UN volunteers have a roster of their own which operates mainly via the

UN agencies in the countries. The operation of the roster is very resource de-

manding.

The THW (further described below) has a roster of 1,000 experts for deploy-

ment. This roster contains also confidential information and therefore it is not

open, but the THW can identify experts for other organisations on request.

The Danish Refugee Council has around 320 volunteers on its roster, of which

25-40 are deployed at any given time. It services demand from the UN and

other organisations for expertise in emergency and camp management, refugees

and displaced persons, sanitation etc. The DRC Stand-by Roster is funded by

DANIDA (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark).

The Irish Aid Rapid Response roster was created in response to the UN’s Hu-

manitarian Response Review, which in the mid-2000s identified the need for

the pre-identification of personnel appropriate for deployment. Membership of

the corps is dependent on the approval of the volunteer’s employer. There are

currently 142 experts in the roster, including specialists in child protection,

gender, IT and engineering. The average deployment lasts three-six months.

The system has the capacity to respond within 72 hours.

4.2.4 Needs of host organisations

As mentioned above, capacity building is important to ensure that host organi-

sations have the capacity to manage volunteers properly and thereby to ensure

the value-added and the sustainability of their contribution. A focus on this is of

particular relevance in periods of crisis. Many organisations emphasise that the

needs of host organisations and more importantly host communities must not be

overruled by the needs of the volunteer. That being said, the ability of host or-

ganisations to accommodate and integrate the volunteer plays an essential role

in ensuring that the skills and commitment that the volunteer brings comes

properly into play. If this does not materialise, there is a risk that the volunteer

develops counterproductive views and attitudes. As mentioned by one inter-

viewee: it is important that the Voluntary Corps contributes to ensuring that

volunteers understand the political context in which they are working and can

manage in real life situations (ADICE).

4.3 Views on the voluntary corps

The stakeholder interviews have clearly pointed to the need for careful consid-

eration of how and where the Voluntary Corps can make a difference and pro-

vide added value to what already exists:

• There is a need to define both the types of crises that volunteers can con-

tribute to and the types of volunteers that can contribute to alleviating the

consequences of the different types of crises.




37


• In that regard one interviewee suggests differentiating between 1) young

people with few skills, 2) qualified people with no deployment experience,

and 3) people to run projects, arguing that such a three-layer approach

could build up a system that would not compete with other existing

schemes and programmes.

• Many national volunteer programmes focus on the individual volunteer,

whereas the Voluntary Corps offers the opportunity to build an integrated

system and a programme that also supports local communities.

• For the Voluntary Corps to find a role in the midst of the many existing

volunteer programmes it is important to decide on the difference that it

wants to make, e.g. through enabling young Europeans to be a useful re-

source for humanitarian aid and improving their knowledge and skills.

• It is important to apply a flexible approach that allows for constant feed-

back into the design from lessons learned. Progressive implementation can

be important to ensure success.

The importance of the trend of professionalism was highlighted by many

stakeholders in the consultations of 2009 and 2010 and should be reiterated

here. The Voluntary Corps could be considered as a trained stand-by corps of

young volunteers who have completed training that has been initiated or recog-

nised by the EU. This will contribute to more professionalism in the humanitar-

ian aid field. One impact of the Corps would be to increase the size of the pool

of skilled people.

Many stakeholders highlight the role and perspective of host organisations

and communities and raise the issue that:

• The host organisation's capacity is crucial to ensure the ultimate added

value, sustainability and impact on host communities from volunteers’

contributions;

• building up strong relations with host organisations can take a long time;

• it is essential that the Voluntary Corps does not replace local volunteers

and local staff.

Also, interviewees have pointed to the disaster management cycle and the

need to clearly distinguish between CP and humanitarian aid, for example em-

phasising that humanitarian aid should be needs-based and independent. Hu-

manitarian aid should be guided by the principles that were mentioned in the

2010 studies and consultations as it has been reiterated also in this study. In that

regard, security, safety and insurance aspects will play a much more essential

role as compared to for example the EVS and other existing volunteering

schemes which tend to be more of a development aid nature.




38


4.4 Key features and trends of the current situation

There is a number of existing initiatives – nationally or operated by organisa-

tions – that involve volunteers in the provision of humanitarian assistance, pri-

marily in activities that resemble development assistance. The Voluntary Corps

would need to find its place in the humanitarian aid arena and it can be antici-

pated that environmental and natural disasters and risks will be at the core of

what it needs to respond to, once active.

The world is faced with increased risks from natural and environmental

damages. Climate change, population growth and past damage are all contribu-

tory factors. Climate change affects the risks of flooding and droughts and can

lead to a need for changing agricultural habits. Population growth and increased

population densities in urban areas mean that – to put it simply – more people

and assets are at risk of being affected by a given disaster event. Past damage or

past actions can also influence the resilience of a given society to disasters, e.g.

deforestation can lead to increased erosion and mud slides in the case of heavy

rainfalls, removal of mangroves can add significantly to the negative impacts

from e.g. tsunamis, poorly constructed roads and houses can add negatively to

the impacts from an earthquake, and agricultural habits may need to be changed

in order to reduce the demand for fresh water and establish better resilience to

droughts. Consequently, preventive and preparedness efforts are needed to re-

duce the probability of disasters happening and to reduce their impacts once

they strike. That being said, response and recovery activities will also play a

strong role.

Disaster patterns vary from one year to the other depending on what risks mate-

rialise. For example 2010 was characterised by many large disasters – such as

the earthquake in Haiti and the flash floods in Pakistan - that stretched national

and international resources to the limit.




39


Table 4-3 The largest global disasters of 2010

Fatalities Victims Economic damage

Ten largest events Number Ten largest events Million victims Ten largest events Bn USD

Earthquake Haiti 222,570 Flood, China 134.0 Earthquake, Chile 30.0

Heat wave, Russia 55,736 Flash flood, Pakistan 20.4 Flood, China 18.0

Earthquake China 2,968 Flood, Thailand and Cambodia

9.0 Flash flood, Pakistan 9.5

Flash flood, Pakistan 1,985 Drought, Thailand 6.5 Earthquake, Haiti 8.0

Mass movement Wet China

1,765 Flood, China 6.0 Earthquake, New Zea-land

6.5

Flood, China 1,691 Earthquake, Haiti 3.9 Winter storm, Europe 6.1

Earthquake, Chile 562 Flood, India 3.3 Flood, Australia 5.1

Tsunami, Indonesia 530 Earthquake, Chile 2.7 Hurricane, Mexico 3.9

Cold wave, Peru 409 Drought, Somalia 2.4 Flood, Europe 3.6

Mass movement Wet, Uganda

388 Flood Colombia 2.2 Storm, United States 2.7

Source: Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2010, Centre for Research on Epidemiology

of Disasters (CRED), 2011.

While there is substantial variation from one year to the other with regards to,

for example, which countries are affected, what types of disasters strike, and

the impacts that they have, the above serves to show that there is an immense

need for global capacity to respond to disasters as well as a need to focus on

disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery. Prevention and preparedness

can involve, for example, forestation, early warning systems, awareness and

education as well as evacuation strategies and use of proper building codes. The

recovery phase can extend over a long period of time and should also aim to

integrate better resilience. It is clear also that more welfare-oriented issues such

as education and combat of poverty have a role to play in building up a better

resilience.

As mentioned there are organisations that today deploy volunteers. Although

examples are seen of activities that relate to disaster prevention, most organisa-

tions engage volunteers in development aid.

As evidenced by the 2010 study by Germax and the consultations held as part

of that process, conditions for volunteering and the mechanisms put in place to

support this vary significantly across the organisations that deploy volunteers.

In terms of volume, development aid activities tend to dominate, although these

may also involve activities that contribute to prevention, preparedness and re-

covery.

While it has not been possible neither in the context of this impact assessment

study nor in the context of the preparatory studies undertaken before to obtain a

definitive estimate of the number of volunteers deployed, indicative figures

point to a significant volume of deployments by, for example, the EVS, the

VSO and Weltwärts. That being said, the possible EU Voluntary Corps would

not, and should not, be similar to initiatives such as those mentioned. Rather,

the Voluntary Corps would place itself in the humanitarian assistance field and




40


may come to attach more importance to issues such as skills, duration of de-

ployment, and education and training. Therefore, these indicative figures can-

not necessarily be interpreted as signposting the potential scale of the Voluntary

Corps.

As stated by many stakeholders, if more effort is to be invested in promoting

volunteering in humanitarian aid, then attention will need to be paid to certain

core issues, specifically the need to:

• be able to demonstrate a positive cost-benefit ratio

• align the use of volunteers with the trend towards increasing professional-

ism in the sector

• increase the availability of skilled volunteers

• address security and safety concerns

• ensure that the capacity of host organisations is strengthened.

A Voluntary Corps that focuses on humanitarian assistance could provide add-

ed value and fill a gap if it succeeds in addressing these issues.

The paragraphs below consider the measures put in place by organisations cur-

rently involved in volunteering.

Many apply some selection and identification criteria. The criteria themselves

vary significantly – from the EVS for which age is the principal screening crite-

rion to, for example, the THW and the Irish Response Initiative, which apply

formal criteria combined with interviews31. These two ‘extremes’ reflect that

the EVS focuses on enhancing the soft skills of young people throughout Eu-

rope whereas the latter two contribute to disaster responses, i.e. are active in

areas where effectiveness and skills really matter.

There is a trend towards certification of standards of organisational systems and

practice in the area of humanitarian aid and development assistance, as reflect-

ed in donors’ support of the HAP and People In Aid and in the increasing up-

take of such certifications. Certification can be a demanding process for indi-

vidual organisations, and a balance therefore needs to be found between - on

the one hand - using certification as a means of supporting the trend of profes-

sionalism and alignment in the voluntary area and - on the other hand - not in-

troducing more that what is necessary and ensuring that the requirements pro-

vides for the cost-effective solutions.

Training is offered to a varying extent and in varying forms, with different

modules and methods deployed. The variations reflect differences in the organ-

isations’ mandate and how they use volunteers, in the types of volunteers that

they target, and possibly also in the training cultures that the organisations have

built up.

31

Again: noting the important difference that – to put it simply - the Irish Response Initia-

tive and the THW are about disaster response primarily whereas the EVS is about enhanc-

ing the soft skills of young Europeans.




41


The text boxes above provide examples of the scope of training by the VSO,

Global Contact and Weltwärts, all of whom focus on the young volunteers. Ta-

ble 9.2 provides more examples.

Rosters are used and applied by some individual organisations. They do not

tend to share the contents of the rosters, but on request they can identify experts

from the roster. Operating and maintaining a roster can be quite resource de-

manding.

A few organisations have a code-of-conduct for host organisations, but training

and capacity building with a particular view to volunteering is rare. The project

Sphere32 aims to build up local capacities. However, in interviews many organ-

isations emphasised that their assistance - as well as the possible contribution

from a Voluntary Corps - should not crowd out local employment or volunteer-

ing and must be sustainable and have an impact on the local community.

In the absence of a Voluntary Corps it can thus be expected that:

• volunteers will be increasingly used in humanitarian aid and development

assistance, and the individual national organisations and NGOs will apply

their own identification and selection methods and offer training that

matches their immediate needs, their mandate and their financial limita-

tions and synergies and transparencies across boundaries can be difficult to

realise;

• there is likely to be an ‘un-harvested’ volunteering potential in humanitari-

an aid due to lack of capacity - within the NGO community and with na-

tional governments - to develop and offer the appropriate training in that

regard, and due to the fact that it is costly to the individual NGO to provide

sufficient training to ensure that the volunteer will add value (e.g. the SC

estimates that such costs can reach EUR 10,000 per volunteer);

• concerns about the host organisations’ capacity to take the contribution

properly on board and a wish to avoid crowding out national employ-

ment/volunteering also constrain use of EU volunteers;

• those willing to offer a committed voluntary contribution in humanitarian

aid will 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;

• the impacts on host organisations and host communities will depend on the

specific volunteer-sending organisation and what it does to prepare the

host organisation and the volunteer for the deployment – and also, the ben-

efit to the volunteer and to the hosting community will depend on the host

organisation’s resources and approach.

32

http://www.sphereproject.org/




42


In sum, mobilising better the volunteering capacity within the EU can provide

for more capacity to support humanitarian aid activities, not necessarily through

more deployments, but also through better prepared deployments, and this can

in turn affect the benefits delivered to the hosting communities and the impact

that the volunteer activities have on the volunteer in question.




43


5 Problems and objectives

The key trigger for a policy initiative is the fact that the creation of the Volun-

tary Corps is part of the Lisbon Treaty (having been proposed by the Greek

Presidency in 2003). As a result, a Voluntary Corps in humanitarian aid must

be established. The task is therefore to define and scope the Voluntary Corps in

a manner which provides the best possible benefits (effectiveness) in a cost-

effective manner (cost-efficiency).

This must be done in a way which provides for the best possible match and

gap-filling vis-à-vis the needs of the different actors on the humanitarian aid

scene – the beneficiaries in the receiving countries and the intermediary organi-

sations in Europe. In that regard, the rationale and the priorities governing the

different actors in the field must be taken into account. Actors are driven by

different agendas and rationales, such as to:

• deliver aid to countries in need in the most appropriate (time, quantity and

quality) way;

• deliver benefits to the volunteers (training, CV building, express solidari-

ty);

• build goodwill between nations, communities or organisations.

The Voluntary Corps must be framed in a way that provides European added

value to the many different actors and organisations currently active in volun-

teering while, at the same time, respecting the EU aspirations of the Voluntary

Corps contributing to (internal coherence) in solidarity and providing visibility.

Added value will be generated when the cost-benefit ratio of engaging and

deploying volunteers is improved. Factors that, in normal circumstances, lower

that ratio include:

• high turnover rates;

• insufficient skills and capability level (soft and hard skills) for the tasks

that need to be done;

• the need for training and, in particular, supervision.

Furthermore, the trends of professionalism and the increased safety and se-

curity contribute to limiting the use of volunteers. Another important limiting

factor is the capacity of the receiving countries/organisations to host volunteers.




44


Any contributions that the Voluntary Corps can provide in regard to reducing

these limiting factors will add value to the aid delivery operations, and it must

at least be ensured that the framing of the Voluntary Corps respects these con-

ditions.

The EU initiative aims to deliver a platform that provides for the EU and its

citizens to express solidarity on a ‘level-playing field’. In other words, the

Voluntary Corps should facilitate access to volunteering for citizens in all Eu-

ropean countries and so contribute to the EU expressing its solidarity.

Contributions must as mentioned above deliver aid to countries in need. In oth-

er words, volunteers must provide added value to the place of deployment. This

aspect goes beyond the immediate issue at hand, and relates to the capacity

building of local communities in a wider sense.

Volunteers have a variety of backgrounds, motivations and incentives for vol-

unteering ranging from young people with only limited higher education and

professional backgrounds to more experienced people with strong technical

skills and professional backgrounds. Volunteers also have different soft skills

(personal capabilities, multi-cultural understanding etc). Volunteers may be

driven by a solidarity incentive and a wish to contribute to ‘a better world’.

They may want to build up CVs and obtain learning, and some may be motivat-

ed by on-site presence (deployment) as compared to back-office support work.

Figure 5-1 seeks to capture these dimensions. Put simply, it can be said that:

• There is a supply side which is essentially the volunteers. The Voluntary

Corps can introduce interventions that increase their number and/or that

aim to increase the capabilities and skills that the volunteers can offer,

thereby increasing their ‘attractiveness’.

• There is a demand side which essentially consists of the humanitarian aid

organisations – in host countries and in Europe. The Voluntary Corps can

introduce interventions which aim to increase the demand for volunteers

through contributing, for example, to improving the cost-benefit ratio of

using volunteers and/or to addressing some of the factors that can limit

their absorptive capacity.

• In addition to interventions aimed at the ‘supply side’ and ‘demand side’

the Voluntary Corps can also introduce interventions improving the effi-

ciency and transparency of the 'labour market’ for volunteers.




45


Figure 5-1 Demand and supply of volunteers

Volunteers

EU intermediary organisations

Third country intermediary organisations

Beneficiaries

An intervention which increases

capacity for volunteering at one

level may not increase the

absorptive capacity of the overall

system because of constraints elsewhere


The above considerations have been translated into an objective ‘hierarchy’ as

shown in Table 5-1 below. The overall objective explicitly refers to the Lisbon

Treaty (Art. 214.5), and so the "contribution" comprises elements/indicators

that - although they are not measured in practice - explain what is meant by

achievement of the objective at this level.

Table 5-1 Objectives

Objective level Objectives Contribution

Overall objective Lisbon Treaty (Art. 214.5): "In order to es-

tablish 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 …"

Enhancement of European reach-out in situations

of crisis.

Making European solidarity visible.

Contributing to increased coherence of the res-

ponse strategies to humanitarian crises.

General objectives Deliver aid to countries in need in the most

appropriate way (time, quantity and quality)

Volunteers must be able to support the delivery of

aid in the most appropriate way. Volunteers need

to possess the requested skills and capabilities to

provide positive contributions to receiving com-

munities. They need to be mobilised at the right

time and in the right quantity. The cost-benefit

ratio must be sufficiently attractive for organisa-

tions to accept inputs from these volunteers.

Contribute to local capacity building within

host organisations and host communities

Volunteers must be equipped with skills and com-

petences that enable them to make a positive

contribution to the host community into which they

are deployed.

Deliver benefits to the volunteers (training,

CV building, express solidarity)

It must be sufficiently attractive for the volunteers

in terms of the skills, competencies and experi-

ences provided – otherwise, there will not be a

supply of ‘qualified’ volunteers.




46


Objective level Objectives Contribution

Deliver EU visibility and solidarity This general objective ensures that the Voluntary

Corps aligns with and supports DG ECHO activi-

ties and that it provides positive visibility and soli-

darity. Part of the visibility will be delivered

through the involved volunteering organisations

and entities.

Specific objectives Increase the number of qualified volunteers

throughout Europe - through an increased

focus on professional soft and hard skills to

improve the delivery of aid, contribute to

local capacity building, improve the compe-

tences of the volunteers, and enhance the

visibility of EU actions.

This objective is to deliver an improved supply of

qualified European volunteers thereby also con-

tributing to increasing the number of deployable

volunteers. The improved quality of the supply of

volunteers will add to the benefits in receiving

local communities. The objective does not neces-

sarily imply an increase in the number of volun-

teers per se, but rather an increase in the number

of qualified volunteers. Therefore, the contribution

to the EU visibility and solidarity - and in this con-

text European Added Value - can be said to focus

on the increased need for professionalism in the

humanitarian aid sector.

Improve the matching of volunteers with

the need of the humanitarian aid organisa-

tions and local hosts - this will imply im-

proved deliverance of aid as well as im-

proved use of and competence-building of

the volunteers and through more success-

ful deployments enhance the visibility of

EU actions.

This objective is to deliver an improved ‘market

place’ for volunteering in the form of platforms/

procedures in place for cost-efficient and effective

matching of volunteers and humanitarian aid or-

ganisations and local hosts. The objective ad-

dresses one of the crucial determinants of the

attractiveness of volunteering, namely that of de-

ployment. However, the aim is not necessarily to

increase the number of deployed volunteers, but

merely to increase the share of deployments that

will be assessed as successful. Furthermore, the

more successful deployments that can be at-

tributed to EU actions add to the visibility of Euro-

pean solidarity.

Improve the hosting capacity of receiving

countries/humanitarian aid organisations -

this will enable better use of and compe-

tence-building of the volunteers and so

improve both the deliverance and the ab-

sorption of aid.

This objective is to deliver an improved demand

for European volunteers. The contribution ap-

pears through improved capacities in the receiv-

ing end - be it European or local organisations -

and thereby increasing their demand for volun-

teers, and through providing for more demand in

countries with less use of volunteers. This objec-

tive relates thus first and foremost to the possible

limit to absorption capacity that can exist in host

organisations but may also be seen as a contribu-

tor to providing for a larger capacity building im-

pact on the receiving communities at large. Final-

ly, the objective comprises the pursuance of cost-

efficient and effective deployments.




47


6 The modules

The assessment of impacts is first done on a module-by-module basis. On the

basis of this, the outcomes of the eight assessments are compared, and possible

and beneficial combinations are identified and jointly analysed, based on the

outcome of the module-by-module analysis. The text below outlines briefly

how we see the relations between the modules and the specific objectives.

While humanitarian aid is first and foremost about solidarity and providing re-

lief and assistance, we focus the assessment on two important aspects:

• effectiveness – to what extent do the different modules deliver according to

the (specific) objectives;

• cost-efficiency – to what extent do they deliver solutions in a cost-effective

manner.

Figure 6-1 provides a graphical presentation of how we see the essential contri-

bution from each module and how it relates to the different ‘target groups’.


U:\500 - EVALUATION SECTOR\1. Evaluations\1.2. Completed evaluations\2012\EVHAC Impact Assessment\Reporting\22032012 Final report.docx

48


Figure 6-1 Mod-

ules

Volunteers


Third country

intermediary organisations

Beneficiaries

Module 4 - Register

Module 8 –

Community

Increase access to qualified volunteers

Increased access to volunteering opportunities across the EU

Increase access to qualified volunteers

Enhanced volunteering opportunities &

social networking

Module 1 - ‘EU’ Training

courses

Module 2 - Certification

Training on EU certified courses required to enter ‘roster’

Credibility in ‘market‘ for volunteers

Enhanced confidence in provider & value to CV

Benefits of common training

standards – ‘liquidity’ of volunteer market,

increased efficiency in provision

Module 5 - Standards for volunteer hosting

Help recruitment of & support to local

partners

Increased ‘quality’ & security of experience

More volunteering opportunities

Module 3 - ‘EU’ financed

training

Financial s avings Consistent basic training

Module 6 - Deployment of

volunteers

New channel for accessing volunteering opportunities

New channel for accessing volunteer

support Module 7 - Support for volunteer

management Increased appeal for volunteers

Increased capacity to host volunteers

Financial & logistical support




49


To further elaborate on this, Table 6-1 outlines the key features of each module

and how they work.

Table 6-1 Modules

Title Objective What does it de-liver?

How does it relate to problems and objectives?

Who acts?

Module 1:

Development

of standards

for identifica-

tion, selection

and training

of volunteers

Increased num-

ber of qualified

volunteers.

Improved match-

ing of volunteers

with the needs of

humanitarian aid

organisations

and local hosts.

Improved hosting

capacity of re-

ceiving organisa-

tions.

EU standards that

organisations must

adhere to verify that

they identify, select

and train volunteers

sufficiently to pro-

vide value added to

beneficiaries.

Transparency of

volunteer qualifica-

tions.

Standards are assumed to attract vol-

unteers with qualifications that match

the needs of a given organisation. This

combined with standards for training

will increase the number of qualified

volunteers. Furthermore, higher stand-

ards at organisations will make more

people seek to become volunteers.

Transparency of volunteers' hard and

soft skills will improve the matching and

thus the efficiency of deployments,

hereunder by encouraging the raising of

standards by receiving organisations.

A critical factor is the uptake of the out-

put (and the process) among stake-

holders if the standards become too

comprehensive - i.e. there might be a

need for space for cultural differences.

The Commis-

sion takes the

lead and rele-

vant stakehold-

ers play an ac-

tive and con-

tributing role.

Module 2:

Development

of certification

mechanism

Increased num-

ber of qualified

volunteers.

Improved match-

ing of volunteers

with the needs of

humanitarian aid

organisations

and local hosts.

Improved hosting

capacity of re-

ceiving organisa-

tions.

Certification mech-

anism delivering

audited evidence

that certified organi-

sations adhere to

EU standards for

identification, selec-

tion and training of

volunteers.

Transparency of

volunteer qualifica-

tions.

It contributes to market clearing by

making the need for and the availability

of qualifications more transparent to

volunteers and volunteering organisa-

tions, and it adds credibility to claims of

fulfilling EU standards.

Furthermore, certified standards at or-

ganisations will make more people seek

to become volunteers.

Critical factors would be the credibility,

cost and burdens associated with the

certification.

The Commis-

sion takes the

lead, but is like-

ly to outsource

the auditing

system.

Module 3: Running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid

Increased num-ber of qualified volunteers

Increased num-ber of deploy-ments

Potentially also contribute to hosting capacity

Development and running of training modules

Enhancing the soft skills of volunteers, thereby increasing their ‘attractiveness’ to the humanitarian aid organisations and contributing to improving the cost benefit ratio of deployment of volun-teers. Increases the attractiveness of volunteering - e.g. giving them an iden-tity as European volunteers. Provides a financial incentive for using the training and thereby generates a more joint background and provides for better ‘sharing’ opportunities

The challenge or critical factor would be to frame the contents of the training and its implementation in a way which adds value to volunteering and not just simp-ly replaces the costs of similar activities that are already now undertaken.

The Commis-sion takes the lead but with partners – could be in terms of one or two years' contracts.




50


Title Objective What does it de-liver?

How does it relate to problems and objectives?

Who acts?

Module 4: EU roster of trained volun-teers

Plat-form/procedures

And thereby in-creased supply and demand

‘Open access’ ros-ter

Improved ‘market clearing’ and ena-bling fast identification of suitable volun-teer candidates – better access to vol-unteering opportunities.

The critical factor is whether the estab-lishment and operation of the roster will provide sufficient value added com-pared to the costs as a range online forums and facilities already exist – ultimately the value of the roster will depend on its credibility - it being fre-quently used by organisations as well as volunteers.

The Commis-sion takes the lead.

Module 5: Develop standards for volunteer management in hosting organisations

Hosting capacity


Standards and benchmarks for host/receiving or-ganisations

The attractiveness for volunteers and the increasing demand for volunteers from local hosts – ie higher efficiency and level of reassurance for the EU humanitarian aid organisations and transparency of crisis situation capacity.

A critical factor is to leave space for cultural differences, hereunder by in-volving different types of hosting organ-isations in the development.

The Commis-sion takes the lead.



Volunteers de-ployed with EU co-financing

Incentive for more use of volunteers through improving the cost-benefit ratio.

In case it is combined with the roster; increase the attractiveness of the train-ing and the roster on the side of the volunteers.

Partners by demanding the volunteers and the Commission through the financial mech-anism.

Module 7: Support of local hosting organisations for managing European volunteers

Hosting capacity

Better capability of hosting nations to generate added value from volun-teers

Addressing, e.g. through training and important and shared challenges in local host organisations, it can help to reduce this limiting factor and contribute to better value added of the efforts of the volunteers.

A critical factor is the establishment of a real partnership between the European organisation and the hosting organisa-tions.

Partner - with EU co-financing.

Module 8: Establishment of a Commu-nity of DG ECHO hu-manitarian volunteers


(platform contri-bution)

Mentors for future volunteers, DG ECHO 'Ambassa-dors'


A critical factor is a fast turnover of members, especially the young ones.

The Commis-sion could en-courage the use of social media.




51


7 Module 1: Development of standards for identification, selection and training of volunteers

7.1 Background

All humanitarian aid organisations apply formal or informal rules when identi-

fying and selecting both permanent staff and volunteers to join their organisa-

tions. Many organisations do also arrange for training of their staff to achieve

skill levels, for example, necessary for being deployed in a developing country.

Furthermore, there exist already a number of well-established and widely-

acknowledged standards for various aspects of humanitarian aid, developed by

organisations that have been established by groupings of the humanitarian aid

organisations. They target different aspects of the work of the humanitarian aid

sector. Therefore, to be able to assess how a new Voluntary Corps can provide

added value within this area, it is important to have good insight into what is

already in place. Table 7-1 introduces the standards that have been developed

by four such organisations.

Such cross-organisation standards are relatively new compared with the much

longer history of humanitarian aid. All four organisations have existed for less

than 20 years. Furthermore, interviews with some of these organisations point

towards an increasing market for standards and for the use of systems to enable

organisations to be certified to these standards. This is partly seen to be in line

with the trend elsewhere in the society towards more accountability and being

able to show evidence that actions and impacts are successful, and it is partly a

consequence of humanitarian actions becoming more and more complex, creat-

ing a need for more professionalism and so a need for more transparency re-

garding capabilities and skills. On the one hand, there is thus a demand for

standards and so a potential for providing added value by a Voluntary Corps.

On the other hand, with the adoption of the existing standards being on the in-

crease there might not be a need for an extra organisational set-up.

A second feature is that the four different organisations have four different fo-

cuses and purposes - although with some overlaps. Together they can be seen to

have a good coverage of humanitarian aid issues ranging from the management

of aid workers, through more technical standards, to the deliverance of aid to

beneficiaries. An immediate view could thus be that there is little room for add-

ing value by a new Voluntary Corps. This said there are areas that are not spe-




52


cifically covered by the existing standards. Firstly, there is no (transparent)

presentation of standards for the different elements of the disaster management

cycle - i.e. prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, a distinction that

we envisage to be in focus by the Voluntary Corps. Secondly, there are no ex-

plicit standards for volunteers as a sub-group of the aid workers, for example

regarding standards for training curricula. There is envisaged to be an added

value from the volunteers being able to distinguish themselves from other aid

workers and so being able to offer their services more clearly on the 'market

place'. Furthermore, there might be room for the Voluntary Corps having a co-

ordinating role in consolidating the different standards and/or in guiding the

humanitarian aid organisations towards the adoption of standards e.g. necessary

for obtaining EU funding.

Finally, the table shows that only two of the four types of standards are accom-

panied by a certification mechanism. This implies that it is not at present possi-

ble to become certified with respect to all humanitarian aid issues, and so there

might be room for EU actions. Such possible action is covered by Module 2

below.

U:\500 - EVALUATION SECTOR\1. Evaluations\1.2. Completed evaluations\2012\EVHAC Impact Assessment\Reporting\22032012 Final report.docx


Table 7-1 Overview of organisations having developed widely-acknowledged standards for the humanitarian aid sector

HAP - Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

People In Aid Sphere ALNAP - Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance

Established 2003 - with the origins going back to the Joint Evaluation of the Internation-al Response to the Genocide in Rwanda.

1995 - by agencies in the humanitari-an and development sector.

1997 - by a group of humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements.

1997 - following the multi-agency evaluation of the Rwanda genocide.

Focus Standards for the deliverance of aid to beneficiaries.

Standards for management and sup-port of aid personnel.

Standards for core areas of humanitar-ian response.

Standards for training to reach ade-quate levels of humanitarian account-ability and performance.

Purpose The standard defines accountability as the means through which power is used responsibly - i.e. the purpose is to make humanitarian action account-able to its intended beneficiaries through self-regulation, compliance verification and quality assurance cer-tification.

The purpose is to improve the organi-sational effectiveness within the hu-manitarian and development sector worldwide by advocating, supporting and recognising good practice in the management of people.

