Children in Odisha, India take lessons in the open air as a precaution against COVID-19.
School closures as a result of health and other crises are not new, at least not in the developing world, and the potentially devastating consequences are well known; loss of learning and higher drop-out rates, increased violence against children, teen pregnancies and early marriages.
What sets the COVID-19 pandemic apart from all other crises is that it has affected children everywhere and at the same time.
It is the poorest, most vulnerable children who are hurt the most when schools close and so the UN was quick to advocate for continuity of learning, and the safe opening of schools, where possible, as countries began to put lockdown measures in place: “unfortunately, the global scale and speed of the current educational disruption is
unparalleled and, if prolonged, could threaten the right to education”, Audrey Azoulay, the head of the UN education agency, UNESCO, warned in March.
A 14-year-old girl tunes into English and science lessons in the South Sudanese capital, Juba.
Students and teachers found themselves grappling with unfamiliar conferencing technology, an experience that many found difficult to cope with, but which was, for many living in lockdown, the only way to ensure any kind of education could carry on.
However, for millions of children, the idea of an online virtual classroom is an unattainable dream. In April, UNESCO revealed startling divides in digitally based distance learning, with data showing that some 830 million students do not have access to a computer.
The picture is particularly bleak in low-income countries: nearly 90 per cent of students in sub-Saharan Africa do not have household computers while 82 per cent are unable to get online. “A learning crisis already existed before COVID-19 hit”, a UNICEF official said in June.” We are now looking at an even more divisive and deepening education crisis.”
However, in many of the developing countries where online or computer learning are not an option for most students, radio still has the power to reach millions of people and is being used to keep some form of education going. In South Sudan, Radio Miraya, a highly trusted news source run by the UN mission in the country (UNMISS),
began broadcasting educational programming for the many children who, due to COVID-19 measures, were unable to be in the classroom. You can hear excerpts from the Miraya programmes in this episode of our flagship podcast, The Lid Is On.
A seven-year-old girl studies online at home in Kyiv, Ukraine, as schools remain closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite such efforts, the UN was warning in August that the long-term impact of disrupted education could create a “lost generation” of children in Africa. A World Health Organization (WHO) survey of 39 sub-Saharan African countries revealed that schools were open in only six nations and partially open in 19.
By the end of the year, 320 million children were still locked out of schools worldwide, and UNICEF felt compelled to issue a call for governments to prioritize school reopening and make classrooms as safe as possible.
“What we have learned about schooling during the time of COVID is clear: the benefits of keeping schools open, far outweigh the costs of closing them, and nationwide closures of schools should be avoided at all costs”, said Robert Jenkins, UNICEF Global Chief of Education.
As much of the world experiences a spike in COVID-19 cases, and with vaccinations still out of reach of most people, more nuanced policies are needed from national authorities, declared Mr. Jenkins, rather than blanket shutdowns and closures:
“Evidence shows that schools are not the main drivers of this pandemic. Yet we are seeing an alarming trend whereby governments are once again closing down schools as a first recourse rather than a last resort. In some cases, this is being done nationwide, rather than community by community, and children are continuing to suffer the devastating impacts on their learning, mental and physical well-being and safety”.
Who does the European Parliament offend by properly celebrating Christmas?
I recently read that Spanish MEP Isabel Benjumea tried to organise the putting up of a crib in the European Parliament during the Christmas festivities. After writing to the highest authorities she was eventually informed that the decision had to come from the department that looks after the maintenance of the building of the European Parliament. She later received a reply from that department saying that it is not the policy of the European Parliament to put up a crib, which celebrates the birth of Christ, as this could “offend others”.
May I politely ask who are these others that would be offended by having a crib put up in the European Parliament?
Europe, so far, is Christian and the European Parliament should be representing Christian values.
I am fully aware that there are people of different races and religions in Europe today but, as far as I know, the majority is still supposedly of Christian faith, albeit many of those supposedly Christian do not practise their faith at all as materialism has, unfortunately, taken over in many parts of our society. Here again I ask: who is offended?
