Mediaboss Marketing

Introduction

Evaluation subject, purpose and scope

This is the Final Report of the Evaluation of the European Unions humanitarian response to the refugee crisis in Turkey, covering the period 2016-2017. This ambitious mandate was undertaken by Landell Mills in partnership with Universalia Management Group and International Alert. The consortium was contracted by the European Commissions Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) to carry out the evaluation between April 2018 and February 2019.

This Final Report provides a synthesis of the evidence collected during the first three phases of the evaluation (inception, desk and field phases). The findings and conclusions were developed by the evaluation team, and then validated by DG ECHO. The recommendations were subsequently developed through a participatory process with DG ECHO (Brussels and Turkey).

Purpose and objectives

The overall purpose of this independent evaluation is to assess all Humanitarian Aid actions under the European Union (EU) Facility for Refugees in Turkey, including those that are ongoing, in order to inform future programming and funding under a second phase of the Facility. More specifically, the evaluation objectives were threefold:

The evaluation approach was designed to provide evidence-based judgment on the extent to whichthe humanitarian actions under the Facility have been effective and efficient; relevant to the needsof the refugee population; coherent both internally and with other EU instruments, donors andregional interventions (i.e. Regional Refugee & Resilience Plan (3RP)); and have achieved EUadded value. In addition, the evaluation also examines the sustainability of humanitarian actionswithin the Facility.

Follow this link:
Evaluation of the European Union's Humanitarian Response to the refugee crisis in Turkey - Final Report, July 2019 - Turkey - ReliefWeb

The European Union announced 3 million (almost 170 million Philippine Pesos) in further humanitarian funding to provide assistance to those most vulnerable populations in the country, both those affected by the most recent natural disasters and by conflict.

We commend the actions of the Philippine government, whose preparedness measures before typhoon Tisoy saved the lives of those residing near the coast and landslide-prone areas, said Janez Lenari, the EU Commissioner for Crisis Management. However, the number of people displaced from their homes due to natural disasters and conflict is still high and the EU is ready to help answer their more urgent needs.

The EU funding will support global humanitarian aid organisations in their actions to deliver immediate assistance to those most affected by typhoon Tisoy, which caused widespread damage in the southeastern part of Luzon, and by the earthquakes in Mindanao.

In the aftermath of Tisoy, also known as typhoon Kammuri, assistance will be provided through healthcare services, access to clean water and the distribution of emergency shelter materials, hygiene kits and essential household items that were lost in the disasters. Hygiene promotion activities are also being carried out to mitigate the spread of waterborne diseases. In addition, cash grants will be distributed to enable victims to sustain themselves during their displacement and to help victims restart their livelihoods.

In Mindanao, the funding will target both displaced people and returnees. It will focus on improving food security through humanitarian food assistance and the replacement or strengthening of lost and damaged livelihoods. Aid will also aim to provide better access to sources of potable water, sanitation and proper hygiene practices, as well as healthcare assistance.

Part of this funding will support Plan International and the International Organization for Migration and is coming from the EUs Acute Large Emergency Response Tool (ALERT), which allocated 800,000, and the EUs overall contribution to the Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF) of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), which contributed 200,000.

Background

Typhoon Tisoy, the 20th tropical cyclone hitting the Philippines in 2019, has affected more than two million people and over 55,000 are still displaced. Some 484,000 houses have been damaged, out of which more than 63,000 have been completely destroyed.

During the months of October and December 2019, five major earthquakes hit Mindanao causing loss of life and significant damage to homes, schools and public buildings, and leaving more than 340,000 people in need of humanitarian assistance. The earthquakes have added stress to an already fragile population facing and armed conflict.

Since 1996, the EU has provided more than 124 million in humanitarian aid to the Philippines.

The acute large emergency response tool (ALERT) is used to respond to large natural disasters where over 100,000 people or over 50% of the population are affected. Depending on the type of disaster, the aim is to allocate funds within 24 to 48 hours of the onset of the emergency.

The Disaster Relief Emergency Fund, established in 1985, is supported by contributions from donors. Each time a National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society needs immediate financial support to respond to a disaster, it can request funds from the DREF. For small-scale disasters, the IFRC allocates grants from the Fund, which can then be replenished by the donors. The delegation agreement between the IFRC and the EU enables the latter to replenish the DREF for agreed operations (that fit in with its humanitarian mandate) up to a total of 3 million.

See the rest here:
The European Union provides additional 3 million in humanitarian aid to the Philippines - Philippines - ReliefWeb

Airbnb has won a court battle in the EU affecting how the company is regulated in the future. The EUs top court has ruled that Airbnb is not an estate agent but an information society service, meaning it can avoid certain responsibilities.

The challenge to Airbnb was brought by a French tourism and hotel association, but the decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union means the US company will continue to operate as an e-commerce platform, without being subject to property rules.