The standards are developed to sup-port two core beliefs: first, that those affected by a disaster or conflict have a right to life with dignity and therefore a right to protection and assistance, and second, that all possible steps should be taken to alleviate human suffering arising out of disaster and conflict.

The ALNAP is dedicated to improve the quality and accountability of hu-manitarian action, by sharing lessons, identifying common problems and, where appropriate, building consensus on approaches.

Accessibility of standards

The 2010 HAP Standard in Accounta-bility and Quality Management:

http://www.hapinternational.org/ pool/files/2010-hap-standard-in-accountability.pdf

The People In Aid Code of Good Prac-tice:

http://www.peopleinaid.org/ pool/files/code/code-en.pdf

The handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for Humani-tarian Response - which in addition to the above core standards contains four technical chapters covering standards for water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion, food security, nutrition and food aid, shelter, settle-ment and non-food items and health action.

http://www.sphereproject.org/content/ view/720/200/lang,english/

The ALNAP uses the broad range of experience and expertise within its membership base to produce tools and analysis such as guides, training materials and lesson papers, which are relevant and accessible to the hu-manitarian sector as a whole:

http://www.alnap.org/

Certification mechanism - if any

Organisations can become HAP certi-fied through being assessed for com-pliance with the HAP standard by an independent audit.

The People In Aid works with two sets of quality marks. Quality Mark 1, which is “committed” and the higher Quality Mark 2, which is “verified compliant”.

None None

http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/2010-hap-standard-in-accountability.pdf





http://www.peopleinaid.org/pool/files/code/code-en.pdf

http://www.peopleinaid.org/pool/files/code/code-en.pdf

http://www.sphereproject.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,12/Itemid,203/lang,english/







http://www.sphereproject.org/content/view/720/200/lang,english/

http://www.sphereproject.org/content/view/720/200/lang,english/

http://www.alnap.org/




54


7.2 Contribution to general and specific objectives

The development of standards for the identification, selection and training of

volunteers will, somewhat depending on the degree to which a new Voluntary

Corps supports the above existing standards or establishes a new set of stand-

ards, contribute to the fulfilment of the objectives presented previously in this

report.

Standards displaying the name of the EU will deliver directly on the general

objective of EU visibility and solidarity, and it will be attractive for the volun-

teers and their CVs to be able to display that they have been engaged in human-

itarian aid that comply with such standards. A more direct focus on the differ-

ent skills required of supporting personnel in the disaster management cycle

will raise standards in complex aid situations to the benefit of the beneficiary

countries.

Table 7-2 explains the intended contribution of Module 1 to the specific objec-

tives. Since the module primarily focuses on the organisations situated in the

EU/sending countries, most emphasis is on securing that the volunteers ready to

be deployed are the right ones - i.e. that they have been properly identified and

selected, and they will have received the appropriate training to reach the nec-

essary level of both hard and soft skills. Such more targeted selection and re-

cruitment procedures can actually reduce the number of deployed volunteers

through a more ‘effective’ screening and selection, but, on the other hand, in-

crease the quality of the volunteers’ contributions on site.

Table 7-2 Module 1 contribution to specific objectives

Title Objective What does it de-

liver?

How does it relate to problems and

objectives?

Who acts?

Module 1:

Development of

standards for

identification,

selection and

training of volun-

teers

Increased number

of qualified volun-

teers.

Improved match-

ing of volunteers

with the needs of

humanitarian aid

organisations and

local hosts.

Improved hosting

capacity of receiv-

ing organisations.

EU standards that

organisations

must adhere to

verify that they

identify, select

and train volun-

teers sufficiently

to provide value

added to benefi-

ciaries.

Transparency of

volunteer qualifi-

cations.

Standards are assumed to attract

volunteers with qualifications that

match the needs of a given organisa-

tion. This, combined with standards

for training, will increase the number

of qualified volunteers. Furthermore,

higher standards at organisations will

make more people seek to become

volunteers.

The transparency of volunteers' hard

and soft skills will improve the match-

ing and thus the efficiency of deploy-

ments, hereunder by encouraging the

raising of standards by receiving or-

ganisations.

A critical factor is the scale of ele-

ments that needs standards and the

uptake of the output (and the process)

among stakeholders - i.e. there might

be a need for space for cultural differ-

ences.

The Commis-

sion takes the

lead and rele-

vant stakehold-

ers play an ac-

tive and con-

tributing role.




55


However, it is also envisaged that higher standards, hereunder more clear iden-

tification and recruitment criteria, can make volunteering more attractive to in-

dividuals, and they can assist organisations to make a more targeted selection of

volunteers, reducing the ‘applications’ from non-relevant volunteers. In other

words, the standards might prompt more people to engage into volunteering –

thereby also with a likelihood of adding to coherence throughout Europe.

As discussed further below the Commission is envisaged to take a lead in or-

ganising the development of the volunteering standards, but that the active par-

ticipation by relevant stakeholders is critical for success. Furthermore, it is crit-

ical for the wide acknowledgement of such new standards that the level of up-

take is high. A high level of detail of the standards might defer some organisa-

tions who find too little space for specific features and cultures.

7.3 Module specifications

The development and specification of standards for recruitment, selection and

training will be a task of the Commission in collaboration with relevant stake-

holders such as the organisations already operating in the humanitarian aid sec-

tor. Therefore, the following should be seen as an input to this consultation pro-

cess based on the findings of this preparatory study.

A first central issue to settle during this consultation process is whether the

standards for volunteer recruitment, selection and training should be hosted by

a new organisation based either within or outside the Commission, or whether it

is more cost-efficient and appropriate to integrate the new standards with the

existing frameworks established by organisations such as the HAP and People

In Aid. In this context, it is important to emphasise that both the HAP standards

- in particular no 2.1: "The organisation shall clearly define and document the

knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes that the staff need to meet its com-

mitment", and the People In Aid Code of Good Practice are already relevant for

volunteers.

An argument for integration to one or more of the existing organisational set-

ups is that, as mentioned above, the adoption of standards among organisations

already is fast increasing. Furthermore, the add-on scenario would limit estab-

lishment costs, but it would require a willingness among the existing organisa-

tions to incorporate new volunteers standards and a willingness to display that

this is a result of EU solidarity.

An argument for the establishment of a new organisational set-up is thus that

this is likely to be good at displaying EU solidarity. Another argument is that

consultations with different stakeholders suggest that there would be some ben-

efit to be gained from consolidation between the different standards already

available. Furthermore, we envisage that the ambitions are quite high regarding

the standards for the level of hard and soft skills of the volunteers. This is also

reflected in Module 3 below. Such detailed training curricula standards might

not be appropriate to fit into the existing set-ups. Finally, the envisaged in-

creased focus on the different requirements to the different types of volunteers




56


engaged in the different parts of the disaster management cycle calls for a new

approach.

At this stage, we are inclined to foresee that a new organisational set-up will be

established. This is also the central scenario been put costs on in the follow sec-

tion.

However, irrespective of this choice we envisage that the Voluntary Corps

could provide added value by introducing standards for the identification and

selection of volunteers which ensure that requirements are well-defined, com-

municated and implemented in a transparent and fair manner - encouraging that

the identification/selection of volunteers is done in a fair way. The require-

ments may vary somewhat from one complying organisation to the other de-

pending on the particular mandate and mission of the organisation in question.

The standards are envisaged both to ensure that the right volunteers are attract-

ed and selected in a fair manner, and that they have the right abilities that could

relate to for example:

• commitment level and mobilisation time (with a distinction between short-

term and long-term deployments);

• language capabilities;

• age;

• technical skills;

• soft skills;

• professional record;

• relevant past experience/knowledge of the type of operation/site of opera-

tion.

The specifications of the training curricula standards will to a high degree de-

pend on the findings of the three ongoing Voluntary Corps pilot projects. These

are envisaged to identify which of the above abilities that in particular needs to

be built up for the organisations to be able to state that their volunteers are up to

standard before being sent out. Furthermore, the elaborations of Module 3 be-

low sheds further light on how we envisage that the training of volunteers will

address different aspects within the disaster management cycle.

Finally, any effort to catalyse the consolidation of existing standards might be

inspired by the results of a common Sphere, People In Aid, HAP and ALNAP

project in which they, in July 2011, made an agreement to collaborate on a joint

deployment to the Horn of Africa famine response. This initiative is briefly de-

scribed in Box 7-1.




57


Box 7-1 Joint Standards Initiative

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Joint Standards Initiative (JSI) originates from the key findings of an assessment mission, which was conducted in Nairobi in August 2011 by two staff members from the HAP, one from Sphere and one from People In Aid.

According to the ToR, a Joint Standards Initiative (JSI) deployment will be initiated to the Horn of Africa. The aim of the deployment is to support the humanitarian system in provid-ing accountable and appropriate programming that meets the standards of quality both in relation to immediate humanitarian response and short and long-term recovery and disas-ter preparedness.

The proposed three specific objectives of the deployment are:

1. to identify and support the delivery of appropriate support and learning activities with humanitarian actors;

2. to collaborate with relevant stakeholders and advocate for quality and accounta-bility of the wider humanitarian response including rising the awareness of exist-ing approaches;

3. to document and share good practice and learning.

The ultimate goal is a more coherent humanitarian response based on enhanced quality management and accountability and a widely accessible and increased body of knowledge that might inform future responses.

The actual deployment – the JSI team - will be hosted by the FAO. The directors of the HAP, Sphere and People In Aid will serve as a “steering committee”.

Source: ToR, Joint Standards Initiative Deployment to the Horn of Africa, October 2011.

7.4 Costs

As already underlined, a successful development of standards for the identifica-

tion, selection and training of volunteers will require a significant active contri-

bution by many stakeholders. The cost calculations below do not include the

costs of the expert input provided by the humanitarian organisations to the de-

velopment of new EU volunteering standards. They are, though, assumed to be

compensated for the costs of attending workshops etc. In other words, we as-

sume that the contributing organisations do this voluntarily, because they see a

benefit of being able to shape the standards to suit themselves that is higher

than the costs of contributing. There is a risk that there are too few voluntary

contributions, and so a possible need for additional compensatory expenses by

the Commission to ensure sufficient participation.

In line with the above, we do not include the costs incurred by humanitarian

organisations in adopting such standards. We assume that - since the adoption

of standards is voluntary - benefits to the humanitarian organisations of adopt-

ing the new standards are at least equal to the costs. The benefits could, for ex-

ample, depend on how much future EU funding is conditional on standard

compliance. In any case, we assess that it will be difficult to estimate an aver-

age figure, as organisations differ in both size and the effort required to meet

the standards. Again there is a risk of low uptake such that the new standards

cannot be described as being widely acknowledged. A provision has been made

for expenditure by the Commission to promote the 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

- information that mainly has been provided through interviews with the two




58


organisations, and partly by making some additional assumptions. The costs

will, however, depend on the ambition regarding involving organisations from

only some or all Member States in the development process. In other words, if

these ambitions are high, the cost estimates are likely to be higher than shown

in the table.

In the central scenario it is assumed that the volunteering standards will be

managed within a new organisational set-up, rather than being incorporated into

one or more of the existing standards for humanitarian aid. This latter scenario

is expected to involve lower direct costs, but at the costs of e.g. less focus on

the disaster management cycle and lower EU visibility.

The main cost assumptions for the central scenario are summarised in Table

7-3. It is assumed that most of the development process - i.e. 90% of the expert

input - will be outsourced, and that many of the experts will come from the ex-

isting organisations. A higher Commission share will increase costs as Com-

mission unit staff costs are assumed to be higher than those of other contribu-

tors.




59


Table 7-3 Assumptions for Module 1 cost calculations

Item Value Source/comment

Development of standards

Time period for development 3 years Both the HAP and People In Aid spent around three years develop-ing the first versions of their standards (including certification mech-anisms).

Paid staff input 1.5 per year The HAP has in average two full-time paid staff members engaged, while People In Aid has one.

Number of people to be con-sulted

250 - 1,000 Estimates by the People In Aid (250) and the HAP (1 000). Not to be included into the actual cost calculations as it is assumed that this contribution by the humanitarian organisations is voluntary and that they cover these staff costs themselves.

Other costs (seminars etc.) EUR 69,386 per year

Rough estimates based on information provided via interviews with the HAP and People In Aid.

Maintenance of standards

Revision cycle Every 5 years

Based on the experience of the HAP and People In Aid.

Time period for revision 1 year Based on the experience of the HAP and People In Aid.

Paid staff input 0.75 per year

The HAP has in average one full-time paid staff member engaged, while People In Aid has 0.5.

Number of people to be con-sulted

100 - 400 Less comprehensive than the development process, as it only lasts one year.

Other costs (seminars etc.) EUR 69,386 per year

Similar to annual costs during the development process.

Promotion of standards

Paid staff input 0.5 per year Estimate by COWI/GHK.

Additional assumptions

Cost of paid staff (organisa-tions)

EUR 6,800 per month

Calculation based on estimates of average salaries within the HAP and People in Aid + overhead/profit of 50%.

Costs of paid staff (Commis-sion)

EUR 18,000 per month

Estimate by COWI/GHK.33

Share of Commission staff in staff input

10% of man-months

I.e. assumption by COWI/GHK that 90% of the staff input will be outsourced.

Note: All values in EUR are assumed to be in 2012 prices.

Table 7-4 shows an estimate of the total costs of developing new volunteering

standards to amount to just above EUR one million over the period 2012-2020.

Most of the costs concern the actual three-year development period 2013-2015

and are spent through service contracts covering expert input as well as the ar-

rangement of workshops etc. The five-year revision cycle implies that the first

revision will take place in 2020. Promotion activities are expected to com-

mence in 2015 and to be carried out on a continuous basis.

33

The estimate assumes average salaries of around EUR 10 000 per month and overhead

costs of 80% on top of the salary costs.




60


Table 7-4 Module 1 costs, EUR, 2012-2020 (central scenario)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2012-2020)


Commission staff time 0 32,400 32,400 32,400 0 0 0 0 0 97,200

Service contracts 0 179,005 179,005 179,005 0 0 0 0 0 537,016


Commission staff time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,000 27,000

Service contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124,196 124,196

Promotion of standards

Commission staff time 0 0 0 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 10,800 64,800

Service contracts 0 0 0 33,870 33,870 33,870 33,870 33,870 33,870 203,222

Total 0 211,405 211,405 256,076 44,670 44,670 44,670 44,670 195,866 1,053,434

Source: COWI/GHK calculations.

Note: All values in EUR are assumed to be in 2012 prices. No discount rate is applied

when calculating the total over the period 2012-2020.

7.5 Impacts

7.5.1 Identification of impacts

Before giving an assessment of the size of the impact of introducing a new set

of standards for the identification, selection and training of volunteers, the fol-

lowing provides an overview of the potential positive and negative impacts on

the different stakeholders.

Table 7-5 distinguishes the impacts on the European humanitarian aid organisa-

tions that identify, select, train and possibly also deploy volunteers, ie on the

volunteers, the hosting organisations and the beneficiary communities. Impacts

on the EU and the Member States e.g. in terms of increased visibility and being

able to show solidarity are not included. Furthermore, in line with the impact

assessment guidelines it covers economic, social and environmental impacts.

The table shows that since Module 1 mainly concentrates on the qualifications

of the volunteers, hereunder making the qualifications transparent, there will

only be a limited and indirect impact on the environment. This said, with the

standards directly addressing the different needs within the disaster manage-

ment cycle, the selected volunteers will be ready for making positive contribu-

tions to environmental conditions in the beneficiary communities.

Since the European humanitarian aid organisations that adopt the new standards

do this on a voluntary basis, they are envisaged to have benefits that exceed the

costs of doing so. The standards are assumed to attract volunteers with qualifi-

cations that match the needs of the complying organisations and so make the

process more cost-efficient. Furthermore, the organisations will benefit from

market synergies with both other European organisations and hosting organisa-

tions, as the qualifications of the selected volunteers become more transparent,

hereunder with respect to the different needs within the disaster management




61


cycle. In turn, the European organisations who find the administrative burden

too high might experience a market distortion, i.e. a loss of competiveness in

the market for volunteers and for funding of activities. Similar positive and

negative economic impacts might - although more indirectly - be felt by hosting

organisations and the beneficiary communities. These will, though, directly

benefit from the increased/transparent skill levels among the volunteers.

The volunteers will as described several times already benefit from getting and

being able to display high skill levels - e.g. on their CVs. Furthermore, the

standards are envisaged to lead to social benefits from improved job quality,

from more focus on health and safety issues within the phases of the disaster

management cycle, and possibly from including more people from the new

Member States into the group of volunteers.

A risk of a negative social impact that goes for all types of stakeholders is that

of a loss of cultural diversity. The risk is that the standards will not allow for

the present wide range of approaches to humanitarian aid. The standards might,

for example, only be appropriate for some types of organisations giving them a

competitive edge against other types of organisations. This will also have a

spill-over effect onto the types of volunteers, i.e. a bias towards 'standard' vol-

unteers. Similarly, some host organisations might find their focuses and ways

of operating out of line with the standards. However, the more the standards,

for example, concern conventional topics such as ethics etc, the lower is the

risk.

Table 7-5 Impacts of Module 1 by type of stakeholder

Impacts

Stakeholder Positive Negative

European humani-tarian aid organisa-tions (DG ECHO partners)

Cost-efficiency Market synergies Job quality

Administrative burden Distortion of market Cultural diversity

Volunteers Matching the demand Skills CV building Job quality Health and safety Social inclusion

Cultural diversity

Hosting organisa-tions

Cost-efficiency Market synergies Matching the demand Skills Health and safety


Beneficiary com-munities

Effectiveness Matching the demand Protection of particular groups

Source: COWI/GHK assessments.




62


7.5.2 Assessment of impacts

Although the assessment of impacts mainly is done when analysing various

policy options - that are different combinations of the modules - in Chapter

14.1, the following comprises a brief assessment of the contributions from

Module 1.

This said, it is difficult avoid speculating about such module combinations,

since such new standards might only be adopted to a limited degree, if there are

no additional activities that "enforce" (encourage) an adoption. If, for example,

the standards are accompanied with a certification mechanism (Module 2), cer-

tification might be a condition for getting donor/EU funding and so the uptake

of the standards and the impacts will increase. Alternatively, if training pro-

grammes are offered (Module 3) targeting the elements of the standards, adop-

tion of the standards will be eased. In other words, the size of the above identi-

fied impact will depend on the uptake of the new volunteering standards that

again will depend on the implementation of other modules.

As mentioned above, we assume that the benefits of adoption the new standards

are least equal to the costs of doing so. However, we have no good estimates of

the efforts needed, apart from the contribution to the development of standards.

Anyhow they will differ much between organisations. Possibly, the largest im-

pact - and so European added value - is for the smaller organisations and/or or-

ganisations in the new Member States that have not had the resources to devel-

op standards themselves.

Furthermore, there is a European added value from that "equality/transparency

of qualifications" is likely to encourage synergy/coherences between the de-

ployments of the different organisations. In this way, the synergetic effects will

be proportionally larger, the higher the level of alignment with the standards

throughout the (relevant parts of the) sector.

7.5.3 Risks

As already mentioned above, there is a risk of a low uptake of the volunteer

standards leading to a risk of the standards not being widely acknowledged.

Organisations might await other organisations making the first moves, which

everything else equal will lead to a slow start. Therefore, to minimise this risk

there Commission may want to establish first mover advantages such as ear-

marking certain funds for the first organisations that can demonstrate compli-

ance.

The size of this risk will, however, be spotted early in the development process,

as it assumes/necessitates the voluntary input of many of the relevant organisa-

tions.




63


8 Module 2: Development of certification mechanism

8.1 Background

As discussed above regarding the impacts of Module 1, standards for the identi-

fication, selection and training of volunteers may only be adopted to a limited

degree in the absence of additional activities that "enforce" (encourage) an

adoption. There are several ways of encouraging such adoption. In this study,

we look at two such ways. In Module 3 below, we look into the offering of

training programmes by the Commission that target elements of the standards,

and so the organisations sending volunteers to such training will be helped to

fulfil their obligations. In this module, we look into the certification of organi-

sations that fulfil such obligations.

Similar to the analysis in Module 1 we draw much on the experiences of the

HAP and the People In Aid in setting up and running their certification mecha-

nisms (see also Table 7-1). We have also looked into the experiences of accred-

itations carried out by the European Voluntary Service (EVS, DG EAC) in

connection with the Youth in Action Programme. These include the YouthPass

(see www.youthpass.eu for more details) that is a certificate received by the

young volunteer (i.e. not the organisation) attesting experience and skills ac-

quired during the period of service. Furthermore, they include accreditation

procedures34 for the organisations who wish to send or host EVS volunteers or

to coordinate an EVS project. Such promoters must submit an Expression of

Interest. The accreditation of promoters is then carried out by the Executive

Agency (EACEA) regarding bodies active at European level in the youth field,

international governmental organisations, and profit-making organisations, or

by National Agencies regarding promoters located in the respective Programme

Countries.

The EVS accreditation concerns the actual entity, i.e. with a clear location, pro-

ject environment and activities for the volunteers, and thus not the entirety of a

complex organisation with numerous departments and/or branches. For exam-

ple35, if the youth services of a large municipality intend to host a volunteer, the

application should clearly specify the kindergarten, youth club or social work

34

DG EAC, European Voluntary Service Accreditation Guidelines, Youth in Action Pro-

gramme, May 2011. 35

Source: see footnote 34.

http://www.youthpass.eu/




64


project in which volunteers would be active. An implication of such entity de-

limitation is a very high number of accredited entities, amounting to 4256 (No-

vember 201136).

This is much more than the HAP that in November 201137 had 11 certified

members - meaning that they have been assessed for compliance with the HAP

Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality by an independent audit,

and a further 18 full members that have undertaken a baseline analysis - mean-

ing that they have enrolled in the HAP certification scheme and been provided

with a comprehensive assessment of the organisation's strengths and weakness-

es in relation to the HAP Standard. Similarly, the People In Aid had (November

201138) 13 verified compliers - i.e. with the People In Aid Code of Good Prac-

tice - meaning that the organisations have successfully implemented the Code

by providing assurance that reliable management and information systems are

in place through an independent external social audit. Additional 13 organisa-

tions have a quality mark showing that they are committed to the Code and so

desire to continuously improve their HR and people management skills.

As introduced under Module 1 above, the extent and coverage of the volunteer-

ing standards envisaged to provide the basis for the certification system are

fairly similar to those of the HAP and the People In Aid. In the following, we

therefore assume that the number of certified organisation and the costs in-

volved in becoming certified will be much closer to those of these two organi-

sations than that of the EVS. Furthermore, compared with the two other setups,

the EVS has much less focus on deployments in developing countries and on

the different needs within the disaster management cycle.


As already mentioned, a certification mechanism is one of the ways of bringing

the volunteering standards into play - i.e. that more organisations choose to

adopt the standards and to display that they have done so. This implies that the

impacts and so the contribution to the objectives can been said to be a gearing

of those described in Module 1 above.

Actual certificates will make it even more visible that EU volunteering stand-

ards have been developed and adopted and will thus directly deliver on the gen-

eral objective of EU visibility and solidarity. Similarly, it will become even

more attractive to become volunteers within certified organisations as this se-

cures engagement in humanitarian aid of a high standard that can be reflected

in CVs. Furthermore, the beneficiary countries will be more certain that the

volunteers sent out will have sufficient qualifications, for example in relation to

the different needs within the disaster management cycle.

36 The European database on EVS accredited organisations:

http://ec.europa.eu/youth/evs/aod/hei_en.cfm. 37

http://www.hapinternational.org/members.aspx. 38

http://www.peopleinaid.org/membership/directory.aspx.

http://ec.europa.eu/youth/evs/aod/hei_en.cfm

http://www.hapinternational.org/members.aspx

http://www.peopleinaid.org/membership/directory.aspx




65


Table 8-1 goes slightly more into detail of explaining the intended contribution

of Module 2 to the specific objectives. As mentioned above, these are gearings

of the contributions of Module 1. This gearing concerns in particular the trans-

parency and credibility of standards adopted by the organisations.


Title Objective What does it de-

liver?

How does it relate to problems and

objectives?

Who acts?

Module 2:

Development of

certification

mechanism

Increased number

of qualified volun-

teers.

Improved match-

ing of volunteers

with the needs of

humanitarian aid

organisations and

local hosts.

Improved hosting

capacity of receiv-

ing organisations.

Certification

mechanism deliv-

ering audited evi-

dence that certi-

fied organisations

adhere to EU

standards for

identification, se-

lection and train-

ing of volunteers.

Transparency of

volunteer qualifi-

cations.

It contributes to market clearing by

making the need for and availability of

qualifications more transparent to

volunteers and volunteering organisa-

tions, and it adds credibility to claims

of fulfilling EU standards.

Furthermore, certified standards at

organisations will make more people

seek to become volunteers.

Critical factors would be the credibil-

ity, cost and burdens associated with

the certification - hereunder any audit-

ing system.

Commission

takes lead, but

is likely to out-

source auditing

system.

We envisage that the Commission will take a lead in arranging the setup of a

certification mechanism, but that the actual auditing system will be outsourced.

As discussed further below, one of the critical factors is that certification may

be costly because it may involve a comprehensive auditing process. The expe-

rience 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.

Furthermore, there is likely to be some resistance against a new system both

from the HAP and the People In Aid and from their already-certified members -

the latter finding it inappropriate/excessive to be requested to pay for an addi-

tional certificate, although a Voluntary Corps certificate would be of a more

volunteer nature. The latter is thus an argument for integrating mutual recogni-

tion - i.e. the next time HAP members are checked, their certificate can encom-

pass the volunteer standards, and organisations that just want the volunteer

standards can take on just that.


Module 1 discussed two ways forward for the hosting of new standards for

identification, selection and training of volunteers: the standards could be host-

ed by a new organisation based either within or outside the Commission, or

they could be added to existing standards, such as those hosted by the HAP or

the People In Aid. If the latter is chosen, it is obvious that the certification pro-

cedures will be incorporated into the relevant, existing certification mechanism.

However, this might also be the case if the former is chosen - i.e. the new host

might buy into an already-established auditing system.




66


In any case, we assume that the new standards developed in Module 1 are for-

mulated in a way that are directly usable for developing auditing check lists etc.

In line with Module 1 above, we therefore envisage that the auditing of an or-

ganisation will check that the organisations' procedures for identifying, select-

ing and training volunteers pursue the right levels of:

• commitment level and mobilisation time (with a distinction between short-

term and long-term deployments)

• language capabilities

• age

• technical skills

• soft skills

• professional record

• relevant past experience/knowledge of the type of operation/site of opera-

tion.

In this way, it will be checked that the organisation clearly specifies which ini-

tial qualifications of the potential volunteers are required and so the basic quali-

fications will also be transparent for host organisations and beneficiaries, and it

will be checked that the organisation makes sure that qualification gaps for the

individual volunteers are filled.

It might be considered to pursue different levels of certificates where "light"

versions maybe suitable for small organisations operating in safer environments

will have lower requirements to e.g. security and safety aspects and multi-

cultural understanding.

8.4 Costs

Since the standards themselves have been developed in Module 1, the costs to

the Commission of developing the certification mechanism are assumed to be

relatively smaller in comparison. As shown in Table 8-2, they are assumed to

comprise around 10% of the development costs of volunteering standards. The

development of elements such as checklists and auditing procedures and the

establishment of an auditor corps are assumed to take place alongside the de-

velopment of the standards - i.e. during the last two years. Most of these devel-

opment activities are assumed to be outsourced.

As shown in Table 8-3, the main Commission costs concern the use of the certi-

fication mechanism, and this is despite the organisations paying a user fee to

become certified - i.e. regarding the auditing process. The reason is that we ex-

pect that many organisations, in particular the small ones, will find it too costly

to pay the full costs of the auditing process. This is also the case within the




67


HAP and People In Aid certification mechanisms where it is estimated that do-

nors pay around 50% and 75% of the actual auditing costs respectively. We as-

sume that there is a need for the Commission to provide the organisations with

a subsidy of at least 50% on average of the certification/auditing costs to

achieve sufficient uptake. There is, however, much uncertainty about the af-

fordability of the different organisations, and so we show also the cost figures

of a 100% Commission-financed auditing process. In practice, there is likely to

be a minimum user charge to avoid unprepared organisations to engage into the

certification process.

Similar to Module 1, we do not include the costs incurred by organisations to

prepare documentation etc. for the auditing process. Such costs will naturally

differ across organisations, but both costs and cost differences are assumed to

be smaller than those connected with actually complying with the Module 1

standards. We assume that the auditing cost will be the main reason for organi-

sations refraining from becoming certified even though they meet standards.

This also means that we do not cover the cost situation for non-certified organi-

sations - i.e. humanitarian organisations that perceive that the benefits of certi-

fication do not outweigh costs. Anyhow, such inclusion would belong to the

assessment of impacts - i.e. the costs or negative benefits of lower competitive-

ness in the market for volunteers and funding of activities.

Table 8-2 further shows that, similar to the HAP and the People In Aid, we as-

sume that certified organisations must be re-certified every three years. For the

cost calculations, we assume an uptake of 50 organisations by 2020 - starting

with five in 2015.

Finally, we assume that to achieve this level of uptake, the certification mecha-

nism must be promoted - at a cost of four man-months per year. In practice, the

costs will add to the Module 1 promotion activities. Part of these common pro-

motion activities could be an annual Voluntary Corps Day - e.g. inspired by the

annual Civil Protection Information Day held by DG ECHO.




68





Time period for development Two years It is assumed that the development of the certification mechanism take place alongside and during the last two years of the develop-ment

Total costs EUR 20 816 Assumed by COWI/GHK (based on interview information) to com-prise around 10% of the volunteering standards' development costs (see Module 1)

Paid staff input 50% of total costs

It assumed that half of the total development costs concerns paid staff input.

Maintenance/use of certification mechanism

Costs of getting certified/ audited

EUR 19 000 per audit

Based on user charge figures provided by the HAP and the People In Aid + the remaining donor finance to pay for the actual costs (50% for the HAP and 75% for the People In Aid).

User charge 50% of costs (alt. 100%)

It is assumed that the user charge on covers 50% of the auditing costs - the rest being funded by the EC. In the alternative scenario, 100% is funded by the EC.

Re-certification cycle Every three years

Based on the experience of the HAP and the People In Aid.

Yearly take-up rate 2015: 5 2016: 7 2017: 8 2018: 10 2019: 10 2020: 10

Estimate by COWI/GHK - i.e. number of certified organisations in the period 2012-2020 = 50.