If anyone should be offended then let them speak out and, thus, not enjoy the public holidays in Europe and work on Christmas Day.
So why do we put up all those street decorations around the world in December? Is it because we are celebrating the month of electricity?
December 25 is the day that our Lord Jesus Christ was born and the Christian world celebrates this day not just as a holiday but as a religious holiday.
The lighting up of our streets and the decorations we put up is to celebrate the birth of Christ but the most symbolic image of this event is the crib, which teaches us and reminds us Christians of the birth of Christ.
Europe so far is Christian and the European Parliament should be representing Christian values
The very word itself, Christmas, signifies Christ.
Why, then, do we give presents to each other on Christmas? This symbolises the presents that the three Magi Kings gave: gold, representing kingship on earth, frankincense, a symbol of deity, and myrrh, an embalming oil as a symbol of death.
It is rather ironic, therefore, that on the celebration of Christ’s own birthday we give presents to everyone except to the birthday boy Himself, Christ. We even try to forget that He exists by refusing to celebrate His birthday.
I do not expect to see such decorations and a crib in a non-Christian country but to have our own European Parliament claim that the reason why they do not want to have a crib is not to offend a minority is offensive to the majority.
It is obvious that the European Parliament is absolutely spineless. I urge the president of the European Parliament to reconsider such an offensive decision and change the policy. He should also apologise for offending the majority of us Christians by refusing to display a crib.
May I ask how many non-Christian MEPs there are? I am sure the answer would be a definite minority.
If this is correct, then the European Parliament is willing to please this minority and offend the majority.
Well, this is, therefore, a new definition of ‘democracy’!
I fully recognise that my argument will fall on deaf ears as the only MEPs who might read my article are the Maltese ones who are Christian.
Therefore, I ask them to protest this issue because, while we are only a minority, it seems that minorities seem to be respected more in the European Parliament than the majority.
I would also suggest that, as a beautiful gesture, every government of the European Union member states donate a crib to the European Parliament to show that Europe is all about Christian values.
Francis Vassallo, former governor, Central Bank of Malta
Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.
Health system reforms in the Republic of Moldova have expanded the number of people benefiting from publicly financed health care and the range of services covered. Better access has reduced unmet need for health care. However, this greater use of services has increased people’s exposure to out-of-pocket payments – for example, through co-payments for outpatient medicines. A new report released by WHO finds that around 1 in 6 households in the Republic of Moldova experiences catastrophic health spending.
Medicines – largest single driver of financial hardship
Financial hardship is heavily concentrated among poor people, pensioners and people living in rural areas. Outpatient medicines are the largest single driver of catastrophic out-of-pocket payments and their contribution to financial hardship has increased over time.
For poorer households, inpatient care is the second-largest driver of catastrophic health spending, perhaps linked to informal payments for hospital care (the use of cash or presents to secure services), which have also increased.
Financial protection undermined by gaps in coverage
The share of the population covered by the Republic of Moldova’s national health insurance fund has increased in recent years, but over 10% of the population still lacks coverage, mainly because entitlement is linked to payment of health insurance contributions. The number of people who work in the informal sector and cannot afford to pay contributions is significant.
For those who are covered by the health insurance fund, financial protection may be undermined by the limited range of publicly financed outpatient medicines, heavy co-payments for these medicines, underdeveloped strategic purchasing and the practice of informal payments.
As a result of these gaps in coverage, poorer households are at high risk of being uninsured, facing financial barriers to access and experiencing catastrophic health spending.
Pandemic demonstrates value of universal health coverage
In working to control the COVID-19 outbreak, the Republic of Moldova has used reserve funds to guarantee free hospital treatment for everyone, regardless of health insurance status. As the longer-term economic disruption caused by COVID-19 becomes more evident, this short-term measure could be turned into a permanent feature. De-linking entitlement to all health services – not just hospital care – from payment of contributions would ensure that everyone is covered.