These include Frances tough Hoguet law, which could have led to criminal sanctions for Airbnb. The company could have also faced new constraints in other key markets like Amsterdam, Paris, and London. In response to the ruling, Airbnb told Bloomberg that it will move forward and continue working with cities on clear rules.

Airbnb is not the only tech firm to have confused lawmakers with how it should be regulated. In many cases, the choice sits between regulating these companies with the same rules that apply to their non-digital counterparts, versus regulating them like an e-commerce platform, which usually means lighter controls.

Uber is a firm thats faced similar challenges, but back in 2017 the same EU court ruled that the company is a transportation service, not a platform. The difference between Uber and Airbnb, says the court, is how much control Airbnb has over the services hosted on its platform. Airbnb allows property owners to set their own prices and rent their homes through other channels, while Uber controls pricing and automatically pairs up sellers and customers. In the end, the court wasnt convinced that Airbnb has a decisive influence over the accommodation offered on its platform, according to BBC News.

Despite Airbnb escaping Frances tough regulations, the association that originally brought the complaint, Frances Association for Professional Tourism and Accommodation, told Bloomberg the ruling was positive. We filed our complaint in 2015, and France has since introduced new regulations that apply also to Airbnb, said an official. Eventually Airbnb is going to be regulated in France, just not as a real estate agent at this point.

This new regulation might not be far away. Politico notes that the European Commissions president, Ursula von der Leyen, has said that the body hopes to revise the EUs e-commerce directive as part of a push to regulate online businesses.

Continue reading here:
Airbnb avoids tougher regulation in Europe after EU ruling - The Verge

The United Kingdom's general election this month settled the matter of Brexit: the UK will leave the European Union on January 31, 2020. It will then be up to the two sides to lay the groundwork for a future relationship based on mutual trust and shared interests.

BRUSSELS The end of the year is a time for closure and new beginnings. As 2019 winds down, that is certainly the case with Brexit. Following the victory of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Tories in the general election this month, it is now clear that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on January 31, 2020.

For many, including me, the occasion will be tinged with regret. But it also represents an opportunity to forge a new UK-EU partnership. And besides, things could have been much worse. Owing to the withdrawal agreement that was concluded this past October, a destructive hard Brexit has been averted.

Since the beginning of the Brexit negotiations, we on the EU side the 27 member states and the European Parliament have not strayed from the blocs core interests nor lost sight of the need for unity and solidarity. Our priority was first and foremost to secure the rights of European citizens, including by finding a solution for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, for whom the negotiations were about peace and stability, not just trade and the economy. Throughout the process, we have protected the EU single market and its guarantees for consumers, public and animal health standards, and safeguards against fraud and trafficking. But we also did our utmost to preserve a climate of trust between the EU and the UK, and to lay a solid foundation for a new partnership.

In accordance with its own wishes, the UK will no longer participate in EU institutions as of February 1, 2020. But it will remain in the single market and the customs union at least until the end of 2020. And the free movement of people between the EU and the UK will continue, which means that it will be business as usual for citizens, consumers, businesses, students, and researchers on both sides of the channel over the next year.

Moreover, with the transition period, there will be time to implement practical measures to guarantee EU and UK citizens rights, establish the customs and border arrangements agreed in Northern Ireland, and start to negotiate an agreement on the future relationship. But in the absence of a decision by the UK before July 2020 to extend the transition period which Johnson has ruled out a deal on the future relationship will have to be concluded in less than 11 months.

That will be immensely challenging, but we will give it our all, even if we wont be able to achieve everything. Never will it be the EU that fails on common ambition.

Subscribe today and get unlimited access to OnPoint, the Big Picture, the PS archive of more than 14,000 commentaries, and our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.

SUBSCRIBE

Since it is the time for New Years resolutions, we should set three goals to achieve by this time next year. First, the EU and the UK must ensure that we have the means to work together and discuss joint solutions to global challenges. The UK may be leaving the EU, but it is not leaving Europe. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently put it, Whatever the future holds, the bond and the friendship between our people are unbreakable.From addressing climate change and promoting effective multilateralism, to defending our homelands and countering those who choose violence over peaceful solutions, we share essential interests and values.

That is why the EU will continue to engage positively with the UK, both bilaterally and in global fora such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the G20. Consider climate change. Next year, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) will take place in Glasgow, Scotland. Setting ambitious targets will require a strong common position. If the EU and the UK cannot align on such a critical issue, there is little hope that others around the world will be able to do so.

Second, we need to build a close security relationship. Here, too, the UKs departure from the EU has consequences. The strong security cooperation that EU member states have put in place is linked to the free movement of people. It works because we have common rules, common supervision mechanisms, and a common Court of Justice. Because we trust each other and are assured that our fundamental rights are protected, we are able to share data extensively and implement integrated solutions.