Promotion of certification mechanism

Paid staff input 1/3 per year Estimate by COWI/GHK.



EUR 6 800 per month

Calculation based on estimates of average salaries within the HAP and the People in Aid + overhead/profit of 50%.

Costs of paid staff (Commis-sion)

EUR 18 000 per month

Estimate by COWI/GHK.

Share of Commission staff in staff input

10% of man-months

I.e. assumption by COWI/GHK that 90% of the staff input will be outsourced.


As shown in Table 8-3, the above assumption leads to an estimate of the total

costs of developing new volunteering standards of just above EUR 850 000

over the period 2012-2020. The costs rise over time as more and more organi-

sations are certified. Promotion activities are expected to commence in 2015

and to be carried out on a continuous basis. The table also shows that if we as-

sume that the payment to the auditors are fully covered by the Commission, the

total costs will amount to just over EUR 1.5 million over the period 2012-2020.




69


Table 8-3 Module 2 costs, EUR, 2012-2020

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2012-2020)


Commission staff time

0 0 520 520 0 0 0 0 0 1041

Service con-tracts

0 0 9,888 9,888 0 0 0 0 0 19,775

Maintenance/use of certification mechanism


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Service con-tracts (50% Commission)

0 0 0 47,729 66,821 76,367 143,188 162,279 171,825 668,209

Promotion of certification mechanism


0 0 0 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 43,200

Service con-tracts

0 0 0 22,580 22,580 22,580 22,580 22,580 22,580 135,481

Total 0 0 10,408 87,917 96,601 106,147 172,968 192,059 201,605 867,706

Use of certifica-tion (100% Commission)

0 0 0 95,458 133,642 152,733 286,375 324,558 343,650 1,336,417

Total (100% Commission)

0 0 10,408 135,647 163,422 182,514 316,155 354,339 373,430 1,535,914


Note: All values in EUR are assumed to be in 2012 prices. No discount rate is applied

when calculating the total over the period 2012-2020.

8.5 Impacts

8.5.1 Identification of impacts

Since the certification mechanism is overall seen as gearing of Module 1, the

impacts are in general assumed to be similar to but larger than those of Module

1. This said, there is a higher risk of introduction a barrier into the system-- i.e.

that those who found it most difficult to comply with the standards will find it

even harder - when certification is also required - to be ‘an insider’ in the sense

of being part of the group that adheres to the standards, while the larg-

er/stronger organisations will see a further increase in their ‘competitive ad-

vantage’. In other words, it is expected that size matters when reaping the bene-

fits of a certification mechanism, unless organisations are assisted in complying

with standards and so in preparing for certification.

However, there must be a certain minimum level of uptake in order to achieve

any impacts - i.e. for the certification mechanism to become acknowledged.

Therefore, it should be contemplated how the first organisations are convinced

to make the effort of becoming certified. In other words, a kind of a first mover

advantage must be identified - e.g. a special/permanent acknowledgement of

being in the front or a temporary 'monopoly' benefit.




70


Table 8-4 distinguishes the impacts on the European humanitarian aid organisa-

tions that become or do not become certified respectively; the volunteers; the

hosting organisations; and the beneficiary communities. These are similar to

those of Module 1 (see Table 7-5) due to the gearing assumption. Impacts on

the EU and the Member States e.g. in terms of increased visibility and being

able to show solidarity are not included, but should be emphasised as a certifi-

cation mechanism delivers EU certificates that the organisations are likely to

use in their own branding.

A certificate is assumed to attract volunteers with qualifications that match the

needs of the organisations and so make the process more cost-efficient. Fur-

thermore, the organisations will benefit from market synergies with both other

European organisations and hosting organisations as the qualifications of the

selected volunteers become more transparent, also with respect to the different

needs within the disaster management cycle. As mentioned above, the down-

side is possible market distortion, i.e. loss of competitiveness by non-certified

organisations in the market for volunteers and for funding of activities.

Volunteers will benefit from being able to reflect in their CVs engagement with

a certified organisation. Furthermore, certainty about standards are envisaged to

lead to social benefits from improved job quality, from more focus on health

and safety issues in the phases of the disaster management cycle, and possibly

from including more people from the new Member States into the group of vol-

unteers. The indicated impacts on hosting organisations and beneficiary com-

munities are of indirect nature only.

As described in Module 1 above, a negative social impact common to all types

of stakeholders is the risk of losing cultural diversity.


Impacts



Cost-efficiency Market synergies Job quality


Volunteers Matching with demand Skills CV building Job quality Health and safety Social inclusion

Cultural diversity


Cost-efficiency Market synergies Matching with demand Skills Health and safety


Beneficiary com-munities

Effectiveness Matching with demand Protection of particular groups Environmental consequences

Cultural diversity

Source: COWI/GHK assessments.




71


8.5.2 Assessment of impacts

The assessments of the impacts of a certification mechanism must naturally be

made in connection with the assessments of the impacts of introducing new

standards (Module 1). This is, however, done in the analysis of various policy

options - that are different combinations of the modules - in Chapter 15.

This said, we assume that the benefits of becoming certified are least equal to

the costs of doing so. Here, we have a good estimate of the user charge of get-

ting audited, but no good estimates of the efforts needed to prepare for the au-

diting process.

Furthermore, there is a European added value from the fact that "equali-

ty/transparency of qualifications" is likely to encourage synergy/coherence be-

tween the deployments of the different organisations. The synergetic effects

will be proportionally larger, the higher the level of alignment with the stand-

ards throughout the (relevant parts of the) sector.

8.5.3 Risks

As for the standards, there is a risk of a low use of the certification leading to a

risk of the certificates not being widely acknowledged. Organisations might

await other organisations to make the first moves, which will lead to a slow

start assuming everything else being equal. To minimise this risk, the Commis-

sion might find it relevant to establish first mover advantages, such as earmark-

ing certain funds for the organisations that get the certificate. It naturally fol-

lows that the lower the user charge, the lower the risk,




72


9 Module 3: Running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid

9.1 Background

The public consultation that was carried out in 2010 indicated that while the

majority of volunteer-sending organisations do have established guidelines,

standards and/or codes of conduct for their volunteers, only a minority provided

training. Slightly less than 40% of the organisations have training courses for

volunteers deployed, where more have training courses for EU-based volun-

teers presumably reflecting that most respondents do not or only rarely deploy

volunteers. However, it should be emphasised that what matters is whether

these organisations ensure that their volunteers are trained, not whether they

actually do the training themselves in-house.

The Germax study and impressions gathered in interviews conducted during

this study indicate support to an EU effort to strengthen training, selection and

identification. There are, however, some reservations as to how specific the

training can be, given the variations in deployment. Considering the 'disaster

management cycle' and the demand for volunteers outside emergency relief op-

erations39, the running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid is therefore

well advised to focus on all phases of the cycle. Such focus will - as presented

earlier - therefore also be adopted in Module 1 when defining the volunteering

standards for the training curricula.

On this background, this module will consider already existing activities related

to the training of volunteers in the humanitarian aid sector. The aim is to sug-

gest and assess how an appropriate organisation and structure of a possible EU-

supported training programme could be designed in order to add value to al-

ready existing activities in this field.


The general objective of a voluntary humanitarian aid corps is, inter alia, to

deliver aid to countries in need while at the same time to deliver benefits to the

volunteers. More specifically, the objective is to deliver an improved supply of

39

Of the respondents to the DG ECHO partner survey the majority stated that they involve

volunteers in their humanitarian activities although very few would do so in emergency

relief operations.




73


qualified volunteers, thereby also contributing to increasing the number of de-

ployable volunteers. As such, it must be sufficiently attractive for the volunte-

ers to acquire the necessary skills and competences and to make them want to

put it into practice. In addition, the cost-benefit ratio must be sufficiently attrac-

tive for the organisations to demand input from these volunteers.

Training of volunteers on a joint basis, i.e. on the basis of agreed curricula a-

cross the different organisations, would provide for a general increase in the

competence level of volunteers and for a higher level of transparency as regards

the competencies required and acquired. Thereby, it will also reduce the burden

of training, which might be difficult for organisations to support, especially the

smaller ones.

As such, the levels of soft skills of volunteers are a crucial determinant for their

attractiveness to the relevant organisations, and to the cost-benefit ratio of de-

ployment. Development and running of training modules therefore has the po-

tential to increase the attractiveness of volunteering on the side of volunteers

and organisations. It would be important, though, to frame the contents of the

training and its implementation in a way which adds value to volunteering and

not just replaces the costs of similar already existing activities. The objective of

training is therefore also to deliver improved capacities in the receiving end, be

it a European or local organisation, thereby increasing their demand for volun-

teers and providing for more demand in EU countries with less use of volun-

teers. Such training can add value to the capacity building not only in the host

organisations, but also to the receiving communities at large.

The table below shows the principal relation between the module and the objec-

tives.


Title Objective What does

it deliver?

How does it relate to problems and objectives? Who acts?

Module 3:

Running of

training for

volunteers in

humanitarian

aid

Increased

number of

qualified

volunteers

Potentially

also contrib-

utes to host-

ing capacity

Development

and running

of training

modules

Enhances the soft skills of volunteers thereby increas-

ing their ‘attractiveness’ to the humanitarian aid organi-

sations and contributing to improving the cost-benefit

ratio of deployment of volunteers. Increases the attrac-

tiveness of volunteering - e.g. giving them a European

identity. Provides a financial incentive for using the

training and thereby generates a more joint background

and provides for better ‘sharing’ opportunities.

The challenge or critical factor would be to frame the

contents of the training and its implementation in a way

which adds value to volunteering and not just simply

replaces the costs of similar activities that are already

now undertaken.

The Com-

mission

takes the

lead, but

with part-

ners – could

be in terms

of one or

two years'

contracts




74



The training module contains a number of issues such as the development, the

specifications and the delivery of the training courses as well as the organisa-

tion surrounding the courses.

The point of reference is the disaster management cycle. Consequently, training

of the volunteers will focus on issues which relate to the disaster cycle, noting

that the involvement of volunteers in actual and immediate emergency relief

operations or response actions presently is very limited40.

9.3.1 Development and concretisation of the training programmes

The specific contents, curricula and scope of the training will be framed at a la-

ter stage in consultation with stakeholders inspired from and building on huma-

nitarian aid organisations' experiences and best practices as well as lessons

learned from the pilot projects in 2011 and 2012. It should therefore be empha-

sized that this is a hypothetical set-up, which has been established for the pur-

pose of this study. The following should be seen as input to the forthcoming

consultation process based on the findings of this preparatory study. That being

said there are already a number of organisations/institutions/ministries that run

training courses for their volunteers which can serve as inspiration in discussing

and analyzing a more simplified framework/set-up for the training programme

in relation to the objective of increasing the number of qualified volunteers.

Examples of such include the the THW41 and the Irish Aid's Rapid Response

Corps which have established fairly ambitious training schemes focused mainly

on disasters and likewise development aid organisations such as the MS. Uni-

versities such as the Network on Humanitarian Assistance, NOHA, have estab-

lished a master programme (NOHA Master's) or non-profit organisations such

as Bioforce42, providing high-level Master and training courses, and networks

as Enhancing Learning & Research for Humanitarian Response (ELRHA )43

which link the academic and humanitarian world.

One governmental initiative is also worth mentioning. The the German Federal

Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ,), through Wel-

wärts established in the beginning of 2008 a publicly funded volunteers service

that aim to place about 10,000 young volunteers in the long term through exist-

ing agencies and humanitarian aid organisations. Three of those organisations -

the French Red Cross, Save the Children UK and the VSO UK - are currently

leading Corps-related pilot projects funded by DG ECHO44. These three pilot

projects were awarded and initiated by mid-2011. They aim to develop, apply

40

"Review concerning the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid

Corps", Final Report, Aachen 26th. November 2010, Germax. 41

Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfswerk, Germany. 42

http://www.bioforce.asso.fr. 43

http://www.elrha.org/. 44

See Appendix B for further details of the 3 pilot projects

http://www.bioforce.asso.fr/

http://www.elrha.org/




75


and evaluate a scheme for training and deploying volunteers in humanitarian

aid activities in developing countries including schemes for the selection of the

volunteers. Once completed, the lessons learned from these pilots will provide

important inputs into the further design and implementation of the Voluntary

Corps.

In the below table, some more general facts on the above-mentioned organisa-

tions and their training programmes are outlined with a more in-depth elabora-

tion to be found in the appendices. The description serves two purposes: first of

all as an illustration of the variation between the different programmes, and,

secondly, to indicate the gap that the EU can fulfil in setting up a training pro-

gramme.

Despite the fairly ambitious training scheme, the THW and the Irish Aid's Rap-

id Response Corps are not a part of the overview. Firstly, because the two or-

ganisations are governmental CP organisations mainly dedicated to response

activity. The THW's focus on response is also primarily on domestic response,

while the Rapid Response Corps is a roster of people who are able to leave with

short notice.

The second reason has to do with the definition of being a volunteer. For the

THW and the Irish Response Corps, if a volunteer is already in employment,

the two organisations will need to see confirmation that the employer under-

stands the nature of the commitment and agrees to the volunteer being on the

organisations register/roster. When deployed the volunteer gets his or her nor-

mal salary, and the employer is compensated from the two (governmental) or-

ganisations. The high level of compensation (i.e. normal salary) does not corre-

spond to our definition of a volunteer. Although we do apply a broad definition,

one of the key elements in our definition is that any financial reward is less than

the market value, which is not the case in the THW and the Irish Response

Corps.




76


Table 9-2 Focus, training and selection criteria of humanitarian aid initiatives

Name Organisation Focus Training Selection criteria

MS Global Contact

45

NGO

(Non-Govern-mental Organi-sation)

Development assis-tance.

Preparatory course of five days: ex-perience of other volunteers, preparing for volunteering, practicalities and de-tails about the stay.

Four weeks' stay and training at the Global Platform in cultural understand-ing, issues in development and general build-up of soft skills followed by actual deployment of up to 12 months..

Three days' return event.

All above 18 years are eligible. Must go through training.

NOHA - Network on Humanitar-ian Assis-tance

46

International association composed of 9 European Uni-versities

Enhancement of pro-fessionalism by pro-viding certificated high-level and re-freshment courses and promoting re-search and policy pa-pers.

NOHA Master's Programme consists of three semesters (90 ECTS cred-its).structured around four main com-ponents covering Geopolitics, Anthro-pology, International Law, Manage-ment, Medicine and Public Health in Humanitarian Action. Possible to sign up for specific courses.

Bachelor degree in study discipline, rele-vant field experience, multicultural sensitivi-ty and linguistic abili-ties.

Bioforce Non-profit or-ganisation

Maximizing the im-pact of aid pro-grammes and in-creasing the effec-tiveness of missions in the public health sector.

Six professional programmes including four certified courses, a bachelor de-gree course and a European MSc (Hu-man Programme Manager) in partner-ship with university of Liverpool. More than 50 refreshment courses. Runs training centres in West Africa.

Selection based on relevance of training to the applicant's profession.

ELRHA - Enhancing Learning & Research for Human-itarian As-sistance

47

Collaborative network

Supporting partner-ships between higher education institutions and humanitarian organizations and partners around the world..

Facilitating access to different university courses, research centres and profes-sional training courses regarding more specific topics.

-

Pilot pro-ject:

Save the Children, UK

48

NGO

(Non-Govern-mental Organ-isation)

Preparedness and recovery activities.

12-month training programme based on a "Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies". Trained as either Gene-ralists, Project Officers or Specialized Logistics Officers.

Level 1 volunteer is deployed two times of four-five months and level 2 volun-teer one time of nine-ten months.

50% volunteers with limited overseas ex-perience (level 1) and 50% who has com-pleted either the NO-HA Masters or Bio-force accredited training (level 2).

45

http://www.globalcontact.dk/ 46

http://www.nohanet.org/ 47

http://www.elrha.org/. 48


Save the Children, UK.


http://www.nohanet.org/

http://www.elrha.org/




77


Name Organisation Focus Training Selection criteria

Pilot pro-ject:

VSO Inter-national

49

NGO


Preparedness and recovery activities

Pre-deployment: two-three online train-ing sessions in working overseas and five days face-to-face training.

On arrival one week's country training, while the length of the actual deploy-ment varies.

During deployment continuous moni-tored by ex-volunteer.

Volunteer experts

Pilot pro-ject:

French Red Cross

50

NGO


Pre- or post-disaster humanitarian aid operations

Specific training path based on IMPACT and modules on humanitarian aid, law and aid operations.

Basic training followed up by special-ized training based on the volunteers' background.

Two x five days' course in France

Six months' deployment with mentor and key local advisor.

Specific criteria such as young (max. 25 years) qualified and inexperienced volun-teers with an ambi-tion to work in the humanitarian sector.

Final selection based on identified de-mands.

BMZ51

Governmental Development Support programme and language courses add up to a total of 25 days. Orientation and preparation of 12 days, Five days for the mid-term seminar, five days for return seminar and three flexi-ble days, which can be used when needed.

The volunteer service will be imple-mented through existing private sector and non-governmental bodies.

Specific criteria (age, German citizens or permanent residents, soft skills, vocational training or education-al level, language skills)

Although very different in their composition these initiatives are all focussed on

the training of volunteers, and have thereby served as an inspiration for a draft

of a simplified framework for a training programme for the Voluntary Corps.

This general framework is described below.

It is a general feature of all the training concepts that this study has investigated

that training is combined with actual volunteering in a developing country. In

many cases training takes place before, during and after the volunteer’s stay.

Conceptually, this module in itself should, however, be concerned with the

training aspects alone as regards the Community’s contribution. Therefore, the

cost calculations cover training only, with the costs of deployments and the de-

tailed added value of a deployment experience treated as a part of Module 6.

The starting point is the disaster cycle. The recruitment will be based on the

"Standards for Identification and Selection", which will be established in Mod-

ule 1. Possible modalities for selection are discussed below.

49


VSO International. 50


French Red Cross. 51

"Guideline for the development volunteers service "weltwärts"", BMZ 1 August 2007.




78


As mentioned, both the pilot studies and the work on developing the standards

(Module 1) are expected to provide concrete inputs into the actual scoping of

the training that could be offered. The possible set-up outlined should be con-

sidered as tentative and hypothetical. Yet, it has been inspired, as mentioned

previously, by practices and experience from comparative initiatives that do

exist already and by how the pilots have been framed in their respective pro-

posals.

Referring to Table 3.2 on the focus of the Voluntary Corps by type of volun-

teer, at least two groups can be identified who are likely to have different train-

ing needs:

• Young volunteers. People with no or minor experience in third countries

including very limited experience in delivering humanitarian assistance in

developing countries. These people would predominantly have a vocation-

al education or have achieved a BA level. There is likely to be a relatively

high fraction of young people in this group, i.e. below the age of around

30.

• Volunteers with experience. People with significant experience in third

countries including experience in delivering humanitarian assistance in de-

veloping countries. These people would predominantly have a vocational

education or have achieved a BA level. There is likely to be a relatively

high fraction of more senior people in this group, i.e. above the age of

around 30.

Volunteers with only basic educational background may also be eligible for the

training, but we do not consider them to be part of the primary target group.

They may not have sufficient technical skills to offer of relevance to disaster

management and there are other schemes available in some countries that target

this group and at the EU level, such as the EVS. Also, some level of maturity

and education enhances the probability that the volunteers are fully committed

and truly able to provide an added value to the projects or organisations that

they ultimately become deployed in.

The possible training programme set-up will thus operate with two sets of train-

ing - one training programme which is primarily focussed at the young volun-

teers and another which is focused at the volunteers with experience. A dis-

tinction, which is already reflected in some of the existing programmes but also

a distinction, which allows flexibility in the programmes such as:

• reach out for different kinds of volunteers

• tailoring of the programmes to the specific type of volunteer.

Thereby it is ensured that the ultimate aim of better qualified volunteers is pur-

sued.

The contents and length of the training and also the on-site training taking place

during deployment will reflect the type of volunteer. The training for the young




79


volunteers will have a greater length and depth and will be strongly inspired by

the ambition level of the pilots, while the training to be provided to volunteers

with experience will be inspired by the ambition level of the EU's CP introduc-

tory course (though the content may be different).

Integrating training with actual deployments is a strong means of providing for

sustainability and maximum effects of the training provided. It makes the train-

ing:

1 Attractive to volunteers as the combination makes the training more than

just "another school-look-alike course". The combination of training be-

fore, during and after deployment will demand a high standard of the vol-

unteer as well as of the training. The depth and the length of the full pro-

gramme (training and deployment) require commitment from the volun-

teer. The volunteer receives a transparent and high in-depth level of train-

ing and deployment, which is CV-building and therefore makes the volun-

teer a more attractive working capacity in a more and more professional-

ised humanitarian aid sector.

2 Attractive to the sending organisations because of the building up of de-

ployment expertise which is based on solid training, and which will be re-

flected in a positive branding and visibility of the organisation towards

more qualified volunteers, donors and the surrounding world in general. At

the same time, the funded training will make the training more cost-

efficient and of a higher quality while at the same time lower the organisa-

tions' deployment costs as training ‘has been taken care of’.

3 Attractive to the hosting organisations as they receive better trained vol-

unteers, who are more qualified to enter into and fill out their assignments

and therefore will lead to more capacity building in the hosting organisa-

tion/community.

4 Attractiveness to the stakeholders secures the initiative gets off the

ground as one of the most significant elements in securing the success of

this initiative is to ensure that factual demand is met by factual supply in

the form of the deployment of more qualified volunteers and the visibility

of a Voluntary Corps.

9.3.2 Organisation

This analysis assumes that the training will be prepared and implemented under

calls for tender and subsequent contracts, with content (in terms of level of am-

bition) along the lines of the description above (again: it should be underlined

that the above description is highly preliminary), and operated in a manner sim-

ilar to the CP Unit’s training, i.e. one-year contracts with possibilities for re-

newals for a maximum of three years and managed by DG ECHO. Appendix B

provides a more detailed description of the work on training in the CP Unit.




80


Considering the overall management of the training programmes, inspiration

can be taken from the way that the EU CP has set up its training. It has been in

operation for seven years and much experience has been gained. There is an

important difference between the CP area and the humanitarian area, as the area

of CP and disaster response is strongly anchored in national governmental

structures, and therefore the key partners to involve in the organisational set-up

can easily be identified52.

In humanitarian aid this picture is much more fragmented as there are a number

of national governmental stakeholders (e.g. CP, humanitarian assistance and

development aid), a range of non-governmental stakeholders, and a wide spec-

trum of possible donors to these NGOs, as well as state and international con-

tributions to disaster prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. That be-

ing said it does seem reasonable to duplicate some of relevant elements in the

organisational set-up of the CP that could 'advise and guide' the humanitarian

aid process. This could for example be:

• an advisory group, which could consist of Member State representatives;

• a consultative body, which could consist of a – widened – spectrum of DG

ECHO partners.

The consultative body could consist of representatives of the stakeholders from

the Member States having in-depth expertise on training-related issues, and

thereby contributing to the development of the future EU Voluntary Corps Trai-

ning Programmes. This consultative body could also play a stronger role in en-

suring the coherence between trainings and operational needs. This is quite si-

milar to the tasks of the CP Training Policy Group.

The advisory group consisting of Member State representatives, who would be

dealing with more strategic and long-term issues related to the training pro-

grammes, could be consulted e.g. once per year through a one-day conference.

9.3.3 Identifying and selection

There needs to be a transparent and clear mechanism for identifying and select-

ing the volunteers to enter the training. Module 1 will provide the basic con-

tents of that – inspired also by the pilot studies. Once established, though, there

needs to be an administration system related to that. This could be integrated

into the training contracts that will ultimately deliver the training.

Care must be taken to ensure that there is equal access to the training through-

out Europe, making the EU training a true and visible European project that

52

Such as the national training coordinators and the participants in the Training Policy

Group. The national training coordinators are the ones who nominate the national partici-

pants, while the Training Policy Group consists of representatives of each Member State

having in-depth expertise on training-related issues. The Policy Group should ensure in-

creased coherency between training (classes and exercise) and operational needs.




81


brings different nationalities together. It has been noted, though, that training

languages must be the ‘major’ languages that enable the volunteers to collabo-

rate with others on site once deployed. The recruitment, i.e. the nomination of

participants, would be among all the different humanitarian aid organisations in

the EU. The modalities are still undecided.

As for the number of volunteers to be trained, the pilot projects include a total

of about 90 volunteers. We assume that this number can be much higher. The

modelling assume an average of 10 young volunteers per Member State and an

average of 10 experienced volunteers per Member State, when the ‘programme

starts in (expected) 2014. Note that this does not imply that we assume that 20

participants will come from each Member State, as it is merely an indicative

illustration of the programme’s volume.

We assume that this number increases by 15% each year to reach a maximum

of 40 volunteers per Member State in 2020 implying that a total of some 1,080

volunteers are trained per year, i.e. nearly 10 times as many as under the pilot

projects. We thus anticipate that, once fully unfolded, the module will have a

throughput of 1,080 volunteers per year. We include as an alternative calcula-

tion that the throughput remains fixed at 540 volunteers per year.

On the side of the Commission, the resources needed to implement the full

training programme - i.e. not only the above mentioned training - would be in

the order of about the same size as for the CP training unit. The estimated re-

sources are therefore a minimum.

Table 9-3 Resource needs - CP Training Unit

Activity Resource needs per year

Preparing and evaluating call for tender including renewals. The resource needs can vary from one year to the other depending on whether renewals dominate as compared to the preparation of new calls.

Up to four man-months/year

Implementation of contract including financial arrangements and entering of contracts.

One man-month

Evaluation of contracts including the regular evaluation of how each contract is implemented, i.e. monitoring of whether the actual conduct of training complies with requirements and monitoring participants’ evaluations.

Three man-months

Coordination point for national coordinators/training schools servicing on ad-hoc matters including managerial and ad-ministrative issues

Ten man-months

Organisation and support: training policy group including the organisation and management of meetings.

Two man-months

Source: DG ECHO CP Unit.

As mentioned, we assume that the training is organised and carried out through

service contracts granted to training providers.

We also assume that the training to be provided to the young volunteers will

consist of preparatory training and on-site training while being on the first de-

ployment (see Module 6) and some follow-up training afterwards.




82


This, however, emphasises the need for establishing a link between the training

and the deployment. As mentioned, it is anticipated that the training will be

provided by and through training providers, e.g. NGOs with substantial training

experience as exemplified by the ongoing pilots. Deployments will, however,

relate to a specific need in a developing country, e.g. through a particular pro-

ject such as a Disaster Preparedness ECHO (DIPECHO) project, through post-

ing in an executive agency of a humanitarian organisation or project, or though

posting in a permanent office of an international or national organisation, e.g.

an ECHO office.

With inspiration from the design of other programmes such as the German

Weltwärts, a potential design could involve the following steps:

• Terms of Reference are inspired by the Standards (Module 1) and they thus

set criteria/methods for identification and selection of volunteers, the con-

tents of the training to be provided, and an obligation for the provider to

seek to assist the volunteers in being deployed.

• The selection and identification is thus done by the training provider along

lines stipulated in the Terms of Reference.

• The volunteers are assisted by the training providers in finding deployment

opportunities, if possible and relevant ECHO could be involved in this also

through the ECHO offices. The deployment must take place within a cer-

tain time period in order not to obligate the training providers to provide

training for an endless period of time.

• Completion certificates may be issued (if considered relevant) after com-

pletion of the training including the first deployment during which much of

the training takes place.

The above implies that the sending organisation can be different from the train-

ing institution. This is, however, an issue which must be carefully analysed and

considered. The advantage is that the volunteers in the training programme can

approach a wide range of organisations and institutions in the humanitarian aid

field in the search for deployment opportunities – and in this way there will be

a larger pool of potential volunteer posts. The disadvantage is that the responsi-

bility for the quality and contents of the deployment and largely also for the

outcomes of the training that is attached to this becomes largely influenced by

the sending organisations and thereby comes to rely much on this organisa-

tion’s abilities, and not only on those of the selected training provider53.

53

An alternative path could be to make it so that it was the sending organisations that nom-

inated volunteers for training – again: according to specified selection and identification

criteria. These organisations would not nominate a volunteer for training unless they had a

volunteer post identified. This option may imply less flexibility, but, on the other hand,

ensure the linkage between training and deployment. Which option to go for would, how-

ever, need to be decided in consultation with stakeholders – who would ultimately be the




83


For the volunteers with some experience, the training would need to be less

comprehensive and take place prior to deployment. We propose that the selec-

tion, identification and training contents would again build on the developed

standards and would largely involve steps similar to those outlined above.

The contents of training courses will be decided in Module 1. Therefore, this is

a highly premature stage for considering this. However, the contents of other

training courses appear to point to coverage of items as outlined below. As can

be seen, the principal contents are more or less similar, but it is expected that

the training for the experienced volunteers can be much more condensed and

done prior to the deployment only:

• Young volunteers. The EU’s role in humanitarian aid and the role and

contents of the EU Voluntary Corps concept, understanding the disaster

management cycle, intercultural communication/cooperation, humanitarian

aid principles, safety and security, working and living in the developing

world’s countries, project management, logistics and, when location is

found: language skills and country-specific knowledge.

• Experienced volunteers. The EU’s role in humanitarian aid and the role

and contents of the EU Voluntary Corps concept, the disaster management

cycle and particular features of the response phase, intercultural communi-

cation/cooperation (less weight), humanitarian aid principles, safety and

security, working and living in the developing world’s countries (less

weight), project management and logistics and, when location is found,

language skills and country-specific knowledge.

We assume that the level of ambition for the training programme for the young

volunteers will be line with the pilot projects. There are some additional costs,

however, that arise from these projects being pilot projects. We thus assume

that given curricula have more or less been developed (Module 1) as well as

criteria for identification and selection, the costs of the training will be 35%

less than in the pilot projects. This also renders the estimates more comparable

to other existing schemes, but yet with slightly higher unit costs. The reason is

that the scheme as we have assumed it to be designed targets a more demanding

audience. It thus aims to provide young people who have some relevant educa-

tional background with a solid training that can add to their future employabil-

ity within or outside of the humanitarian sector. The training should provide

them with the capability to deliver added value to their host organisation and

host community thereby also making them relevant for - and attractive to pos-

sible consequent deployments as volunteers after their initial deployment.

As for the training programme for the experienced volunteers we would assume

that the minimum part of an EU-organised training for volunteers for deploy-

ment in humanitarian assistance would, in terms of resource needs, resemble

the introduction course of the CP training (though contents may differ as the

drivers of the process (as training providers and as sending organisations). The resulting

approach could also be a mix of the two options considered here.




84


Voluntary Corps targets humanitarian assistance throughout the disaster man-

agement cycle and not solely response).

