Committee on Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DEVE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsBarry Andrews
Let's just do a check on this compromise amendment five. Voting is open. Mine is working. Yes. And the voting is closed.
Yeah. And it is carried. Okay. Next is compromise amendment 6. Those in favor?
Those against? And it is carried. Next is compromise amendment one. Those in favor? Was I against?
This is carried. I should say abstentions, but it is carried. Compromise amendment two, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions?
And it is carried. Compromise amendment three, those in favor, against, abstentions, and it is carried. Compromise amendment four, those in favor, against, abstentions, and it is carried. Final vote by roll call. The voting is open.
And it is closed, and it is carried. 15 in favor, 10 against, and no abstentions. So we go to items 9 and 10. We will now vote on the DEVA opinion on the proposed termination of the voluntary partnership agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance, and trade in timber products in the European Union. Inter is the lead committee.
We vote first on the opinion on the resolution accompanying the proposal for termination, and then on the opinion on the actual proposal for termination. With this, I would like to ask our rapporteur, Anna Miranda Paas, whether she would like to say a few words. She's not here. No. She's not here.
She's not here. No. And that will be no. So then we will go on. So, yeah.
So let's start with the opinion, and we'll start with compromise amendment 9. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? And we'll check.
Compromise amendment 9. The voting is open. I'm gonna check everything.
Yeah. Closed.
Barry Andrews
Voting is closed. It's rejected. Rejected. Yes. Next is amendment 52.
And those in favor? Those against? And abstentions, I will check this. Okay. Voting is open for amendment 52.
And voting's closed, and it is rejected. Next is amendment 23. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions?
And I think it is rejected. Mhmm. And next is amendment 53. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions, and it is rejected. Amendment 54. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Amendment 55, those in favor, those against, abstentions, it is rejected. Amendment 24, there's a deletion. Those in favor, those against, abstentions, it is rejected. Amendment 56, those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions, it is rejected. Now we go to amendment 25. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions ? Rejected. Next is amendment 26. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? It is rejected. Amendment 57. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions, it is rejected. Next, we go to the compromise amendment 10. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions, I think it is rejected.
Next, we go to amendment 28. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 58.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions, rejected. Amendment 59. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 60. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions ? Rejected. Amendment 61. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions rejected. Compromise amendment 11. Those in favor? Those against?
Amendments rejected, abstentions rejected. Compromise amendment 30. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 62. Those in favor? Abs those against? Abstentions rejected. Next is compromise amendment 12.
Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, we think it's rejected. Next is amendment 63. Those in favor? Those against and abstentions, and it is rejected.
Amendment 31, those in favor, goes against. Abstentions rejected. Amendment 64, those in favor, goes against. Abstentions rejected. Amendment 65, those in favor, goes against.
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 66. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 68. Those in favor? Those against.
Abstentions rejected. Amendment 69. Those in favor? Those against. Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 70. Those in favor? Those against. Abstentions rejected. 71.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Next is 72. Those in favor?
Is against. Abstentions rejected. Amendment 73, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 73, check. The voting is open. And the voting is closed. And it is carried. Amendment 73 carried.
Thank you. Amendment 74, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 33.
Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 34. Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, rejected.
Compromise amendment 14. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Compromise amendments, sorry.
Amendment 75, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 76, those in favor? Against?
Objection, abstentions rejected. Amendment 35. Those in favor? As against? Abstentions are rejected.
Okay. Amendment 35, the voting is open. And the voting is closed, and it is rejected. Amendment 36, those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Rejected.
Barry Andrews
Next is 37. 37. Amendment 37. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 15. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise, sorry. Amendment 38. Those in favor?
Those against. Abstentions rejected. Amendment 78. Those in favor? Those against.
Abstentions are rejected. Compromise amendment 1. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are rejected.
Amendment 39. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 40.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment one.
Those in favor? Those against. Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment two.
Those in favor? Against, abstentions, rejected. Compromise amendment two. Those in favor? It was against, abstentions, alright.
We have.
Barry Andrews
one more. Can we just check that one? Compromise, sorry. It looks to me rejected. I'm gonna check by roll call vote.
Compromise amendment 2. Compromise amendment 2. The voting is open. And the voting is closed, and it is rejected. Next one is rejected.
Rejected. Yeah. And next is amendment 41. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment four. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions rejected. Amendment five, those in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment six, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions are rejected. Next is compromise amendment 3. Those in favor? Those against.
Abstentions rejected. Amendment seven. Those in favor? Those against. Abstentions are rejected.
Amendment 42. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions rejected. Amendment eight.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions carried, in my opinion. But the screen isn't working anymore. We have a technical problem.
Okay. Just a sec. Well, I have it here.
Oh, no. We No. Don't touch it.
Barry Andrews
It disappeared from all the screens. We're checking amendment eight when we have the screens back. Screen. Yeah. Something happened.
Sorry.
Barry Andrews
For this technical delay, folks. We'll be as quick as we can, in a moment. I'm sure you don't want to repeat this. I can open it. Which one was it?
We're on amendment 8, and we're checking Opening. And the vote is open. Amendment eight. The vote is open. Where is amendment eight?
There it is. And the voting is closed, and it is carried. Compromise amendment 4. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? And that is rejected. Amendment nine. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 10. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 11. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions, it is rejected.
Next is amendment 43. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Next is compromise amendment 5.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected? Next is 12. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions rejected? Next is 13. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions direct, I'm losing my will to live here. Rejected. Next is amendment 44. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 6. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 14. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? It is rejected. Next is amendment 45. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment seven. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions rejected. Amendment 46. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 45, I'm sorry. Amendment 15. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 47. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment 16. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment 17. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions ? Rejected.
Next is amendment 48. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions? Rejected.
Next is amendment 49. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Next is amendment 50.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions, rejected. Next is amendment 51. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Now this is the roll call final vote. So the voting is open.
Yes. The voting is open. And the voting is closed, and it is rejected. So, what do we do with this?
And yeah. This is the yeah.
Should we?
Do this? This is.
the actual NLE. The actual.
Barry Andrews
Two votes. Only two votes. Okay. So we then move on to the consent opinion itself. We move on to the consent opinion.
Can I have your attention, please? So we move on to the consent opinion, and we start with amendment 1. Voting is open, oh, sorry. By show of hands, amendment one, those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions? We'll check this. Voting is open on amendment 1. And we're going to be tight. Okay.
And it is closed. Closed. Sorry. Voting is closed. And it is adopted.
And now we'll have a final vote on the draft text as amended by roll call vote. Voting is open. And the voting is closed, and it is adopted. Thank you very much. So we have ten minutes, and we'll resume with item 11 at 3:00.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Okay. Welcome back. It's time to get going again. Thank you for item 11.
Barry Andrews
This is an unusual, but a very welcome initiative from Eric Marcart. We're using a procedure to have a direct question, so we call this question time. And he has tabled a question on forced evictions and demolition of the informal settlement of Makoko in Lagos, Nigeria. The full question itself is on the electronic dossier, but it speaks for itself. And, hopefully, the answers we will receive will be adequate.
So we have about 10 minutes for this item. So I'd ask speakers to keep to their time. Floor first of all, then to mister Lino Molteni, who is team leader in the unit for West and Central Africa, DJ Echo, to reply to the question which you have received. You have five minutes, Lino. Thank you very much.
You're very welcome. You have the floor.
Lino Molteni
Thank you very much for this invitation. First of all, I represent the commission, as you said, DG ECHO humanitarian aid. And I have excuses from DG INTPA because the question tables are also covering development issues. So I will try to cover them as much as possible, but I will, of course, have the possibility to provide answers in Britain afterwards. So the first question is about our assessment of the events.
We are closely following the situation on the ground since the beginning, since December 2022, through the EU delegation and our ECO office in Abuja. And the information I'm going to really give you now is coming both from the EU delegation and from IUM, who took care particularly of the coordination. So basically, the Lagos state government decided to start demolition activities in part of Makoko waterfront community in late 2025, but this escalated significantly in January 2026, leading to large scale displacement. Following growing concerns, the Lagos State government has since halted the demolitions. As I said, this triggered a significant urban displacement crisis in the figure of 60,000, and drew the attention of the United Nations system in Nigeria, among other stakeholders.
DG Eco is part of the humanitarian country team, so the coordination team on the spot, and so also the Nigerian government, and raised the issue of the situation in Mankoko at the January meeting, late January meeting. Following that meeting, the UN convened an initial meeting with the local authorities to better understand the situation and explore how to best support them. So they ran IOM and UNICEF, took the lead in cooperation with the government, and conducted a rapid needs assessment on 01/24/2026, finding that around 40,000 people were displaced with approximately 60,000 people affected overall. And 5,000 shelters and sanitation facilities were destroyed, leaving many households exposed and with limited access to basic services. The priority needs include shelter, water and sanitation, food, health services, and protection, including mental health and psychological support.
So the multisectoral UN response was built around three pillars, and let me just spend a few words on the humanitarian response. It was co-led by the IOM, focused on immediate life-saving assistance and protection of our affected population. In fact, IOM, UNICEF and UNFPA are implementing coordinated interventions across health, WASH, water and sanitation protection, education and psychosocial support. And this intervention has been delivered in coordination with the respective local government authorities and complement each other across sectors, and we have been running for an initial period of three months, so until the month of May. As regard to the second question on concrete steps, help on resettlements for all who lost their homes.
We have information that the Lagos State House of Assembly set up a dock committee to engage with affected communities and decide which kind of compensation to provide. But the decision of the House of Assembly is still pending. More details can be given on this. As regards the third question on humanitarian aid. The European Commission DG ECHO has not supported a humanitarian response following the Makoko Demolition in Lagos, as the humanitarian response by the UN agencies, IOM, UNICEF, UNFPA, which I mentioned, in support of the government, did not reveal major gaps in terms of funding and implementation capacities, justifying an intervention by the European Commission, DG ECHO.
Let me also say that DGECO is not present through its partner organizations in the southern states of Nigeria, including Lagos. Our focus is in the Northern states, Northeast and Northwest Nigeria, where long-standing armed conflicts, high insecurity, and forced displacement generate major humanitarian needs. As a last bit of information, in 2026, the EU, DGECO, so far allocated €33,000,000. Last year, it was €46,000,000 in humanitarian aid. And this adds up to 130000000 with EU member states. And the year before 2024, 48,700,000.
Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Okay. Thank you. And then we go to Erik, if you have any follow-up questions to what you've heard. Erik?
Erik Marquardt
Ian, first of all, thank you very much for the response, and yeah, also good response. I maybe just have a question, and I don't know if you can answer this. But what is the political view of the commission on the events that took place there? And is there some kind of understanding that political pressure will not happen in the future by the authorities there? And, like, how are the, like, developments regarding just communication with the government on the matter?
Lino Molteni
Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position or qualified to give you an answer on these aspects, which pertain more to the development part of the commission regarding political and socioeconomic effects and the future of this. What I can say already, information given to us, is that there are already other pillars of the response, which are looking into urban regeneration and resilience, and this is under the leadership of UN Habitat, UNDP, to find long term solutions and sustainable urban development. And there is also a pillar concerning rights and community engagement. So partially answer to addressing your question.
It's also coordinated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. And the pillar will ensure that all interventions are grounded in human rights, transparency, and inclusive participation.
Barry Andrews
Okay. So, look, thank you for your responses, Lino, and for being here. And, well done, Eric. This is a very good enterprising initiative to bring up the question and answer opportunity in a very short period of time with the commission. And hopefully, people will use this in the future.
Sometimes written questions can be a bit frustrating, waiting for answers. So let's move on then to item 11, item 12, the situation in Lebanon. So as you all know, we, we're gonna be joined here by a few NGOs. Will we give them time to come up? Yeah.
If that's the news. Okay. So, look, the committee is obviously following the situation very carefully, especially since the ceasefire with Iran and looking at the implications for Lebanon, in particular, South Lebanon. And, our responsibility as a committee is for the humanitarian situation on the ground, to look at the situation of displaced people and the provision of assistance and providing some social security in the very difficult circumstances. I was there myself two weeks ago in Beirut and saw for myself the impact and the lack of humanitarian aid and how it's impacting on the ground.
We already heard this morning how aid has really fallen dramatically in 2025, and I suppose this is the first time we've seen the impact of this on the ground. And, this is clear from what I saw that people are not being provided with the basics that they would normally receive. Certainly, compared to the 2024 conflict in Lebanon, the situation is much, much worse. People have old blankets, bad mattresses. They're getting infections.
They're getting rashes. The impact has been really awful. The Gulf countries are not providing any aid. And the interfaith tensions on the ground, in a country that is very delicately balanced, are under extreme pressure as a result of the huge internal movement of population and the ongoing bombardment, which is adding to the tensions. So the needs are escalating.
The funding is not there. The flash appeal that was done by the UN, was met very, very poorly by the international community. So there is a confluence of problems here: extremity of this situation in Lebanon, the scale up of needs and the lack of funding, and an overall lack of political will to address this situation. So I'm delighted that we have an opportunity to address these questions, particularly focusing on the humanitarian response. And we're pleased to welcome our guest speaker, Mister Samar Abdul Jabbar, who is regional director for the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Eastern Europe in the World Food Program, who will join us remotely.
Mister Mahamu Mohammad Mansour, who's the coordinator of the Lebanon Humanitarian and Development Forum, also joining remotely. And Mister Giovanni Girolamo, who's head of unit for the Middle East and North Africa at DG ECHO. We're also joined by Miss Thule Ratti who is from DG MENA, and she will intervene at the end of the debate. So before giving the floor to our guest speakers, I would like to invite my colleague, Cecilia Strada, who is vice chair of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with the MASHREC countries, to deliver brief introductory remarks. Cecilia, you have the floor.
Two minutes.
Speaker 9
Dear colleagues, the humanitarian situation in Lebanon is gradually deteriorating. The bombardment by Israel has caused horrible, catastrophic causes. More than 2,000,000 people have had to leave their own homes, including more than 400,000 children, many of them for the third or fourth time. Now there has to be protection for these individuals. And we have several thousand victims in the civilian population as well.
Speaker 10
And rescuers and health care workers are under huge pressure. Many of them have lost their lives. On March 4, an emergency plan was put in place to assist these individuals, but the structures of the NGOs and the U. N. Agencies have not been sufficient.
Speaker 9
All in all, the number of refugees is so huge that it has not been possible to deal with the situation in these circumstances. It is extremely important that the package decided on by the European Commission be put in place. And that is certainly good news, but that's not sufficient. The needs are huge, and they go well beyond the resources that have been made available. Now, since the most recent attacks from the air by Israel, a further huge number of people have been obligated to leave their homes.