Re-designing the coverage of outpatient medicines will also help strengthen financial protection – for example, by extending the range of outpatient medicines covered, ensuring that poor households and people with chronic conditions are exempt from co-payments and introducing a cap on co-payments for everyone.
Moving towards universal health coverage requires a commitment to steadily increasing public spending on health. This is even more important in the context of COVID-19, which demands greater public investment in health, better use of existing resources and policy responses carefully designed to reduce unmet need and financial hardship for people at risk of poverty and social exclusion.
“Universal health coverage must remain a policy objective that is central to the agenda of recovery and rebuilding in the coming months,” said Dr Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat, Director of the Division of Country Health Policies and Systems in the WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Members of the European parliament are set to begin scrutinising the post-Brexit trade deal on Monday just days after the European Union and the United Kingdom reached a Christmas Eve agreement.
According to The Guardian, a number of MEPs has urged that more details about the agreement be revealed, and how the EU will make sure the Boris Johnson government does not “use its new freedoms” to shift away from crucial social and environmental standards in the upcoming years.
Despite the “Brexmas” deal being concluded at the very last minute, MEPs are expected to give it a green light. The agreement, however, is unlikely to be approved before it’s supposed to come into effect on 1 January when the 11-month Brexit transition period ends.
The European Union and the UK reached a trade deal last Thursday following months of tough talks. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised the deal as fair and balanced, while UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that it might not be a “cakeist treaty”, but was still “what the country needs at this time”.
The PM noted that the deal will create a giant free trade zone starting from 1 January and raise the country’s share of fishing quotas from around half to two-thirds in 5.5 years. Fishing rights had been among the thorniest issues in post-Brexit negotiations.
Following the announcement of the deal, the FoodDrinkEurope confederation, the Copa and Cogeca interest group for European farmers, and the European Liaison Committee for Agricultural and Agri-Food Trade (CELCAA) called on the authorities to take urgent measures that include, among other things, the development of an effective transition phase, provision of human, technical, and financial resources to put in place the new customs and sanitary measures, as well as assurance of a continued formal communication channel between agri-food chain operators, on one side, and the European Commission and national authorities, on the other.
Members of the European parliament will start belated scrutiny of the post-Brexit trade agreement on Monday, after EU and UK negotiators finally struck a deal on Christmas Eve.
The delays in finalising the agreement have left MEPs with no chance to approve the deal before it comes into force on 1 January. The European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, will start a round of national and party consultations with MEPs.
MEPs from all factions are angry that they will be unable to scrutinise the deal fully in advance, but the chances of them rejecting it are low because the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has kept them fully informed throughout the talks.
Some MEPs, however, feel the sovereignty of the parliament has been systematically undermined either by Boris Johnson’s negotiating tactics or the commission’s indifference to MEPs right to ratify treaties.
Some German Green MPs have demanded greater scrutiny and clear sanctions if the UK breaks the rules, pointing to the plethora of joint committees and working groups that will now be set up between the UK and the EU.
MEPs have also called for more detail about how Brussels will be able to ensure a Conservative-led UK government does not use its new freedoms to diverge from key social and environmental standards in the years ahead.
There are no provisions in the deal to prevent the UK shifting to a lower tax economy, although in practice the deficits run up as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are likely to lead to tax increases in the coming years.
Many MEPs are also concerned about Brexit’s implications for the continued unity of the UK. Some insist the European parliament should make it clear it would welcome an independent Scotland joining the EU, a stance that would cause concern in Spain faced by a separatist Catalonia.
The president of the European parliament, David Sassoli, welcomed the deal on Christmas Eve and implied that most of its red lines had been preserved.
“The parliament is now ready to react responsibly in order to minimise disruption to citizens and business,” he said. “The parliament will continue its work in the responsible committees and the full plenary before deciding whether to give consent in the new year.”