We assume that the standards are developed in 2012 and that the call for tender

can be prepared and run in 2013 implying a start of the training programme in

early 2014. This is – admittedly - a fairly optimistic time schedule.

9.4 Costs

As mentioned before the successful development of a training programme will

require a significant active contribution from many stakeholders' experiences

and best practices as well as lessons learned from the pilot projects in 2011 and

2012. The cost calculations do not include these contributions, as we assume

that the contributing organisations do this voluntarily as they can see a benefit

from being able to shape the training programme to suit themselves that is

higher than the costs of contributing. In this calculation there is a risk that too

few organisations participate in the work and therefore the Commission would

have to compensate. The calculation is based on following assumptions54:

54

Attention must also be paid to the fact that the costs of deployments (.e. travelling, daily

allowance, visa, insurance, health check etc.) are lower for the training part (Module 3) as

compared to the deployment support part (Module 6). The reason is that when assessing

these costs in relation to training we have built up the cost estimates on the basis of two of

the tree awarded pilot projects (excluding the most expensive one), whereas the estimate

provided for the latter builds on a compilation of actual deployment costs as experienced by

different sources. In this analysis, this difference has been maintained because it has been

assumed that accommodation and subsistence payments are more modest when accompa-

nied by training and the deployment is part of a training course, whereas volunteers who are

deployed afterwards will receive a more ‘volunter-based market price’ because they have

undergone the training.




85




Commission/agency staff time

Procurement activities involv-ing preparation of Terms of Reference, evaluation of pro-posals and contractual ar-rangements.

One-four man-months per year

Calls for tender regarding one-year contracts with a maximum re-newal of three years. Estimate based on the EU CP Training Unit's recent call for tender regarding their introductory module.

Launch and delivery, ad-hoc assistance to training provid-ers, financial issues, assis-tance in identifying deployment opportunities, monitoring of delivery of training.

Ten man-months per year

Estimate by COWI/GHK based on the CP Training Unit.

Review and liaison including final evaluation of contracts and lessons learned, liaison with advisory bodes and other stakeholders not being training providers, and other ad-hoc matters in that regard

Three man-months per year

Estimate by COWI/GHK based on the CP Training Unit.

Training costs assumptions

Training cost per volunteer – young volunteers.

EUR 7 120 per volunteer

Estimate by COWI/GHK based on pilot projects from the SC, the Red Cross and the VSO. The scope of training is primarily the young and inexperienced volunteer with a level of ambition corre-sponding to the pilot projects.

Efficiency gain. 35% The above figure has been reduced by an efficiency gain to reflect that the pilots actually develop the training, test it and take out les-sons learned. This will not apply once the scheme is ready to be rolled out.

Training cost per volunteer – experienced volunteers.


Estimate by COWI/GHK based on the EU CP Training Unit's recent call for tender regarding their introductory module (EUR 3 200). Ad-ditional training is estimated to be in the order of EUR 500 on aver-age. This is a estimate put forward by COWI/GHK. The scope of training is the skilled and experienced volunteers with a level of am-bition corresponding to the EU CP introductory course combined with some support, e.g. web-based through their first deployment.

Travel and accommodation cost per volunteer – extensive training.


Calculation is explained in the chapter on Module 6.

Number of people trained in the extensive part.

270 Assumption by COWI/GHK.

Number of people trained in the less extensive part

270 Assumption by COWI/GHK.

Annual increase in number of people trained.

15% per year (2016-2020)

Estimate by COWI/GHK based on an assumed gradual increase in the attractiveness of the training courses among stakeholders and an increasing interest from project sponsors and NGOs to deploy the volunteers.


Costs of paid staff (Commis-sion).

EUR 18 000 per person-month

Estimate by COWI/GHK.




86


Overall, the resources needed to implement the full training programme are ex-

pected to be of the same size as those needed for the CP training unit (although

it does not take into account the deployment). The administrative cost per

month is assumed to be EUR18 000.

The cost of training the young volunteers is estimated on the basis of the three

pilot projects55. The estimated average cost per volunteer is reduced by 35% in

order to allow for an efficiency gain. This efficiency gain arises because the

training will be delivered according to concrete requirements that have been

framed according to the agreed standards for identification, selection and train-

ing, and because it is assumed that it is not the responsibility of the training

providers to provide for the actual first deployment of the volunteers, but only

to assist them on that (noting, however, that they will be obligated still to pro-

vide some training elements during the volunteer’s first deployment within a

certain time frame). Last, it can also be argued that merely by being pilot pro-

jects these projects bear some additional costs due to their explorative and in-

vestigative nature: costs that will not materialise once the training is in a more

operational mode.

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 CP response.

We have added to that estimate EUR 500 in order to allow for some on-site

support and training.

The cost-benefit ratio has been pointed out by many stakeholders as one of the

critical factors in relation to the use of volunteers. In order to get a sense of the

validity of the assumptions that are based on the pilot projects we have looked

at a number of other initiatives, which are described below. The costs are not

easily compared because the information is based on different sources and

therefore the calculations and numbers are not homogenous.

Table 9-5 Costs comparison of selected humanitarian aid training initiatives

Name of organisa-tion

Costs per volunteer Include Source

(Upcoming) Volun-tary Corps

Young volunteers: EUR 7 100

Volunteers with experi-ence: EUR 3 700

(these figures do not include any deployment costs)

Young volunteers: Training before, during and after first deployment.

Volunteers with experience: Train-ing before deployment and some, yet modest training during, the first deployment.

European Voluntary Hu-manitarian Aid Corps: Pilot Projects 2011/2012

Save the Children EUR 10 000 Six months' deployment at home office and six months deployed in the field including training.

Interview with Save the Children, 25

th August 2011

British Government's International Citizens Service

EUR 8 000 Three months' deployment and four days' training.

European Voluntary Hu-manitarian Aid Corps, Pilot Projects 2011/12, Save the Children

55

The pilot projects and their costs are described in more detail in Appendix B.




87


Name of organisa-tion

Costs per volunteer Include Source

GIZ (Weltwärts) Approximately EUR 11 600 on average per year

A total of 25 days of compulsory courses/seminars before, during and after deployment that can last between six and 24 months - usual-ly 12-18 months. Estimate based on 15 months and with inclusion of the not-subsidised part /Weltwarts fi-nances up to 75% of the costs by a maximum of 580 EUR/month/volunteer.

"Guideline for the devel-opment of volunteers ser-vice Weltwärts", German Federal Ministry for Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development, August 2007

Irish Aid's Rapid Re-sponse

Daily cost of EUR 242

Approx. EUR 7 300 monthly

Covering all cost excluding allow-ance.

Interview with Irish Aid, 11

th October 2011

Global Contact Approximately EUR 4 500

All costs - based on one week's training before deployment, three months' deployment and one month's training in the region.

www.globalcontact.dk

Despite the variance in the composition, the different programmes do give

some guidance, and in general one could argue that the proposed Voluntary

Corps training programme initiative is at the high end of costs - but the pro-

posed training programme is also in the high end when it comes to ambitions.

As outlined in the baseline and stipulated in the objectives, the ambition of the

Voluntary Corps is to provide cost-effective added value to the beneficiaries,

the volunteers and the EU. This is done by focussing at different training needs

for different volunteers and a combination of theoretical and practical training

(interacting courses and deployment). This leads to a higher degree of profes-

sionalism and a larger pool of well-educated and more deployable volunteers,

which is to the benefits of the countries in need and generates a higher visibility

of the EU in humanitarian aid.

The below table provides the summary costs for delivery of Module 3 to the

above specification under three co-financing scenarios:

1) 100% EU financing of the training programme where the number of

trained volunteers is 540 in the first year and increases by 15% per year to

reach the maximum of 1 080 in 2020;

2) 100% EU financing of training programmes where the number of volun-

teers trained per year remains constant throughout the period;

3) 30% EU financing of the training programme where the number of trained

volunteers is 540 in the first year and increases by 15% per year to reach

the maximum of 1 080 in 2020.





88


Table 9-6 Expenses in relation to different level of EC co-financing and number of

volunteers

Expenses in 2015, million EUR Expenses in 2020, million EUR

100% co-financing 30% co-financing

100% co-financing

30% co-financing

15% increase per year

(1 080volunteers in 2020)

3 191

1 146

6 181 2 069

No increase per year

(540 volunteers per year)

3 191

3 227

Table 9-7 Scenario 1: 540 volunteers trained in 2015. This number increases by

15% each year, 100% compensation EUR

MILLION EUR 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Administration and man-agement

Procurement activities 18,000 72,000 36,000 36,000 72,000 36,000 36,000 72,000

Launch and delivery of training 0 0 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000

Review and liaison with stakeholders 36,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000

Total administration and management 54,000 126,000 270,000 270,000 306,000 270,000 270,000 306,000

Delivery of training - ser-vice contracts

Young volunteers 0 0 1,921,982 2,210,279 2,541,821 2,923,094 3,361,558 3,865,791

Volunteers with experi-ence 0 0 999,000 1,148,850 1,321,178 1,519,354 1,747,257 2,009,346

Total training costs - service contracts 0 0 2,920,982 3,359,129 3,862,998 4,442,448 5,108,815 5,875,137

Grand total Module 3 54,000 126,000 3,190,982 3,629,129 4,168,998 4,712,448 5,378,815 6,181,137

Number of young volun-teers 0 0 270 311 357 411 472 543

Number of volunteers with experience 0 0 270 311 357 411 472 543

Total number of volun-teers 0 0 540 621 714 821 944 1086






89


Table 9-8 Scenario 2 -540 volunteers trained per year starting in 2015, 100%

compensation–EUR

MILLION EUR 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Administration and management

Procurement activi-ties 18,000 72,000 36,000 36,000 72,000 36,000 36,000 72,000




Delivery of training - service contracts

Young volunteers 0 0 1,921,982 1,921,982 1,921,982 1,921,982 1,921,982 1,921,982

Volunteers with expe-rience 0 0 999,000 999,000 999,000 999,000 999,000 999,000

Total training costs - service contracts 0 0 2,920,982 2,920,982 2,920,982 2,920,982 2,920,982 2,920,982


Number of young volunteers 0 0 270 270 270 270 270 270


Total number of vol-unteers 0 0 540 540 540 540 540 540






90


Table 9-9 Scenario 3 -540 volunteers trained in 2015. This number increases by

15% each year. , 30% compensation EUR

MIO EUR 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Administration and management

Procurement activi-ties 18,000 72,000 36,000 36,000 72,000 36,000 36,000 72,000




Delivery of training - service contracts

Young volunteers 0 0 576,594 663,084 762,546 876,928 1,008,467 1,159,737

Volunteers with expe-rience 0 0 299,700 344,655 396,353 455,806 524,177 602,804

Total training costs - service contracts 0 0 876,294 1,007,739 1,158,899 1,332,734 1,532,644 1,762,541


Number of young volunteers 0 0 270 311 357 411 472 543


Total number of vol-unteers 0 0 540 621 714 821 944 1,086



9.5 Impacts

Before giving an assessment of the size of the impact of introducing a training

programme for volunteers, the following provides an overview of the potential

positive and negative impacts on the different stakeholders.

The below table distinguishes the impacts on the European humanitarian aid

organisations, the volunteers, the hosting organisations, the beneficiary com-

munities and the EU/Member States.

The main impacts will be brought by through the results from the training, i.e.

from the volunteers have achieved a certain level of skills and experience which

they will bring with them into the field in subsequent deployments. A training

scheme that is operated under the EU umbrella, and which is recognised for its

quality and substance will add substantially to the EU visibility in the humani-

tarian assistance area. This applies with regards to all stakeholders and the same

development has been observed for the EU CP training.

The volunteers will benefit from obtaining training, in particular when the theo-

retical learning and exercises are combined with on-site training through de-

ployments (Module 6). Thereby, volunteers will obtain training as well as spe-

cific deployment expertise which they can utilise afterwards and which adds




91


positively to their CV. Volunteers throughout Europe will have access to the

training and, in this way, the dependency on local and national volunteering

opportunities will be reduced. Through being trained with nationals from other

European countries, they will be exposed to a trans-European perspective and

the deployments provide an opportunity for volunteers to test their inclination

for volunteering or work in the humanitarian field in more depth.

The organisations get access to volunteers that have undergone a fairly ambi-

tious training programme. This should improve the cost-benefit ratio of deploy-

ing volunteers. The risks of mismatch will be reduced and the needs for super-

vision and guidance will presumably be smaller than what would otherwise be

the case, and reduced training costs within the individual organisation could

also be a result. Also, assuming that a feedback loop is included in the set-up

through the advisory body, it can be ensured that the contents and scope of the

training programme matches opportunities and needs on the ground. It can be

expected that some of these organisations, e.g. ECHO partners, will also apply

to deliver the training. It becomes essential to ensure that the calls for tenders

are framed so that they are attractive enough to attract good offers, but at the

same time not so attractive that they, to an undesirable extent, incite organisa-

tions to divert too many resources into this.

The hosting organisations will benefit from the higher skills and experience

level of the trained volunteers, as will the hosting communities. The other side

of this is, however, the risk that the better skilled/experienced volunteers will

replace local volunteers and local employment. For this to be avoided, volun-

teers must be trained in delivering inputs that could not otherwise be provided

locally, and which has the potential of creating a gearing vis-à-vis local com-

munity workforce and volunteers.




92



Impacts


Volunteers Learning, higher qualifications, EU brand => CV. Acquisition of a certificate/recognised training that will enhance the CV, which in turn makes the volunteers more attractive for future deployments and adds to their employ-ability in general.

Access to a training programme which deliv-ers on certain transparent minimum criteria.

More equal access to training across Europe.

Economic pressure on family budgets and/or obligations related to e.g. housing, household and childcare due to possible income loss during training. It is, however, assumed to be balanced by the individual volunteer against the expected benefits from the training. The volunteer invests his/her time in training on the assumption that this investment is justified by future benefits (see the positive effects).


Improved cost-benefit ratio of volunteering. Access to volunteers that have undergone the EU level training which is framed in accord-ance with the standards set out in Module 1 will enable volunteers to contribute more add-ed value in consequent deployments, i.e. the benefit from their use will be increased.

Access to better trained volunteers can pro-vide organisations with more room for under-taking activities in their respective fields.

The financing of professional training for vol-unteers could potentially have a distortive effect if the EU level training does not come to offer something unique, but simply duplicate what already exists on a relatively large scale in the market.

The cost of developing proposals for deliver-ing training including the possible crowding out effect this can have on other important activities of the organisation in question.


Cost efficiency and effectiveness as volun-teers are better trained. Volunteers that are better prepared for deployment can provide better added value in the hosting organisa-tion.

Crowding out effects on local workforce/local volunteering.

Risk of mismatch if the acquired skills and capabilities of volunteers do not correspond to the need.

Beneficiaries Social benefits will occur the better the local communities are prepared for disaster and the more professional assistance they obtain in the recovery phase. More qualified volunteers can contribute to this.

Crowding out effects on local workforce if paid positions are replaced by volunteers – and crowding out of local volunteers.

EU EU training will provide for an even access to training throughout the Community.

EU level training will add to the EU visibility and solidarity in humanitarian aid.

Member States EU training will provide for an even access to training throughout the Community, adding to the EU visibility and solidarity in humanitarian aid.

Administrative costs may be incurred on the side of (governmental) stakeholders, e.g. in regard to participating in the organisational set-up surrounding the EU training.

9.5.1 Main risks

Although several surveys56 ask for more training and pinpoint this as a possible

action point for the Voluntary Corps, the main risk is that the training pro-

grammes do not match demand and thereby the initiative does not get off the

ground and secure the visibility of the European Voluntary Corps. It is essential

that the stakeholders are active in the process of defining the contents and cur-

ricula of the training programmes and thereby securing that the training pro-

grammes are capable of appealing to the training needs of the humanitarian aid

56

Among others - "Review concerning the establishment of a European Voluntary Humani-

tarian Aid Corps", Final Report, Aachen 26th. November 2010, Germax.




93


sector and its different types of volunteers and organisations. If not, the training

programme will be just another type or replicate of existing training with no

value added to the sector and no or even bad publicity for the EC.

A second risk is that the success of the training programme depends also on the

ability of volunteers to be deployed. Organisations and projects must thus buy

in to the concept and offer deployment positions for the volunteers that are un-

der training. This is critical for the training programme to obtain recognition

and acceptance with the volunteers and with relevant organisations. Also, the

preliminary and hypothetical organisation proposed assumes that the volunteers

can obtain a volunteer post (deployment) within a time frame that enables them

also to benefit from training on site, as one cannot obligate training providers to

provide this with no calendar time limit. The critical factors of success (i.e.

delivering on the objectives) will thus include:

• The extent to which organisations are involved in and contribute to the pre-

paratory part of the training (including also Module 1). This is important to

provide for relevance, applicability and 'ownership' thereby assisting to ad-

dress the second key factor of success. In that regard, it is vital also that the

ongoing and planned pilots provide applicable and relevant results that can

inform the further process.

• The level of uptake of the resulting training programmes by the target or-

ganisations and the volunteers.

• A critical factor would be to frame the contents of the training and its im-

plementation in a way which adds value to volunteering and not just simp-

ly replaces the costs of similar activities that are already now undertaken.

Achieving the positive impacts described above and reducing the risk of nega-

tive impacts can be achieved by, for instance:

• Ensuring that partner organisations are fully involved in and contribute to

the definition and structure of the training contents. This is important to

provide for relevance, applicability and 'ownership' thereby assisting to ad-

dress the second key factor of success (uptake). In that regard, it is vital al-

so that the pilots provide applicable and relevant results that can inform the

further process

• Ensuring that the contents of the training and its implementation add value

to volunteering and not just simply replaces the costs of similar activities

that are already now undertaken by organisations.

• Providing volunteers with a certificate or other formal recognition that they

have completed the training.




94


10 Module 4: EU roster of trained volunteers

10.1 Background

The majority of respondents that were consulted for the scoping study conduct-

ed in 2010 agreed that the Humanitarian Aid Corps should enable different

types of volunteers to get involved in humanitarian operations. In particular, it

should enable young or less experienced volunteers to contribute in situations

where their safety is not at risk. The idea of an EU roster was further grounded

in a commentary in a previous report57 which states that there is a need for ad-

ditional surge capacity to service responses to significant crises.

The consultation, however, also highlighted the risk of duplication and DG

ECHO was encouraged to work with the existing rosters inside and outside Eu-

rope in order to define the gaps in the roster market. Further consultation with

the individual stakeholders revealed that there was little appetite for the idea of

a new roster focused on rapid response. Concerns were raised that a new roster

would duplicate existing systems, not provide added value and instead just add

complexity to the existing ‘landscape’.


More promising is the idea of a register of qualified volunteers in the EU who

are available to support action working on other parts of the disaster cycle be-

yond the immediate response. Therefore, as a general objective, the proposed

purpose of Module 4 is to develop a register that would improve ‘market clear-

ing’, enable fast identification of suitable volunteer candidates and in turn im-

prove access to volunteering opportunities for people from across the EU. The

register would provide a platform that would help to ‘enable’ project promot-

ers to access volunteers and thus support the Corps's objective to support the

increase in supply and demand of volunteers and promote equitable access to

such opportunities for European citizens.

The table below shows the principal relation between the module and the objec-

tives.

57

Germax 2010.




95



Title Objective What

does it

deliver?


Module 4: EU roster of trained volunteers

Platform/procedures

And thereby in-creased supply and demand

‘Open access’ roster

Improving ‘market clearing’ and enabling fast identifi-cation of suitable volunteer candidates – better ac-cess to volunteering opportunities.

The critical factor is whether the establishment and operation of the roster will provide sufficient value added compared to the costs, as a range of online forums and facilities already exist. Ultimately, the value of the roster will depend on its credibility, it be-ing frequently used by organisations as well as volun-teers.

The Com-mission takes the lead.


This option involves the specification and development of a register that will

include the details of suitable qualified volunteers who have declared them-

selves available for deployment. The term ‘register’ is used deliberately in pref-

erence to the term ‘roster’. ‘Roster’ is generally understood to relate to systems

that support immediate response to disasters, whereas the vision for the Volun-

tary Corps is that it will be facilitating assistance to other kinds of response as

well and immediate response is likely to be a comparatively small fraction of

what is supported. The register will service the demand for volunteers for the

full breadth of the Voluntary Corps's activities around the disaster cycle.

The register:

• should make it easier for associated organisations to access to the volun-

teers and facilitating the selection of volunteers according their skills, in-

terests, experience and past training;

• would not duplicate the work of more traditional ‘rosters’ that cover pro-

fessional experts who are ready to be dispatched to a region in a more ur-

gent, response capacity;

• would, it is proposed, contain the details of volunteers who have been

through the core training courses defined in Module 3 and would include

both volunteers who have significant experience, but also less experienced

volunteers.

Volunteers would be available for support to such demand as emerges. The de-

ployment terms would be determined by the circumstances and terms of each

assignment, but in principle these would be projects that do not provide salaries

(unlike many of those related to existing rosters).

If there was demand for it, the scope of the register could be expanded into

people available for rapid response, but on the basis of increasing the visibility




96


of the pool of qualified and screened volunteers and not as a competing re-

source for the existing rosters.

The initiation and administration of the register could be managed in-house by

the Commission services or outsourced to the third party. Outsourcing is ex-

pected to be more cost-effective and the costing has been prepared on that ba-

sis. The register does not necessarily need to be co-located with a volunteer

training or recruiting organisation.

The following sections address various aspects of Module 4, which range from

the setting up of a register to its use in deployment of volunteers.

10.3.1 Development

Setting up a register would involve specification and development of a database

and an associated website, and supporting IT systems. This could be done at

fairly low costs and by means of few resources. The establishment of the regis-

ter could be subcontracted to an external organisation or conducted using in-

house expertise available within the Commission services. The process would

require consultations with the Commission and recruiting organisations to de-

termine the preferred structure, the data fields required and many other working

parameters of the system.

The register operator would need to define and apply policies for the use and

protection of personal data.

10.3.2 Operation

The principal administrative tasks of the register management are the recruit-

ment, screening and registering of volunteers.

Recruitment

A ‘recruitment strategy’ would be required for the register. This could involve

the establishment of links between the register administrators and providers of

relevant training courses (so that graduates of those courses receive invitations

to join the register, or are auto-enrolled and then invited to confirm their avail-

ability). The register could also have a website and links into the mainstream

social media sites and to relevant volunteering websites.

A typical stand-by roster, as operated by large NGOs in the EU, has approxi-

mately 300 volunteers in its database and about 30 people deployed at any one

time. The proposed register is expected to be larger. Indeed, there are no limits

to the scale of the proposed register other than those imposed by the rate at

which qualified volunteers become available via the standard training courses

and the willingness of such people to register for future volunteering opportuni-

ties.

The core proposition is that volunteers would need to have completed training

in accordance with Module 1 and/or Module 3. This is so that organisations




97


would have the comfort that people on the register had a base level of training

for deployment in humanitarian aid operations. It is assumed that volunteers

would need to be resident within the EU and/or a national of an EU Member

State. A policy would also need to be determined on whether to apply other

screening criteria (e.g. relating to age).

A policy would also be needed on screening of volunteers (application of secu-

rity/other background checks) and whether this would happen before registra-

tion or at deployment. Screening prior to deployment would reduce fixed costs

and link them more closely to the volume of deployment.

Volunteers’ willingness to sign on to the register will be affected by the pro-

spects of being selected from it and deployed on humanitarian assignments. If

conditions are applied elsewhere (for example in Module 6 on deployment fi-

nance) that give preference (for example, in terms of access to EU financial

support for volunteer deployment) to organisations taking volunteers from the

register this would help to build ‘demand’ and in turn should support supply.

The register would need to remain up to date and reflect the true availability of

volunteers. This could be supported by asking volunteers to re-affirm their

availability on a regular basis.

The registry could be configured to enable volunteers to state their preferences

for work of particular type / locations / durations and also to indicate whether

they were looking purely for volunteering opportunities or also for permanent

positions.

Access

A policy would be required on which organisations would have access to the

register. This can be determined at a later date, but could include for example:

• organisations that are certified as or that can in other ways document com-

pliance with EU standards for volunteer recruitment, selection and training

(Modules 1 & 2);

• organisations that meet EU standards for volunteer hosting organisations

(Module 5);

• organisations that have been successful in their applications to DG ECHO

for support to disaster prevention/preparedness and recovery projects;

• DG ECHO offices.

Eligible organisations would be able to have access to the register on agreed

terms (and as consistent with the agreed use of data) or to post requests for the

use of volunteers. The register will be in constant development as the new vol-

unteers enter the programme. Module 4 should be closely linked to the support

for deployment of volunteers (Module 6).




98


The register will make the volunteers more accessible and the process of select-

ing volunteers less time-consuming, as by the time the volunteers enter the reg-

ister, they would have been carefully screened for skills (and possibly also been

subject to other background checks, as discussed above) and ready to be de-

ployed. It will also provide quality assurance for the outside organisations who

consider accessing volunteers in their areas of recovery and preparedness work.

This particular approach is already a normal practice among the large roster

operators. For instance, the DRC has agreements in place with partners such as

the UN organisations under which they can access the roster and apply for addi-

tional resourcing. This is only the case when the partner organisations do not

have enough of their own resources to deal with a disaster or if there are skills

which they are lacking at the time of the emergency58.

10.4 Costs

The below table provides an estimate of the resource inputs required for estab-

lishing and operating the register. The scale of the ongoing administrative re-

source requirement will be influenced by the scale of the register and:

• decisions on where the ‘boundaries’ lie between the register and (i) de-

ployment activities, and (ii) Corps communications/Community support

costs (e.g. for website);

• the extent of volunteer screening and verification undertaken by the regis-

ter administrators prior to volunteer registration;

• the extent to which volunteer entries on the register are self-administered

by volunteers or accessible only to register staff (web-based solutions will

require development of a different and secure system, but save on staff

time). It could start offline and then be upgraded over time.

As shown, the resourcing is based on an assumption that recruiting organisa-

tions contact the selected volunteers and coordinate visa arrangements, medical

checks and other pre-deployment costs.

Table 10-2 Estimated resource requirements

*Subject to where boundaries are drawn between register costs and Corps website/communications/community

costs. **Subject to the degree to which volunteer entries on the register are self-administered. **Subject to where

boundaries are drawn on register versus deployment costs.

58

The Danish Refugee Council Stand-By Roster Handbook 2009.

Activity Resource need

Setting up a register and associated systems* Up to six staff/months

Maintenance of the register/IT time** <One full time equivalent (FTE)/year, ongoing

Administrative tasks (screening, recruitment)*** <Two FTE/year




99


The costs in the below table assume 100% Commission financing of the volun-

teer register with its development and operation outsourced to a third party

through a competitive tender. A low level registration fee could help to ensure

that volunteers have the required level of commitment. 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 has

been assumed that the contract price rises to ~10% after three years reflecting

increases in the scale of activity.



Development of register

Time period for development <One year If the register is to be restricted to volunteers that have completed the Module 3 training, then the launch would need to be delayed until there is a flow of volunteers from the training programme and deployments.

IT equipment/service costs <10 000

Staff time, development <12 months FTE

Includes the development of supporting systems and integration of the register with other Corps training systems and databases.

Maintenance/use of register

Staff time (admin) <Two FTE* Administration of emergency rosters (see Appendices).

Staff time (technical) One FTE* Management of emergency rosters (see Appendices).

IT costs including web integra-tion and development (ongo-ing)

< EU 20 000 per year

COWI/GHK estimates.

Travel/other oncosts EUR 10 000 per year

COWI/GHK estimates.



EUR 6 800 per month

Calculation based on estimates of average salaries within the HAP and the People in Aid + an overhead/management margin of 50%.

Number of registered volun-teers

270 rising to 1 000 by 2020

COWI/GHK assumption.

Commission time 10% Provision to cover oversight and interaction.


*Subject to scale of roster and Module 4/6/8 boundaries.

For the purpose of the costing it is assumed that medical checks (~EUR

80/volunteer) and security checks (~EUR 85/volunteer) are carried out in re-

sponse to a request for deployment and not as part of the registration process,

and that they and are covered in Module 6.

With the given input parameters, aggregated costs emerge in the region of EUR

2 million over the budget period, on the assumption that the register is operated

by a humanitarian organisation with costs similar to those in the organisations

consulted. Operation by a commercial organisation would be significantly more

expensive, and in-house operation by the Commission services more expensive

still.




100


Table 10-4 Module 4 cost estimates (EUR per annum and total)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Development of register

Commission time 10 000 12 000

Service contracts 100 000 120 000

Maintenance/use of register

Commission time 27 500 27 500 27 500 30 000 30 000 30 000 172 500

Service contracts 275 000 275 000 275 000 300 000 300 000 300 000 1725 000

Total 302 500 302 500 302 500 330 000 330 000 330 000 302 500 2 029 500

10.5 Impacts

This section considers the projected impacts of the register.

Impacts on beneficiaries of humanitarian aid

Channelling the supply of volunteers on DG ECHO-supported projects through

the register will help to ensure that deployed volunteers have had the necessary

training and are equipped to be effective for beneficiary communities.

The register should lower the cost of search for qualified volunteers and facili-

tate cost-effective search for people with the appropriate experience and skills.

This, in combination with other modules, should improve the cost-benefit ratio

of the use of volunteers and encourage the supply to support to beneficiary

communities.

Impacts on humanitarian volunteers

The register proposed under Module 4, in conjunction with other modules,

would provide qualified volunteers from across the EU with access to volun-

teering opportunities with organisations that meet recognised standards in vol-

unteer management and support. This should provide ‘equality of opportunity’

for volunteers from across the EU in terms of being able to put themselves in

front of recruiting organisations.

The registry, in conjunction with other modules, also enhances the value for

volunteers of the core training by enabling people who have completed those

courses to access opportunities after their initial deployment.

Those aiming for a career in humanitarian aid and who have the requisite train-

ing could also use this register to indicate their availability for permanent posts

(subject to configuration of the registry).

The registry could potentially reduce access to volunteering opportunities with

participating organisations for volunteers who do not have the baseline training.

Depending on the balance between the aggregated demand and supply for vol-

unteers, there is also a theoretical risk of demand being biased towards more

experienced volunteers with a lower demand for less experienced people,

though it seems unlikely that such individuals would have less access than un-

der current conditions.




101


Impacts on hosting /receiving humanitarian organisations

For hosting organisations the register should help to improve the supply, chan-

nelled via intermediary organisations, of trained EU volunteers that have useful

skills and know-how. Depending on policy and configuration decisions made in

the development of the system and its subsequent operation, the register could

potentially provide accredited hosting organisations in third countries with ac-

cess to a pool of trained volunteers without the need to work through interme-

diaries within the EU.