And there is a political situation that is extremely dire. We need stability and security, and also to stress the importance of the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the state. And this in full respect for international law, and especially international humanitarian law, which calls for the protection of civilians in the case of armed conflict. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much, Cecilia, for those introductory remarks. So without further delay, I will now invite the guest speakers to deliver their interventions for five minutes each, starting with Mister Abdel Jabber. And mister Abdel Jabber, if you can hear us and see us.
I hear you loud and clear.
Samar Abdul Jabbar
Thank you, Chair Andrews, honorable members. Thank you for the opportunity to brief you today, and for your continued attention to the Middle East at the moment of acute humanitarian needs. WFP welcomes the announcement of the ceasefire, but the situation remains extremely fragile. The risk of re-escalation is real, and its consequences extend well beyond any single country. The crisis has become a global food security shock.
Since the escalation, sharp increases in energy, fertilizer, and shipping costs have translated into rising food prices worldwide. If the crisis persists into mid 2026, up to 45 million additional people globally, including 5.2 million people across the Middle East, North Africa region, could be pushed into acute hunger. Humanitarian supply chains are under exceptional strain, exceeding COVID-19 and Ukraine war levels with higher costs, longer lead times, and reduced predictability. The compounded risk posed by key maritime choke points remains a critical concern for food and fuel supply chains. Despite this, WFP supply chain remains functional and agile as we are actively rerouting food, testing alternative sea, land, and multimodal corridors, and positioning ourselves to scale rapidly.
That includes Lebanon and the wider region. At the regional level, we are responding under a regional preparedness and response plan designed to sustain life-saving assistance while preparing for further deterioration. Across the Middle East, operations face a dual burden, maintaining existing programs while absorbing new emergency demands driven by increased displacement. Around 3,000,000 people newly displaced and markets are disrupted. WFP has planned assistance for around 1,900,000 people under the escalation scenario and has already reached more than 550,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, while preparedness measures are underway across other conflict-focused countries.
On Lebanon and, chair, I don't know how time flies. You've been there almost a month ago, and the situation has not actually improved. It actually deteriorated. Since early March, over 1,100,000 people have in turn been displaced nationwide, overwhelming shelters and host communities. Food prices have risen sharply, with vegetables up more than 20% in one month, bread up by 17%, mainly driven by fuel and transport costs.
In Southern Lebanon, conditions are particularly severe. Over 80% of the markets have collapsed. Since the escalation, we reached 440,000 conflict-affected people across Lebanon with food and cash assistance, on top of the ongoing program supporting vulnerable families and Syrian refugees. This includes the equivalent of more than 2,000,000 meals delivered, daily food support to over 103 displaced people in shelters, covering more than 75% of the people staying in shelters, food parcels, and ready to eat assistance in hard to reach and border areas, cash based transfer where markets are still functioning, supporting access to food, and prevent and preserving dignity. Humanitarian needs are rapidly outpacing initial planning assumptions, and the current emergency is unfolding against an already underfunded operation with only 35% of WFP's regular requirements, resource and assistance reduced or suspended due to funding shortfalls.
We have had to cut assistance to almost half a million people in Lebanon over the last six months, and that includes 430,000 Syrian refugees. Of course, access constraints are real. And despite the scale up, humanitarian delivery in Lebanon is increasingly constrained. Nearly 63% of planned humanitarian convoys to Southern Lebanon have not completed due to negative or absent responses to deconfliction requests, including interagency logistic cluster movements that WFP is facilitating. Even when convoys are cleared, our teams are stopped at multiple holding points.
Last week, one of our convoy missions took fifteen hours to complete. Without predictable and functional deconfliction mechanisms, civilians, particularly those unable to move north, disabled, and elderly, are being effectively cut off from assistance. Ensuring sustained and reliable humanitarian access is essential to reach most of those people who are in need. And, of course, behind all those stories or the issues that I'm updating you on are people. There are stories of people, and I can talk on behalf of the WFP team.
We have been impacted. Our staff lost their houses. Many staff had to be displaced. Yet the moment there is a convoy, the moment they feel like we need to go to the shelters, they're the first to actually be on the ground and be there to respond to the needs of those people that we want to serve. The focus is in Lebanon, and I think it's important to flag that at the wider region, there are still some concerns, and it's very much interlinked with Lebanon.
Iran, WFP operations continue uninterrupted. We're mainly focusing on supporting Afghani refugees, 45,000 of them, and we're working now on basically scaling up to support internally displaced people inside Iran, up to 400,000 people. Syria, they are absorbing a number of people who are returning. However, we know that we are struggling there. We're supporting those who are returning at the borders, at the two border crossings, but at the same time, we know that we have to cut 50% of our caseload inside Syria, which is a stabilizing issue.
Palestine is impacted, and we're seeing a lot of repetition of some of the issues that are happening in Lebanon in how it's being addressed or was addressed in Gaza. So just to end, maybe just to say, we need the support from the EU on sustained advocacy for humanitarian access, flexible and front-loaded humanitarian funding, support for diversified supply routes and additional crossings, and continued political attention on the humanitarian needs in Lebanon and the wider region. Thank you very much. And WFP will continue delivering at scale wherever conditions allow, and your leadership is strongly needed for the vulnerable people across the region.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Samir, for your work and for your contribution. And now we go to Mister Mohammad Mansour, who is coordinator of the Lebanon Humanitarian and Development Forum, and he is joining us remotely. Mohammed, we can see you. I hope you can hear and see us.
Mohammad Mansour
Chair Andrews, honorable members, and distinguished colleagues, thank you for giving Lebanon and the Lebanese civil society a voice today. I speak to you not only as a coordinator of the Lebanon Humanitarian and Development and Jews Forum, but as a Lebanese and a humanitarian worker speaking from a country that has been living under war since October 2023, a country where this violence did not end but merely changed rhythm. The war Lebanon is enduring today is a continuation of a prolonged assault that began in 2023. What you are witnessing since the 03/02/2026 is the second major escalation of a large scale military action against Lebanon. And even between those two escalations, there was no peace.
The ceasefire agreement signed on 11/27/2024 was supposed to offer Lebanon a path back to safety. But instead, Lebanon officially recorded more than 15,400 Israeli violations of the ceasefire, including airstrikes, artillery shelling, drone attacks, incursions, destruction of civilian property, and attacks on civilians. During that ceasefire period alone, at least 400 people were killed and 1,100 injured in Lebanon according to the Lebanese official reporting and conflict monitoring records. Among these casualties were women and children, civilians who should have been protected under international law. So when we say ceasefire for Lebanon, it never meant safety.
Then came March 2. Since the renewed escalation began, Lebanon had entered another catastrophic phase. On the 04/08/2026, one of the deadliest single days of this escalation, the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health officially reported 357 killed and more than 101,165 injured in minutes alone and 100 Israeli strikes across Lebanon. Unfortunately, these figures are not final, as some individuals remain missing and search and rescue operations are still ongoing. But April 8 was not an isolated tragedy.
It was one day in a sustained campaign that is striking homes, roads, shelters, schools, ambulances, hospitals, and densely populated civilian neighborhoods. These are not abstract numbers. These are they, these are children killed in a supermarket in Heiselam, a mother buried under collapsed ceilings in an attempt to protect her child in Talith Hayat, a woman purchasing meds for a supermarket from a pharmacy to help displaced people in Kaifun, 12 men directly targeted in a cemetery trying to bury a relative in Shmistar. These are families erased from the civil registry in a single strike. And that must be clear under international humanitarian law.
Even if a person is affiliated with an armed group, they cannot lawfully be targeted unless they are directly participating in activities at that moment. And this is the article five, fifty-one, three of additional protocol one to the Geneva Convention. Lebanon today is not only facing bombardment, it is facing the erosion of its fragile internal cohesion. These repeated attacks on civilians are deepening social tensions between Lebanese, forcing waves of internal displacement and creating conditions fighting similar to those that preceded the Arabian civil war. And this week, that memory is painfully close.
It was yesterday. Only yesterday, level marked 51 years since 04/13/1975, the beginning of our devastating civil war. We know too well what happens when fear, displacement, sectarian anxiety, and political paralysis are allowed to collide. We are dangerously close to that edge again. Yet the humanitarian toll is immense.
Since March 1, more than 1,200,000 have been newly displaced. Shelters are overcrowded while hosting only 15% of the space, and tens of thousands of children are now out of school. And those schools are closed because they are damaged or destroyed by air strikes. They have become shelters for the space families, or children simply cannot reach them for safety. This is how wars destroy nations, not only through death, but through stolen futures.
The humanitarian response is stretched to breaking point. The Lebanon flagship beer remains critically underfunded. Needs are rising faster than aid arrives. Food assistance, shelter support, ambulance dispatch, trauma care, mobile clinics, psychological support, all of this is happening every day for the past 43 days. Our responders themselves are tired and suffering.
Humanitarian workers are displaced. They have lost homes, family members, and colleagues. Paramedics and EMTs are being targeted and killed while saving lives. Up until last night, 88 paramedics have been killed by Israeli strikes and 200 wounded. Two Lebanese Red Cross marches have recently fallen while serving civilians under fire.
One of them, another colleague of mine, as I'm part of the Red Cross, Hassan Badawi. Two days ago, killed in Bet Yahun while attempting to save lives after an airstrike hit the village. Before war, throughout the ceasefire period, and again since March 2026, the British emergency responders have died in action. Ambulances have been struck. Hospitals have been damaged, evacuated, and rendered partially inoperable.
Primary health care centers and the humanitarian facilities are being destroyed in a country whose health system was already weakened. Again, the humanitarian response is stretched to breaking point, but there is something often forgotten. None of this work works without coordination. Aid distribution does not organize itself. Embrace does not self-deploy.
Referral system, chapter man mapping, medical dispatch chains, interagency access negotiations, these require coordination, and their coordination in Lebanon is being deprioritized. Without coordination, humanitarian aid fragments. Without coordination, people fall through the cracks. Without coordination, lives are lost invisibly. Lebanese civilians are reliving trauma layered upon trauma.
Children now distinguish missile sounds before they can solve their math. We maintain workers' rescuers, survivors day by day, and bury loved ones by night, if not themselves buried. We continue to work on the bombardment, while wondering whether our own home still stands. I already lost one. Honorable members, Lebanon does not ask for sympathy.
Lebanon asked for decisive action. We call on European states to demand an immediate and enforceable marine ceasefire in Lebanon, use all available diplomatic levers to ensure that civilians and civilian infrastructure are protected from military targeting in accordance with the legal principles of proportionality, distinction, and precautions. Use all the available levers to ensure the protection of humanitarian and health care personnel and assets. Make every effort to end the use of blanket displacement orders and ensure that any warnings fully comply with international humanitarian law, including guarantees of safe passage, adequate conditions, and the protection of civilians whether they leave or remain. Insist on independent investigation into attacks on civilian and civilian infrastructures and other features of IHL and complete steps of accountability.
Urgently mobilize, increase, sustain, and flexibly humanitarian funding, including the increase of direct support to the Chinese local organizations, especially from the EU and EU member states, support coordination mechanisms as a life-saving activity to ensure rapid, safe, and embedded humanitarian access to those in need. Review any military or political support to parties to the conflict that may be implicated in breaches. Europe's voice matters in Lebanon, and its silence also carries consequences. Today, I speak from a country where we put in survivors from rubble in the mornings and count our dead at night. We are tired.
We are breathing, but we remain standing because Lebanon, despite everything, still chooses life. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Mohammed, for that and our sympathies to you on your personal losses over the last few weeks and months. So now we will go to the head of unit for Middle East and North Africa in DG Eco, Giovanni di Girolamo. And you're very welcome, Giovanni. You have the floor for five minutes. Thank you.
Giovanni di Girolamo
Okay. So, well, just to confirm in a way the figure, the said list of figure provided by the two speakers before me. Indeed, what we saw on April 8 is an under escalation in a conflict going on since long. And the last event has been particularly significant. Few hours after the announcement of a ceasefire with Iran, there was this massive attack, 100 strikes, apparently in ten minutes in a densely populated area of Beirut.
So of course, the result of it has been 357 people killed and more than 1,200 people injured. So since then, the number of victims is above two thousand or close to two thousand. And, of course, what is most significant is a large-scale displacement. The displacement, of course, started before when the war with Iran started, but at the beginning of the initial weeks was exponential. We talked about from 80,000 to 500,000 in the matter of a few days.
And now we have above 1,100,000 people internally displaced, which is very much for a country of 5,500,000 people. And, of course, given the nature of the recent phase of the conflict in which Iran is also facing a Sunni Muslim state on the other side of the Persian Gulf, intercommunal tensions are even higher than used to be. In that very tense and complex environment with the risk, of course, for intercommunal strife is increasing. We have also the massive displacement requested by the Israeli authority north, south of Lithuania River, and even further north. So if we think in this area, is a city tire with a city of actually middle sites with considerable amount of infrastructure and other which have been seriously damaged.
Now there are some patterns, of course, that are very scary because of the large number of children killed, but also the attacks on health and, in general, civilian infrastructures. This, unfortunately, has been repeated. Just on Sunday, another Lebanese where the Cospera medic was killed, and the number of people who have been killed has already been mentioned among the humanitarian operators. So, of course, we reiterate our dual parties, our strong request for respect to international maritime law. And among that, the protection of health care workers and facility remain an absolute priority and should not be violated.
Now the response of the EU has been robust. Of course, the needs are very large, but still the president of the commission announced a 100,000,000 package. It was part of a large package of aid for The Middle East. And the humanitarian support we provide to Lebanon does not really relate only to Lebanese. It's also, of course, significant to refugees.
There was still a significant number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Palestinian refugees. Also vulnerable Lebanese of any kind or condition, and, of course, those internally displaced by hostilities. We are also to keep in mind that this happens in the context of a country, which used to be a middle income country, which now, in the recent years, is now becoming a country in which 3,000,000 people need humanitarian assistance or away in another, not only food, shelter, hygiene kits, any kind. And of course, protection, because we are not to forget these people are also under huge pressure by any side. We mobilized also the World Food Program Emergency Preparedness Fund, which was able in the first days of the hostility just in March to give food to more than 200,000 people when really the situation was out of control.
And then we had also five humanitarian aid bridge flights, which were carrying, of course, items like blanket, kitchen set, ZeriCans, etcetera, from different partners and from EU member states. Two other humanitarian flights are scheduled for the coming weeks. We mobilized also the UCB protection mechanism, which a number of countries also participating and also will provide support to the global logistic cluster deployment in Lebanon. This, of course, is part of a regional conflict and also has regional consequences. We have already 240,000 people across Lebanon to Syria.
And among them, there are 30,000 Lebanese. Of course, there's always been a movement of people between the two countries, but now, of course, the number increase demonstrates also the intensity of the conflict and the risk for the population. So I can only reiterate that it's important that the European Parliament has devoted this session. I think it's essential because we are taken by so many crises in the area. Unfortunately, we have to work, which is in the Middle East.