The same degree of cooperation is simply not possible with a third country that is outside of the Schengen area. But neither the EU nor the UK can guarantee its security without looking beyond its borders and building alliances. Tackling terrorism, cyberattacks, and other attempts to undermine our democracies will require a joint effort. The lives of our citizens depend on our ability to count on each other. That is why there can be no trade-off on our mutual security. This should be an unconditional commitment from both sides. I know that the EUs high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Josep Borrell, agrees.

Third, by this time next year, we need an economic partnership that reflects our common interests, geographical proximity, and interdependence. In the political declaration agreed in October alongside the withdrawal agreement, the UK government made clear that it will pursue a free-trade agreement with the EU, and rejected the idea that it would remain in the EU customs union. That means the UK and the EU will become two separate markets.

The EU including its trade commissioner, Phil Hogan will engage in these negotiations in a positive spirit, with the willingness to make the most of the short time available. But, like the UK, we will keep our strategic interests in mind. We know that competing on social and environmental standards rather than on skills, innovation, and quality leads only to a race to the bottom that puts workers, consumers, and the planet on the losing side. Thus, any free-trade agreement must provide for a level playing field on standards, state aid, and tax matters.

These are our three goals for 2020: to maintain a capacity to cooperate closely at the global level; to forge a strong security partnership; and to negotiate a new economic agreement (which, most likely, will have to be expanded in the years to come). If we achieve these three objectives, we will have made the most of the next year. As soon as we receive our mandate from the 27 EU member states, our team will be ready to negotiate in a constructive spirit with the UK a country that we will always regard as a friend, ally, and partner.

Read more:
Three New Year's Wishes for Britain and the EU | by Michel Barnier - Project Syndicate

Author: Kai Schulze, Free University of Berlin

The recently launched EUJapan Partnership on Sustainable Connectivity and Quality Infrastructure (EUJapan Connectivity Partnership) signals a new stage for EUJapan infrastructure cooperation. This agreement follows on the heels of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) and the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) that took effect on 1 February 2019. But this new initiative will go beyond the bilateral EUJapan focus of the EPA and SPA agreements. It ambitiously aims to connect the two poles at either ends of Eurasia, as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasised in his speech at the EUAsia Connectivity Forum.

The strategic calculations of Japan and the EU and their motivation to start this connectivity partnership become apparent when looking at the geographical focus of the EUJapan Connectivity Partnership. One of the main drivers appears to be in reaction to China and its own ambitious connectivity-focussed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

At the official announcement of the EUJapan Connectivity Partnership, Prime Minister Abe and the then president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker emphasised the Western Balkans, the Indo-Pacific and Africa as the geographical spaces of special concern for the new partnership. The agreement itself also mentions Eastern Europe and Central Asia. These are almost exactly the same geographical regions that Chinas BRI focuses on.

Despite the fact that China is and remains an important economic partner for Japan and the European Union, both have noticed that China is steadily increasing its political and economic influence in these regions. Consequently, the EUs perception of China has dramatically changed from China as a promising future market to officially labelling China a strategic rival in March 2019.

For the European Union specifically, Chinas growing influence in Central and Eastern Europe has obviously become an urgent issue. In recent years, China has successfully enhanced cooperation with countries in the vicinity of the European Union and increasingly also within its membership. An example of the latter is the creation of the Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries (ChinaCEEC) initiative and deeper cooperation with individual EU member states such as Italy and Greece.

Yet, benign neglect has characterised European and Japanese connectivity cooperation up until now, giving China considerable advantage in fostering connectivity between Europe, East Asia and the regions in between. Both the European Union and Japan hope the new initiative will change this.

The European Union hopes to claim a position where it can proactively shape the way Europe connects with Asia instead of only reacting to Chinas initiatives. With Japan as a partner, the European Union can show that everyone in Europe could benefit from increasing EuropeanAsia connectivity between both regions without being solely dependent on China.

The agreement with the European Union also offers many opportunities for Japan to not only shape Chinas growing global influence, but also to further promote its own ambitious geopolitical alternative to the BRI, Japans Free and Open Indo-Pacific initiative (FOIP). Unlike China, Japan has so far missed the chance to become an active part of the increasing connectivity between East Asia on the one end and Europe on the other.

But with its economic power, Japan is still able to offer an alternative to China on the East Asian end, while Europe serves as the partner on the other end of the connectivity project. Cooperation with the European Union might allow Japan to enhance the somewhat nebulous FOIP initiative with concrete partnerships, cooperation and agreements not only in Europe, but also in regions such as Africa.

The new partnership agreement appears to be a mutually beneficial response of the European Union and Japan to Chinas increasing influence in Asia, Europe and Africa from which all sides might benefit. To really reach this goal, the still rather vague agreement needs to be filled with concrete projects and clear strategies and goals. More financial resources also need to be forthcoming. Hard work remains to be done if this new EUJapan Connectivity Partnership is to become more than the mere statement of aspirations that currently populate the connectivity infrastructure policy space.

Kai Schulze is a postdoctoral researcher at the Free University of Berlin.

Continued here:
EUJapan connectivity aspirations - East Asia Forum