Impacts on recruiting / sending humanitarian organisations

For partner organisations the register would provide access to a new pool of

trained volunteers. This should improve the ‘supply side’ transparency and re-

duce the search and screening costs incurred by organisations looking for vol-

unteers for humanitarian activities.

If volunteer deployment financing provided by the EU (under Module 6) is lim-

ited to volunteers on the register, there could be operational complica-

tions/constraints on partner organisations.

Impacts on society as a whole (EU)

The register will be a means of ensuring that there is equal opportunity for all

qualified young people in Europe who are interested in humanitarian volunteer-

ing, whichever Member State they come from, and in so doing support the EU-

wide goals of enhanced solidarity with countries that are requesting humanitar-

ian support. It will ensure equal ‘visibility’ of volunteers to the recruiting or-

ganisations and thereby help aspiring EU humanitarian volunteers to realise

their goals and the EU to achieve its intended objectives for the Corps.

The register, and its associated publicity, is another means of raising the profile

of the EU among humanitarian volunteers.

For the Commission, the operation/procurement of the register involves taking

on some delivery and reputational risk, whether directly or indirectly. For re-

cruiting/hosting organisations it will be important that the register is up to date

and relevant. For volunteers it will be important that the register is a credible

source of volunteering opportunities, and that it is easy to use and well-

supported and also secure in terms of handling personal data.

10.5.1 Risk management and benefits realisation

The risks include:

• the design and execution of the volunteer recruitment strategy, including

the risk of not being able to demonstrate an ongoing flow of volunteering

opportunities from the register;

• failure to maintain the register, such that it contains details of people no

longer available for volunteering posts and so becomes discredited

amongst partner and hosting organisations.




102


Module 4 is not viable on its own. It is designed to work in combination with

other modules (particular Modules 1, 2, 3 and 6). As such, its prospects for suc-

cess are linked to the successful design and delivery of those other modules.

Impact summary

The below table provides a summary statement of the impacts discussed above.

Table 10-5 Summary of Module 4 impacts

Actors Potential positive impacts Potential negative impacts

Beneficiaries of

humanitarian aid

Channelling the supply of volunteers on DG

ECHO-supported projects through the register

will help to ensure that deployed volunteers

have had the necessary training and are

equipped to be effective.

Helping to facilitate the flow of volunteers to

where they are needed (when used in combina-

tion with other measures discussed in this re-

port).

Humanitarian

volunteers

Equality of access to partner organisations for

trained volunteers.

Recognition of the volunteers' skills.

Access to potential employers for qualified peo-

ple aiming at a career in humanitarian aid.

Volunteers that do not have the baseline training

may have more difficulty accessing volunteering

opportunities if the demand is channelled (e.g.

via the terms of Module 6) to qualified people

listed on the register.

Organisations using the register are likely to

have a preference for more experienced volun-

teers which could lead to less or inexperienced

volunteers becoming disillusioned with the regis-

ter and its associated initiatives.

Hosting /receiv-

ing humanitarian

organisations

Improving the aggregate of trained volunteers.

Recruiting /

sending humani-

tarian organisa-

tions

Access to a new pool of accredited, screened

and trained volunteers.

Lower costs in search for and screening of po-

tential volunteers that are pre-trained in humani-

tarian work.

Potential added system complexity.

Society as a

whole (EU)

Promoting the opportunity for all qualified young

people in Europe who are interested in humani-

tarian volunteering, whichever state they come

from.

The EU can raise its visibility as the owner of a

volunteer register.

Involves taking on direct/indirect project delivery

risk.




103


11 Module 5: Develop standards for volunteer management in hosting organisations

11.1 Background

Respondents who were consulted in 2010 highlighted the need for support

measures for the volunteers who are to be deployed. One concern was that if

the DG ECHO were to facilitate the deployment of a number of additional vol-

unteers, it would need to ensure that the skills and capacities of volunteers are

in line with the operational requirements of the hosting organisations. Respond-

ents also highlighted the risks involved in deploying young or inexperienced

volunteers in humanitarian operations and called for development of common

standards in the context of support mechanisms for the Corps. In particular, this

would involve developing standards and benchmarks for hosting organisations

that are to receive the new volunteers.

Module 5 is different from the standards addressed in Modules 1 and 2 in that it

concerns host organisations (assumed to be in third countries). Generally, there

are a limited number of relevant standards for volunteer management, and those

that exist are usually very specific to a certain humanitarian aid area. Existing

standards make only passing reference to the requirements of the host organisa-

tions when they receive new volunteers.


The general objectives supported by Module 5 are to improve the hosting ca-

pacity. This is to be achieved by developing standards for hosting organisations

that will make volunteering attractive to volunteers, help ensure that they can

be deployed safely and productively, and at the same time build organisational

capacity so that the host organisations will want to take on more volunteers.

The table below shows the principal relationship between the module and the

objectives.




104



Title Objective What does it

deliver?


Module 5: Develop standards for volunteer management in hosting organisations

Hosting capacity


Standards and bench-marks for host/receiving organisations

Attractiveness to volunteers and increasing de-mand for volunteers from local hosts – higher effi-ciency and level of reassurance for EU humanitari-an aid organisations, and transparency of crisis situation capacity.

A critical factor is to leave space for cultural differ-ences, hereunder by involving different types of hosting organisations in the development.

Commission takes lead


This option would involve development of new standards for volunteer man-

agement in hosting organisations. The following sections address the various

stages of Module 5, which range from the developing a set of standards to sup-

porting their uptake.

11.3.1 Development

Before the actual development of new standards, the scope of the standards

needs to be defined. They may cover practical issues, such as security, but in

the context of humanitarian assistance they should also include aspects such as

volunteering infrastructure (ensuring the security of volunteers), and the full

utilisation of volunteer skills once in the host community.

Interviews with stakeholders indicate that there is little appetite for duplicating

standards already in existence. However, new standards for hosting organisa-

tions could be a useful complement in a field that still lacks standards for vol-

unteer management. So far, some large organisations that take on volunteers

(for instance, use of experts from other rosters) apply such standards to involve

professional experts who do not necessarily need the same type of guidance as

newly trained volunteers.

This process can take some time, as typically the initial development of stand-

ards would take around a year. The process would involve:

• a number of consultations that would identify a set of common standards

that would be most appropriate for managing new volunteers in host organ-

isations;

• events and awareness-raising actions to raise the profile of the standards,

develop working relationships and incentivise partners that will later take

up the standards.




105


Mechanisms

The development of new standards would require:

• the involvement of experts to consider the proposed new standards;

• research into what type of standards should be included, what is already in

existence (if only partially) and what areas have not been addressed at all

but might be relevant in the context of the Corps;

• regular consultation with a number of organisations to map and fill gaps

with relevant guidance;

• that consideration is given to how standards are to be promoted and sup-

ported, organisations assisted in achieving them and attainment recognised

(potentially including accreditation);

• efforts to raise awareness of the upcoming standards.

The standards should be integrated in other modules, including serving as

guidelines for the capacity building of the host organisations through training

and closely linked to the deployment of volunteers as well as setting criteria for

host organisations that are partners in training.

Maintenance

Typically, standards do not require much maintenance once they have been de-

veloped. However, once established, they should be reviewed periodically and

updated/revised where necessary. Typically, a revision will take place every

four to five years.

Ancillary activities related to the promotion and implementation of such stand-

ards include awareness raising, training workshops and coordination work, pub-

lication of the standards and promotional material; and training of trainers

(ToT) options.

Organisation

Stakeholders’ consultations have suggested support for the Commission leading

or facilitating the development of new standards where such measures are

needed to fill gaps in existing standards.

The standards could be developed:

• under a contract issued by DG ECHO under competitive tender to a quali-

fied organisation;

• in-house by Commission services, engaging with DG ECHO partners.

The costings are prepared on the assumption that the work would be contracted

out, but carried out with the active and visible support of DG ECHO. There are

organisations with prior experience of developing similar standards. The pro-




106


cess would benefit from drawing on the networks of organisations, such as

SPHERE, and of DG ECHO partners, and in particular of engaging with organ-

isations equipped to represent the views of hosting organisations in third coun-

tries rather than simply EU-based intermediaries.

11.4 Costs

100% Commission financing of the standards is assumed, including their de-

velopment, maintenance and revision, the latter also covering events, work-

shops and other promotional material, and the publication and dissemination of

standards. The resourcing is intended to allow for engagement with host-

ing/receiving organisations.

‘Training of trainers’ and training of hosting/receiving organisations in the

standards are covered by Module 7.




Time period for development <2 years COWI/GHK estimate

Paid staff input 1 FTE/year technical &

support

COWI/GHK estimate

Travel & subsistence ~EUR 20 000/yr COWI/GHK estimate (provision)

Workshops (2 @ EUR30k) EUR 60 000 total COWI/GHK estimate


Revision cycle Every 4 years Stakeholder consultations

Time period for revision 1 year Stakeholder consultations

Inputs for revision 0.5 FTE COWI/GHK estimate

Administration/Promotion

Paid staff input 0.3 FTE COWI/GHK estimate


Cost of paid staff (organisa-

tions)

EUR 6 800 per month Calculation based on estimates

of average salaries within HAP

and the People in Aid + over-

head/profit of 50%.

Costs of paid staff (Commis-

sion)

EUR 18 000 per month Estimate by COWI/GHK.

Share of Commission staff in

staff input

10% of person-months Provision for oversight and en-

gagement from Commission





107


Table 11-3 Module 5 cost estimates, per annum and in total, EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2014-2020)


Commission time 17,240 13,470 30,710

Service contracts 172,400 134,700 307,100

Monitoring & administration

Commission time 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448 2,448

Service contracts 24,480 24,480 24,480 24,480 24,480

Update

Commission time 4,080 4,080

Service contracts 40,800 40,800

Total 189,640 148,170 26,928 26,928 26,928 71,808

517,330

11.5 Impacts

Impacts on beneficiaries of humanitarian aid

The aid beneficiaries stand to gain, as the standards will ensure that volunteers

entering their community will be taken care of and share the knowledge of the

local culture and customs with the new volunteers. For the communities in-

volved, the standards for volunteer management provide some assurance that

volunteers placed with them will be supported in adjusting to their new envi-

ronment.

Standards for volunteer management may not always be in line with the com-

munity needs or customs. It should be ensured that the standards are also com-

patible with the local circumstances.

Impacts on humanitarian volunteers

Qualified volunteers from across the EU with access to organisations that meet

the recognised volunteer management and support standards, will feel reassured

that they will be accommodated in the host communities that their efforts will

be utilised appropriately and that their skills and capacities are in line with the

operational requirements of the hosting organisations.

The standards would work in conjunction with the training support for volun-

teer management for host organisations, which was described in Module 7,

Moreover, volunteer management standards would make it easier for the volun-

teers not only to understand what is required from them, but also what to expect

from the host organisations that receive them. This will make volunteering

more attractive to them, and several of them might opt out to be deployed sev-

eral times.

The standards might impose an additional administrative burden on the receiv-

ing organisations that, by following the standards for volunteer management,

might focus efforts on the standards, associated development costs and time

spent.




108


Impacts on hosting/receiving humanitarian organisations

To the hosting organisations, the standards for volunteer management should

help utilise volunteers in the best possible way and assist in using fully. It is

also a powerful tool, which can provide access to partnership arrangements

with volunteer recruiting organisations in the EU and elsewhere by helping the

hosting organisations build a reputation.

The standards can serve as an efficient driver for improving management and

other systems in ways that will help organisations deploy volunteers more ef-

fectively.

The volunteer management standards should be easy to follow, and require-

ments should be balanced with those that already exist, as some organisations,

and in particular the small ones, may consider the standards an administrative

burden.

Impacts on recruiting/sending organisations in the EU

Standards can aid the recruiting organisation by providing quality assurance. It

would be help them establish relationships with other potential partners pos-

sessing the systems and support needs to take on volunteers.

As there are already standards on the market, some organisations, in particular

the small ones might consider a new set of standards an administrative burden

and a strain on their resources.




109


Summary of impacts

The table below shows the summary of the projected impacts.



Beneficiaries of

humanitarian aid

Proper standards will help ensure that the vol-

unteers are provided with a safe and adequate

environment in which they can help the commu-

nity.

Standards may not be in line with the needs of

the community.

Humanitarian

volunteers

Comfort that the hosting organisation is aware

of the need to manage and support them, and

ensure that their basic needs are met.

Making volunteering more attractive.

The standards might distract the host organisa-

tions, so that they spend more time on following

the standards, rather than actual development

of volunteers.

Hosting/receiving

humanitarian

organisations

A tool with which to increase access to partner-

ship arrangements with volunteer recruiting or-

ganisation in the EU and elsewhere.

A driver for improving management and other

systems in ways that will help them deploy vol-

unteers more effectively.

Organisations might feel burdened with another

set of standards, if they are made difficult to

follow.

Adapting to standards may result in costs to the

organisations.

Sending / recruit-

ing humanitarian

organisations

Signalling potential partners that have the sys-

tems and support needs to take on volunteers.

Another set of standards might be confusing

and burdensome.

Society as a

whole (EU)

Increased visibility and demonstration of leader-

ship in the humanitarian aid field.

Increased welfare of the volunteers.

EU might be seen as imposing a red tape for

host organisations and entering an already

crowded market for standards.


The main risk is the duplication of work with existing standards, in particular

the smaller ones which are country specific. Consequently, a new set of stand-

ards must ensure a level of flexibility of adaptation.

Module 5 needs to work together with other modules, and in particular with

Modules 1, 2, 3 and 7. As such, its prospects for success are linked to the suc-

cessful design and delivery of those other modules.




110


12 Module 6: Deployment of volunteers

12.1 Background

The model of volunteering envisaged for the Corps is centred on deployment of

volunteers to third countries to assist in humanitarian work – disaster preven-

tion and preparedness, and in recovery. Deployment is thus fundamental to

achieving the intended outcomes, for beneficiary communities, for volunteers

and for other stakeholders. Training (Module 3) and registration on a database

(Module 4) are not in themselves sufficient to yield significant numbers of new

qualified volunteers in humanitarian aid. Direct support for volunteer deploy-

ment should enable latent opportunities to be translated into volunteer action.

As noted elsewhere, there is consensus that deployment of inexperienced, un-

trained and very young volunteers is inappropriate in a humanitarian context.

There is a rich variety of volunteering opportunities in third countries available

for EU people of all ages in different working contexts – from development

cooperation to cultural exchanges and ‘volunteer tourism’ schemes. The partic-

ular circumstances of humanitarian work require volunteers to generate added

value for local communities through their skills and experience, underpinned by

situational and cultural awareness.

Where there is demand for volunteers from overseas in humanitarian aid, it is

generally for people with relevant technical skills (e.g. nurses, doctors), and if

possible people with previous experience of working in humanitarian aid. The

biggest concern among the respondents was that the Corps would have a nega-

tive impact on the professionalization of the humanitarian sector for instance

through deploying young, inexperienced volunteers. They suggested several

actions that will prevent such an impact, including:

• professional recruitment and selection of candidates;

• carefully matching the tasks with skills and capacities of the volunteers;

• adequate training and mission preparation for the volunteers;

• security issues should be a priority when deploying volunteers.




111


There was general consensus among the respondents that volunteer deploy-

ments require some preparatory activities, including proper training, prepara-

tion for the field work, supporting measures and care services. Another general

message was that the Voluntary Corps should not duplicate existing deploy-

ment work and in the case of emergencies use existing volunteers from partner

organisations.


In view of the responses described above, Module 6 seeks to overcome barriers

to deployments. The general objective of Module 6 is to increase the number

of qualified deployments. Supporting deployment should help achieve the

stated objectives by increasing the supply of experienced volunteers and incen-

tivising more use of volunteers. It should result in a more favourable cost-

benefit ratio for organisations taking on volunteers. By facilitating demand, it

will also help sustain other elements of the system as set out in complementary

modules.


objectives.



does it

deliver?


Module 6: Deployment of volun-teers


Volunteers deployed with EU co-financing

Providing financial support that improve the cost-benefit ratio of using volunteers

In case it is combined with the roster; increase the attractiveness of the training and the roster on the side of the volunteers

Partners through demanding the volun-teers and Commission through financial mechanism


This option involves specification and development of a structure that will ena-

ble deployment of volunteers for the purposes of recovery and preparedness

work.

Module 6 is designed to address concerns highlighted by the respondents in the

earlier consultations (by, for instance, being designed so as not to duplicate ex-

isting deployment efforts).

Two components are envisaged:

• ‘Apprenticeship’ deployments – for volunteers graduating from the train-

ing programme(s) described in Module 3 that would then be provided with




112


a supported introductory deployment in order to give them practical field

experience;

• ‘Regular’ deployments for volunteers with training and experience, volun-

teers that might have placed themselves on the register described in Mod-

ule 4.

12.3.1 Apprenticeship deployments

Apprenticeship deployments would be provided to young (inexperienced) vol-

unteers graduating from the training programme(s) described in Module 3.

They would be supported through an introductory deployment in order to give

them practical field experience (of a high standard) such that they become at-

tractive for subsequent recruitment by the humanitarian aid sector.

It would be expected that these deployments would be:

• relatively short in duration (around six months)

• well-supported (with mentoring and/or direct supervision in place).

The recruitment, selection and training of such volunteers would be have been

managed via the processes set out in Modules 1, 2, and 3.

Therefore, numbers would essentially mirror the recruitment into the training

programmes. The throughput scenarios adopted in Module 3 were (an average

of) 10 volunteers per Member State per year increasing by 15% each year to

reach a maximum of 20 young volunteers per Member State in 2020. This

would imply around 540 young volunteers being put through apprenticeship

deployments per year. We include, as an alternative calculation, a scenario in

which the throughput remains fixed at the 270 volunteers per year.

These young, inexperienced volunteers would have a lower benefit-cost ratio

for the recruiting and hosting organisations than experienced volunteers. The

assumption is therefore that a financial incentive would need to be provided to

the hosting organisations to encourage uptake. It is also assumed that the ap-

prenticeship deployment would need to be integrated as far as possible with the

training ‘offer’ made to volunteers (per Modules 1-3) and the associated con-

tractual arrangements initiated by the Commission.

The apprenticeship deployments would need to provide genuine learning op-

portunities as well as opportunities for the volunteers to contribute to the host

communities. As such, they would need to be managed and delivered by organ-

isations with the appropriate credentials and networks. The absorption of some

‘apprentices’ into ECHO overseas operations is an option to be explored fur-

ther.




113


12.3.2 Regular deployments

Regular deployments would be for volunteers with training and experience,

people that might have enrolled in the register described in Module 4. They

would principally support the deployment of volunteers to preven-

tion/preparedness and recovery work but could also facilitate the despatch of

suitably qualified, highly experienced volunteers at the onset or in the aftermath

of a disaster where appropriate. In prevention/preparedness and recovery con-

texts, the security of volunteers is generally less of a concern than during the

response phase. There can also be demand for a wider set of skills than those

required during emergency response (when demand for medical, search and

rescue and other similar capabilities surges).

The proposition is that volunteers deployed with financing from the Corps

budget will have been selected and trained in accordance with the systems set

out in other Modules (1, 2, 3 as applied in the context of the respective policy

option).

Alternative management arrangements are considered:

• Partners (with the support of the Commission, through co-financing) de-

ploying volunteers;

• The Voluntary Corps directly deploying volunteers (i.e. deployment under

the direct management of the Commission).

The Module includes a reporting and evaluation mechanism that will provide

data on the impact on the local capacity.

The following sections address the various elements of Module 6, ranging from

the selection of the appropriate volunteers to post-deployment support and

evaluation.

Volunteer profile

It is suggested that Corps financing for regular deployments is used mainly to

support deployment of volunteers that have:

• completed the EU humanitarian volunteering training described in Module

3 and an apprenticeship deployment;

• been accepted by the Corps register (Module 4).

Other limits on volunteer eligibility could also be considered. Examples in-

clude:

• EU nationality or residency;

• Screening for criminal record, authorisation to work with children, etc.




114


The proposed requirement that volunteers have to complete the Module 3 train-

ing before being eligible for deployment finance imposes a constraint on the

scale of deployments possible in the early years of the Corps - there will not be

many people who meet those criteria and are available for a new long-term

(voluntary) deployment.

It would be possible to relieve that constraint in the early years by relaxing the

requirement for volunteers to have completed the ‘standard’ EU training and

instead imposing other requirements, such as:

• Volunteers having had previous deployment experience in humanitarian

aid work;

• Volunteers being put through some form of humanitarian volunteer train-

ing by the sending organisation (or the hosting organisation, depending on

which type of organisation made the request).

The requirement for volunteers to have been accepted by the Module 4 register

could also be relaxed in the early years, so that requirements are phased in,

once the system is established and populated.

The volunteer profile described above would also avoid the duplication with the

profiles in the existing rosters such as the ones run by the DFID, DRC and the

Irish Aid Rapid Response and the UNV. These tend to be experienced profes-

sionals usually over the age range suggested in Module 6. For instance, the av-

erage age of the volunteers in the UNV is 38 years. Volunteers tend to be mid-

career professionals with significant experience in the field, typically from an-

other UN agency. Further volunteer profiles of the individual organisations are

described in an appendix.

Deployment profile

Deployments will:

• principally support humanitarian projects that are focused on preven-

tion/preparedness or recovery (though providing support from suitably

qualified and experienced individuals in the immediate response to a disas-

ter should not be ruled out);

• typically be for a period of months (and possibly more than a year), though

short periods (days or weeks) might be expected where experienced volun-

teers are deployed on specialist assignments;

• for the most part not be time-critical, so that a structured project identifica-

tion and selection process can be followed (this would not apply to any

support provided to rapid response).

The project model is necessary to achieve economies of scale in administration

and organisation. Organising the Corps around ‘free-standing’ individual vol-




115


unteering opportunities is likely to be administratively burdensome and less

cost-effective.

The duration of deployment would vary by project, but the presumption is that

deployments would last for more than six months and run possibly up to two

years. It is recognised that it is more difficult for volunteers to add value to pre-

vention/preparedness projects if deployments are short.

This is in contrast with the current practice among the largest deployment or-

ganisations engaged in disaster response. For example, the DFID, DRC and

Irish Aid Rapid Response Corps have reported a typical deployment length of

three and six months, with some variations and extensions in very specific cas-

es such as the 2006 tsunami or the Haiti earthquake. For these organisations,

deployments longer than six months are unusual because of the costs involved

and the nature of the deployment (disaster response).

Different types of deployment pathways could be considered. For example:

• integration of Corps volunteers into disaster prevention/preparedness and

recovery projects that receive finance from DG ECHO (e.g. under the

DIPECHO programme);

• integration of Corps volunteers into disaster prevention/preparedness and

recovery projects that are primarily financed by trusted partners (e.g. the

UN, Member State donor funding);

• a new programme focused exclusively on deployment of Corps volunteers,

which would consist of projects that each resulted in a set of volunteer de-

ployments, perhaps complementing ‘mainstream’ disaster preven-

tion/preparedness and recovery projects;

• direct placement of volunteers by DG ECHO.

The administrative systems required to support these different types of project

would vary, as discussed further below.

Conditionalities could be imposed on sending and hosting organisations seek-

ing financing for volunteer deployment, such as for:

• sending organisations to be accredited to the standards discussed under

Module 1;

• hosting organisations to be operating to the standards for volunteering

management discussed under Module 5.

These requirements could be imposed after a phase-in period so that deploy-

ments could be supported in the period before the standards are in place among

a significant number of organisations.




116


Projects and deployment packages

This section considers the administrative implications of supporting the three

different types of deployment packages discussed above. ‘Commission ser-

vices’ as used below could refer to DG ECHO or another European Institution

to which powers had been delegated.

1) Integration of Corps volunteers into disaster prevention/preparedness and

recovery projects that receive financing from DG ECHO

Under this model, an applicant submitting a proposal for support under pro-

grammes such as DIPECHO could be entitled to receive additional financial

support (from the Corps budget) for any (eligible) Corps volunteers deployed

with the projects. It is likely that this could be operated with existing pro-

gramme and project systems with relatively little additional administrative bur-

den. However, it would be necessary for the programme administrators to liaise

with Corps administrators to ensure (for example) that allocation of funds and

budget were aligned.

The partner organisation would then have authorised access to the register, ei-

ther to select volunteers or to post the volunteering opportunity to the registered

people (depending on the system model adopted). The partner organisation

would have responsibility for pre-deployment procedures (briefings, obtaining

visas, medical checks, etc.).

Incorporation of volunteers into DIPECHO-type projects is, as yet, untested.

The Commission could consider piloting the incorporation of volunteers with

the profile envisaged for the Corps in DIPECHO projects in the next few years

before full-scale implementation. This could be done by inviting/encouraging

project proponents to include volunteers and ensuring that the deployments and

associated management/oversight costs were fully funded.

2) Integration of Corps volunteers into disaster prevention/preparedness and

recovery projects that are primarily financed by other donors

A project or a programmatic approach could be envisaged for this model.

Under the project-based approach, a partner organisation that had received

funding for an eligible (as determined by DG ECHO) project funded by another

donor could apply to the EC for support for the deployment of Corps volun-

teers. A minimum threshold - in terms of the number of Corps volunteers in-

volved in each project - might need to be applied to improve the cost-

effectiveness of the administration by Commission services. The partner organ-

isation would then have authorised access to the register, either to select volun-

teers or to post the volunteering opportunity to the registered people (depending

on the system model adopted). The partner organisation would have responsi-

bility for pre-deployment procedures (briefings, obtaining visas, medical

checks, etc.).

Under the programmatic approach, the other donor (e.g. a government of EU

Member State) would commit to providing an agreed number of Corps de-

ployments. With the agreement of DG ECHO, it would invite inclusion of




117


Corps volunteers in disaster prevention/preparedness and recovery projects

submitted for funding under its own budget. The donor partner would then se-

cure the appropriate number of Corps volunteers from the register, without re-

gard to the nationality of the volunteers. The sending organisation would have

responsibility for pre-deployment procedures (briefings, obtaining visas, medi-

cal checks, etc.). The other donor would take on oversight of the process and

volunteer welfare. The same provisions about use of accredited sending organi-

sations and standards in hosting organisations would apply. The appetite among

Member State governments and other donors for such an approach is, as yet,

untested.

3) A new programme focused exclusively on deployment of Corps volunteers

and which would consist of projects that each resulted in a set of volunteer

deployments

Under this model, partners would submit proposals for projects that would each

involve the deployment of a significant number of Corps volunteers. The suc-

cessful sending organisations would then have authorised access to volunteers

on the Module 4 register.

This could be appropriate for sending organisations that have portfolios of pro-

jects dealing with disaster prevention/preparedness and recovery. It could ena-

ble them to access a new labour force of trained volunteers but would:

• outsource the complexity of matching individual volunteers to specific pro-

jects from Commission services to the sending organisation;

• help achieve economies of scale in Corps administration for Commission

services.

This option would create a new administrative task for Commission services. A

call for proposals would need to be issued at an agreed frequency (e.g. twice a

year). Projects would need to be selected, terms agreed and funding dispersed

in accordance with contract and Commission protocols.

Subject to discussion and agreement on terms, this programme administration

task could potentially be delegated to the Education, Audiovisual and Culture

Executive Agency under the DG EAC.

4) Direct placement of volunteers by DG ECHO

This study was required to consider an option of direct management of volun-

teers by the Corps (i.e. by Commission services). Humanitarian projects funded

by DG ECHO tend to be delivered by third parties so they would not normally

provide scope for direct management. The implication therefore is that the

Commission would need to develop direct links with hosting organisations.

Relevant matters include:

• the challenge of identifying enough deployment opportunities;




118


• how to develop the capacity to engage directly with hosting organisations

across the world in the definition, delivery and oversight of projects that

use Corps volunteers;

• the administrative burden placed on Commission services in the manage-

ment of each volunteer.

Scale and the size of demand

A key issue for Module 6 is that the scale of ‘demand’ for Corps volunteers,

even if fully financed by the EU, is uncertain.

Humanitarian organisations are unwilling to commit to deploying large num-

bers of relatively young and untested volunteers from the EU to humanitarian

assignments in third countries, especially at a time when the sector is profes-

sionalising. There is evidence of large numbers of volunteers working in third

countries in other areas but the boundaries imposed on the Corps (i.e. the re-

striction to ‘humanitarian’ action) means that this does not automatically sug-

gest that there are similarly plentiful opportunities for deployment.

This demand side uncertainty argues for:

• a phased approach focused on acquiring experience and on learning;

• exploration of a variety of channels for volunteer placement;

• active promotion among partners.

Mechanisms

Module 6 links closely to all the other modules, and in order to ensure a suc-

cessful deployment, several mechanisms need to be in place:

• Volunteers need to be carefully screened, identified and selected.

• Volunteers need to be trained to a minimum standard.

• Volunteers should be able to register on a Corps volunteer database that

will be made accessible to partner organisations that will draw on this re-

sources pool and deploy the volunteers.

• The host organisations that receive the volunteers should ensure through

standards and training, that the volunteers are used appropriately and most

effectively.

However, the question of number of deployments is more difficult to predict as

this figure also depends on the needs of the partner organisations, the capacity

in the host communities and the appetite for the skills that the volunteers can

provide. However, the funding mechanism by which the DG ECHO covers the

deployment related costs is hoping to incentivise other organisations to take on

volunteers, and the project assumes that this arrangement will be popular.




119


Some of the costs that the DG ECHO would cover under this arrangement in-

clude:

• Medical and security checks

• Insurance.

The partner organisations would apply for financial assistance to cover other

expenses related to the deployment. These include:

• Daily allowance (covering food, accommodation)

• Travel (to and from the local destination; internal)

• Funding for the administrative expenses (staff, office, etc).

Organisation

The modelling assumes a co-financing arrangement where the Commission co-

vers the costs of training, selection, etc, but where the partner organisations can

apply for funding to cover other costs related to the deployment. It is anticipat-

ed that, over time, the Commission will transfer some of the lead on the train-

ing and selection to partner organisations, and seek alternative financing mod-

els.

Direct management

The contractor is asked to consider direct management as an option for training

and deployment of volunteers. The assumption is that DG ECHO would assign

delegated powers to an existing EU institution and that it would take on the task

of training management (possibly including the actual delivery) and of manag-

ing the deployment of volunteers.

Of these two tasks, deployment is likely to be by far the most challenging. The

Corps office would have the task of identifying and exploiting volunteering op-

portunities for individuals that complete the training, and have responsibility

for monitoring volunteers while they are deployed.