But this one in Lebanon is particularly explosive for the consequence, of course, it can have on the local population, for the international implication, and for the risk of other countries ultimately being sucked in in this new phase of hostility. So I'm really happy to reply any question by the member of the parliament because I don't want to invest with too many technical figure. But, certainly, it's very useful to have had this exchange today.
Barry Andrews
Well, thank you very much for that intervention. And now we go to members, and we will begin by giving the floor to Miss Lera Payne, who is our standing rapporteur for humanitarian aid. Lera, you have the floor for two minutes.
Lera Payne
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to the secretary and the presidency for organizing this session. My gratitude and acknowledgment to all the humanitarian workers we've listened to today. More than a million people displaced. 25% of the Lebanese population.
What we've heard today are the terrible figures in a region where barbarism is not ending once and over again. We are reminded of the genocide we saw in Gaza and, above all, the impunity that we saw in attacking civilians. As we've said, we've denounced this on many occasions. It's a systematic violation of international humanitarian law. How many cities, hospitals, schools, how much this discretion, destruction, assassination of girls and boys, and humanitarian works.
How many do we need to react? How many do we need to suspend the cooperation agreement with Israel? How much barbarism do we need for the European Union to react once and for all? We cannot continue to accept what's happening in Lebanon or in Iran. We should call on political actors to come back to humanitarian diplomacy negotiation.
The ceasefire should be real and sustainable into the future, and we should guarantee access to international humanitarian aid. Once again, we want to ask our experts on the ground, what are they hoping for in concrete terms of the European Union so that we can be a relevant actor and can play a political and humanitarian role that will bring to an end this situation, and that can guarantee peace and security in the medium and long term.
Barry Andrews
It's a letter, and now we go to the other members, and we will patriots are not here. So go ahead. Yes. Oh, Georgie. Yeah.
We are here. Sorry. Georgie Halveny for the patriots. Georgie, when you have the, thank you. Ready, you have two minutes.
Thank you.
György Hölvényi
It's very difficult to have a speech about or to think about two minutes. It's wide enough. You know, we are if we concentrate on the humanitarian aid. But to talk without the root of the cause is absolutely in that is. It's not possible. And, of course, we are facing the conflict for decades.
It's not solved, and we have the moment's reaction. We was not able to care about the millions of course, we've done a lot of things. Yeah? It's not about the Syrian refugees. And now plus, we have, as several men several times mentioned, 1,100,000 Lebanese refugees, and we don't know about what's going on in the South part of Lebanon.
That's 100 thousand people are there, and this is the question. And what's about to mention with the international level, the obligation of the Lebanese government concerning Hezbollah? This is a conflict. I was the chief of server of the Lebanese elections 2002, and nowhere in the country. And, of course, it's a huge challenge for the relatively weak government, but denied the role of the political elite of Lebanon, it would be absolutely not the right way.
And I think, we Europeans, have to do everything with the humanitarian aid. But after a while, in the concerning the humanitarian aid. And with the virtual program, it was rightly mentioned, it's really fantastic what they are doing in the region. And mister Abdel Jabir, yeah, just mentioned, really, they try to do the best. But my question would be very concrete to him.
That's how can we ensure the international humanitarian aid reaches the people in need in the source part of Lebanon. There are 100 thousand out there. What can we do on the perspective of the work program to prevent how we end up in a Gaza-like situation in Saudi Lebanon? The danger is there. 100,500,000 children are not in school.
500,000 children, ladies and gentlemen, in Lebanon are not in school. In Gaza, 3,000,000,000 are ready for three sorry. 300,000 for three.
Years. This is.
György Hölvényi
The facts. What can be done? That's really a targeted question to the most professional person in the region, Abdel Jabbar. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Are there other members who would like to take the floor? Isabelle, you have the floor.
Thank.
Speaker 18
you. 200 and 100,000 people assassinated in recent months, 604, 6,400 assassinated as well in the last eight months. So a 100 attacks in less than ten minutes, more than 300 people killed, a million people displaced, a block, a systematic blockade of humanitarian aid as we've seen. Why? Why are these systematic violations of humanitarian law being committed?
What is this is the same that we saw abide from Israel against the Palestinian people in Gaza, related to the massive assassination of many people, but also the objective is the destruction of infrastructure that allows for life of the Lebanese people. This is what we're seeing. And this is what we're calling the Gaza doctrine. So what's behind all of this is the expansionist, colonialist project of Israel to distract, destroy, land grab, and annihilate all people who stand in their way. So I think it's important that we recognize that to face this humanitarian crisis that we definitely are seeing, of course, we need more funding from the European Union and all other countries, but we also must confront the narrative of this Gaza doctrine that we're seeing applied in Lebanon.
I've listened to a representative of the European Union, Miss Kalas, saying that there should be a ceasefire, but there is Lebanon that is being aggressed, and the aggressor is Israel. And there is a narrative, which is propaganda. So they're using the excuse of terrorism to justify what the genocidal Israeli state is carrying out. Also, we see the vulnerable sovereignty of Lebanon being violated. So we need to face the humanitarian crisis.
But until we take political steps in suspending the agreement between the EU and Israel, and bring an end to the impunity, then we will not see an end to the crisis. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Isabelle. And now we will go to Udo Bulman, and then Eric Aftermath.
Udo Bullmann
Thank you, chair. Let me also thank all of our guests for the excellent analysis and information they have given us. I have a question, more or less, if I may say so, to all of us, Barry. Georgie is right. Our job here in this committee is, first and foremost, humanitarian aid.
But what is happening in the South of Lebanon reminds me of a critical pattern, a critical pattern that we had been seeing in Gaza and are still seeing in Gaza, a critical pattern where the European Union is in a very, very specific role. We have actors that bomb people, most of the time, innocent people. We have people endlessly suffering, has nothing to do anymore with self-defense, has nothing to do anymore with international law. And here comes the specific role of the European Union. The European institutions decide on the no-show card.
The no-show card. But in parallel to that, we have a debate to rebuild, to help, of course, rightly so, the people who need support the most. And we know it will not be sufficient because the bombing continues. And my very question is if this really is enough. I don't think so.
I don't think that this is what the European institutions should do. My very concrete request, my very concrete idea is, wouldn't it be high time that the committees of this house, let me say we, as those who are always coming into play when it's about humanitarian aid, AFET, if you would like to see the subcommittee on human rights come together challenging the people in charge. Here, I would say the high rep, first address, Madam Callas. Because I think that the tone or the no-show performance of the European institutions is one of the very reasons why this is happening. And here, we should ask for a change.
Perhaps we could have talks with the other committees, and I'm pretty sure that an initiative from our side would find a broad echo in the House. Thank you very much.
Erik Marquardt
Yes. Thanks a lot. I can basically, yeah. And Udo said almost everything. Think, of course, we are responsible for humanitarian aid, but it feels a little bit like we are trying to put the water out of a leaking boat while the leak is a problem.
And I think that, of course, that is maybe one of my questions. We can talk about Hispaniola. We can. And I would be also interested in the recent developments, how your relationship with the authorities in Lebanon is, and how also the recent developments, like this kind of decoupling from Hezbollah has an effect and what are the consequences. But, of course, there's also not only a smaller, but very, like, I don't know.
I don't find the right words, but, like, aggressive, insane behavior by the Israeli government. And it's not something we can change from our committee here, but my question would be, if I ask you, what can we help also to Mohammed Mansour and the World Food Program? Like, of course, we need more money. We know, but we don't have the money in our hands all day. What else can we do, like, as members of the European Parliament?
And it's not about money, and maybe not about solutions. So is there something we can help with or how we can increase the pressure? That would be my second question.
Barry Andrews
That's everybody. So just a few additional questions. I mean, for the witnesses, we've seen the from what I heard on the ground was that the Israeli defense forces require 48 hours' notice from NGOs to move products and humanitarian relief in South Lebanon. Maybe, Mister Abdul Jabber, you could talk to us about that. And the NGOs explained to me that, therefore, if there's an emergency that requires an ambulance to move in the entire South Lebanon, that becomes a target for the IDF because, clearly, it's impossible to notify forty-eight hours in advance of a woman giving birth of an emergency medical requirement that requires any ambulance to move in the forty-eight hour period.
So maybe you could describe the notification issue there. You mentioned that in a World Food Program, 65% of your aged convoys are not able to move. So, obviously, complying with the 48-hour rule, you still can't get anything to move in in South Lebanon. Also, if you could, you know, we are responsible with humanitarian aid situation, but that the other side of that is humanitarian law. And we've heard what happened on April 8.
After the ceasefire in Iran, in ten minutes, three hundred people were killed, of whom 110 were women and children, with no notice, by the way, in a densely populated part of Central Beirut, not South Lebanon, not South Beirut, but Central Beirut. And Israeli defense forces will argue that there was a Hamas Hezbollah target, but the question of proportionality arises here, which is an international humanitarian law principle. And I would ask the witnesses to give their view of whether or not this abides by the obligation of proportionality. And finally, of the people that I met in Beirut, they took pictures of their homes inside Beirut. They took pictures of their villages, of their fields, knowing they're much unlikely to see them again.
So this is, you know, ethnic cleansing, effectively in their minds. Let's not imply what the IDF are thinking. But in their minds, they're leaving and they're not going back, and it's happening now, right now, as we speak. So these are all principles that have been protected in international humanitarian law. Now we have a foreign affairs council that concluded that there is grounds to raise the human rights issues in the association agreement between EU and Israel.
Surely, evidence of what's happening now in Lebanon further it doesn't detract, it adds more weight to the argument that a suspension or at least a review of the association agreement is merited by the humanitarian law situation on the ground. So I'd ask you on behalf of the commission to comment on those issues. So let's go back to our witnesses. If we can go back to mister Abdul, we will start with you, from the World Food Program, if you could answer any of the questions that are relevant to you. I'm afraid we've only got two minutes each, Mr. Abdul Jabbar.
It's a very short period of time, but I'd ask you to keep to the time. Thank you.
Samar Abdul Jabbar
Thank you very much, and thanks for those points. I think I'll try to summarize it. One thing, money is not everything. And I think the generosity of the European Union, and we've been really working closely with ECO, but also with the other commissions, has been really, really enormous. And I think our ask is not financial.
Financial is one thing that is definitely needed, but I think there is a lot more that can be done. Advocacy and when it comes to humanitarian access, abiding with the international humanitarian law is definitely something that we need to keep on pushing. The advocacy on the urgency, like you yourselves have been stating, to reach the South is something that we need. I think we we've been pushing everyday convoys, and, Chair Andrews, you you're correct. The process is cumbersome.
It takes time to get the approvals. But even when we get the approvals, the process for the convoy to reach its nation and come back is actually going through a lot of milestones. There are holding points. At every holding point, we have to wait and deconflict and get the green light to proceed. So there are lots of operational challenges that are limiting.
The convoys that I've mentioned and then I'll mean, I think you're absolutely right. We did not reach everyone in the South. We reached around 40,000 people since the conflict started. However, we know that that means there are more than that number still in need of assistance. So every day, we're pushing for convoys, not just as WFP, but WFP coordinated as the logistic cluster lead on behalf of all the partners there because everything is needed in those areas.
It's not just about food. Non-food items are needed as well. So we've been to Nabataea. We've been to TIER. Today, as I speak to you, my team is in Hezbollah.
We keep on trying, but it's not easy. It's very difficult, and we need the advocacy from the European Union and others. I think the other thing which is really important, the urgency to diversify, roots for us is important, and that's in Lebanon and beyond. So we're testing different corridors just in case the scenario of the conflict in Lebanon actually deteriorates even further. That's part of our, you know, business continuity and how we make sure that we reach people.
So I will just end with two things. One, we're meeting families who really fled the their areas at night with nothing. And I think my colleague Mohammad, from Lebanon, mentioned it. The families are trying to reassure their kids that things will get better. They're lying to them.
They know that they are lying to them, but that's the only assurance that they can give them. People were very hopeful across the region, not just in Lebanon, in the ceasefire when it was announced with Iran. And now I think there is a disappointment at the people level that Lebanon is not included, and we were seeing how people are anxious and worried that it's gonna get worse for them. So our assistance is more or less giving them hope sometimes that we're trying to reach them. The last thing that I would say.
Samar Abdul Jabbar
We remind ourselves, like, IHL is important, but we remind ourselves of the humanitarian principles. And this is where I think no one more than the EU can help us with this. You understand it. You talk the talk as well. You walk the talk.
You know what I mean. The being human, the humanity aspect, impartial aspect, neutrality is really important for us and being independent but that we're not part of a political or a military operation. As humanitarian partners, we need your support to reach the people wherever they are.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much, Mister Abdel Jabir, and for your work. And now we go to Mister Mansour again from the Lebanon Humanitarian and Development Forum. Yes, Mohammad. You have two minutes, please, to respond. Thank you.
Mohammad Mansour
I will be very sorry. Already, mister Salman just mentioned many of the points that I wanted to mention. I just wanna answer the question on what the EU can do more than finance. Finance was one of the points, out of the eight points that I've asked about. So the EU has a huge leverage.
EU has a strong power, and EU can and did, in a previously ensured, the implementation of the IHL, the humanitarian principles, definitely. On the point of the 48 hours, definitely, in Lebanon, most of the NGOs are using the humanitarian notification system. I don't think there is a decide on any humanitarian, let's say, movement. But, what is surprising is that even though we are notifying them forty-eight hours before, they are refusing on the northern side of the battalion 81% of the movements and 52% on the southern place of the Rittani. We still have around an estimation of 140,000 people residing on this Southern Rittani River.
We do have a lot of, we do have five hospitals that are damaged or closed and 15 health care centers that are damaged or closed in the Southern Lekani River. So do all those issues, think that you can leverage and put pressure on the implementation of the IHL on ensuring the accountability for people who are breaching the IHL and preventing humanitarian access in order not to reach, again, the situation of Gaza and Lebanon. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Mohammed. And now we have final comments on behalf of DG Eco. Giovanni, please, you have two minutes. Thank you.
Giovanni di Girolamo
Yeah. Thank you. Of course, I thank all the participants, and I take note of what you said. Of course, it's quite a tragic situation. And as said, it's not a problem of resources.
Of course, resources can be more, but it's not a problem of logistics. The theater as such, that will be possible to reach people in need relatively fast. We are not talking of big distance or surpassable chain of mountains, etc. What we have is a major problem with violation of IHL. That's for sure.
And that cannot be denied by any observer. And also there is a serious problem of political nature. Of course, we the only way to stop this both in Lebanon and Gaza as well is a political solution. And of course, it's not easy. That is the European Union is not acting in a vacuum because there are other actors which are somehow much more influenced than what we can have.
We have to be honest. So, but yes, it's important, I think, to look at this in perspective. The need to stop that is because, of course, the scenario some of you ventilated, the situation becoming similar to Gaza, is not completely remote. So it's something that can happen, unfortunately. So it would be extremely important to try to stop that as soon as possible because, of course, the fragile architecture of Lebanon was going through so many long periods of instability, intercommunal conflict, etcetera.
Notwithstanding the impressive resilience of the Lebanese people in rebuilding and restarting, etcetera, is still something that, of course, cannot be tested forever. And I think I take notes in this sense and not the many answers that I can give you because, of course, the political dimension goes beyond the mandate I have. But, certainly, it's a key issue. It's not a purely classical humanitarian crisis. It's a major international humanitarian law crisis, and it's a major political crisis.
And I think that will be in your domain to do what maybe could be done. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Okay, Giovanni. Well, it's a yeah. Let's continue to put the pressure on for the protection of international humanitarian law. So thank you very much to our speakers, and we will continue and we will take up Udo's suggestion, maybe of the three committees, and try to escalate this to provide some practical support and ideas how we might relieve and alleviate the situation on the ground. So thank you, everybody.
Speaker 22
We'll take a short break before we get going on the next item on the agenda. Thank you very much. Yes. Alright. Okay.
Barry Andrews
Welcome back, everybody. We have item 13 now. They dropped their attention in there. I need you more force. Right.
We'll get going. That's more like it. Okay. So we're on to item 13. And we've come to the issue of the protection of aid workers across the world.
And as some of you will know, 2023 was the deadliest year on record for aid workers, and I'm sure 2024 was the deadliest year before that. It's been just a really shocking situation. And aid workers put themselves in harm's way in order to deliver relief, in order to demonstrate human kindness and solidarity to people who are affected by poverty, by conflict, by climate change, in various geographies around the world. But, unfortunately, more and more, humanitarian aid workers and other workers are beginning to be targeted and injured. And it's hard to separate this from the overall lack of consistency around the protection and application of humanitarian law and the humanitarian principles.
So we have an opportunity today to look at that. It's quite timely because we will have a humanitarian communication later next month where we will talk about international humanitarian law. But in general, this committee is obviously seized of this issue, and I'm personally very well aware of the issues that we're going to have to address today. And so we are joined by guest speakers, Mister Patrice Lenormand, who is head of unit with Southeast Asia and the Arabian Peninsula, DG ECHO. We're also joined by mister David Anakin, director of Protect Aid Workers, mister Olivier Von de Castille, maybe.
I'm working on it. Director of Protect Humanitarians, an NGO, which is a partner of the PAW consortium. He is also a survivor who himself was kidnapped and arbitrarily detained by the Islamic Republic of Iran for 456 days. And we're joined by Miss Parestho Hakim, who is also a beneficiary of the PAW mechanism and an Afghan education advocate. Miss Hakim was nominated for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2023.
So without further delay, I can now give the floor to the speakers for their introductory remarks, and we will start with DG Eco, Patrice Lenormand. You have five minutes. You're very welcome, Patrice. Thank you.
Patrice Lenormand
Thank you very much, mister chair, madam Lara Porturque, permanent. First, thank you for giving it to us, for having put this very important item on the agenda, and to actually give the floor to the two survivors that are on my two sides. And I don't intend to talk long. This is more for their voice to be heard than for mine. Just a few figures.
Speaker 24
This is one humanitarian worker killed every day. This is one humanitarian being wounded every day. And if you add the unlawful arrest and kidnapping, this is another one every day. So the figures are huge. You have seen that the ICSE has made a statement that today, a Red Cross is not a protection, it's a target.
Patrice Lenormand
And there is one very simple statement that without a humanitarian worker, there is no humanitarian assistance. That's just a simple fact of reality. Of course, the UN the European Union assigned all the UN declaration, the two seven three zero. We have joined the Australian declaration in September at Unga. So we are investing in all the advocacy, humanitarian diplomacy and statement you need to do on this matter.
But commissioner Labib asked us to complete this package with something very concrete. We make statements on Ed worker that have suffered, and then we let them alone. So the instruction we got was simply to put in place something that will give a very concrete, tangible support, a lawyer, a doctor, a support. So we did so. It will be part of the package of EHL proposal that the commissioner, Labib, will present to this house and discuss with you with one simple objective, how can we go beyond statement and help save and rebuild the life of the people that have been wounded for doing their job and what you mentioned, Chair, actually, those hero who defend humanity.
Having one more point that most of the people I've mentioned in terms of figures are frontliners, volunteers, very often local workers who do not fit into an international system like you could have if you work for the UN or for big NGOs. These are very, they are particularly touched by that, not mentioning, of course, the specificity of gender in the matter and the large number of female-led workers that are suffering from dedicated and targeted attack. So we have put in place this program. I will let the colleagues present that. It will become a global program covering the world.
It will be part of this package on DHL. Today, we have 538 ongoing cases of support, which is actually more cases of support than the members of Ed Worker killed this year. We have the intention to increase that with the objective before the end of the year to have actually supported more people than the members of Ed Walker that have been killed, arrested, wounded during this year, that we are de facto reversing the balance. One last point, and I will give you back the floor, Chair. This is a very important element that needs to be highlighted.
We need to give the space to the voices of the survivors. As I mentioned, we will probably launch an international conference in October under the Irish presidency in Brussels dedicated to the protection of head workers, where we will be very happy to work with this house on to have the best interaction and how to put this agenda forward. Thank you very much, mister Che, and I think it's more important to listen to the frontliners. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Patrice. And now we go to David, who's here to my left, who is the director of Protect Aid Workers. David, you have the floor for 6 minutes.
David Anakin
Thank you. Honorable members, esteemed colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on developments. I speak today on behalf of the Protected Workers. So as Patrice mentioned, it's a global initiative launched two years ago by a consortium of NGOs with the support of DG Eco. So basically, we operate a rapid response mechanism that can be activated when serious incidents occur, and existing protection systems don't work.
So we try to help stabilize the worker situations and prevent further harm. The So support can include medical care, safe relocations, short term income during the head worker is recovering, or legal assistance, legal support, especially in case of arbitrary arrest or detention. So in short, we intervene when violence occurs, and duty of care mechanisms are unable to respond quickly or the right way. Since 2024, our caseload has consistently increased, reflecting important needs and a clear deterioration of the security environment for humanitarian personnel. So violence is fueled by blatant violations of international humanitarian law, the erosion of multilateral norms, the communitization of humanitarian action, and disinformation and smear campaigns targeting aid organizations.
Speaker 26
As Patrice mentioned, in 2025 alone, over 1,000 humanitarian personnel were directly affected by violence, either killed, injured, kidnapped, or arrested. So without strong political actions to curb these dynamics, violence and attacks against workers will continue to escalate, particularly against those delivering assistance on the front line. So there is an urgent need for states to defend IHL provisions protecting aid and health workers, and reflect this commitment in the upcoming EU Commission Communication on Humanitarian Aid. As members of the EU Parliament, you can use your diplomatic and political leverage to engage with authorities from countries where incidents happen. And this includes addressing the criminalization of AIDS, the impact of disinformation, the inclusion of humanitarian exemptions in domestic legislation, and improving states' response when incidents happen.
David Anakin
What we see across the incidents reported to us is very consistent. The people most exposed to violence are often those who have the least protection: national staff, volunteers, community-based responders. They face the same threats as international colleagues and often greater ones, but without any insurance coverage, without a safety net, and without the organizational backing when something goes wrong. These protection gaps often result from structural choices made within the humanitarian ecosystem. Chronic underfunding of local organizations limits their ability to invest in the protection system.
At the same time, more and more risk is being transferred to local actors near the frontline without an equivalent transfer of financial or technical resources to help them mitigate those risk. Accepting these inequalities means accepting that some lives are less protected than others, and these protection gaps will persist unless states and donors address the structural causes. Local and national organizations need predictable and adequate funding to invest in meaningful security risk management and duty-of-care systems. Since the start of the project, protected aid workers have supported more than 500 aid workers and their family members across 20 countries. This caseload gives us a very concrete picture of what aid workers and their families face when violence occurs.
For instance, we have supported aid workers injured and sometimes permanently disabled near the frontline in Ukraine. We have evacuated Sudanese volunteers facing serious risk of abuse in Darfur. We have assisted health workers wounded when the hospitals were bombarded in Myanmar. We have supported families of colleagues killed in Gaza and of staff arbitrarily detained in Yemen. Without protected workers, there is no quick and coordinated way to support a networker after an attack.
In many cases, situations will simply worsen both for affected workers and for their families. A concrete way for the EU to demonstrate support for aid workers globally will be to integrate protected workers into the multi-annual financial framework and the global Europe instrument. This would ensure sustainable, coordinated and needs-based support for Humanitarian personnel and their family. Finally, the vast majority of incidents reflected in our cases remained unpunished. Attacks are rarely investigated, and perpetrators are seldom identified or held accountable.
This failure to pursue accountability extends the harm caused by the initial incidents. For affected head workers and their families, it results in long-term psychological, social, and financial consequences, together with a persistent sense of isolation and insecurity. Without effective and controllability mechanisms upheld by states, the protection of aid workers will remain partial and fragile. States must do their utmost to ensure that attacks are properly investigated, that perpetrators are held accountable, and that attacks are publicly condemned when they occur. States or social support and strengthen judicial and non-judicial accountability mechanisms to improve investigations and prosecutions within an EU strategic framework.
Members of the European Parliament can play an active role by following up on cases brought to their attention and by supporting stronger accountability mechanisms. This includes respecting the principle of universal jurisdiction and adapting national criminal legislation to ensure effective remedies for serious violations of IHL, including those affecting AIDS and health workers. Thank you for your attention.
Okay. Thank.
Barry Andrews
Very for that, David. And we now go to Olivier, who is director of Protect Humanitarians and himself a survivor of kidnapping and arbitrary detention in Iran. So, Olivier, please, you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Olivier Van de Casteele
Thank you, chair. Honorable members of the European Parliament, dear partners and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, as my colleague said, we owe more than gratitude to the woman and the man who stand against despair and violence every day to protect human life. We owe them protection. We owe them solidarity. And yet today, we are failing them.
I stand before you as the founder of Protect Humanitarians, an NGO that exists to defend those who stand up for humanity, especially when they are silenced, detained, attacked. But as the chair mentioned, also as someone who knows intimately what happens when that protection fails. Three years ago, I was taken hostage by the Islamic Republic of Iran, arbitrarily arrested, blindfolded, pushed into a van, and then started psychological torture in strict isolation for more than 400 days. That experience did not end when I was released. It continues to shape my life in ways that are invisible to the eye, but deeply felt.
As of today and despite support, my body has not yet fully regained sense of safety and trust that most of us take for granted. But this experience is not unique. On the contrary, it's getting normalized. Today, humanitarian workers faced increasing violence in many forms: attacks, kidnappings, arbitrary detention, and killing simply because they are doing their work. This is not an accidental escalation.
It is the collapse of protection for those who deliver aid on the ground. Two facts, humanitarian aid workers' deaths have tripled over the past three years in places like Palestine or Sudan. Cases of kidnap and arbitrary detention have tripled as well over the past 2 years in places like Yemen or South Sudan. Again, we should not see this as isolated tragedies. This is a system failure.
What we are witnessing is the normalization of violence against humanitarian workers, against those who actually stand to save lives and come to rescue. This very simple fact should actually be a wake-up call for all of us, because the consequences are not just for those directly targeted. When humanitarian workers are not protected, civilians lose access to assistance, lifelines disappear, and lives are lost. So in complementarity to my two colleagues who have already spoken, allow me to turn to the three priorities that I would like to push forward. First, I believe the European Union must strengthen its commitment to upholding international humanitarian law and human rights law in practice.
When violations persist, impunity fuels further violence. Upholding the law does not mean repeating the principles. It means actually enforcing them. And let us be clear, it is not international law that is failing. It is the commitment of states to uphold international law that is failing or that is not applied consistently, and quite often with quite a lot of exceptions.
What we see also is that currently states are becoming the primary perpetrators of violence against humanitarian workers. Accountability, therefore, is essential, and it must be centered on the victims and survivors to provide them with meaningful justice and dignity. My second point is around mental health and psychological support, which we believe requires urgent investment. Violence becoming a norm. We believe that, and we see that the needs for psychological support in our sector are surging.
And therefore, under the protected workers' initiatives, we are expanding access to mental health and psychosocial support, working with local experts in key areas and countries most affected. As was mentioned by David, in contexts like Ukraine or Palestine, it is not that violence has a start and an end. It is actually continued violence and continued exposure to trauma that basically, over the years, has a deep impact on the resilience of civil society and responders to continue their work. We need to address this more effectively. Third, we need to empower, not just invite survivors, but empower them to become themselves effective advocates and agents of change for our sector.
Trauma often strips people of agency. It takes away our control, our choices, our voice. Yet, who better than those who have been impacted can be advocates for their peers who continue to do the work in the field? Therefore, I want to be clear. I take no pleasure in sharing this story here and opening my wounds, but we believe, and there's a growing number of survivors and family members of victims who believe that it is by speaking louder and more consistently that we will potentially touch your heart and your emotions, and hopefully bring some change to this sector.
At present, such a space was not yet offered to survivors and victims in the humanitarian sector, which seems counterfactual. We are happy to create that space. I'll close by just saying that we would like you to be on our side and not remain silent. Humanitarian workers, local and international, will not retreat. We will not abandon our mandate, despite the challenges. But every attack against a humanitarian worker is an attack on all of us, and what we stand for.
So I'm requesting you to not allow this trend to continue and to take meaningful action to reverse it, because in today's world, humanitarian workers continue despite everything to be a beacon of hope in crisis and conflict, so we need you to stand with us. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Well, thank you, Olivier, for that excellent testimony and for your courage to speak up on behalf of all of those who have been affected as aid workers and on your own behalf. And now we go to Miss Paris Hakim, who herself is a beneficiary of the PAW mechanism and an Afghan education advocate, and was nominated for the Sakharov Prize. So, Miss Hakim, you have the floor for five minutes. Thank.
Parasto Hakim
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am coming from Afghanistan, where from 2021, I started standing on the ground and on the field as a humanitarian worker to ensure the rights of education for girls and women in Afghanistan because, simply, they were banned. After 2021, the violation of international human rights declaration has become a very common practice on a daily basis for the Taliban to ban girls and women from any type of basic rights that the person can have and have the right to hold it. So we have been keep going on, not only me, many people like us, the young people who felt the responsibility. We stood there on the field to create facilities for women to get educated, to have access to work, and that was simply for two reasons.