There are a number of possible configurations, in institutional terms and with

regard to how services are organised. These range from the EU institution ac-

quiring (from DG ECHO) delegated powers of programme management but

still being reliable on partners, to one in which a free-standing EU Corps de-

ployed volunteers into DG ECHO offices and other partners have a very limited

role.

There are advantages to direct management. It gives a high degree of control

over the system. This means that officials could for instance over ‘police’

standards. They would also be able to manage the visibility and ‘marketing’ of

the Corps in a way that is not possible in a scenario where much is outsourced.

There is a definitive EU identify to the Corps.




120


However, there are also disadvantages. The principal issues identified are:

• It is likely that the direct management agency would struggle to supply a

rising number of deployment opportunities from projects and offices over

which it had direct control and/or reasonable influence;

• Volunteers are trained in the ways of humanitarian volunteering but ‘dis-

connected’ from the organisations that do much of the delivery of humani-

tarian support services;

• Direct costs are likely to be significantly higher, mainly as a result of the

cost differentials between the Commission and (say) NGO operations

around Europe.

It is hard to find a direct comparator because the focus of the Corps on humani-

tarian aid means that there are few large-scale, direct comparators. However,

for illustrative purposes, consultations suggest that the UN Volunteer organisa-

tion has around 150 staff to sift applications, match people to opportunities, and

maintain some oversight of the volunteers in situ, for around 2,000 volunteers a

year and around 70,000 applications. On a very crude pro rata basis, this sug-

gests the European scheme might thus need 35-40 staff by 2020. This is much

larger in headcount and cost than under other options.

Overall, the option seems significantly less attractive for a number of reasons.

These include the administrative challenges involved, the considerably longer

time envisaged for the scheme to become established than under alternative ar-

rangements, the significantly higher costs, and the risk of failure as a result of

being disconnected from the organisations with the working networks and ca-

pacity to design, deliver and support projects.

12.4 Costs

This section provides the summary costs for delivery of Module 6 to the above

specification. The assumptions are listed below.

12.4.1 Partnership model

This section considers costs in a model where organisation of deployments is

managed by partner organisations, with the Commission limited to a pro-

gramme management role.

Apprenticeship deployments

The cost factors assumed in estimation of costs for apprenticeship deployments

are detailed in the following table.




121


Table 12-2 Assumptions for Module 6 cost calculations – Apprenticeship Deploy-

ments (partnership model)

Item Value in EUR Source/comment

Medical checks/vaccines 85 /volunteer

Security checks 80 /volunteer

Visa 100 /volunteer

Deployment

Travel to/from host nation 1 500 Return

Personal allowance

[for accommodation / food

/etc. ]

500 /month

Insurance (person-

al/medical)

170 /month

Travel in-country 150

Administrative overheads of

managing organisation

18% of direct costs /volunteer


The assumed ‘throughput’ of apprenticeship trainees under the two given sce-

narios is shown below.

Table 12-3 Assumed throughput of the ‘high’ and ‘low’ scenarios

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Higher throughput n/a 270 311 357 411 472 543

Lower throughput n/a 270 270 270 270 270 270

Figure 12-1 Higher and lower throughput assumptions for apprenticeship deploy-

ments, per annum

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Apprenticeship - higher throughput Apprenticeship - lower throughput

Figure 12-2 Higher and lower throughput assumptions for apprenticeship deploy-

ments, cumulative output over 2014-2020 period




122


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Cumulative apprenticeships - higher Cumulative apprenticeships - lower

The projected cost estimates are shown in the table below.

Table 12-4 Module 6 cost estimates (apprenticeship deployments) – assuming

100% EU financing and higher throughput scenario, ‘000 EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Deployment costs

-

2,135

2,459

2,822

3,249

3,732

4,293

18,690

Post deployment

costs

-

14

16

18

21

24

27

118

Total

-

2,148

2,474

2,840

3,270

3,755

4,320

18,808

Table 12-5 Module 6 cost estimates (apprenticeship deployments) – assuming

100% EU financing and lower throughput scenario, ‘000 EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Deployment costs

-

2,135

2,135

2,135

2,135

2,135

2,135

12,808

Post deployment

costs

-

14

14

14

14

14

14

81

Total

-

2,148

2,148

2,148

2,148

2,148

2,148

12,889

Regular deployments

The cost factors assumed in estimation of costs for regular deployments are de-

tailed below.




123


Table 12-6 Assumptions for Module 6 cost calculations – Regular Deployments

under the partnership model


Programme administration

Management of programme

including project calls

8% of awarded value Consultations with Commission

services

Medical checks/vaccines EUR 85/volunteer SCF pilot project

Security checks EUR 80/volunteer SCF pilot project

Briefings / familiarisation EUR 0 Assumed funded from project

budget

Visa EUR 100 COWI/GHK; assumption made

for the purposes of cost estimate

Deployment

Travel to/from host nation EUR 1 500 return Pilot project

Personal allowance EUR 500/month VSO/SCF/other consultees

Insurance (person-

al/medical)

EUR 170/month Average of RC/DRC/DFID*

Travel in-country EUR 250/month DFID/RC/VSO/SCF

Deployment rate 50 newly deployed in

2014 rising to 600 newly

deployed in 2020

Assumed duration of de-

ployment

12 months COWI/GHK; assumption made

for the purposes of cost estimate

(actual duration likely to vary

considerably)

Recovery of administration

costs & overheads by part-

ner organisation

18% COWI/GHK estimate

Post-deployment

Evaluation/debrief EUR 50 per deployment Provision

Note: All values in EUR are assumed to be in 2012 prices. * Department for International Development, UK

(DFID)

Figure 12-3 Annual and cumulative assumed throughput of regular deployments

under the partnership model

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Annual throughput Cumulative throughput

The total, projected cost estimates are shown in the below table.




124


Table 12-7 Module 6 cost estimates (regular deployments) – assuming 100% EU

financing and throughput per Fig 12-1, ‘000 EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Programme management /project selection

Commission time 61 123 184 307 368 491 614 2148

Reimbursable deployment costs

Deployment costs 767 1534 2301 3835 4602 6136 7670 26845

Other partners’ costs

Post deployment costs 3 5 8 13 15 20 25 88

Total 831 1662 2493 4154 4985 6647 8309 29080

Table 12-8 Module 6 cost estimates (regular deployments) – assuming 70% EU

financing and throughput per Fig 12-1, ‘000 EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Programme manage-

ment/project selection

Commission time 43 86 129 215 258 344 430 1503

Reimbursable deployment

costs

Deployment

costs (EU) 537 1074 1611 2685 3221 4295 5369 18792

Other partners’

costs 230 460 690 1151 1381 1841 2301 8054

Post deployment

costs (EU) 3 5 8 13 15 20 25 88

Total 812 1625 2437 4062 4875 6500 8125 28436

These must be some doubt that partner organisations would be willing to share

the cost burden as would be required under (for instance) the 70% cofinancing

model; the shift would change the benefit:cost ratio.

Total costs Module 6 costs under a partnership model, for both the apprentice-

ship and regular deployment are shown below.

Table 12-9 Total Module 6 EU cost projections under partnership model, ‘000 €

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Apprenticeship

(lower) + regular

(100% funded)

831

3,810

4,967

6,995

8,255

10,402

12,629

47,888

Apprenticeship

(higher) + regular

(100% funded)

831

3,810

4,641

6,302

7,133

8,795

10,457

41,969

Apprenticeship

(lower) + regular

(70% cofinancing)

812

3,773

4,912

6,903

8,145

10,255

12,445

47,244

Apprenticeship

(higher) + regular

(70% cofinancing)

812

3,773

4,585

6,210

7,023

8,648

10,273

41,325




125


12.4.2 Direct management

A separate costing has been prepared for a direct management model in which

the deployment process is managed by Commission services (or delegated to an

EU agency). These projections are speculative but give a sense of the different

shape of the cost profile for this approach.

The capacity to provide direct placements of untrained volunteers and regular

deployments within EU projects and in overseas EU offices is expected to more

limited than that of the full population of volunteering organisations that might

be engaged in the partnership model described above. As a result:

5) The analysis is run only for lower throughput scenario for the apprentice-

ship deployments

6) a lower volume of regular deployments is assumed

Staff costs have been estimated by reference to the UNV staff, taking the total

number of deployments (apprenticeship and regular) as a fraction of the 2,000

person per year UNV deployments and then multiplying by UNV total staff

(150). A ‘diseconomies of scale’ factor was then applied to recognise that staff

inputs per deployed volunteer would be higher at low levels of activity and dur-

ing scaling up than in a mature programme working at scale. Commission data

on annual costs of officials (EUR 127 000) and contract agents (EUR 68 000)

were used and a multiplier of 2.0 applied to allow for institutional overheads. A

ratio of 1 official to 2 contract agents was assumed.

It is assumed that the same group of staff manage apprenticeship and regular

deployments. Costs have been apportioned to regular/apprenticeship deploy-

ments on a pro rata basis. An uplift equivalent to 10% of direct costs has been

applied to cover in country management costs.

On the regular deployments throughput was adjusted downwards, especially in

the early years, in recognition of the need to build capacity within the system to

deploy volunteers into ECHO projects and offices. For apprenticeship de-

ployments it is assumed that some deployments might be ‘placements’ with

other organisations and/or EU funded projects in third countries so as to relieve

such capacity constraints.

Table 12-10 Throughput and staffing assumptions for the direct management of de-

ployment

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Deployments (lower scenario only)

-

270

270

270

270

270

270

Deployments (regular)

25

50

75

100

120

180

240

Adjust for diseconomies of scale 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1

Assumed staffing levels 3 14 18 24 26 37 42

Assumed staff costs (total) 3,066 3,288 3,275 3,193 3,650 3,783




126


446

Staff costs apportioned to apprenticeship deployments

-

2,587

2,573

2,390

2,210

2,190

2,003

Staff costs apportioned to regular deploy-ments

446

479

715

885

982

1,460

1,780

Apprenticeship volunteers

There are significant uncertainties about these estimates due to factors such as

who would be supervising apprenticeship volunteers, whether the direct man-

agement of the volunteers would result in additional security concerns (and

costs), how accommodation would be provided; and the fact that Commission

staff time tends to be more expensive per hour than that of many partner organ-

isations.

On the above assumptions the direct management model emerges as a little

more expensive than the partnership model. There is, however, likely to be

more uncertainty about whether the places can be delivered, including how they

would be integrated into Commission operations overseas.

Table 12-11 Assumptions for Module 6 cost calculations – Apprenticeship Deploy-

ments (partnership model)

Item Value in EUR Source/comment

Medical checks/vaccines 85 /volunteer

Security checks 80 /volunteer

Visa 100 /volunteer

Deployment

Travel to/from host nation 1 500 Return

Personal allowance

[for accommodation / food /

etc.]

500 /month

Insurance (person-

al/medical)

170 /month

Travel in-country 150

EU in-country management

costs

10% of direct costs /volunteer


The projected cost estimates are shown in the table below.

Table 12-12 Module 6 cost estimates (apprenticeship deployments) – assuming di-

rect Commission management, lower throughput scenario, ‘000 EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)




127


Commission time 2,587 2,573 2,390 2,210 2,190 2,003 8,793

Deployment costs - 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 1,990 11,939

Post deployment costs - 14 14 14 14 14 14 81

Total - 4,590 4,577 4,394 4,214 4,193 4,006 20,814

Table 12-13 Module 6 cost estimates (regular deployments) – assuming direct

Commission management, ‘000 EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Commission time 446 479 715 885 982 1,460 1,780 6,748

Deployment costs 325 650 975 1300 1560 2340 3120 10,270

Post deployment costs 1 3 4 5 6 9 12 40

Total 772 1,132 1,694 2,190 2,548 3,809 4,912 17,057

Even if scale-up of throughput occurs faster than shown above, the basic issue

of proportionately higher administrative costs remains.

12.5 Impacts

12.5.1 Beneficiaries of humanitarian aid

For many communities, new volunteers might also bring additional resources,

not just in terms of manpower, but also additional funding. Receiving new vol-

unteers might also bring additional resources, attention and aid to their commu-

nities.

However, more volunteers from the Western world might by some local com-

munities be seen as having a negative impact on the work done to encourage

local capacity building. Moreover, additional arrivals might put a strain on al-

ready scarce resources as well as the weak infrastructure when the priority

should be the local people.

12.5.2 Impacts on humanitarian volunteers

Volunteers stand to gain work experience, which they can use for future em-

ployments, inside and outside the sector. In particular, the deployment will be

useful for those young people who wish to pursue a career in humanitarian

work. This will also provide an opportunity to gain skills and training in a new

field, all of which they can transfer to the next step of their careers. There is

also a cultural benefit, in which the volunteers will get an opportunity to help

not only communities, but also to learn about new cultures and ways of living.

12.5.3 Impacts on hosting/receiving organisations

Hosting organisations will benefit from an expansion of resources provided to

them in the shape of fully trained volunteers. These resources will serve as a




128


support to their existing work and provide additional help for any obstacles. For

some hosting organisations, this might pose a strain on their infrastructure.

12.5.4 Impacts on sending/recruiting organisations

Partner organisation may benefit from the programme in different ways. For

instance, by sharing the cost of deployment with another organisation they will

reduce the costs of deployments. Many organisations, and in particular small

and medium-sized ones, will be able to make use of financial arrangements, in

which many costs are of deployment are borne by another organisation. This

could enable them to improve their capacity on the ground and possibly expand

into other areas of humanitarian work. The partner organisations will have full

access to fully trained and qualified volunteers.

For some organisations, however, taking on new volunteers may be difficult

and a strain.

12.5.5 Society as a whole

Deployments will provide more opportunities for younger people, and their re-

spective home countries will benefit from their citizens being given more op-

portunities. The difficult labour market contexts faced by younger people in

many EU countries may add to its appeal. Furthermore, deployment will in-

volve cultural exchange that will enrich the young volunteers' experiences.

The Corps will also provide a visible manifestation of the EU’s solidarity with

the host countries and communities.




129




Beneficiaries of

humanitarian aid

Receiving new volunteers might also bring

additional resources and aid to their communi-

ties.

With new volunteers, there is likelihood that

more aid will come their way and that the

communities will get more attention.

Strain on the local infrastructure (accommoda-

tion, food, communication services, etc).

Could undermine activities and efforts to devel-

op capacity of local staff that will lead to more

sustainable outcomes.

Humanitarian vol-

unteers

Provide work experience and contribute im-

proving their attractiveness on the labour mar-

ket.

Training and skills development free of charge.

Opportunity to learn more about different cul-

tures.

Volunteering is not paid, unlike other roster re-

lated deployments, which means a potential

income loss.

Hosting/receiving

organisations

Access to more volunteers to help out in areas

that need more support.

Additional resources to tackle local problems.

For host organisations not ready to receive a

large number of volunteers, this can potentially

lead to a heavy burden of their infrastructure.

Recruiting/sending

organisations

Many costs of deployment are borne by anoth-

er organisation.

Possibility to improve their delivery in the host

communities.

Opportunity to expand in other areas of hu-

manitarian aid with the help of financial sup-

port.

Access to fully trained volunteers.

Some organisations may struggle to accommo-

date additional volunteers.

Society as a

whole (EU)

More volunteering opportunities for young

people.

Enhance young people’s understanding of the

recipient countries.

Corps volunteers will provide visible manifesta-

tion of EU solidarity with host countries.

Member States Deployment will ease up strain on their coun-

try’s labour market


The deployment of young, untested volunteers may pose some risks for the

Commission and the hosting organisations that will receive them. The risks

include in particular:

• Potential lack of demand in the area of focus - humanitarian aid. Addition-

al efforts should be made to actively search volunteering opportunities, in

addition to the ongoing promotional activities that will attract new volun-

teer placements.

• Organisational and resource strain on some hosting organisations who re-

ceive the volunteers. This can be avoided by adapting a careful screening




130


approach to receiving organisations, in order to ensure their capability to

receive the volunteers, and funding the incremental costs of hosting and

management

The success of Module 6 depends on a successful delivery of all the other mod-

ules.




131


13 Module 7: Support for local hosting organisations for managing European volunteers via training

13.1 Background

Hosting organisations are important parts of the overall volunteering system.

They facilitate the delivery of prevention/preparedness and recovery services

‘on the ground’. 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 vol-

unteers delivers the projects and programmes in partnership with independent

local organisations. The capacity of civil society organisations in hosting coun-

tries to effectively manage and deploy volunteers may be a constraint on the

delivery of humanitarian assistance via the Corps, especially as the scale of de-

ployments increases.

The 2010 consultation saw many respondents highlight the importance of ca-

pacity building in host countries.


Consequently, the main objective of Module 7 is to improve hosting capacity

by addressing the challenges in local host organisations through targeted train-

ing. Appropriate capacity building through training can help reduce barriers to

volunteering in local communities and contribute to better added value of the

efforts of volunteers. It will also contribute to building local capacities, aug-

menting the capacity-building outcomes of the projects themselves.


objectives.




132




does it

deliver?


Module 7: Support of local hosting organisations for managing European volunteers

Hosting capacity

Better capability of hosting nations to generate added value from vol-unteers

Addressing, e.g. through training, important and shared challenges in local host organisations it can help reduce this limiting factor and contribute to bet-ter value added of the efforts of the volunteers

A critical factor is the establishment of a real part-nership between the European and the hosting or-ganisations

Partner - with EU co-financing


This option involves specification, development and deployment of actions that

support the capacity building of host organisations through training that will

enable them to support Corps volunteers. These capacity-building actions

would help:

• increase overall ‘absorptive capacity’ for Corps volunteers, helping to sup-

port the overall ambitions for the Corps and the number of deployments

available;

• increase the efficacy of Corps volunteers during deployment;

• assure the security, quality and value of the volunteering experience for

each Crops volunteer;

• increase overall capacity, e.g. to engage with partners, manage effectively,

and make best use of resources.

Module 7 is closely related to Module 5, which involves the setting of volun-

teer management standards for hosting organisations. It is assumed that direct

costs incurred by hosting organisations in relation to volunteer management,

oversight, accommodation etc. are covered in Module 6 as an deployment cost

eligible for reimbursement.

The following sections address the various elements of Module 7, which range

from the development of training programmes to the organisational aspects of

the training.




133


13.3.1 Development

Building local capacity in host organisations involves engagement on two lev-

els – operational and leadership. It will be necessary to connect with:

• people who are already working on the ground in the hosting organisations

and who would be the main day-to-day points of contact for volunteers.

Usually, these people are aware of the local environment, culture, commu-

nities and possess the knowledge of practical barriers that would prevent

the volunteers from adding value and being utilised fully. They are the

ones who can provide practical advice and support. They may be volun-

teers, local staff, or other professionals connected to the host organisations

and are typically based in the local community;

• the organisations’ leadership, the people who are providing a structure for

the volunteering and who have an overall view of the work.

There was a strong support among the stakeholders consulted in 2010 for the

Commission to play a role in strengthening the training for hosting organisa-

tions. However, there were some concerns regarding the nature of the training

and how specific it can be, considering the different types of deployment. Inso-

far as Module 7 involves financing of training that will help hosting organisa-

tions make progress towards the standards set down in Module 5, such concerns

are likely to surface and be dealt with first in the discussions that inform the

specification of those standards.

Mechanisms and organisation

It is proposed that Module 7 provides support and training to organisations

within the framework for volunteer management that will be defined by the

standards developed under Module 5.

A key issue in the definition of Module 7 is the choice of the ‘business model’

by which training is to be delivered. The hosting organisations are expected to

be widely dispersed across the globe. They may be based in areas that are diffi-

cult to reach and work in. They may be small and have limited capacity to re-

lease staff for training within their country or overseas. There may also be lan-

guage barriers, especially for operational/field staff. For these reasons, it seems

unlikely that a centralised training model would be appropriate or cost-

effective.

A second, related, issue is the relationship between this training activity and the

projects through which volunteers will be deployed (see Module 6 and Module

3). A training programme engaging potential host organisations around the

world irrespective of their actual propensity to seek Corps volunteers is unlike-

ly to be cost-effective. Delivery of the volunteer management training as an

institutional strengthening exercise delivered by the DG ECHO partner as part

of the project avoids that problem but the sequencing of actions could be prob-

lematic – ideally, the relevant training of the host organisation would be pro-

vided before the volunteers are deployed.




134


A proposal on the approach to training and support should be prepared as part

of the action that defines standards in Module 5. That approach could include:

1. a ‘training of trainers’ programme by which representatives of DG ECHO

partners received training and support on how to train organisations to

meet the prescribed standards for volunteer management;

2. the development of core training material (paper-based and/or electronic),

translated into a core group of relevant languages that the trainers could

use with the hosting organisations.

Delegating the training on volunteer management to the designated lead organi-

sations for the projects that are deploying Corps volunteers would ensure that

support was targeted to the organisations that most need it and was therefore

more cost-effective. It would also mean that further follow-up support could be

provided to the hosting organisation if needed. However, this approach would

need to be configured so as not to disadvantage smaller EU partners.

Provision of training could be done using external training providers. Currently,

there are few volunteer management training providers, possibly because the

NGOs are struggling to set aside resources for the training of their training in

the current climate and the market is simply not large enough. However, there

are organisations such as Community Service Volunteers (CSV), described in

more detail in Appendix F, which have been engaged in volunteer management

training and have a long track record in the provision of tailor-made services,

including EU studies such as pilots that were part of the EVS.

The volunteer recruiting organisations (i.e. the leads on the Corps projects)

would need to apply a training approach strategy based on partnership, rather

than a supervisory role. When implementing the training, the organisations

should be on an equal footing, with the training being seen as a joint process to

improve standards for which both sides are equally responsible.

Under this approach, host organisation training would – it is assumed – need to

be an eligible cost for the purpose of Corps project budgets and follow the fi-

nancing options specified in Module 6.

It would be thus be appropriate to make supplementary provisions in the overall

budget for Module 7 costs since they are additional to the core volunteer de-

ployment costs of Module 6.

13.4 Costs

Table 13-2 provides the summary costs for delivery of Module 7 to the above

specification.




135




Training of trainers

Outsourced training of trainers

programme delivery, per person

EUR 1 000 Uplifted from CVs base costs

Travel within Europe to training site EUR 400 COWI/GHK assumption

Provision for trav-

el/accommodation/subsistence,

visa etc. cost to in host country

including some allowance for time

cost of trainers

EUR 2 000 COWI/GHK assumption

Local costs relating to training, per

trained person

EUR 300 COWI/GHK assumption

Commission staff costs EUR 18 000/month COWI/GHK

Assumed one host organisation to

receive training per five volunteers,

based on Module 6 schedule of

deployments

10 (2015) to 120

(2020) organisations

receiving training

COWI/GHK assumption


Table 13-3 Module 7 cost estimates – assuming 100% EU financing, EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

(2014-2020)

Commission staff 216,000 108,000 108,000 216,000 216,000 216,000 1,080,000

Training of trainers 34,000 68,000 136,000 272,000 340,000 340,000 1,190,000

Training of hosting organi-sations

3,,000 6,000 12,000 24,000 30,000 30,000 105,000

Total 253,000 182,000 256,000 512,000 586,000 586,000 2,375,000

Under the direct management model, the costs of Module 7 activity are ex-

pected to be significantly higher. How much higher depends on the exact form

of the direct management model developed but if deployments are made only

into ECHO projects and offices and capacity building is carried out by the EU

staff, then personnel costs will be higher than under the standard model, by a

factor of two or more.

13.5 Impacts

13.5.1 Impacts on beneficiaries of humanitarian aid

Module 7 would be expected to have an impact on beneficiary communities

directly through improving the efficacy with which volunteers are used and in-

directly by having a role on facilitating a higher aggregate volume of volunteer

deployments, and directly/indirectly contributing to building capacities in local

communities.




136


13.5.2 Impacts on hosting/receiving organisations

Module 7 financing enables host organisations to access training that can help

them move towards the standards defined at Module 5. This training should

help them deliver services (by helping to ensure that volunteer time is used ef-

fectively).

There should be ‘spillover’ benefits beyond the Corps projects as a result of the

host organisations being strengthened and better equipped to support volunteers

more generally, beyond those supplied by the Corps – building local capacity.

Participation in the training would involve a commitment of time on the part of

the host organisation. Requirements for further training may put an extra bur-

den on the local staff.

An issue for the later stage specification is how to determine (or provide allow-

ances for) the costs to the host organisation and determine the extent to which

these are compensated out of the Corps project budget.


For volunteers, Module 7 should help improve the quality of their volunteering

experience by helping to ensure that their host organisations are well versed in

the standards relating to volunteer management and better equipped to make

their deployment a success.

It should also help to open up new opportunities for volunteer deployment by

addressing barriers, both operational (e.g. cultural misunderstandings, lack of

resources, inadequate infrastructure to host the volunteers) and structural (e.g.

lack of leadership/management, organisational limitations) that inhibit organi-

sations from accessing the skills of volunteers.

13.5.4 Impacts on recruiting/sending humanitarian organisations

For the partner organisations, Module 7 should help to improve the benefit: cost

ratio of volunteer deployment by financing the strengthening of counterparts in

receiving countries. It should improve the chances of the projects being suc-

cessful. However, to the extent that the costs of host organisation strengthening

are not fully financed by the EU, Module 7 could result in additional uncom-

pensated costs being incurred by partners.

13.5.5 Impacts on society as a whole

Improving the host capacity in receiving organisations ought to increase the

overall ‘absorptive capacity’ for volunteers (enabling more deployments) and

help create more positive conditions for the objectives of the Corps to be real-

ised.




137


However, efforts and funding may not bring visibility. Also, if the training and

the transition to the standards set out in Module 5 are reviewed as excessively

burdensome, this may cause damage to the Corps in the next few years.

13.5.6 Summary of impacts

Table 13-4 provides a summary of the expected impacts of Module 7.



Volunteers

For volunteers, Module 7 should help improve

the quality of their volunteering experience by

ensuring that their host organisations are well

versed in the standards relating to volunteer

management and better equipped to make their

deployment a success.

Open up new opportunities for volunteer de-

ployment by addressing barriers, both opera-

tional (e.g. cultural misunderstandings, lack of

resources, inadequate infrastructure to host the

volunteers) and structural (e.g. lack of leader-

ship/management, organisational limitations).

Partner organi-

sations

Co/full financing of professional training for

managing volunteers that helps the host organi-

sations utilise the volunteers fully.

Some potential for additional, unfunded costs.

Hosting organi-

sations

Enhance institutional capacity of the host organ-

isations should improve the benefit: cost ratio for

volunteer deployment.

Requirements for further training may put an

extra burden on the local staff.

Beneficiary

communities

Training of the host organisation should help

improve the productivity and utilisation of the

volunteers to cover the needs of the host com-

munity, and provide direct/indirect capacity

strengthening.

Training may not be in line with the community

needs, and the focus on training might divert

attention from actual volunteering.

EU Improving the host capacity in receiving organi-

sations, this will increase their demand for vol-

unteers and it will be possible to deploy even

more volunteers.

Efforts and funding may not bring about visibil-

ity. Moreover, the extra strains on the host

community might jeopardise the deployment

and the host organisations might shy away from

future cooperation.


Depending on design and sequencing, it may not be possible for a hosting or-

ganisation participating in Corps projects for the first time to deliver the chang-

es required to meet Module 5 standards prior to deployment.




138


14 Module 8: Establishment of a community of DG ECHO Humanitarian Volunteers

14.1 Background

Collectively, Modules 1 to 7 represent a significant investment in the capacity

of the system within the EU that supports volunteering for humanitarian pur-

poses and in the deployment of properly trained volunteers to disaster preven-

tion/preparedness and recovery projects. Mechanisms to maintain contact with

Corps volunteers after return from their deployment and foster a Corps com-

munity could deliver a higher return on that investment through, for example:

• Increasing the probability of the volunteers putting themselves forward for

future deployments with the Corps;

• Engaging them in the provision of support to volunteers in training or in

deployment (e.g. through mentoring and peer support services);

• Prompting them to act as ‘ambassadors’ for the Corps in whatever walk of

life they move on to after deployment;

• Supporting the recruitment of volunteers into the Corps.


Without support for such a community, it is likely that volunteers will disperse

and lose their connection to the volunteering network. Module 8 therefore aims

to facilitate continuity in the volunteering cycle through creating a community

that provides a networking platform for previous Corps volunteers and, both

directly and indirectly, support recruitment of volunteers.


objectives.




139



Title Objective What does it

deliver?

How does it relate to problems and objec-

tives?

Who acts?

Module 8: Establishment of a Commu-nity of DG ECHO hu-manitarian volunteers


(platform contri-bution)

Mentors for future volun-teers, DG ECHO 'Am-bassadors'


A critical factor is a fast turnover of members, especially the young ones

Commission could en-courage the use of so-cial media

The strategic objective of Module 8 should be to provide the volunteers with an

opportunity to connect with other volunteers and share the experiences that will

in turn enable them to maximise their potential. Furthermore, Module 8 should

provide a platform through support and mentoring activities that would lead to

increased volunteering for DG ECHO.


This module involves the specification and development of facilities to support

an online community that will cater for the needs of current and past Corps

volunteers.

The following sections will address the various stages of Module 8, which

range from the setting up of a network community to the delivery and mainte-

nance of it.

14.3.1 Development

It is proposed that the core of the community ‘infrastructure’ be an interactive

website that supports the full range of interactivity and media that users expect

of social networking sites. It should be linked to mainstream social networking

and relevant professional online communities to play a role in attracting people

to the Corps as well as in supporting the community within the Corps.

Membership will be on a voluntary basis. Volunteers will be invited to join the

site on their recruitment to the Corps. Issuing such invitations should therefore

be part of the terms and conditions of recruiting organisations that receive

Corps funding. Memberships of the community should be strongly encouraged.

It is assumed that development and operation of the facility is outsourced to a

third party through a competitive tender issued by DG ECHO on a two or three

year basis. Any such contract would need to be drafted to ensure that the whole

site is owned by and handed back to DG ECHO at the end of the contract. The

site would need to deploy best practice in personal data protection.

The administrative support required will be determined by the extent to which

DG ECHO wishes to invest in:




140


• the provision of content to continually refresh the site (alongside user-

generated content);

• online initiatives (e.g. online mentoring functionality, Corps recruitment

drives, fund-raising initiatives for hosting/sending organisations);

• offline initiatives - e.g. supporting social/networking events for volunteers.

With the spread of access to the Internet, more volunteers will have access to

online services which will enable them to access links to existing humanitarian

jobs pages. In addition, the networking events and workshops organised by the

community will contribute to a more direct and guided introduction to new ca-

reer opportunities.