First, to give them something to hold on to life and to not kill themselves because, of course, they would not have anything else to hold on to life. Second, to particularly save the small girls from forced marriages at a very young age. But, unfortunately, I could not stay in Afghanistan for very long. This is a reality for many human rights workers or aid workers in countries like Afghanistan. We cannot stand and we cannot work freely without facing threats, detention, and also prison, and at the same time, public executions like many of my colleagues in Afghanistan.
I was threatened. I will, and then I was forced to leave my country overnight. I'm still struggling with the trauma that I had to face leaving my country. And this is not only me. It is all across the world, the same experience for everybody who is standing for human rights today, and this is no more disappointing.
It is funny how the world is still silent to stand and give support to the people who are standing for our rights. A humanitarian worker right now in Afghanistan who is leaving their houses in the morning to stand and do something for the world to make it a better place and create some opportunities for girls and women to study or simply to work and have access to their basic rights might not return to their houses at the end of the day. And this is not because of what they do in that country. It is because what is not being done against their violation of humanitarian law in Afghanistan. Ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you.
It's been five years that girls in Afghanistan do not have access to their basic needs and right, which is going to school. And it is very funny for me to come here and remind you that because you all have read this on a daily basis, and yet everybody has been failing to do something about that. Yet a person like me who is standing there and supporting their rights for education is facing threats, but they are not able to reach a mechanism like this to get support, to get out of detention centers where right now we have more than 8,000 people in the presence of the Taliban without having any type of access for the lawyers and judicial system just because they were standing for human rights, and they were supporting the rights for education for girls and women in the country. A human rights fighter in Afghanistan and countries like ours is doing the most work. For example, we have heard and we have seen the experience of Bolivia and Iran.
Countries like Afghanistan and Iran and also most other countries around those, this is our reality of working every day just for basic rights. So it is very important for me, unfortunately, to come here to tell you that please stand and do something, because you are in the position to do it. If I may, I would like to recommend that push for reinforcement of international humanitarian law, especially in a country like Afghanistan. Support mechanisms to investigate, prosecute attacks on aid workers, rescue them, and provide support when they are in need, like the mechanism of aid workers. Prioritize humanitarian workers, especially the local actors on the field, and be their voice.
Give them platforms so that they can come here and tell you their experiences. Maybe that will make you do something for them. And at the end of the day, it takes one human rights worker to stand there for the rights of all of us to ensure it. So ladies and gentlemen, be our voices and do not leave us alone while we need you the most, like today. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
So thank you very much for the interventions and for the testimony as well. And we do our very best to keep an eye on these matters and to raise them as often as possible. And, we're delighted to have you here today, miss Hakim, to give your own evidence. So I want to now give the floor to the Cyprus Council presidency for a short contribution. And we're joined by Miss Eleni Mavromatis who is from the presidency.
And if you are here, you can join us, and if you have the floor for two minutes. Thank you very much.
Eleni MAVROMATIS
Thank you, chair. The Cyprus presidency very much welcomes this exchange of views, and we'd like to thank the European Parliament, in particular the committee, for convening this timely discussion, as well as the commission and partners for their important contributions. The protection of humanitarian personnel is a core priority for the Cyprus presidency. We are deeply concerned by the sharp increase in attacks against aid workers in recent years. Beyond the tragic human cost, such attacks directly undermine the effectiveness of the EU and international humanitarian and development action, limiting our collective ability to reach those most in need.
Speaker 30
Respect for international humanitarian law must remain at the center of our work. The obligations are clear. Humanitarian workers must be protected, and humanitarian access must be safe, rapid, and unimpeded. However, these principles are too often disregarded in today's conflicts. In this context, the protect aid workers mechanism is a very concrete and timely EU response.
By providing rapid support to humanitarian workers affected by critical incidents, including financial assistance, protection measures, and legal support, it helps to address real operational gaps, particularly for national and local staff who are most exposed to the risks. As presidency, we are committed to keeping this issue high on the council's agenda. We are advancing discussions on the protection of civilians, including aid workers, as well as on ensuring meaningful humanitarian access, including through threatening humanitarian diplomacy and practical engagements with partners. To support this, we will use upcoming council discussions to further engage the member states on the protection of aid workers, including through a dedicated agenda item at the COHAFA working party. This will be complemented by a presidency side event in cooperation with the European Commission around June, aimed at promoting the protect aid workers mechanism and fostering a more operational exchange with partners and identifying concrete ways to strengthen support to humanitarian personnel.
In closing, we reaffirm the council's strong commitment to strengthening the protection of humanitarian personnel and ensuring accountability for violations. Close cooperation between EU institutions, member states, and partners will be essential to deliver on this shared responsibility. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Eleni. And, yes, we look forward to the side event on that end. Full marks to the Cyprus presidency for raising this important issue. So now we will go to the floor, and we will start with Lara Payne, who's busy, busy today. Lara, this is the third time representing your position as standing rapporteur for humanitarian aid.
So, Lera, you have the floor for two minutes.
Lera Payne
Thank you so much, chair, and thank you to the committee for this vital exchange of you. Welcome, and thank you so much to all of you for your commitment, your job, your clarity, and your messages. Let me now switch to Spanish.
Just to say loud and clear that we cannot allow 280 humanitarian workers to be assassinated deliberately every day, as we've seen this year. It's been unprecedented. We cannot allow these people who are risking their lives, losing their lives because there were no witnesses or anyone to shed light on the impunity that certain people take upon themselves in many places and in many conflicts of which we have spoken many times. It is our ongoing obligation not only to acknowledge the work of humanitarian workers, but also to focus on the reality in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Sudan, and to acknowledge it through the Sakharov Prize. And we have spoken loudly and clearly here that we want to denounce these situations of deliberate murder of humanitarian workers in many situations and stopping women from being assisted in Afghanistan.
We recognize that right in Strasbourg last month. We acknowledge your work, and we will work to guarantee your security. It's an ethical obligation, and it is how we see our responsibility. You are not alone. You can count on us, and we will continue to work to help through the mechanism for the protection of humanitarian workers.
We believe in it. The steps taken by the commission are very welcome. We should have more funding, more political commitment, and we here will be pushing for that. Also, we feel we must guarantee the mental health services that you were referred to, to protect workers on the ground. And with all the loudspeakers we can find, we can make sure that your voice can then be echoed through the world to call for international humanitarian respect of humanitarian law.
Obviously, political will should guarantee that this protection mechanism can be one that can play a role in the crisis that we are experiencing today. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Okay. Thank you, Lara. So those are very pertinent questions. Anybody else like to take the floor? Yes, Isabelle, please.
Thank.
Speaker 18
You, chair. Yes. I wanted to take the floor to really thank you. I think being here to hear these people is fundamental, a humanitarian work in what we are experiencing today throughout the world, especially in certain regions, we think this is very courageous. These are people who are really working for all humanity.
And so as we have been saying this over years, where we're reaching new records every year of assassinated humanitarian workers, it's important to say that this is related to the fact that humanitarian workers, you are those who sustain life. We see in the case of Israel when they're attacking Lebanon, they're trying to destroy all the infrastructure, which is fundamental to sustain life. But then the humanitarian workers, you are in the firing line of all these regimes, and especially Israel that wants to annihilate the world in total impunity. So I'll, well, because of the inaction of the European Union and the West, Israel has been able to stop UNRWA from working in Palestine and Gaza, and this was an awful precedent because the United Nations was stopped from doing their work, and they have a fundamental role to play. I think it is also crucial that behind the cutting back of funding for humanitarian aid, there is also a strategy that goes along with this.
That is the privatization of humanitarian aid. That is a very serious problem because this means that the criteria for humanitarian law and its humanitarian work are being affected, and the workers are in a much more precarious situation. And this is why it makes it easier to murder them and stop them from carrying out their work. So we must continue to develop to defend rules based and humanity based world, and this should be a priority of the European Union. So thank you very much for your work.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Isabelle. And, Turch, you have the floor for two minutes, Herman. You are very welcome.
Cristian Terheş
I will also speak in Spanish. Well, I wasn't going to take the floor. Of course, the work done is laudable, these humanitarian organizations, but not all of these organizations. We see people always saying the same thing. We're criminalizing once again Israel in this regard, and we're just seizing it as a pretext.
I think humanitarian organizations should not take sides in conflicts, and we should not have the far-left agitators being the mouthpiece of these organizations, which discredits these organizations, and they appear as part of these conflicts. And here, I'm talking about UNRWA, which was really involved in terrorist actions in a systematic, continuous, and organized manner. And all of this was happening in the when the European Union could see this, they funded this, and The United States also funded them and many others. And this was not stopped in time, and many people had denounced this. So I would like to insist that the neutrality of humanitarian organizations is something that is often missing, and it is crucial, this humanitarian neutrality, so that they do not get involved in the conflict.
And this is when they become victims, involuntary victims of the from because of the combats taking place.
Barry Andrews
Thank you. So, just a few questions then, from my side. First of all, just on UNRWA, we have the European Union continues to fund UNRWA, as you know, because the European Union is satisfied that aid is not being diverted away from its intended beneficiaries and is satisfied that it is able to fulfill the criteria for the dissemination of EU-based humanitarian aid. That's the factual situation. And, however, I do agree that there has to be independence.
There has to be impartiality, and that's the safest way to safeguard humanitarian workers. I have a couple of questions of my own. First of all, in the circumstances where danger is now increased, are you seeing NGOs adopting more risk around how they operate? In other words, is their appetite for risk increasing at a corporate level, at a headquarters level, at a strategic level for having people working in dangerous environments? I mean, MSF would be regarded as the organization, the international organization with the highest level of risk appetite.
But is that changing because of the increasing dangers? You also mentioned the transfer of risk to the local workers. So the first to be taken out of the field are international workers, and then local workers continue, but they face the same risks. So for example, for tech aid workers, you mentioned you support 500 workers and their families. What is the breakdown between international workers and local workers in that number of people that you protect on the ground and their families.
I think it's important that we do focus on local workers who absorb so much of the risk in these circumstances. And the other question is around kidnap and ransom insurance, which I know that a lot of NGOs pay premiums for kidnap and ransom insurance. And, therefore, we don't know when payouts occur. We don't know how many times this happens, and it does happen. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist as a product.
Maybe you could, some of you or one of you could talk about, you know, how widespread this is, how often this is triggered. Is it the right approach to have? And, you know, is enough known about it? Does it not put health aid workers at risk where people know that there is an insurance product being provided that guarantees a payment if you take somebody hostage? So just a few questions from my side, and there are a few to get stuck into.
So I'm gonna begin again with Mr. Lenormand. We have two minutes to three minutes maximum. So if you could begin, Patrice, you're very welcome.
Patrice Lenormand
Thank you very much, sir. Sorry. I don't dare speak in Spanish. I should do it. Just first things, you have asked what we can do.
I mean, first, as a I cannot preempt the communication that the Chairman mentioned, there will be, of course, reference in this document on the HLN and protection of Fed Worker. The best thing is to get actual support in the EPA resolution and the conclusion on this matter. We have very good confidence that both this house and the Cyprus presidency and the Irish one will be instrumental in this matter, and we will certainly have that. We have secured the funding for this year. The point, of course, is to secure it as a permanent mechanism for the future MFF.
So that, and I'm sure we will achieve that. One big thing where the parliament can have a key role is the new smear campaign we're facing. So we're talking about attacks, physical attacks, being short things. One of the toughest things we face now is the emergence of a smear campaign, including inside Europe against humanitarian workers. They are shot because they were in the wrong place.
They were doing the wrong thing. They were lunatics and this kind of thing. This is something of a heavily propaganda nature, which is an element where I'm sure the parliament has huge experience, and we could easily work, especially in this conference in October, to try to address that. Indeed, we're supporting UMRA. I will extend the smear campaign again, the UN UMRA to WHO, UNFPA, other organizations that are quite being aggressed at the moment on the international scene.
We are supporting them for the good work they do. On the appetite of the NGO, that's a little bit a complex story. There is a bunkerization of aid, especially in conflict countries, which is a big thing. It touches more the UN than the INGO, I would say. But this is a constant problem, including for ourselves.
We have offices on the ground. It's a huge question to how far are you ready to go to have access to people. Are you ready to lose people? Are you ready to have problems? It's a constant thing.
I don't think there is less appetite from the INGO. There is less appetite from the donors and for the UN. That's for sure. Now the transfer to the local is a big issue. That is clear.
It is happening. Let's be clear. This is something we're discussing with the INGO. What we have done, and I will answer your question on the sharing, is that this program, Paul, supports almost exclusively the local workers, not the INGO, not the UN because they have their own duty of care. What we have done is that we have authorized them to put in the cost of the action when we are supporting them the relevant cost of the protection of their worker if they are attacked.
So they are covered there. In the protection of Fed worker, we have a dedicated support with the IFSC for the Red Crescent Society, and I think that's where we are. On the insurance, I let other people answer. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Okay. Thank you very much, Patrice. Now we go to David from PAW. You have the floor there.
David Anakin
I'm not, I wouldn't say that, INGOs have more risk appetite. I think over the past years, we must acknowledge the fact that the NGOs strengthened their duty of care policies, assume their responsibility as employers, and try to find the right balance between protecting their staff and delivering aid. This is not an easy thing to do. What we are seeing is that we're talking about risk transfer to local actors because a lot of INGOs are not able to deploy teams and staff near the front lines in Ukraine or in Sudan, for example. So what we do, what the Humanitarian Committee does, is to rely on local actors because they are the best placed and the best positioned to address.
As I said earlier, they are the least protected. This is a problem. They suffer from underfunding. So when we are talking about transfer, we should also talk about financial transfer to local NGOs so that they are better equipped to deliver and near the front end. And they have more risk appetite because these are their countries.
This is their people. What we are seeing in Ukraine, like some volunteers are ready to take a great deal of risk, while NGOs will never allow staff to go where they go. So we have to analyze also this fact. As Patrice said, most of our beneficiary people are covered by our mechanism, our national staff. It's at 90% of staff members.
For the 10% international staff, we provided support for them because INGO was not able to deliver a comprehensive package of care for them. So we complement what NGOs cannot do. And given the massive budget cuts suffered by NGOs, now we are receiving more and more requests from international NGOs because they have less financial resources to finance their own protection system for their staff. So we have to make hard choices. Mechanism is mainly designed for national and local staff, but in the same time, we have to deal with this increasing request from international NGOs or former staff from NGOs.
For your question on insurance, difficult to say. I don't think that premiums are a practice that is used by NGO. But I don't think they pay a lot of insurance premium. I used to work for NGOs. I never seen that in NGOs at all, but I couldn't tell you that.
I don't think it is the right solution to improve expectations on the field. Good communication, good relation with your local community, and to be perceived as neutral in delivering ads. And this is the right way then to negotiate the liberation of people who got it. It's not an easy task.
Barry Andrews
Okay. Yep. That's clear. Thank you, David. And now, Olivier, please, you have the floor.
Olivier Van de Casteele
Thank you. Yes. So just a few feedback on the notes I could take. So first of all, to the representative of Cyprus. So thank you for combining actually the protection of civilians and the protection of humanitarian personnel.
They really go hand in hand, and I really want to stress that either it improves or it worsens, but they go hand in hand. So if we actually want to improve the protection of civilians in conflict and crisis, we need to put more effort into the protection of humanitarian personnel, and vice versa. If we are not stepping in, definitely, that will have a further impact on the protection of civilians. To answer on the points that were made with regards to by MP, I think, Isabelle as well as Terje. I think the key issue that we see as a sector is basically a breakdown of global order and the fact that the disrespect for international law is now coming from all sides.
And I think that, again, should be what we should be addressing, which means we believe a structure like the EU is a place where there can be processes in place so that facts are being reviewed and decisions are being taken so that international humanitarian law and international human rights law would be equally applied across all parties. What I'm saying by that is that responders and humanitarian workers are getting shot by drones from Russia and Ukraine. Humanitarian workers are being detained by the Houthis in Yemen. Yes. But, also, humanitarian workers are being detained by Israel, and we have seen a huge number and an unseen number of colleagues being killed and wounded from, I would say, actors who traditionally would have stood on the side of international law and order, and I think we should be addressing equally facts.
And the issue is not the neutrality. I think a lot of organizations are doing their utmost. But as a humanitarian endeavor, besides providing relief and support, we are also there to be a voice for the voiceless and to be speaking on behalf of civilians. And I think sometimes people attack us on the question of neutrality while, actually, we're only talking about the facts on the ground. When it comes to, I think, risk transfer, my colleagues have answered already.
I just want to mention again that I would definitely not use the word risk appetite because I think in the sector, we are honestly really tired of the current condition because we're being under attack on all sides. It's the funding issue. It's the principal issue. It's the fact that colleagues are concretely killed, wounded, or detained. And, honestly, we would prefer to use these resources to deliver programs on the ground, but, actually, we now have to put money and support to ourselves and our own colleagues.
I have I just want to remind you that nobody in our sector is being trained to get shot at. And, actually, most of us, when we started this job, we believed in the IHL. We were not naive in thinking it would protect us everywhere and all times, but we are doing this job on the hypothesis that actually member states stand by what they have actually signed for. That's all we're asking. We're not asking to create any new laws.
We're asking for member states to stand by what they've actually signed to implement. My last point on the insurance, I think it's a really interesting topic, but we have not seen working quite a bit on arbitrary detention and kidnap, we have not seen a correlation that there would be that a premium on the insurance would be an additional risk factor. On the contrary, we always say that it makes sense to be insured for risk because it's important for the organization to actually prepare for the context in which people work. I would really invite people to look at how we can increase the cost of these practices and which means, again, to me, how can we better support survivors, victims in actually accessing justice. To give you a concrete example, in my case, I'm very interested to bring the case of my arbitrary detention and forced disappearance and torture on the case perpetrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
However, a citizen cannot intend an illegal action against the state because states are basically being protected. So I need another member state to actually join me in my willingness to access justice. And there, we really are in quite a lot of situations faced with a lack of legal access. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Alright. Thank you very much, Olivier, for that explanation. And finally, then we go to Miss Hakim for some clue. The last word, Miss Hakim.
Parasto Hakim
Of course. Thank you very much. Again, I would like to thank everybody here for giving us the opportunity to speak and for giving us the words of solidarity. It really means a lot to us coming from those backgrounds. For me today, only me, as a person who is coming from Afghanistan, I have 35 schools right now all across Afghanistan, not only in major cities, and we are covering more than 1,800 beneficiaries.
They are small girls, for education, skill building programs, and women who could not go to school in 1996. We are providing them second-chance programs for literacy. It is just me, and we have more than 1,000 people who are standing there and doing the same job and providing more facilities for people. And while I come here, you might call it frustration, but it is the way of asking you for help to rescue us because I, as an educator, expect you with the power that you have. But while I educate people, you provide us with the resources.
While I rescue people from forced marriages with very dark backgrounds, you provide them facilities for their help to get out of the trauma and heal. So this is not coming from a position where I would like to put everything in a political box, and this is actually happening because you allowed it to happen. Everything right now is, unfortunately, in Afghanistan and my country, very much connected to politics, and we cannot take this out of it because girls and their education and basic rights and human rights declaration is a joke right now for the people who are leading that country. So I, as a young person who is standing here and who was standing there on the field and working for that, I demand the right to be safe and to continue to fight in that country for the people who need my, our help. And you have asked if we are ready to take more risk if I was in Afghanistan.
And if I am able to continue the work with zero support, we would do it again and again because this is the way of our survival and fighting back. And if we do not do something like that, we will not survive. So once again, I would like to remind you that you have so much power, and we really expect you to stand there with us and not leave us alone in this fight, because this is a fight that we are fighting for everybody in the world. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Okay. I think that's the best way to conclude this is to say that we are fighting for everybody in the world, and we've had two witnesses to give their testimony on behalf of all of those who haven't the opportunity to be here today. And a reminder to us as elected representatives to carry out our role and to be as diligent and to demonstrate solidarity in every way we can. I really think that's a very good way to conclude. Thank you, both of you, in particular, if you don't mind, David, and that we emphasize the witnesses in that regard.
So thank you, everybody. Thank you to the commission for being here today, for DG ECHO. And now we'll conclude this item, and we'll move on, as quickly as possible, I think, to the next item. We will allow our guest to finish up. Thank you.
Hey. Let's get going again, and we are on to item 14 of this marathon meeting. So let's keep going. Right. We now move to discuss the opinion of our committee on the commission proposal for a new regulation on the union civil protection mechanism and union support for health emergency preparedness and response, for which I am our committee's rapporteur for that opinion.
So this is a regulation for which Envy and SANT are jointly in the lead, and it will eventually repeal the 2013 EU decision on the mechanism for which we were closely involved in the legislative procedure. So it's important to recall that the civil protection mechanism plays an important role for cooperation and EU support when it comes to responding to disasters within Europe, but it can and does also provide civil protection capacities and assistance for disasters outside of Europe. And this is often complementary to humanitarian assistance, and that we heard it earlier in relation to Lebanon, that the mechanism was triggered in that regard. So my draft of our legislative opinion is underpinned by the fact that countries hardest hit by the increasing number of natural disasters often linked to climate change are, to a large extent, developing countries, which often have very limited capacity to respond optimally. So we fully support that the commission proposal foresees that the mechanism will remain a tool to mobilize assistance from the EU member states and demonstrate the EU's responsiveness to humanitarian needs.
This will continue to showcase Europe's solidarity and its capacity to mobilize a swift, effective response to urgent needs. As rapporteur, my draft includes amendments which would allow low and middle-income countries, for instance, countries in the outermost regions of the union or OCTs, to be not only potential requesters of assistance under the UCPM, but to actually join the mechanism as is already the case for neighborhood countries. In addition, I think the regulation should specifically address the needs and capacities of EU overseas countries and territories, OCTs, to contribute to their own and their geographic neighbors' disaster prevention, preparedness, and response when needed. In case of disasters, OCTs in outmost regions are particularly vulnerable as islands and due to their distance from mainland Europe, but they can also provide vantage points for responding to disasters and requests by third countries if their cooperation with neighboring countries is supported and reinforced. Thinking particularly of the Pacific and Caribbean OCTs, but also of outermost regions such as the Spanish Canary Islands or Mayotte or Reunion in the Indian Ocean.
Overall, I think that our committee should aim to strengthen the external dimension of the proposed regulation. And last but not least, I suggest to amend the regulation text in a way that stresses the EU's responsibility of care and that helps to ensure that staff or experts deployed outside the EU receive training that is adapted to the specific context of countries where they're deployed. So now I take off my hat as rapporteur and return as chair, and I now turn the floor to the tireless colleague, Lera Payne, who is rapporteur for the NV Committee, which leads on this file as the committee responsible for civil protection together with the SAND Committee. As you know, Lera happens to be also our rapporteur for humanitarianism. So, Lera, let's hear what you have to say, please.
Lera Payne
Chair and shadows, first of all, thank you and then say to you that we are really going to collaborate with this regulation. It is opportune, and it's fundamental. With mister Veregas from San as well who's here with us, we have come up with a report that is to give us a stronger civil protection and health response in the face of the increasing challenges we face in today's world where everything is related, complex, challenging, and global, we need to have global responses. We must be mindful of the fact that we're in a climate emergency, pandemic. Water and national natural disasters.
And all of these challenges know no borders. So it is absolutely necessary to have a preparedness strategy together with our partners, especially those from the global South, so that we can anticipate, prevent, prepare, and respond better to the coming crises and also to show solidarity when we're in the face of a catastrophe. The European consensus, we've just spoken about that on humanitarian aid and these crises. Well, they are a crucial part of this mechanism whenever we have to deploy to third countries. And it is therefore necessary to strengthen coordination with humanitarian actors, as we've just seen, those who best know what's happening on the ground to guarantee effective aid.
We must also respect the civilian aspect of these interventions and its principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence, in keeping with the Oslo guidelines with regards to civil defense. And we must have in our policy, and we used to use instruments such as global gateway to strengthen the capacity of the global South. So have central disease center, etcetera, being stronger and share data and information. We must also learn from us, partners in the global South, from their experience, those countries that face extreme weather events and respond effect and they've been able to respond effectively. So we need to recognize their work and acknowledge what they have learned.
Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Excellent. Thank you very much, Lera. And now we're joined from the SANT committee, the co-rapporteur, mister Variga, who would like to take the floor. You're very welcome. You have the floor.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank once again dear colleague Leire for a good work so far and for the report that we proposed together. And this is really a very important topic, first of all, considering the increasing frequency and severity of both natural and human made disasters. So we must recognize the urgent need for the European Union to become stronger and better prepared. COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and other ongoing problems in the geopolitical context, climate related disasters have demonstrated how vulnerable we are and how crucial it is to enhance our resilience.
As emphasized in NINIS' report, the whole of society and whole of government approaches are essential. So we need to build a comprehensive framework that involves all sectors and levels to respond effectively to those challenges. It is very important to see this document from the perspective of all member states, having in mind very different environments, risks, and need for preparedness. Do this in a way by not neglecting different needs, but reflecting those needs in the report. And I believe we so far succeeded to do this in our proposal.
Having in mind the rapidly changing geopolitical and safety environment, it is very important to use this opportunity for elaboration of civil military cooperation in this mechanism as it was proposed by the commission. The civilian and military sectors can and must complement each other in both preparedness and response. At the same time, we must secure finances for all necessary areas, and probably we both, with the cooperator, agree that the indicative budget is not ambitious enough having in mind the very broad scale of challenges. But even with this budget, we agreed that we should put more clarifications into the proposal. So we proposed a clear dedication of 40% of the funds to rescue for preparedness and civil protection act actions, and another 40% for health emergencies, prevention, preparedness, and response, and the remaining 20% for the flexibility because we never know what might be happening in the future, so there has to be a flexibility.
The establishment of crisis coordination support hub could be also an important tool to have a full dynamic situational picture and comprehensive assessment of risks and threats at the EU level. So when the member states face shortages of resources, it is important to ensure further strengthening of rescue capacities, their balanced risk-based geographical distribution, and continuity of funding for dedicated activities. So I would like to thank once again the corporator, and I'm looking forward to walk with all of you because this is important for all sectors, and definitely, everybody has to play its own important role. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Variga. And are there any other speakers who would like to intervene? You should go by. Yeah.
But there's nobody.
Well, I.
have some.
Barry Andrews
And Thiago is here. Okay. I beg your pardon. Let me go back to the list. No.
No. No problem.
It's the president.
Is yours for two minutes.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you. Thank you very much, mister Scheer.
I'll speak French. So ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to kick off by thanking you, chair Barry Andrews, for the quality of the draft report that you've drawn up, providing a very useful contribution given the multiplication and complex nature that the European Union is facing, and we have to come up with efficient and credible responses, including beyond its own borders. The European civil protection mechanism really does what it says on the tin, so it provides that added value. Disasters, be they natural or human-caused, affect all sorts of countries, including developing countries where they don't have the same means to respond. And given that, we have to provide that essential support, especially through humanitarian aid.
However, to be legitimate and efficient, these actions have to be founded solely on needs rather than on political approaches. The work with those who are who need to be coordinated with actions on the ground, with those on the front line, is absolutely important because those on the front line know what's going down. They can provide that continuity in terms of humanitarian support, and they should be supported to the hilt. You have to also bear in mind fragile areas and conflict-ridden areas. Those needs are the most acute and most difficult to reach.
The commitment of the European Union here needs to be bolstered. Finally, I'd like to underscore the importance of the safety of humanitarian workers. All too often, they're taken as targets. They work in very difficult conditions. It's absolutely essential to bolster their protection, guarantee the means necessary for them to do their job, including in terms of preparation and accompaniment.
The European Union finally has to have a follow-up mechanism in a rigorous fashion to make sure there's transparency, democratic scrutiny, and respect for humanitarian principles.
Barry Andrews
Merci, Muriel. And now we go to Thiago Amorer Desa. Thiago, you have the floor for two minutes.
Speaker 39
Senior president. Chair, dear colleagues. This proposal to strengthen civil protection and to support the health mechanism is really a very solid proposal. However, the problem remains the same. Well, between what happens in theory and what happens on the ground, there is a space that we haven't been able to fill.
In Portugal, for example, we face this problem of year after year, we have huge forest fires, and it's a very simple truth that we don't have the responses. We have problems with prevention or the capacity of coordination at critical moments. We're not only talking about fires. Recently, we've had, like, the Christine, and we had the same thing happening, people not responding in time, taking too much time to deal with helping people in vulnerable situations. So this problem is not just one of mechanisms.
It's opera operationalization. We must declare that subsidiarity is really important to guarantee that the primary responsibility falls on member states. However, the union must be able to have a real intervention when what's happening on the ground is insufficient. We should have a permanent rapid force that we'll be able to mobilize in a very short amount of time. Coming from member states, of course, we shouldn't have improvisation in the midst of the crisis.
We must also have national up plans that are updated and efficient. We don't have adequate planning. Solidarity exists, but it must be shared. There should be discipline and transparency and, very rigorous assessment of response times and what's happening on the ground. We must guarantee rapid responses, the operational capacity, and responsibility when it comes to prevention.
Europe cannot continue to be strong in theory and weak in implementation. We need to, as Margaret Thatcher used to say, the first duty of a government is to protect citizens. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Haven't heard Margaret Thatcher quoted in a long time. I'm from Ireland, you see. You know?