Over time, as other modules develop and the number of present and past volun-

teers increase, supplementary services that enable the community of past volun-

teers to support present volunteers could be developed, in response to needs.

An example is mentoring services for current volunteers – either pre-

deployment or during deployment.

For the purposes of the costing, it has been assumed that Module 8 will require

one administrator, with technical support. This person would be responsible for

moderating the site, sourcing/writing/posting content and for liaising with the

Commission and partners in design and delivery of value-added ser-

vices/functionality. Significant expansion of ‘value-added’ services would re-

quire additional resources. Resource expenditure should be kept proportionate

to the scale of the Corps and use of the site.

Module 8 activities should be evaluated two years after launch to ensure that it

provides value to the Corps, with lessons fed back into the Module design and

delivery.

Organisation

Conversations with stakeholders have indicated that operating an online com-

munity for volunteers is not very demanding in terms of costs or resourcing.

The organisation would not require direct Commission management and could

be outsourced to an external partner at a low risk. For instance, myEVS online

community for EVS volunteers is run by StichtingNoBorders (described in

more detail in Appendix G), with funding coming from the European Commis-

sion.

Module 8 is the least resource-demanding module and in order develop and

maintain a full database of volunteers, the Commission can anticipate the use of

the following resources:




141


Table 14-2 Module 8 resource needs

Based on initial conversations with similar networks, it can be anticipated that

the setting up of the database, which is also the most technically demanding

part, will only take a month. It is assumed that the setting up of a database will

only take a month and thus only require a fraction of the funding. The more

time and resource demanding activities include the ongoing collection of volun-

teer data, liaison with partner organisations, promotional activities, manage-

ment and moderation of the website content.

14.4 Costs





Development of system infrastruc-

ture

EUR 30 000 COWI/GHK estimate

Administrative/Editorial/management

staff

1 COWI/GHK assumption

Technical staff 25% FTE COWI/GHK assumption

Staff cost per month, oncosted EUR 6 800 COWI/GHK assumption

Commission staff costs EUR 18 000/month COWI/GHK assumption

Evaluation EUR 35 000 COWI/GHK assumption




Table 14-4 Module 8 cost estimates, EUR

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2012-

2020)

System development

30,000

30,000

Staff inputs: administrative & editorial/content

81,600 163,200 163,200 163,200 163,200 163,200 163,200

1,060,800

Technical staff

10,800

10,800

10,800

21,600

21,600

21,600

21,600

118,800

Commission time (staff)

50,000

50,000

Evaluation 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200

61,200

Total

122,400

184,200

184,200

245,000

195,000

195,000

195,000

1,320,800

For the purpose of costing it is assumed that three main cost categories will

emerge in Module 8:

Activity Resource needs per year

Setting up a database/IT time and technical maintenance 1 staff/month

Website content management and moderation; liaison with

partner organisations and ongoing volunteer engagement

(event organisation, promotional activities)

1 staff/year

Technical support & development 25% FTE




142


Website/development hosting includes the setting up of the platform, mainte-

nance of the website and interactive tools. All the activities are necessary to

enable networking across the continents and to enable information exchange

among the volunteers, including integration with other major social media sites.

This also included the small sum involved in the technical aspects including the

one month of technical staff time in the setting up period and similar resourcing

required for the hosting of the website once the system is running.

Community support & animation regards activities that include promotional

material, events and workshops in which current and past volunteers can be re-

cruited as mentors and share their experiences.

The staff costs section refers to the full-time staff needed to run the community.

It is assumed that one full-time administrative staff maintains the community,

being required to liaise with partner organisations, organise networking events,

promote the community and recruit more volunteers to join the community.

The salaries are calculated based on the estimates of average salaries within two

reference (NGO) organisations and assuming an overhead allocation of 50%

(based on the administrative salaries depicted in section 8.4; table 8.2). Costs

for a commercial provider would be expected to be higher.

The final sum of costs at the end of the budget period is estimated at EUR 1.32

million. It is assumed that the operation will be funded by the Commission,

while its management and running will be outsourced to an external, commer-

cial operator. One possible barrier to this may involve difficulties in accessing

and obtaining access to volunteer contact details and personal data, thus appro-

priate and detailed contract conditions should be put in place to ensure that the

operator will be able to handle personal data on behalf of the Commission at all

times.

14.5 Impacts


A community for volunteers would be beneficial for those who are currently

volunteering as it could provide access to mentoring services, career and pro-

fessional advice, information on how to best use their new skills, and insights

into the volunteering experiences of others. It would provide them with an op-

portunity to learn from experiences, best practice, but also seek support in their

current role.

Past volunteers would benefit from such a community, 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 opportuni-

ties. For some past volunteers, the mentoring roles might prove time consum-

ing.

The site could also function as a recruiting tool, prompting new volunteers to

come forward, and more generally help to ‘showcase’ the Corps’ activities.




143


14.5.2 Impacts on society as a whole

Such a community can improve knowledge exchange and improve continuity

and coherence of the volunteering programme, and it would provide at a low

cost a learning platform for existing and past volunteers. Such network could

help DG ECHO draw on the volunteers’ past experience and improve mobilisa-

tion of their support for mentoring activities, recruit for volunteering activity,

etc. The website could help demonstrate the value of European collective action

in this area and support the Corps’ recruitment strategy.

Table 14-5 Summary of Module 8’ possible contributions

Actors Potential positive impacts

Volunteers

(current volun-

teers)

Access to advice and support from experienced volunteers on practical and longer term career

development issues.

Facilitate mentoring, peer-to-peer contacts, webinars and other events that support their role as

volunteers in humanitarian as-assistance.

(past volunteers) The career/professional benefits that come from having good networks, within the humanitarian

world and beyond.

Opportunities to continue to provide voluntary support to humanitarian causes, such as by men-

toring.

Society as a

whole

Providing DG ECHO with an enhanced ability to communicate and maintain contact with experi-

enced humanitarian volunteers, for use in mobilise their support for mentoring activities, recruiting

for volunteering activity, etc. and thus support the overall objectives of the programme.

Higher rates of learning and information exchange within the ‘cadre’ of EU humanitarian volun-

teers.


Module 8 needs to work in concordance with other modules and in particular

with Modules 4 and 6. As such, its prospects for success are linked to the suc-

cessful design and delivery of those other Modules.

The efficacy of this module will be determined by how well it performs in at-

tracting and retaining volunteers as part of the community. This will, in turn, be

affected by how well it generates user-generated content, and the benefits it

provides in terms of access to advice, links to employment opportunities etc.

Using the site as the hub for communication of Corps-related messages to vol-

unteers could also help build traffic.




144


15 Identification and analysis of policy options

15.1 Introduction

The policy options consist of different and appropriate packages of the modules

presented in the previous chapters.

The development of standards is a necessary component …

The development of standards for identification, selection and training of vol-

unteers is part of all the options under consideration. This is because standards

are considered a necessary condition for an EU Voluntary Corps initiative to

provide added value. They will, when taken up by many organisations, contrib-

ute to a mainstreaming of existing methods and schemes, and guide the con-

tents of other Voluntary Corps activities. Thereby, they will provide for a high-

er level of transparency, which is to the benefit of volunteers, the organisations,

the hosting organisations, and the hosting communities (recipient countries).

Volunteers would be better able to identify, assess and access training and de-

ployment opportunities and would be ‘guaranteed’ a certain level of learning as

well as a certain level of safety and security. Organisations would be better able

to identify, select and train volunteers, not only because of the standards per se,

but also because the use of the standards eases the transferability of volunteers

between organisations and because the standards enable all organisations to ac-

cess best practice and draw on lessons learned in individual organisations. Also,

it can be expected that the standards will, more or less explicitly, take into con-

sideration the needs of hosting organisations and hosting communities, and

thereby these stakeholders will also benefit from the standards.

In the absence of such jointly framed and agreed-upon standards, other activi-

ties within the Voluntary Corps will suffer from a lack of a joint understanding

and a foundation on the other activities can be based.

… but standards are not sufficient alone

It is clear, however, that the degree to which the standards ultimately contribute

to the objectives of the Voluntary Corps will depend on the extent to which

they are adopted. While there are benefits as described above, adopting them

may also impose additional costs on the organisations in the short term. In the

longer term, however, organisations are likely to experience cost savings, such




145


as through reducing the risks of mistakes and failures and by embedding

smooth and effective procedures.

Because of the short-term net cost, there is a risk that the full buy-in will be

limited. Organisations may choose to consider the standards merely as a source

of inspiration, picking those elements that are feasible and immediately cost-

efficient from their perspective.

Other measures are therefore necessary if the full benefit of the standards is to

be realised. While the individual organisation’s use of the standards can be ex-

pected to provide an effect in its own right, the effect will increase more than

proportionally if the standards come to significantly affect the practices of vol-

unteering as a whole. This is because of the additional inter-organisational im-

pacts (what could be termed ‘synergetic impacts), e.g. in terms of the benefits

from transparency across organisations and the benefits from easing volunteers

access to deployment opportunities within different organisations.

Achieving a high uptake of the standards is an important factor in providing for

a true European added value of the Voluntary Corps. Only a high uptake, i.e.

many organisations adhering to the standards, can ensure the above synergetic

effects.

15.2 Four options

The first three options under consideration assume three different paths and

levels of intensity by which the impacts from the standards can be geared by

other Voluntary Corps activities. Standards alone are not sufficient to ensure a

balanced and integrated approach, which considers the potentials of all the rel-

evant linkages within the whole system as illustrated in Figure 6-1. The first

option aims for a higher level of integration between the different ‘system

components’ (cf. Figure 6-1) through the introduction of a certification system

to accompany the standards as well as the establishment of a Community of

ECHO humanitarian volunteers. The second option applies a more comprehen-

sive approach in the sense of providing training in addition to standards; estab-

lishing a registry of trained volunteers; setting up standards for volunteer man-

agement in host organisations; and establishing the EU Community of ECHO

humanitarian aid workers. The third option introduces an even more integrated

approach in the sense of adding to option 2 two additional measures: EU fi-

nancing for volunteer deployment and provision of support to host organisa-

tions. These would address ‘downstream’ constraints on effective deployment

of volunteers and help build the capacity of the system as a whole. Last, the

fourth option consists of the same modules as option 3, but it introduces direct

DG ECHO management of the voluntary corps including the identification, se-

lection and training of volunteers and of the deployments.




146


Table 15-1 Three policy options

Option No Contents Motivation

Option 1

Minimum option

Certification

(Modules 1, 2 and 8)

Development of standards for identification, selec-tion and training of volunteers.

Development and support of a certification mech-anism for organisations that adhere to the stand-ards.

Establishing a Community of ECHO Humanitarian volunteers.

Commission facilitates the process, supports or-ganisations in their efforts to become certified, and establishes a certification mechanism and a Community of volunteers to support the outreach of the concept.

The changes (delivery on the objectives) will be brought by through organisations aligning with the standards and the organisation thereof is out of Commission’s scope and fully left to for example the individual organisations and their umbrella organisations. The only ‘control’ mechanism is the check of compliance with standards.

Option 2

Medium option

Training

(Modules 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8)


Running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid.

EU roster of trained volunteers.

Standards for volunteer management in hosting organisations.


The standards penetrate the system through their relevance in their own right, and through their in-tegration into an EU training scheme.

The standards for volunteer management in host-ing organisations can be integrated as well into the training scheme that is developed and assist to ensure that the objectives are delivered on vis-à-vis the volunteers as well as the organisations – thus in some sense the standards for volunteer management can be said to be an essential sup-portive measure to the training components.

Keeping an EU register of the trained provides for transparency and easy access to these volunteers from the different organisations and avoids the possible monopolisation of the volunteer.

The increased qualification level of the volunteers will be sustained because the demand for volun-teers’ services will increase once the training con-cept is launched – as a result of it organisations recognize that these volunteers can provide better added value.

Option 3

Extensive option

Training and demand stimulation

(Modules 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)


Running of training for volunteers in humanitarian aid.

EU roster of trained volunteers.

Standards for volunteer management in hosting organisations.

Deployment of volunteers.

Support of local organisations for managing Euro-pean Volunteers.


This is the most ambitious option. It aims not only to deliver benefits in terms of building the capabili-ties of the volunteers and facilitating access to them, but also to deliver benefits through subsidiz-ing the deployment of volunteers that have been trained and, through supporting capacity building in local organisations, provide an incentive for local organisations to engage such that the skills that the volunteers have are properly utilised to the benefit of the host communities.

It takes a full system-wide approach that address-es each element of the volunteer ‘journey’ from the recruitment through training to deployment and into volunteer community support.

Option 4

Extensive option with direct DG ECHO man-agement

As option 3 but with di-rect man-agement

Essentially, this option is similar to option 3, but

with one important difference. This option replaces

the decentralised management of the VC with a

fully centralised management undertaken by DG

ECHO

Centralised management by DG ECHO could po-

tentially be a more effective way of managing and

monitoring the VC. In principle, DG ECHO or an-

other delegated agency (existing or created for

this specific purpose) could be managing the re-

cruitment and deployment of volunteers.




147


Before going into detail with assessing the impacts of the different options, it is

worth repeating the general objectives of the Voluntary Corps. These are to:

• Deliver aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way (time,

quantity and quality). Volunteers must be able to support the delivery of

aid in the most appropriate way. Volunteers need to possess relevant skills

and capabilities to make positive contributions to receiving communities.

They need to be available to be mobilised at the right time. The cost-

benefit ratio for use of these volunteers must be sufficiently attractive for

organisations to be interested in securing their services.

• Contribute to local capacity building within host organisations and

host communities. Volunteers must be equipped with skills and compe-

tences that enable them to make positive contribution to the host communi-

ty into which they are deployed.

• Deliver benefits to the volunteers (training, CV building, express soli-

darity). The Corps must be sufficiently attractive for the volunteers to be

prepared to invest in acquiring the necessary skills and competences. It

must offer the kind of deployment opportunities that are attractive to those

with a commitment to such issues.

• Deliver EU visibility and solidarity. This general objective ensures that

the Voluntary Corps aligns with and supports DG ECHO activities and that

it provides positive visibility and solidarity, and thereby goodwill vis-à-vis

other relevant involved volunteering organisations and entities.

The assessments below explain the extent to which each option delivers on

those objectives. The assessments also identify the economic and social im-

pacts. Environmental impacts are not discussed in detail under each option, as

they mainly occur when humanitarian assistance is ultimately delivered to a

host community in a field that also targets environmental objectives. For each

option, this chapter also discusses the main risks involved. Last, the analysis of

each option summarises the estimates of the implementation costs.

15.3 Policy option 1: Certification

Policy option 1 consists of three modules. First, standards for the identification,

selection and training of volunteers are developed. Second, a certification sys-

tem is established for compliance with these standards. Third, the option estab-

lishes a ‘Community of ECHO humanitarian workers’.

The role of the standards as a necessary component of an EU Voluntary Corps

initiative is described above. Standards are expected to be developed in a pro-

cess that involves the active participation of relevant stakeholders, not least

volunteer sending organisations with experience in identifying, selecting and

training volunteers. While the development of standards could potentially plug

into existing organisational set-ups such as the HAP and People In Aid, this

study assumes that the standards will be elaborated under a new organisational




148


set-up under the umbrella of DG ECHO. This allows the process to build on all

the relevant know-how that exists in humanitarian aid organisations already. It

also means that the standards can be fairly detailed and ambitious, in particular

as regards training. It provides for a high level of EU coherence and visibility.

Standards for identification and selection could eventually come to address

such issues as mobilisation time, commitment level, language capabilities, edu-

cation and skills, professional record and relevant past experience.

In terms of content, the training could include issues, such as the EU’s role in

humanitarian aid and the role and contents of the EU Voluntary Corps concept,

understanding the disaster management cycle, intercultural communica-

tion/cooperation, humanitarian aid principles, safety and security, working and

living in the developing world’s countries, project management, logistics and,

when location is found: language skills and country-specific knowledge.

As argued above, having the standards in place is a necessary, but not sufficient

requirement for the EU Voluntary Corps to deliver on its objectives. The stand-

ards could provide a consolidated common framework that builds on existing

best practices, lessons learned and the pilot projects. They would cover the se-

lection, identification and training of volunteers and contribute to these objec-

tives. However, their impact depends on the extent to which they are taken up

and used by the organisations other than in an ad-hoc manner. If each individu-

al organisation picks whatever it finds feasible and suitable in an ad hoc man-

ner, the outcome will be scattered and inconsistent implementation. Certifica-

tion is one way to encourage standardised implementation. If the standards are

formulated in a way that can be readily audited, the certification process could

easily be outsourced to one or more existing institutions that are already provid-

ing similar services. It would be worth considering differentiation between a

‘full certification’ and a ‘light certification’, with the latter being relevant to

smaller organisations.

‘The Community of DG ECHO humanitarian volunteers’ is anticipated to be

implemented mainly through an interactive website. It would offer the individ-

ual volunteer an opportunity to connect with other volunteers and share experi-

ences. It would provide a platform for support and mentoring activities, which

could lead to more effective volunteering. It could also help encourage recruit-

ment to the Corps and increased volunteering. The website would provide the

full range of interactivity and media that today’s users of such sites expect, and

it should be linked into mainstream social networking and relevant professional

online communities. The standards should include references to the Community

and encourage recruiting organisations to direct volunteers to it. The website is

assumed supported by an external provider.

15.3.1 Implementation cost

The costs of preparing and implementing option 1 are fairly modest as shown

below (for details on unit cost, cost assumptions and methods, please consult

the individual chapters on the modules).




149


Table 15-2 Policy option 1 - implementation costs

Million EUR 2015 2020 Total

2014-2020

Module 1


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.2

1.1

0.2

1.3

Module 2


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.0

1.5

1.5

Module 8


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.1

1.6

1.7

Total


Service contract

Grand total

0.0

0.6

0.6

0.1

0.8

0.9

1.2

3.3

4.5

There will be costs to the individual organisations in obtaining and maintaining

certification to the standard, but as certification is voluntary, it can be argued

that organisations will only embark on this exercise if they believe the benefits

will outweigh the costs.

If the certification was picked up by the donor community and became a factor

in funding decisions, it would create an additional pressure for organisations to

become certified.

15.3.2 Economic impacts

The most important economic impacts will come through in the improved cost-

effectiveness and cost-efficiency of recruitment and use of volunteers. This im-

pact will result from the standards being built on the lessons learned and the

best practices that can be derived from past and current experience. Potential

inputs to the process include the HAP and People In Aid standards, the DG

ECHO pilot projects, and the know-how embedded within individual organisa-

tions, both governmental and non-governmental.

As uptake increases, there will also be impacts from better information being

available to prospective volunteers in the ‘market’. A higher level of transpar-

ency across organisations will mean that volunteers are better placed to decide

on the organisation to which they will offer their services. The common stand-

ards will make it easier and more cost effective (via reduced training costs) for

one organisation to use volunteers that were first deployed by another.

As mentioned above, if elements of the system are adopted as selection criteria

used by donors, this could further increase its impact. There is, however, a risk




150


that it could disadvantage organisations that do not have the financial means or

human resources and skills to become certified. It may be argued that this could

contribute to the professionalization of the humanitarian aid sector, but this as-

sumes that those that become ‘excluded’ are those that perform in the least pro-

fessional manner, which is not necessarily the case.

Awarding a certificate to volunteers on completion of the training could pro-

vide additional added value from the experience for volunteers. It would have

the potential to add to their CV and improve employability. Such benefits might

be further enhanced, and the quality of the training infrastructure as a whole

underpinned by a having system for certification of training providers.

15.3.3 Social impacts

There are positive social benefits in the hosting organisations and hosting

communities from the improved effectiveness of volunteers. It is expected that

the volunteers to a higher degree will be able to provide valuable contributions

to ongoing and new activities in the hosting communities, and so they will con-

tribute to the functioning of the local labour markets rather than distort them.

Furthermore, depending on the specific contents of the standards, it can be an-

ticipated that the safety and security of volunteers will be improved through an

increased focus on these issues. A system with ‘assured’ quality standards in

recruitment, selection and training would be expected to, overall, provide vol-

unteers with a better and more consistent volunteering experience. The applica-

tion of the standards should help ensure that volunteers are better equipped to

deliver added value to the communities in question, and also help prepare them

properly for the experience.

However, there may be a risk of a loss of ‘cultural diversity’ in the delivery of

humanitarian volunteering if the standards become too tight. This might also

have a negative impact on the inclusion of volunteers from some of the EU

Member States with the least experience in the volunteering market, such as

some of the newer Member States.

On the other hand, the Community of ECHO volunteers can pursue the inclu-

sion of European-wide volunteers by supporting the European identity of the

Corps and provide a platform for sharing of experience while deployed and af-

terwards.

15.3.4 Risks

The main risk of this option is that there will not be a sufficient uptake, and as a

result the prospective benefits will not be realised. In that regard, it can be ar-

gued that if standards are of a very general nature, providing a framework ra-

ther than a highly prescriptive approach, the acceptance and the uptake is likely

to be higher, because organisations can accommodate more of current practices

into them. While this leaves room for some diversity, it could mean that prac-

tices may still vary substantially among organisations. If standards are to be




151


very concrete and drive a high level of alignment across organisations, there is

a risk of a lower level of acceptance and uptake.

15.3.5 Contribution to the objectives

Policy option 1’s fit to the four general objectives is described below.

Provision of aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way is

achieved through the improvements that the standards provide in the ability of

the deployed volunteers to contribute to the countries in need. Achieving this

benefit is subject to the risk described above. The prospects for success are

linked to factors that are not directly controllable, such as host organisations’

attitudes and skills.

Local capacity building is achieved through the relevance and contribution

that the contents of the standards ultimately provide for, and the extent to which

these potentials materialise into positive contributions to local capacity build-

ing. This is, for example, dependent on the extent to which the standards are

taken up and adhered to by the organisations as well as on the above ‘uncon-

trolled’ factors.

Benefits to the volunteers are delivered in the form above – and through those

organisations that adopt the standards. Also, the Community provides benefits

to the volunteers in the form of access to links, information and other volun-

teers’ experience.

Impacts on EU visibility and solidarity 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. In other words, the more certified organisations, the

more visible is the Voluntary Corps.

15.4 Policy option 2: Training

As mentioned in the introduction and further explained in policy option 1

above, standards are considered a necessary element of an EU Voluntary Corps.

The standards are used as the foundation for developing a training scheme fi-

nanced by the EU and open to volunteers from Europe. The exact scope and

contents of possible training scheme will be determined in the process of de-

veloping standards. This, in turn, will be informed by current best practices,

lessons learned and the pilot projects.

It is assumed that two schemes are developed: one that targets the young and

less experienced volunteers, and one that targets those with more seniority and

experience. We also assume that the training especially of the less experienced

volunteers would take place before, during and after their first deployment. The

total number of people to be trained is assumed to be 540 in the beginning. An-

nual throughput would double by 2020, by which time the Voluntary Corps is

assumed to be fully implemented.




152


Furthermore, this option includes the establishment of a roster, or registry, of

volunteers that have been through the EU training or similar, and who have ac-

cepted to be in the registry. Thereby, the competences and skills acquired by

the volunteer may following acceptance by the volunteer be shared among a

wider range of volunteer sending organisations thereby ensuring that the bene-

fits become more widely accessible. The roster, or registry, would supplement

and not duplicate the many existing rosters that typically target rapid response

needs where the positions often involve a payment quite similar to a normal

salary. While it is quite premature to establish access criteria at this stage, or-

ganisations’ access could, for example, be conditioned on compliance with the

standards in Module 1 or Module 6 or by the project in question being fully or

partly financed by EU bodies, such as DG ECHO.

This option also includes the specification of standards for volunteer manage-

ment in hosting organisations. Such standards can play an important role in re-

alising the full benefits of the training programmes by ensuring that hosting

organisations are fully capable of harvesting the benefits from the volunteers’

skills. The standards would need to be developed through expert input and in

consultation with stakeholders. They could include such aspects as ensuring the

security of volunteers and ensuring the full utilisation of volunteer skills in the

host community. The promotion and support of the standards pose a particular

challenge given that hosting organisations vary widely in scale, capacity, struc-

tures, etc.


The costs of preparing and implementing option 2 are shown below. The under-

lying assumptions should, however, be borne in mind. The figures assume that

540 volunteers are trained in 2015 and that annual throughput number increases

gradually up to 1080 in 2020. An EU co-financing rate of 100% is assumed.

Training costs have been estimated with inspiration from the three pilot projects

and other sources.



(2014-2020)

Module 1


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.2

1.1

0.2

1.3

Module 3 1)


Service contract

Total

0.3

2.9

3.2

0.3

5.9

6.2

1.9

25.6

27.4

Module 4


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.2

1.8

2.0

Module 5




153



Service contract

Total

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

Module 8


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.1

1.6

1.7

Total


Service contract

Grand total

0.4

3.5

3.9

0.4

6.4

6.8

2.3

28.7

31.0

1) This assumes that costs are compensated 100% by the Commission and that the

number of volunteers to be trained starts with 540 and that the annual throughput

doubles by 2020.

As it has not been possible to obtain an estimate of the size of the ‘market’, i.e.

the potential supply (interested volunteers) and the potential demand (organisa-

tions that would be interested in and capable of implementing the assumed

training), the estimated number of trained volunteers is quite arbitrary. A level

of 540 is regarded as a realistic starting point (though it may be a little optimis-

tic to reach this level in the first year of the training). 540 are almost as many as

VSO deploys annually; Weltwärts deploys a large number. However, these

‘comparators’ are of somewhat limited relevance as their deployments are not

that comparable to the target groups and types of interventions in focus (volun-

teers with educational background and the disaster management cycle).

15.4.2 Economic impacts The most important economic impacts will materialise as improved cost-

effectiveness and cost-efficiency to organisations recruiting and deploying vol-

unteers on humanitarian projects. Volunteers should be better equipped to actu-

ally contribute to assisting the organisations in delivering their targets in the

host community (e.g. better protection of assets - houses, farmland, infrastruc-

ture - against disaster risks). Volunteers completing the training will have better

qualifications, and they will be better placed to secure future deployments.

This, in turn, should affect the cost-benefit ratio of use of volunteers for organi-

sations because trained volunteers can provide greater value added. As a result,

organisations may as a result be more inclined to use these volunteers.

The scheme proposed is one where the training is carried out through service

contracts with individual training providers. There may thus be a risk that the

main immediate beneficiaries (or implementers) of the Voluntary Corps will be

those that are awarded these contracts. Although the principle should be that the

training should be open to all that comply with the selection and identification

criteria, a bias can result from some organisations being more familiar with it

than others. There is therefore a risk of distributional effects.

It is essential that the EU training offers something that would not otherwise be

available. While it could provide inspiration for the possible improvement of

other training schemes (offered for example by private actors, national govern-




154


ments and NGOs) it should not result in excessive crowding out of such

schemes simply because of a more attractive funding model.

The standards for host organisations should help support better outcomes by

lessening a constraint on training with volunteers being able to apply their skills

to be benefit of host communities.

The establishment of a registry of all volunteers that have undergone the train-

ing should help recruiting organisations identify possible candidates for future

volunteer posts. This also allows for a more efficient sharing of the volunteer-

ing capacity available and improves the cost-effectiveness of volunteers as an

option.

If volunteers that have completed the EU training were provided with some

formal recognition of their work – e.g. documented qualifications – it could

provide further added value in terms of their CV and subsequent employabil-

ity– inside or outside the sector.

15.4.3 Social impacts There are positive social benefits to the hosting organisations and hosting

communities from the improved effectiveness in the use of volunteers. The

trained volunteers will be able to provide valuable contributions to ongoing and

new activities in the hosting communities, and so they will contribute to the

functioning of the local labour markets rather than distort them.

The training should provide volunteers with skills that enable them to develop.

The training plus the apprenticeship deployment would enable them to make a

better informed decision about whether to make a career in humanitarian aid. In

this way, the training will contribute to the inclusion of young people into the

labour market in the EU.

The training should be open to all EU citizens that comply with the selection

and identification criteria. Further, selection criteria and methods for distrib-

uting training, e.g. among Member States, would need to be decided by the

proposed advisory board (see the analysis of Module 3). It is important that

there is equal access to training for all European citizens. Such programmes

could help address the imbalances that exist today, as influenced by individual

Member States’ tradition of volunteering, level of activity in humanitarian aid,

national volunteering schemes, etc. In other words, it will encourage social in-

tegration at the EU level.

The integration of the standards for host organisations should help ensure that

volunteers have a positive experience and that they are used effectively. Stand-

ards should provide transparent and shared performance criteria with which

host organisations should comply.

The Community of ECHO volunteers can further strengthen this alignment of

expectations, the volunteer’s sense of having delivered value and support the

individual volunteers’ European identity as well as provide a platform for shar-

ing of experience while deployed and afterwards.




155


15.4.4 Risks It is essential that a good set of standards results from Module 1 to provide a

solid foundation for the training activity and the development of standards for

host organisations. If organisations perceive that standards are relevant and ap-

plicable and provide added value, they will be much more inclined to adopt

them and to consider the EU training as a positive development.

It is also essential that the first rounds of training provide good results that by

stakeholders are seen as ‘justifying their initial acceptance’. Inevitably, mis-

takes will be made and important lessons will be learned. Strong support from

the humanitarian aid sector is essential to translate these lessons learned into a

continuously improved scheme that is demanded by the actors. If this backup is

not ensured, there is a risk that mistakes and adjustment needs will make stake-

holders turn away instead rather than improve the programmes.

Another risk is the uncertainty about the possible demand for and capacities of

organisations in Europe and hosting organisations to offer the deployment

needed for volunteers to realise the full benefit of their training. There is also

uncertainty about the likely number of qualified candidates. The calls for ten-

ders on training must be sufficiently attractive to make it worthwhile for good

training providers and organisations to put in competitive offers, but not be as

lucrative as to crowd out other essential business and training schemes that

serve other important purposes.

As regards the register, the most important risk is the extent of its use. It is es-

sential that volunteers see a benefit from being included, and that organisations

use it for their recruitment. To that end, it could be envisaged that EU-funded

relevant projects are encouraged to consult the register and include EU trained

volunteers in their projects.

15.4.5 Contribution to the objectives As regards the four general objectives the contributions from policy option 2

are:

Aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way is achieved because

the training provides for a general increase in the skills level of European vol-

unteers that have participated in the training. The establishment of the register

enables easy access to a pool of skilled volunteer labour, which increases the

prospect that the skills acquired by the individual volunteer can be used after

completion of training (and apprenticeship deployment).

Local capacity building is achieved through improving the soft and hard skills

of the volunteers and through the application of consistent processes for identi-

fication and selection of volunteers as codified in the standards. All these con-

tributions should help ensure that the volunteers do contribute to local capacity

building. This effect is further strengthened through the impact from the stand-

ards for host organisations.