No. I know.
A bit confused. Okay.
It was not on purpose.
Barry Andrews
Mark Youngen, you have the floor for two minutes. Mr. Kaminsky first. Oh, Mr. Kaminsky first.
Speaker 42
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to be speaking Polish. The Union Mechanism for Civil Protection is one of the best examples that we have of European solidarity. Its proper functioning is very important for saving people's lives, their health, and their property. And all legislative changes in this regard will have to be implemented in a very careful and prudent manner, in order not to spoil the situation. In that regard, the text is a step in the right direction.
Speaker 47
It does take into consideration the experiences that we have gained in the last few years, such as COVID-19, such as the war in Ukraine and various other hybrid warfare acts that are occurring as well. Now it's extremely important that the mechanism operate without unnecessary bureaucracy. Assistance must be provided at lightning speed. Now, of course, under certain circumstances, one has to take into consideration public procurement issues, make sure that there's no corruption. But at the same time, the union objective of resilience must be a priority, especially in sensitive situations.
Speaker 43
Member states must preserve control over information that is essential for their security. Now, given the importance of this mechanism and given the difficulties that Poland is experiencing because of the neighborhood that it has, we will be proposing some amendments to the tax that has been tabled.
Speaker 41
We have Mark Jungen. Please, Mark, you have the floor. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak in German. If
Marc Jongen
You're sovereign, it's when you can decide over what is an emergency. I think Carl Schmitt said that. So the European mechanism for civilian protection falls under this. This idea of the all hazards approach and so-called crisis coordination hubs, the EU in future is gonna decide on itself when there is an emergency and thereby just decide over the sovereignty of national member states and their citizens, all for their interest, of course, with the greatest of concern for them, obviously. So disaster protection becomes a license to announce a permanent state of emergency.
And if we haven't seen it in Corona at the time, we wouldn't believe it maybe, but we did see it. And citizens were being abused. And doctor Helmut Staerts, the Pfizer toxicologist, in front of the German parliament inquiry, there were problems that have not been resolved. Nothing has been dealt with here, not to mention the personal and professional consequences that should have been attached to this. So we can see that this could be repeated at any time.
This is an abuse of the subsidiarity principle. We're seeing the EU stretching out its tentacles and creating a permanent situation where everybody's scared. And you've got this whole of society approach, who's especially worried that everybody is under pressure the whole time, and the EU wants to control everything. We can expect this permanent climate alarm that should justify the climate policies, which will lead to climate lockdowns. And then we've got inclusion and gender perspective that, of course, would have to lend their weight as well.
And all this would be done under the control of, under the idea of very clear ideas of trying to help out. But it's an abuse of power. It's an ideologically driven, anti-Europe EU.
Barry Andrews
That and, final word then for Mister Church. Did you indicate, yeah.
Thank you. I
Cristian Terheş
Read the amendments proposed by the dev committee, and I still think that we don't have credit as if for effective civil protection in Europe. We want the European Union to be responsible for all the calamities in the world. When people in Las Palmas and The Canaries are having volcanic eruptions, and then there are problems there in Valencia. We have problems with the first assistance didn't come in, till after four days. In another area, the services took over a day to help people who were in need. And so Spain is helping the entire world, but is destroying help for its own people and making, bringing misery and poverty and violence to our country through legalizing millions of people.
So I think that when it comes to climate, conscience, and gender, that's what we keep talking about. It's suicidal. It's ridiculous. We cannot accept it. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Okay. And that's, I think, from the floor. So we have one more, which is, do we have the name? Is that the right name? Yeah.
Yeah. So I'll give the, oh, we do have a new name. After that. No problem. Oh, two of them.
I beg your pardon. Mhmm. Okay. So we give the floor to the European Commission, DG ECHO, which is represented by Joanna Serdinska, ECHO civil protection unit team leader. You've heard some of the concerns that have been expressed by our members.
And I presume that where a global health pandemic is a concern that we leave it to sovereign decisions to determine whether it merits being trigger international health guidelines that can create a bit of an issue. Anyway, we might respond to some of the concerns that are being raised by members. We're a bit pressed for time. So, yeah, please keep to the time if you can. Thank you, Joanna.
Joanna SERDINSKA
Good afternoon. Thank you very much, sir, for giving me the floor. First and foremost, we'd like to thank today the co-rapporteurs for the excellent work so far ever since the adoption of this proposal. We had many chances already to discuss this proposal, and we feel every time there is really large support to what the commission has proposed to strengthen the union civil protection mechanism, now also encompassing an important element relating to the health emergency preparedness and response, not least because we, of course, are drawing on the experience we had in the last years. We stumbled as a society from a global pandemic into a large security situation.
And some of those who took the floor today, I think, very rightly pointed out this situation. Now, for your amendments that you have proposed, we are also very thankful. This instrument is a key instrument for civil protection. But ever since its establishment, it has a very strong blueprint of a humanitarian spirit in it. And you are suggesting to even further enhance this element, and we very much support this because very often we see on a global scale, civil protection, it goes hand in hand also with the humanitarian aid.
And those, they need to work with separate instruments. They need to work hand in hand. More specifically for the issues that were mentioned today by the honorable members, and by yourself as well, I would like to mention two elements that are of key importance. Once, I already mentioned the strong links to the humanitarian aid, and the second call from many of you to strengthen the civil military cooperation. I think we all know, well, the reasons why the commission has proposed such a novelty into this instrument, and we very much count on your support into the discussions when the time comes also in the dialogues on supporting us.
Last but not least, some of the interventions today mentioned a further need to strengthen what works well today, meaning to rescue you, the limitation of any bureaucratic steps that will be important in the discussion as we go forward. One thing that we certainly want to see is having an efficient instrument. And therefore, again, many thanks for pointing out also these elements that will ensure furthermore a proper delivery of any relief and assistance. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Joanna, for that. Yeah. And we look forward to the discussions at Trilog. So now we go to, we're joined from DG Herra, which is rare, is wonderful. So on emergency health emergency preparedness and response, we're joined by Mr.
Very much.
A few minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 50
Thank you very much, SFO. Very shortly, on the health emergency part of this proposal, that is a bit specific. And thank you very much for your report with some amendments to our part, especially because they, and this was discussed now, emphasize the need to have a global perspective. And it's very clear that we cannot protect Europe and the citizens from a pandemic if we only focus on what is going on in Europe. In your draft amendment, you suggest having stronger cooperation with international organizations and global health initiatives.
And we do have, today, under this MFF, some very good partnerships. Today, under Horizon Europe and U4 Health, it is our intention to continue this partnership under the next program. So thank you very much for this. We have all this partnership to help third countries to quickly detect, identify pathogens, allow for quick development, local production whenever possible, and deployment of medical countermeasures to limit the spread of these threats. So, very important to continue doing this.
So yes, thank you very much for this. I'm looking forward to the discussion and the report. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Excellent. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. And look, just by way of conclusion, thank you to the co-rapporteurs for your presence here today. And we can finish on this point. And just to let you know that following a request from the shadow operators, the deadline for amendments will be April 22 and not April 16.
Speaker 22
So a little bit extra time to reflect at 6PM, to reflect on the insights that we heard today. So with that, we will take a brief pause before we go on to the next item. Let's go. This is great. Yeah.
Barry Andrews
I'm really excited about this now. Look. Okay, folks. So, dear colleagues, we reached the final item on our agenda today, item 15, and let's get going then. In January, our coordinators decided to request a workshop accompanied by papers that would provide us with a better appreciation of two specific aspects of the Global Europe proposal.
I want to take a closer look at European preference and what that might mean for us, and just to understand it a little bit better and the eligibility restrictions, which already apply in Ukraine, I think, very fully. Yeah. So, because we need to consider what opportunities and challenges these new provisions in the proposal present for development cooperation. So we hear a lot about this. Let's get into the details.
On the one hand, we've been very vocal that the taxpayers' money should be benefiting contractors from Europe, but this begins to look a little bit like tied aid, and there's quite a lot of evidence that tied aid is ineffective. Well, it is less efficient than untied aid. So we have to be careful if we embark upon this road. The other issue we want to discuss is related to another novelty that Global Europe proposes, a more direct role for EU member states' export credit agencies. And this should enlarge the EU tool toolbox.
We want to understand how consistent such an approach is with the primary aim of our policy, which is poverty eradication. So, is the promotion of investments task compatible with official development assistance? A really crucial question for us is using the tools that we have available for development assistance to achieve other objectives. Is that something that we can reconcile in practice, in the context of the next MFF? So to deal with these trade-offs, we have with us today the two authors, the authors of the two briefings.
And I would like to point out that the briefings have not been published yet, and members only received preliminary findings. So we still chose to have the workshop today, because it can feed into our positioning on global Europe. So let's start then with Anna Maria LaCimia, who is a professor at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom. And, we will give you the floor, first of all, Anna Maria, for 8 minutes.
Anna Maria La Cimia
Thank you very much. Thank you, honorable members, for giving me the opportunity to speak today and present my findings on the eligibility restriction rules present in the European Commission proposal for a global European instrument. The proposal presents an article 20 selective eligibility criteria which restrict access to EU funded procurement opportunity to certain suppliers only. The possibility is also foreseen in certain circumstances to limit access to European goods only. So to buy Europe restriction by way of derogation of the general rules.
The global European instrument consists of six different pillars with different eligibility requirements for each pillar. This results in a patchy framework of eligibility rules, which makes access to EU funded procurement opportunities quite complex and selective. Different rules apply to each of the pillars under the scheme, and the situation is especially problematic because of the presence of a broad exception in paragraph 10 of article 20, which allows to restrict the eligibility requirements further. The scope of the exception is broad, and its governance system is unclear at the moment. So in a nutshell, it's not very clear how eligibility will be risk-restricted once and if the exception is invoked.
Speaker 52
And the scope is very broad, and the governance system is unclear. So, basically, it's not clear who will invoke the exception. Will it be the European Commission? Will it be the management unit that deals with procurement? Who will access be restricted to?
Anna Maria La Cimia
Will it be the European member states' country only, or will it be EAI members? Will the recipient be included in the restriction? Will it be open to all least developed countries? This is not specified in the current exception, how it is framed. And this is problematic.
Speaker 52
Why? Because it could be open to abuse. It could be misused. It could basically be invoked, as it seems at the moment, by any entity, any unit that manages EU funds without clear restrictions. Even the justification for calling the restrictions are broad because, simply, European interests are mentioned without clear definition of what these interests are.
Now, is this bad? Well, yes, because it will lead to the aid being essentially tied. And tying aid has been proven that leads to an increase of the cost by between 15-30%. It will lead to a lack of ownership of the aid of recipient countries. And most importantly, it leads to lack of coordination between donors and incoherence of the UAE.
Besides the lack of competition, the results from these restrictions being imposed on the participation of the eligibility requirement means that there will be fewer suppliers applying, and therefore, it means that it's more likely for the aid and the procurement opportunity to be prone to abuse, corruption, further limiting the effectiveness of EU aid. Now you might think if aid is open to all EU suppliers, there will be at least suppliers from all 27 member states participating. Well, in fact, this is not necessarily the case. Why? Because aid-funded procurement is different from normal procurement within the member states.
Aid is delivered abroad. Aid is delivered in remote areas, in remote countries. Not all companies in all the member states will be capable to participate in the procurement process. So who will benefit from this time of aid? Only companies from member states will have long ties with recipient countries.
Political ties, economic ties, historical ties, even colonial ties. So while all member states will actually pay the price for the increase of the cost of time and for the ineffectiveness of the aid. Besides implementing eligibility rules, it's not as easy as it might seem. Why? Because, well, for example, foreign companies could buy shares of local companies.
So unless we also impose the disclosure of beneficiary ownership, we won't really know who lies behind the supplier. And at the moment, the current proposal does not envision the disclosure of beneficial ownership. By Europe, restrictions are also quite difficult to implement in foreign countries because, well, labels could be easily counterfact without any real supervision from the EU because by Europe requirements in a third country require cooperation of custom unions from different third countries. So how this will be implemented in practice is quite difficult to predict. Now it needs to be acknowledged of our ability that while the EU proposal to restrict access to EU-funded procurement is not endorsement of tight aid, the problems are limited to how the exception is framed.
We also need to recognize that the EU decision is motivated by the fact that many other donors tie aid. However, there are recommendations that could be implemented that would make the provisions more aligned with the international commitment. Because the way the exceptions work and the way it is framed, it could lead to an overall implementation of tied aid, which would breach international commitments that the US endorsed to anti aid, such as, for example, the OECD recommendation on anti aid, which was endorsed in 2001 and has been renewed and reformed in 2006 by all OECD countries. So the question is not does the EU want to lead, the question is whether the EU wants to lead in ensuring that international commitments are respected or whether it wants to follow in bridging international commitment, following other donors who are currently not respecting the effectiveness policy commitments that have been endorsed at the international level. What can be done then to ensure the new proposal is aligned?
Well, clarify the scope of the exceptions, restrict the scope to well-defined cases. For example, one thing that could be done is to limit the application of the exception to cases where harm has been proved to the EU economy, for example, under internal instruments such as the European procurement instrument and the foreign subsidy regulation. If we align global Europe to those instruments, we ensure coherence of internal and external action of the EU. We could insert mitigating measures to protect recipient countries. For example, ensuring the recipient country suppliers could participate at least as a subcontractor.
Another important measure would be to ensure that those restrictions only apply to grants as opposed to grants and soft loans, because soft loans go to increase the debt of recipient countries. Therefore, they are even more harmful to the recipient countries. So the parliament could also, for example, suggest that the eligibility of suppliers for EU funds be linked to knowledge sharing and transfer of skills and technology with developing countries? And, finally, one important element would be to clarify the governance of the exception. So how and when will the exception apply, and by whom especially will it be applied?
What are the criteria that will be used for ensuring that, at the institutional level, there are safeguards to be implemented when the exception is applied? Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Okay. Thank you very much for that, Anna Maria. A lot in that. And some very concrete recommendations, which is great because very often we get told what's wrong and not told how to fix it, and that's very helpful. We might come back on the beneficial ownership question and whether that's been a problem in Ukraine so far, if we've experienced any of that in practice as an issue.
So let me now go to Lucas Schlugl, who is the senior researcher at the Austrian Foundation for Development Research in Austria. So, Lucas, you also have the floor for 8 minutes.
Lucas Schlugl
Thank you, chair. Honorable members, thank you very much for the invitation. So the companion paper by Annabel looked mainly at procurement and eligibility restrictions. Our paper focuses on the support side channels, mainly in Article 23 and related provisions, especially direct support to union-based private entities and the possible role of export credit agencies, EKAS. And I will echo some concerns just raised by Annabela.
Speaker 53
So I think that the central question is how far can the Global Europe instrument move towards a European preference and strategic competitiveness without weakening development effectiveness? So these are, as you can see on this slide, in our view, the provisions that matter most for that question. Article 23, 4e is the clearest novelty. It would allow direct grants without a call to private law entities effectively established in member states.
Speaker 54
is considered necessary, justified, and where the investment is seen as being in the strategic interest of the union. Recital 70 shows that the intended direction of travel, which is critical raw materials, climate resilience, digital infrastructure, and other strategic sectors, often in integrated packages. Article 20.3.7 keeps a strong European center of gravity in implementation. Article 20 five-three matters for the ECA route because it widens the room for private law bodies to implement financial instruments or to manage guarantees. And Recital 56 places this more broadly in the Team Europe logic.
Speaker 53
Next slide, please. So we consider three sets of constraints and areas of commitment. First, EU primary and secondary law, article 200 ATF EU makes poverty reduction the primary objective of development cooperation, and Article 21 TEU places development policy within the wider external action goals. Second, and that is quite important in this context, the OECD framework. Arrangement on officially supported export credits disciplines tied eight relatively tightly.
The key idea here is that tied aid should not be used for commercially viable projects. And in the EU, the content of the arrangement is binding law. The DAC recommendation on untying ODA is softer in legal terms, but it is still politically important, and it pushes in the direction of broader untying, greater transparency, more scope for local and regional procurement. So here the EU is monitored against the DACP review practice. Third, there's the wider development effectiveness agenda: Paris, Accra, Bausanne.
Those commitments, they are not hard law either, but they remain an important benchmark. And here, the core principles are ownership, results, inclusive partnerships, transparency, and mutual accountability. Regarding the evidence, the most settled finding, and I'm echoing here what the Chairman already said, is that Tide eight tends to raise costs. So the OECD figures cite roughly 15% to 30% on average of cost increase, and even higher figures for food aid in particular. The deeper historical reason that aid and trade were gradually separated is because concessional public finance could otherwise be used to subsidize donor exporters and commercially viable projects, which weakens additionality and also distorts priorities and prices as well.
Next slide, please. So a quick point about current practice. EU institutions currently report very high levels of untied in ODA terms. So almost all EU ODA is untied. At the same time, we should also note that a substantial share of external action spending already runs through indirect management and through European or multilateral implementing partners.
So the status quo is already a world with at least some de facto European preference. The issue is that the proposal would widen the channels through which preference can operate. And here, we don't talk about procurement in the classical sense, but about direct awards, indirect management, project preparation, and also financial intermediation upstream. Next slide, please. So this is where the EKAS entered the picture.
The Commission's impact assessment presents a larger role for EKAS as part of a toolbox for mobilizing private finance and making funding possible in more difficult conditions. This is the envisaged role. The harder question we think is where this is realistic, and on what terms. The first difficulty is that export credit logic and development logic are not the same. EKAS are designed to support exporters competing abroad.
They're not DFIs in the ordinary sense. They can be quite risk-averse. They don't follow the classical ODA logic. The second difficulty is one of additionality. In commercially attractive sectors, it can be hard to show that public support is addressing a genuine gap rather than subsidizing activity that should have or would have happened anyway.
Governance is also an issue because ECAs differ strongly across member states, mandate, risk appetite, and so on. Benefits would also accrue unevenly within the EU. That's a point Annabel mentioned. Next slide, please. So the current landscape underlines that point.
Aggregate portfolios are large, but they are also concentrated in large capital intensive sectors where European firms already have strong positions, and the institutional landscape is relatively heterogeneous. Next slide, please. So this brings me to the main trade-off. There are clearly possible gains. The proposal could allow faster project preparation.
It could provide for a tighter packaging of grants, guarantees, technical assistance, and stronger delivery capacity, arguably in strategic sectors. But the development effectiveness risks are also clear, partner country ownership can weaken if union's strategic priorities shape the project pipeline. Additionality becomes harder to prove in commercially attractive sectors, and local firms, civil society actors and non-European partners can lose influence upstream. Scrutiny can also become more difficult. So for David, the question becomes one, we argue, of proportionality and safeguards.
Final slide, please. Let me close with a few ideas for policy options which we set out in the paper. The first is one of proportionality. We argue that softer tools are available before moving to country-based preference or direct support for preselected firms. Quality criteria, ESG criteria, or the general call and tender design can do a part, a large part, or even all of this work.
Second, direct awards, we argue, should remain exceptional. The article 23 4 e could be tightened, could also be kept as the court of auditors, for instance, suggests. Third, transparency and audit could be strengthened. If these channels remain in the text, parliament could insist on detailed reporting and explicit Court of Auditor rights. Fourth, ECA involvement could stay selective and justified, and should arguably not become the privileged default implementation route for ODA.
Fifth, that's also an important point we think, compatibility with multilateral development banks and consortial financing, co-financing should be protected because large infrastructure and transition projects often depend exactly on that wider ecosystem. Sixth, the broader economic and ecological effect should be tested, we think, before strategic preferences widen further. There's a real risk of higher costs. There's also a risk of feeding subsidy raises. And finally, seventh, parliament should not, we think, assume an automatic political payoff for aid from these changes.
That claim should be evidenced at least, and one could argue for the regulation including a review clause in that regard. So the overall direction we would recommend is cautious, keeping the instrument structurally open, allowing departures from that default only in narrowly defined and reviewable cases. Thanks very much. I look forward to the discussion.
Barry Andrews
Right. Okay. So it's very complicated, and it's not easy to fully understand all of this to get it all in one. And it shows how complex our global Europe discussions are going to be in the next few months. We don't have an ACA in Ireland, for example.
So for political reasons, we abandoned the idea because of the, you know, controversies that happened in Ireland. And we don't have a DFI. And so, you know, the problem is that we end up with privileging certain member states who have these kind of infrastructure and all of the concerns that you've raised. I personally think that it is something we need to do because we're not delivering with the current global gateway model. I think we have to be more creative in, but it is a trade finance answer to a development problem.
And this is all very new. And as a committee, we really need your help to ensure that we insert safeguards into the instrument. We need much greater clarity on, you know, what these recommendations amount to. We are very worried about commercially viable projects being funded by development aid. It's a really, real big issue for us, and these are projects that would have gone ahead anyway.
But, we were using money that's designed, you know, very, very scarce money in times of increased needs to provide investment protection, and that is really a worry for us and something we have to be very careful about, particularly around the governance side. So, look, there's been a very useful paper. I mentioned to you that I have to go at this point. I'm gonna ask Isabella to take over the chair if she doesn't mind. So just to, I you know, to while Isabella comes up to say that I am broadly supportive of the idea of using export credit agencies, but we need a huge amount more assistance.
I think the last point that you left us with, don't assume that aid is going to deliver politically for us in these circumstances. I think that's something very, very important. The eligibility rules, you know, that in your first presentation, Anna Maria, I think we need to strengthen that and get much greater clarity around governance issues. So, look, I'm gonna hand the chair to Isabella, and thank you again, if that's okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Isabella.
Speaker 57
Okay. Thank you very much, Barry. Thank you also for the expert presentations. I think they were really interesting and gave us a lot of very concrete advice and very precise observations on where the weak spots are. And I think that's exactly what we need to have a debate that is founded on facts and experience.
Speaker 58
And from my side, I think it's really important to highlight the Paris agenda and aid effectiveness and all these experiences that we've learned from many years experience of what is actually effective development cooperation. Now I will follow the script. And now it's time for the members, right? And then we gave the floor to the commission. So we'll start with the members and who would like to take the floor.
Robert Biedroń
Thank you very much, sir, and thank you very much to both of our excellent experts for this presentation, which is not an easy one. It needs expertise, but you made it available for average member and average listener to understand the topic, and it's very important for us to understand. So the insights are very helpful for us. I'm the developer for Global Europe. And together with my colleague from Afed, who is a co-rapporteur on that, we just finalized the work on the draft report on Global Europe.
So your input is still crucial. It's not the end of our work. It's just the beginning. So it's just a proposal. So we will collect, of course, your input, and then we will collect the input of our colleagues and their amendments.
But just to assure you, we will also table together amendments on some issues. So your input is very important. Just another point of information to clarify is that we agreed this is a joint work between DEVA, AFFED, and the Budget Committee. We agreed that exclusive competence on some of the articles is only to our budget colleagues and the budget committee. So on articles, you mentioned 23, 24, and 25, which are very important, of course, in the discussion we have on and referring to some of the policy options you have proposed. This is an exclusive competence of our colleagues in budget.
But, nevertheless, of course, for our committee issues and recommendations, for example, on Article 20, are very important, and their clarification on that, of course, is very important. I also liked your observations on the role of export credit agencies. I share your concerns. Mr. Schugel has raised some of these concerns on the that the concession of public finance could subsidize donor exporters and commercially viable projects.
It is an issue we need to address and discuss. I just want to reveal some backside information that in the draft position of the parliament, we have introduced stronger wording on additionality. It will be addressed and the need for the commission to demonstrate in its financing instruments. So we will propose some improvements on that. So, I thank you.
So we're talking about EUR 200000000000. I share your concerns on the competitiveness of the member states, that it will be an issue. Some member states have expertise, have some historical past capacities, which others do not have and will need to also address and assess. But my question would be on the de facto elephant in the room, which is, of course, this geopolitical context of excluding some of the countries from taking part in finance, in participating in the projects financed by the EU, especially one of these countries, which is very active on the global area. So my question would be, what would be your answer for those who are concerned about that it will de facto increase the cost if we exclude this competitiveness.
It's not that I defend the country. I think the opposite. But there are concerns, some of our colleagues using this argument that this will raise the cost and the effectiveness of the financial effectiveness of delivering now that. So what would be your answer to these concerns? I congratulate you for your report, and I look forward to the final presentation of that.
Thank you.
Thank.
Charles Goerens
you. I'm just wondering how in the future we can have respected the idea of non-bound aid. It's different from 2001, where we were able to agree in the OECD to ensure that this principle was respected by all the members. And you said this when you initially took the floor, madam. What's changed is that we have different interests with regards to trade policy, development aid policy.
What is our interest? Is it that of our com companies or it's to do with our supplies of energy, rare metals, or to be more competitive in Africa? We can see between the Chinese, the dumping from the Chinese, and what's happening with the Americans as well. So everything is just foggy, and I don't really see clearly. And I don't think it's going to be easy for the European Parliament to monitor all of this in an opportune way with the possible abuse of this.
Everything really rests on how much sway we have with the governance of global Europe in the future. Now when it comes to investment in a developing country under the global gateway, we can be informed on the intentions, the number of projects, but we're not privy immediately to this information. It the decisions are taken at another level in the process of comitology where everything is controlled by member states. Of course, age should not be conditional, should not be bound on the one hand, but then this is what the economic spheres in those countries are looking for, and they are defending European interests. So I think that we're taking a chance with regards to the possibility of having respect for this principle in the future.
I'm not certain. I think it's going to be very difficult for us to have a very clear picture of how we can ensure that this principle is complied with. Perhaps only the commission and only part of the commission actually wants the foundation of principles, the conventions, and agreements, international agreements when it comes to the development aid policy. And the commission has said we should have this, and they hope that the commission will have the authority to ensure that these principles are respected. But outside or beyond this house, when you go to the Place De Luxembourg, when you talk about trade policy, the development policy, people don't believe have the same ideas as we do.
They think we're very strange, and we're asking to respect all these principles. And the complexity that you've just referred to is something people don't understand, and lots of people in this house don't understand it. So, I am not fully convinced. I would like to see these principles really sustained, but little by little, the way things are evolving, I think this is going to be very difficult. Last point on restrictions.
I think we should come up with a document where we have guidance on how principles can be respected. Obviously, the global situation has changed. This has been said. Today, commonly accepted law is not applied by all countries. Power is what counts.
We see this in Africa as well. So if a country has to develop its communication system, for example, in a particular country, well, the global gateway has been designed for that, and there are strategies within it that fall under development aid. Certain aspects, guarantees will then require the verification you put in place of a communication system in a given country. Then you have China that can supply this much more cheaply, but also with the possibility of full access to data. If you go and look at the African Union building in Addis Ababa, there are listening devices in all the walls.
So China knows everything that's going on in there, that this is not how Europe works. So if we have more costly projects favoring European companies with a guarantee for conformity and compliance with our principles, then if we want to also export our way of handling business, is that therefore conditional bound aid, or isn't it? And I think we need to clarify this confusion, and I am unable to say how things will move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 58
Thank you. I see no other member asking for the floor, so I will make a short intervention myself, from the Green Group. I think the idea that we should have private companies investing in developing countries is fantastic, and, of course, they should do that. What we hear from the industries themselves or different companies is that the primary thing that they need to do is legal certainty. So rule of law, you have a stable country, you have the conditions for investments and security of investments.
And I think, in my view, what development cooperation should be aimed at is to prioritize institution building and rule of law, and making the enabling environment for investments. And I'd like to hear your view on that. When it comes to Tide eight, it's been proven many times, and you also highlighted that, that is not the most effective way of doing development cooperation, that which the aim of development cooperation is reduction of poverty eradication. It's not promoting your own interests in the other country, because that is received mostly in a negative way. And if the real need is for schools or health care, and then you come and say, yes, but we should start a mine here, a mining operation, it's not exactly promoting good ownership or good relations between that country.
So that's my experience. And also on the export credit agencies, I'd like to ask you if there's a way to involve those without using the development budget. I mean, of course, it's good to use it in a way where there might be risks involved, but not using it from our development budget. Before I give the floor back to the researchers, I will give the floor to the commission. First, to DG Inpa, Nicolas Stutzler, who is the Deputy Head of Unit for Coordination and Oversight of Financing Instruments.
The floor is yours for 4 minutes.
Nicolas Stutzler
Yes, good afternoon, and thank you very much for the opportunity to exchange today. I mean, maybe to start, I fully agree that it's a very complex issue. It's very technical, and especially this Article 20 is quite heavy to digest. Maybe to explain, I mean, the proposed approach for eligibility under Global Europe, and we tried to really have a balanced approach that will allow the European Union to pursue and protect its strategic interests, and at the same time, respect the constraints of implementing partners and the realities on the ground. I mean, generally, while the eligibility route of Endicchi and IFA3 have been broadly maintained, the commission, as you said, will now be able to restrict the eligibility route for the implementation of Global Europe Funds on a case-by-case basis when such restrictions are warranted, for example, when they're in the strategic interest of the union.
Speaker 66
What is important, implementing partners in indirect management will, by default, continue to apply the eligibility rules in addition to the commission rules. But again, restrictions can be imposed, and that's actually a big change compared to the recently adopted facility for Ukraine, Moldova, and Western Balkans, which were actually more restrictive and more towards the tight end. And so actually, what we're seeing in global Europe.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.