156


Benefits to the volunteers are delivered through the experience and compe-

tences that they gain during the training. This increases their relevance for fu-

ture volunteer deployments and their employability.

EU visibility and solidarity will be achieved if the training (which is the lo-

comotive of this option) succeeds in being widely acknowledged as highly rel-

evant and highly applicable.

15.5 Policy option 3: Training and demand stimulation

This option comprises the same elements as option 2, but it is further enlarged

by including an element that supports the deployment of volunteers and an el-

ement that supports local organisations in managing European volunteers.

The deployment of volunteers could be conditional on the volunteers in ques-

tion

• being enrolled in or accepted for the EU training,

• having completed the EU training and been accepted for entry into the ros-

ter or registry.

It may prove relevant also, in particular in the early years of the Voluntary

Corps, to allow the deployment of volunteers that have undergone training sim-

ilar to the EU training.

A central aim of the EU-supported ‘apprenticeship’ deployment is to ensure

that the Voluntary Corps volunteers get sufficient experience to become attrac-

tive for subsequent recruitment by the humanitarian aid sector, whether in a

professional (paid) or volunteering role. The ‘regular’ deployment financing

facilitates the deployment of experienced volunteers into humanitarian projects.

Deployments would support humanitarian projects, most for a significant peri-

od of time (up to a year, sometimes more)59 and would typically not be time

critical. The focus on non-time critical support to projects allows volunteers to

be recruited and deployed into projects through a structured identification and

selection process. Deployment pathways could include, for example, integra-

tion of Voluntary Corps volunteers into projects that receive financing from DG

ECHO and projects that are primarily funded by trusted partners as well as de-

ployments in ECHO offices. Following a phase-in period, it could be envisaged

that both sending organisations and hosting organisations would need to

demonstrate that they comply with EU standards defined under other modules.

The analysis of regular deployments under Module 6 presents four different

alternatives for the set-up of the scheme :

59

Although shorter deployments may be relevant as well – this goes in particular for disas-

ter responses, which must however be coordinated with the responses coordinated by the

MIC




157


1 integration of Voluntary Corps volunteers into disaster management activi-

ties that receive financing from DG ECHO;

2 integration of Voluntary Corps volunteers into disaster management pro-

jects that are primarily financed by other donors;

3 a new programme focusing exclusively on deployment of Voluntary Corps

volunteers, which would consist of projects that each resulted in a set of

volunteer deployments;

4 direct placement of volunteers by DG ECHO.

These different set-ups can be combined; the specifics must be determined at a

later stage, and more detailed investigations must underpin that decision.

It is envisaged that organisations would be recruited to provide apprenticeship

deployments for inexperienced volunteers under direct contract to the Commis-

sion, potentially bundled with the provision of training services (as described

under Module 3).

Support to hosting organisations is assumed delivered through a ‘training of

trainers’ programme and development of core training material. The training

would centre around the developed standards for host organisations.


The costs of preparing and implementing option 3 are shown below (based on

the assumptions made for the various modules).




158




(2014-2020)

Module 1


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.2

0.2

1.1

0.2

1.3

Module 3


Service contract

Total

0.3

2.9

3.2

0.3

5.9

6.2

1.9

25.6

27.4

Module 4


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.2

1.8

2.0

Module 5


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

Module 6


Deployment cost

Total

0.1

3.7

3.8

0.6

12.0

12.6

2.1

45.7

47.8

Module 7


Service contract

Total

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.1

1.3

2.4

Module 8


Service contract

Total

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.1

1.6

1.7

Total


Service contract

Deployment cost

Grand total

0.6

3.8

3.7

7.2

1.1

7.2

12.0

19.3

6-5

30.6

45.7

83.8


Again, the most important economic impact will by improved effectiveness and

cost-efficiency in the recruitment and use of volunteers by organisations. Im-

provements in cost efficiency are provided through many mutually supporting

effects. These include cost reduction to the organisations or projects of training

and deploying a volunteer, improved selection and identification providing for

a better fit of volunteers to project requirements, standards and training in host

organisations which mean that these organisations can better target their sup-

port , and the registry which enables cost-efficient searches for high-quality

volunteer candidates for particular positions .




159


The effectiveness of humanitarian aid is improved by the better selection and

identification of volunteers and through the training, which equips volunteers

with skills and insights that enable them to provide more added value once de-

ployed, i.e. to make a larger contribution towards ensuring that the humanitari-

an aid project or organisation in question delivers on its objective. This impact

is further reinforced by the standards for volunteer management in host organi-

sations and the related training – which also enables host organisations to better

ensure and facilitate added value by volunteers to the project/organisation and

to the host community at large.

That being said, this option involves substantial transfers of funds from DG

ECHO to humanitarian aid organisations in the EU and in hosting countries. In

that regard, attention must be paid to the risk of crowding out (displacement).

The crowding out of national staff or national volunteers must be avoided. To

that end, it is essential that the contributions provided by the volunteers should

be additional and preferably unique in the sense that they offer something that

nationals could not provide to the same extent. This must be taken into account

when framing the contents of the training and possibly also with regard to the

eligibility criteria for compensation of deployments.

Also, the concern raised in option 2 should be reiterated here: there may be an

unintended distributional effect that favours those organisations and Member

States that provide the EU training and/or are familiar with procedures and

formalities when running EU co-financed projects.

The investment in systems and support (particularly in financing training and

deployment) ought to have a significant impact on the ‘market’ for this area of

volunteering. Volunteers would have more opportunities and organisations

have easy access to volunteers. The harmonised EU training programme will

help organisations understand the skills that volunteers have acquired. The reg-

ister and training programme will improve the ‘visibility’ of trained volunteers

who are interested in future volunteer positions and provide access to a wider

spectrum of recruiting organisations. That way, the benefits of the training and

standards can be further increased.


Option 3 is expected to have social impacts similar to those of Option 2 de-

scribed above. In addition, the ‘end-to-end’ approach embodied in Option 3 has

the potential to deliver greater positive social impacts for aid beneficiaries by:

• helping to ensure that the volunteers deployed are equipped to make a con-

tribution (the right people, appropriately trained);

• investing in building the capacity of the organisations that manage them in

the host country to help ensure that they are used productivity and effec-

tively;




160


• ensuring that volunteers are deployed within projects that are professional-

ly designed and delivered, and targeted at priority issues.

• although it is therefore expected that the volunteers will be able to provide

valuable contributions to ongoing and new activities in the hosting com-

munities, it is important to recognise that the increased professionalism at

all levels of the aid operations combined with an increase in the number of

volunteers being deployed might have a distorting impact on the local la-

bour markets. In other words, some less professional local segments of the

volunteering market or the local labour markets in general might find it

difficult to compete with influx of many newcomers.

For volunteers, the European financing (or co-financing) of deployment costs

increases their prospects of being deployed within a reasonable time frame and

thus realise the full benefits of their training. Also, the bundling of an ‘appren-

ticeship’ deployment with the training programme provides the volunteers with

the opportunity to test whether a future career in humanitarian aid is something

that they want to pursue. If it is, the fact that they can demonstrate practical

field experience ought to ease their entry into the sector, via a further volunteer-

ing position or directly.

The consequent employability of the volunteers that was mentioned under op-

tion 2 is further enhanced in this option.

Furthermore, the European co-financing will in particular be of benefit to po-

tential volunteers from EU Member States where access to national financing

options for the relatively expensive deployments is limited. This option is en-

visaged to greatly encourage social inclusion at the EU level.

As above, the improved ultimate effectiveness can also materialise in positive

social impacts in the hosting community.

15.5.4 Risks

This option shares certain risks with Options 1 and 2. For instance:

• Difficulties in delivery of Modules 1 and 3 in the definition of good prac-

tice (codified in standards) in (a) recruitment, selection and training (b) the

content of the core training programme.

• Lack of viable deployment opportunities limiting the number of training

places provided to volunteers (including ‘apprenticeship’ deployments).

While Module 6 provides compensation for deployment costs, the risks to

the organisations/projects in question and/or to the volunteer are reduced,

but a phased approach that tests the market and scale up as appropriate

would be advisable.

• Exclusion of small humanitarian organisations that may be less well

equipped to adopt the standards and access funds.




161


The additional risks associated with this option include:

• Issues with design and delivery of standards and training may affect the

flow of qualified volunteers into ‘downstream’ activities such as deploy-

ment.

• The supply of qualified volunteers may exceed the number of opportunities

for Voluntary Corps volunteer deployment in disaster management pro-

jects.

• Humanitarian organisations may be unwilling to integrate volunteers into

projects so that deployment opportunities do not materialise

• Voluntary Corps deployments may cause displacement of local nationals in

the host countries.

There is uncertainty about the willingness of partner organisations to deploy

volunteers on a less than full recovery basis.


Option 3’s fit to the four general objectives is described below.

Option 3 will help deliver aid to countries in need in the most appropriate

way through:

• Channelling support for volunteering via organisations that are capable of

defining and delivering ‘high quality’ projects in disaster management that

address priority issues in the host countries;

• Enable volunteers to be integrated into larger projects (thus enabling them

to add value whilst mitigating risks) by making Corps financing available

as a supplement to funding in other humanitarian programmes;

• Investment in strengthening the capacity of host organisations;

• Deploying only volunteers that have received appropriate training and (be-

yond the initial training deployment) being equipped to finance deploy-

ments that last a significant time.

Option 3 contributes to local capacity building through the improved skills of

the volunteers as well as the improved selection and identification and the train-

ing that is offered. Further, the impacts on local communities are strengthened

not only by the standards for volunteer management, but also by the training of

host organisations.

Option 3 delivers benefits to the volunteers through offering:




162


• fair access to volunteering opportunities for volunteers from across the EU

via organisations demonstrating good practice in recruitment, selection and

training.

• training that will provide volunteers with knowledge and enhanced soft

skills that will help them be more aware of their role and effective in de-

ployment, as well as the opportunity to make a positive contribution to a

host community in the deployment phase of the training programme.

• more opportunities for prequalified volunteers to be deployed subsequent

to training.

• access to a network and community of like-minded people who have had

similar experiences and share an interest in humanitarian volunteering, in-

cluding the opportunity to make an ongoing contribution to that.

Some potential ‘enhancements’ to Option 3 that could help strengthen benefits

to volunteers are specified in the section below on enhancements.

Option 3 supports EU visibility and solidarity through:

• close association of the EU with standards and dissemination of good prac-

tice in the recruitment, selection, training and management of volunteers

working in humanitarian aid;

• the impact and visibility of volunteers that have been equipped to work

more effectively in host communities on projects that are defined and de-

livered by competent organisations in the EU and in host countries;

• the positive impact on the capacity of recruiting and hosting organisations

engendered by the support given to standards.

15.5.6 Enhancements

Option 3 could be enhanced by:

• inclusion of Module 2 (certification) in the core package. This would pro-

vide the benefits described above associated with signposting to volun-

teers, hosting organisation and DG ECHO that recruiting organisations are

indeed compliant with the published standards;

• issuing a certificate to volunteers on completion of their training courses. If

there was a mechanism to accredit training providers, then such certificates

(and the courses that they cover) would have added value to volunteers.

Option 3 provides a number of opportunities for DG ECHO to raise standards

in the system by applying funding conditionalities linked to Corps modules. For

example:




163


• Recruiting/sending organisations’ eligibility for funding for volunteer de-

ployment (Module 6) being linked to:

- the organisations being certified to the Voluntary Corps standards for

recruitment, selection and training (Module 1);

- the designated hosting organisations receiving training to the stand-

ards set out in Module 5;

- volunteers receiving the training defined in Module 3;

- volunteers being invited by recruiting organisations to join the Volun-

tary Corps community (Module 8).

Volunteers’ eligibility for deployment being conditional on them having

completed the training defined in Module 3.

15.6 Policy option 4: Training and demand stimulation with direct management

This option has the same modules as option 3 but assumes direct management

of training, deployment and host organisation capacity building by Commission

services. Implicit in this is that Commission services would also be managing

the recruitment and selection of volunteers into the Corps.

The key question for option 4 is whether direct management means that de-

ployments are fully internalised within EU operations, i.e. whether volunteers

would be placed in EU offices overseas that are supporting humanitarian pro-

grammes, or whether volunteers would be assigned to ECHO-funded humani-

tarian projects even if managed by third parties (and those organisations di-

rected to manage and support the volunteer), and/or ‘direct management’ could

also incorporate partnership-based approaches of the kind discussed in the defi-

nition of the regular deployments under Module 6.

The answer to this question has significant implications. For instance:

• There are limits on the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the different arrangements

for volunteers, and thus the numbers of volunteers that can be deployed –

both in the apprenticeship phase and in regular deployments. The more de-

ployments are restricted to EU internal operations (as opposed to projects

funded by the EU), the smaller the scope for deployments and the more re-

stricted the scope for delivering benefits to host communities.

• Direct management requires the development of internal capacity and sys-

tems, which take time. The development of networks able to identify and

support deployments would take years. It seems likely that the rate at

which the scale of Corps activities could grow would be lower under a di-

rect management and delivery model.




164


• Management costs per volunteer deployed would be higher in a direct

management model, not least because the unit cost of human resources in

Commission services are significantly higher than those in the independent

humanitarian aid sector – the administrative overheads of operating the

programme will be proportionately higher.


The costs of preparing and implementing option 3 are shown below (based on

the assumptions made for the various modules).



(2014-2020)

Module 1

Commission staff time 0 0 1.1

Service contract 0.2 0.2 0.2

Total 0.3 0.2 1.3

Module 3

Commission staff time* 0.6 0.6 3.8


Total 3.5 6.5 29.4

Module 4



Total 0.3 0.3 2

Module 5

Commission staff time 0 0 0


Total 0.1 0.1 0.1

Module 6

Commission staff time 3.1 3.8 15.5

Deployment cost 2.7 5.1 22.3

Total 5.8 8.9 37.8

Module 7

Commission staff time* 0.4 0.4 2.2

Service contract* 0.1 0.4 1.3

Total 0.5 0.6 3.5

Module 8



Total 0.2 0.3 1.7

Total

Commission staff time 4.1 4.8 23.0




165



(2014-2020)

Deployment cost 2.7 5.1 22.3


Grand total 9.6 17.1

75.9

*A simplifying assumption that Commission costs would be doubled under direct management has

been made


As with Option 3, the direct management option will provide humanitarian or-

ganisations with access to a larger pool of trained and experience volunteers.

The standards for recruitment, selection and training, if adopted, offer the pro-

spect of greater standardisation across the sector in the EU, which should im-

prove efficiency.

A major difference between Option 3 and Option 4 is that if direct management

means volunteers are deployed through ECHO/EU structures and directly into

ECHO projects, then the Corps becomes, for the most part, a new and addition-

al actor in the humanitarian volunteering sector, rather than a more ‘virtual’

entity constructed within existing institutions and frameworks. The direct fi-

nancial and operational impact on the sector would be lower. A different kind

of dynamic would develop in that the Corps could potentially be seen as com-

peting to supply labour to support and displace existing sources of support. Ro-

bust governance structures and day-to-day liaison arrangements would be need-

ed to ensure that the direct management model is integrated effectively into the

delivery of humanitarian support from the EU rather than disrupting it. The

risks of crowding out alternative support must be managed.


Option 4 is envisaged to generate the same types of social impacts as Option 3,

but:

• at lower scale due to the expectation of lower throughput/activity levels;

• with a different distribution – reflecting the expected channelling of volun-

teers through ECHO projects and offices rather than the more diverse set

of intermediaries that would otherwise be able to provide volunteering.

However, this might increase the risk of the assistance not meeting the needs

of some recipient communities. Consequently, the volunteers might find it dif-

ficult to be included on the local labour/volunteering markets. In turn, the more

streamlined assistance seen from the EU viewpoint might ease the inclusion of

volunteers from less volunteer-experienced EU Member States as the recruit-

ment procedures will be fewer.




166


15.6.4 Risks

In addition to the risks discussed for other Options, there are certain Option 4-

specific risks that would need to be evaluated and managed. These include a

risk that:

• the ECHO networks are not able to generate sufficient numbers of de-

ployment opportunities for the Corps to achieve its objectives;

• delays in establishing the management capacity slows the development of

the scheme (especially given the context of ever tighter spending con-

straints);

• the establishment of the Corps as a new, standalone entity

- creates direct disruption in the sector, such as

via displacement and crowding effects at project level

by creating a heavily subsidised programme that will be well

placed to ‘compete’ for the ‘best’ volunteers

perceptions of scarce funds being reallocated out of existing sup-

port channels;

- discourages engagement with and uptake of the standards in the sector

beyond the Corps.

• The ‘EU’ identity of the volunteers creates additional support and/or secu-

rity concerns in some deployment environments (an issue raised by some

consultees, relating both to the potential risk to volunteers and to the con-

sular support arrangements).


Option 4’s fit to the four general objectives is described below.

Option 4 will help deliver aid to countries in need in the most appropriate

way through:

• ensuring that the humanitarian assistance provided by volunteers is deliv-

ered via ECHO projects and offices, thereby reaching host communities

via well-structured, targeted and properly monitored projects and pro-

grammes that have the direct backing of the EU;

• using Corps resources to build the capacity of host organisations and

communities within the framework provided by those projects and pro-

grammes;

• deploying only volunteers that have received appropriate training.




167


As with Option 3, Option 4 contributes to local capacity building through the

improved skills of the volunteers as well as the improved selection and identifi-

cation and the training offered. Further, the impacts on local communities are

strengthened not only by the standards for volunteer management, but also by

the training of host organisations.

Option 4 delivers benefits to the volunteers through offering:

• fair access to volunteering opportunities for volunteers from across the EU

via a centrally administered programme;

• training that will provide volunteers with knowledge and enhanced soft

skills that will help them become more aware of their role and effective in

deployment, as well as the opportunity to make a positive contribution to a

host community in the deployment phase of the training programme;

• the opportunity to meet, train and work with volunteers from other EU

countries;

• opportunities to be deployed in ECHO projects, programmes and offices

around the world, acquiring experience that will be useful for those who

choose to develop a career in this area;

• access to a network and community of like-minded people who have had

similar experiences and share an interest in humanitarian volunteering, in-

cluding the opportunity to make an ongoing contribution to that.

Some potential ‘enhancements’ to Option 4 that could help to strengthen bene-

fits to volunteers are specified further below.

Option 4 supports EU visibility and solidarity through:

• a centrally administered programme that has a very clear EU identity,

bringing together volunteers from across Europe, backed by the EU,

• the very clear EU identity that comes from having a centrally administered

programme, bringing together volunteers from across Europe;

• close association of the EU with standards and dissemination of good prac-

tice in the recruitment, selection, training and management of volunteers

working in humanitarian aid,

• the impact and visibility of volunteers that have been equipped to work

more effectively in host communities on projects that are defined and de-

livered through EU structures in host countries.

• the positive impact on the capacity of recruiting and hosting organisations

engendered by the support given to standards.




168


15.6.6 Enhancements

Potential enhancements to consider for Option 4 are:

• to put in place, through governance and liaison arrangements, structures

that will help the Corps maintain close connections with other EU humani-

tarian organisations;

• to consider whether direct management is compatible with some of the de-

ployment channels discussed under Module 6 (e.g. support for deploy-

ments within projects managed by third parties but co-financed by ECHO)

to encourage integration.




169


16 Comparing policy options

When comparing the four policy options in the following, two issues are central

to bear in mind. Firstly, according to the Lisbon Treaty's Article 214.5, the

Voluntary Corps is to be established, so a 'no further policy' is not an option.

This said, the baseline against which the Voluntary Corps initiative is compared

is a 'no further policy' situation. Secondly, the four options are of increasing

ambition or extent, i.e. from a minimum option 1 to an extensive option 4 with

direct DG ECHO management. In many ways, the comparisons of the options

are made by assessing how much more the more extensive options contribute to

the general objectives than the less extensive ones. This assessment can then be

compared to the higher costs of the more extensive options. The varying exten-

siveness of the different the options also gives rise to different risks connected

with achieving the objectives. There is a need to understand the differences be-

tween such risks when selecting the policy option for implementation, and to

address the risks during the actual implementation.

The below table summarises the assessment of how much each of the four poli-

cy options contributes to the four general objectives. This is done by applying a

scoring system where scores from +, ++ or +++ are assigned, signifying low,

medium or high positive impacts. No use is made of negative scores, since none

of the policy options have adverse impacts on the general objectives formulated

for the Voluntary Corps. Note that some of the scores have been enclosed in

brackets (), indicating that the assessments are connected with much uncertain-

ty and so they should in particular be addressed in the risk assessment. The ta-

ble also contains the total implementation cost figures for three of the four poli-

cy options to enable a rough cost-effectiveness assessment. The scope of the

fourth option is not immediately comparable to the other, and therefore it is left

out. Finally, the main risk elements are highlighted.




170


Table 16-1 Comparing policy options

Policy option 1: Certification

Policy option 2: Training

Policy option 3: Training and de-mand stimulation

Policy option 4: 3 - with direct DG ECHO management

General objectives

Aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way

(+) (++) (+++) ++

Contribute to local capacity building

(+) (++) +++ (+++)

Deliver benefits to the volunteers

+ ++ +++ ++


++ (++) +++ +++

Implementation costs 2015-2020

EUR 4.5 million EUR 31.0 million EUR 81.6 million EUR 75.9 million *

Main risks

Level of uptake Wide acknowledge-ment of certification mechanism

Cumbersome for smaller organisations

Prospects for de-ployment, and so use of registry

As 2, but cumber-

some for smaller organisations

Good if deployments are available and training is uniformly accessible The as-sessment here as-sumes a lower throughout than in option 3 as regards apprenticeships

Deployment opportu-nities

n/a Full benefits of training

Sufficient deployment opportunities

Depends on extent to which volunteers can be placed in ECHO-funded projects – there is potential for deployments to be constrained by ca-pacity of the ‘ECHO system’

Host organisation capacity

n/a Absorption capacity in host organisations



Crowding out Cumbersome for small organisations

Substitution of exist-ing training opportu-nities

As 2 + substitution of

local volunteers and local employment

Sets up volunteering service parallel to existing partners

Source: COWI/GHK assessment.

Note: n/a = not applicable.

*Outputs not directly comparable to Option 3 – direct management in Option 4 deliv-

ers approximately 40% of the volunteer ‘output’ (apprenticeship and regular deploy-

ments) of Option 3 but costs are not proportionally lower.

Aid to countries in need in the most appropriate way is achieved with some

uncertainty

The above table shows that the Voluntary Corps is expected to provide aid to

countries in need, but that this will be achieved with some uncertainty. Both

achievements and uncertainties differ between policy options. Policy option 1

contributes by encouraging organisations to supply volunteers of a high stand-




171


ard. The contribution is, however, of indirect nature and so the impacts may be

low and uncertain - in particular because the certification mechanism may only

be embraced by some of the larger organisations. In other words, a higher im-

pact is dependent on a certain level of uptake across organisations to make syn-

ergy effects occur.

The contribution by policy option 2 has also the risk of being somewhat low if

it is not assured that the classroom training is accompanied with practical expe-

rience through deployment. Without this, the impacts are, as in policy option 1,

mainly indirect in nature. However, it is assessed that there is a training gap in

the market for volunteers, and so any EU initiative that helps fill this gap will

increase the number of qualified volunteers available to support beneficiary

countries. The term qualified indicates that the training contents will provide

volunteers with stronger background and skills for delivering added value in the

host community, and the more the standards for volunteer management are

picked up by the host organisations, the more will this effort be mirrored at the

recipient side, thus further strengthening the effect. The register of volunteers

can contribute to an improved market clearing which enables organisations – in

a cost-efficient way – to identify the right candidates for volunteer positions.

Since policy option 3 finances deployments of European volunteers as well as

support to local organisations in managing the volunteers, it provides direct aid

to the beneficiary countries. However, the appropriateness as well as the size of

this aid can be matters of some uncertainty. In particular, there is a risk that the

activities of the Voluntary Corps substitute rather than add value to the work of

the local volunteers or staff. In other words, there is a risk that the volunteers

might have a distorting impact on the local labour markets. This risk must be

taken well into account when framing the training in order to ensure that the

EU trained volunteers are capable to bring additional value to the host commu-

nity.

In policy option 4, the management of many of these risks would be internal-

ised. Efficacy and impact would thus be linked to the capacity available under

the direct management scenario to manage the Voluntary Corps operations ef-

fectively. A key issue would be the ability of Commission services to identify

and utilise sufficient, meaningful volunteering operations.

Contributions to local capacity building should build on a strong focus on

ensuring the added value of the European volunteers to local communities

Policy option 1 provides only indirect effects as regards the contributions to

local capacity building as it works mainly through the standards and the certifi-

cation of adherence to those standards. Therefore, the contents of the standards

and their uptake become determining factors for the extent to which policy op-

tion 1 can ensure a significant contribution to local capacity building.

Policy option 2 translates the standards into EU developed training. Assuming

that the standards and the consequent training will put an emphasis on strength-

ening the ability of European volunteers to provide value and to make a differ-

ence, the impact on local capacity building can be strengthened. For instance,




172


when volunteers can combine their specific technical skills with managerial and

coordination skills and thereby ensure the dissemination of the technical skills

at the wider community level. This effect is further reinforced through adher-

ence to the developed standards for host organisation’s volunteer management.

Concerning the latter, there can be greater certainty that policy option 3 will

have a positive impact because it includes direct support to host organisations

thereby strengthening their ability to optimise the benefit from the volunteer’s

contribution. However, there is the risk that the initial levels of many host or-

ganisation capacities are so low that even with this support element, it might be

difficult to reach levels that can fully match or exploit the capabilities of the

volunteers recruited through the Voluntary Corps. As above, the risk that Euro-

pean volunteers can crowd out local volunteers and staff should also be men-

tioned. There must be an appropriate balance between residents and temporary

contributors such as the European volunteers to allow for the sustainability of

project results.

The wider the scope of the Voluntary Corps, the higher the benefits for

volunteers

The volunteers have a variety of motivations and incentives for volunteering,

ranging from wanting to build up CVs and obtaining learning via having a vol-

unteer career to contributing to 'a better world'. The policy options contribute to

this to an increasing degree. Policy option 1 mainly enables the Voluntary

Corps volunteers to be able to display on their CVs that they have been select-

ed/engaged by a certified organisation, and it provides for a higher level of

knowledge about what to expect from volunteering through different organisa-

tions. Also, the Community of ECHO humanitarian volunteers allow them to

share experience and search for advice and sparring from other volunteers. Pol-

icy option 2 directly contributes to volunteer qualifications via training that

they can document in their CVs. This in turn can increase their chance of de-

ployment and thereby provide them with the documented practical experience.

The training and the possible deployment also allow them to test whether the

humanitarian sector is the right choice of career for them. For volunteers with

some experience and a relatively high level of technical skills, the training and

the roster can provide a faster entry into volunteering and in a way that ensures

that their technical skills will be put properly to use from the onset. The roster

can be a strong benefit to volunteers if it succeeds in being widely used by or-

ganisations and projects. The standards for host organisations’ management of

volunteers will help volunteers to maximise their contribution when deployed

and increase their ‘job satisfaction’.

Policy option 3 helps the volunteers more to get the necessary practical experi-

ence to become attractive for subsequent deployments (through volunteering or

through paid positions (outside the scope of the Voluntary Corps)) by the dif-

ferent sending organisations and strengthening their CVs in general, and it

helps them to be able to directly express their solidarity. A full achievement of

this objective requires sufficient deployment opportunities. Policy option 4 has

effects similar to policy option 3 but under different management arrangements.




173


Furthermore, the more comprehensive the policy option, the higher the likeli-

hood of positive EU social inclusion impacts. In other words, the European

Commission can, in particular in policy option 4 but also in the other options,

pursue the inclusion of volunteers from the EU Member States with the least

developed markets for volunteering.

Voluntary Corps will deliver EU visibility and solidarity

All the policy options for the Voluntary Corps will deliver EU visibility and

solidarity. European coherence can be strengthened through ensuring the equal

access to the offers of the Voluntary Corps initiative throughout Europe.

In policy option 1, the certified organisations could display and communicate

their Voluntary Corps certificates, as will volunteers and others engaged by

these organisations - e.g. on their CVs. Furthermore, some donors might choose

to highlight that it is a plus for applicant organisations to become certified. The

size of these impacts depends of course on a general acknowledgement of the

EU certification mechanism and so its level of uptake. Similarly, the process of

defining the standards and setting up the system provides some visibility, alt-

hough it will be mainly vis-à-vis the interested and immediately involved

stakeholders.

Policy option 2 will both involve the set-up of a visible EU training programme

and the delivery of EU-trained volunteers. The visibility of the EU as a driver

of ‘good volunteering’ in humanitarian assistance can be very strong in this

case. The process of developing and continuously improving the training can

play an important and visible role in contributing to the efforts also of other

major actors in this area. Also, the EU will be able to offer the training on a

regular and continued basis due to the stable funding, which can also provide

for a strong visibility and recognition amongst humanitarian aid actors. If these

effects materialise in terms of a wide recognition of the EU training as being

among the ‘state-of-the-art’ offers, those that benefit from it (the volunteers and

the organisations) will also feel inclined to refer to it, and the visibility impact

will be further enlarged.

The direct presence of and support of the Voluntary Corps in the beneficiary

countries is considered to be a central and direct way of displaying EU visibil-

ity and solidarity – in particular because it is combined with training of a high

standard which ensures that volunteers contribute significantly and positively.

Policy option 3 will thus further reinforce the visibility impacts of policy option

2, in particular in host communities. In policy option 4, DG ECHO would be

able to determine how EU visibility and solidarity will be delivered because the

services would all be directly managed.

The higher the ambitions, the higher the costs

Not surprisingly, the higher ambitions and the contributions to the Voluntary

Corps objectives, the higher costs of the policy option. Table 16-1 illustrates

the estimated costs of the different options. It should be noted though that these

cost estimates are heavily influenced by 1) the assumed co-financing rates in




174


regards to training and deployment support, and 2) the assumed volumes in

terms of a) number of volunteers trained, b) number of volunteers deployed,

and c) the scope of the training offered.

Last, it should be noted, as described also in the previous chapter, that these

options could be further enhanced by including the certification system de-

scribed above in policy option 1 and with the issuing of certificates to volun-

teers upon completion of the training. Similarly, standards may be further rein-

forced through introducing standard-dependent eligibility criteria into the fund-

ing options.

ec.europa.euec.europa.eu/echo/files/evaluation/2012/final report... · 2013-06-03 · european...

Documents