Udo Bullmann, a German socialist member of the parliament’s trade committee said MEPs would “put the agreement through its paces over the next few weeks and then decide on its value. The rules on competitive conditions and market access will be examined in particular so that no new loopholes for dumping practices and tested EU standards arise.”
David McAllister, the parliament’s Brexit commissioner, said in an interview with Die Welt that the deal “would have far reaching consequences for people, companies and public administrations. Trade between the EU and the UK will no longer run as smoothly as it would when when we jointly tackled the internal market and the customs union.”
Iratxe García, the leader of the parliament’s socialist group, emphasised that the deal could not set a precedent for the way the commission consults the parliament on future trade deals. “This is a unique situation and there has and never will be an agreement quite like it, either in its nature or its procedure,” she said.
Pedro Silva Pereira, the socialist representative on the Brexit coordination group, said: “We will now analyse the final outcome of negotiations but, having had regular contact with the EU negotiating team, we believe that this agreement deserves our full support since it ensures a new relationship based on fair trade and high standards, avoiding social, environmental and regulatory dumping, and protecting our fishing communities.”
He is one of many MEPs who hopes the UK will come to see purpose in cooperating on a common foreign policy, something that is not covered by trade agreement.
Published originally on December 26th 2020 at the TaipeiTimes.
This year has been unusual on many levels. In the midst of a global health crisis ravaging the world, Czech Senate President Milos Vystrcil in September led a delegation of 89 civic and political leaders to Taiwan, the only corner of the world that for more than 250 days (until Tuesday) did not register a single locally transmitted COVID-19 infection.
The visit caused quite a stir in international media and intensified already strained ties between the EU and China. Taiwan, a technologically advanced economy with a robust democracy, is a like-minded partner of the EU, but remains a highly sensitive matter within EU-China relations.
China considers Taiwan a breakaway province, despite never having ruled it. The EU has its own “one China” policy, but has officially committed to promoting “practical solutions regarding Taiwan’s participation in international frameworks.”
Following the Czech delegation, Brussels and Beijing engaged in a harsh exchange, with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) threatening that the senate president would pay a “heavy price,” while his German counterpart warned China against making such threats against an EU member state.
As tensions in EU-China relations remain high, and international cooperation becomes more challenging, there is good reason to return to the visit, and consider some of its less talked about contributions.
Prague Mayor Zdenek Hrib, who oversaw the signing of the Prague-Taipei sister city framework in January, was also in the delegation. In a global context where cities become key players in addressing complex challenges through innovation and creativity, this aspect deserves more attention.
As the pandemic has illustrated, local governments can increase their capacity to network internationally and bring solutions, while catalyzing new political consciousness. Cities shape identities. They help celebrate connectivity, diversity and openness by warming people-to-people relations and enhancing social networks. This, in turn, facilitates government-to-government ties.
Considering Taiwan’s abnormal international status, city diplomacy provides a particularly valuable platform to circumvent its isolation, by leveraging international cooperation and information sharing on a city-to-city level. Taiwan’s cities must further invest in such diplomacy and seek to build on the momentum the “Taiwan model” has ensured.
The sister-city agreement linking Prague and Taipei includes a wide range of cooperation, including on business, science, technology, tourism, education, healthcare and culture, as well as a smart city cooperation agreement. Through this partnership, the cities can act in their own right, stress collaboration over competition, empower their citizens and contribute to making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Taiwan is already working toward meeting the 17 SDGs. As COVID-19 is taking the world further away from the goals, cities’ contributions have become all the more relevant.
As such, Taipei has sought to advance several goals, including good health and well-being (Goal 3), quality education (Goal 4), decent work and economic growth (Goal 8), innovation and infrastructure (Goal 9), and sustainable cities (Goal 11).
Taiwan has a story to tell, but participating in international organizations will remain difficult. Taiwanese scientists were even excluded from participating in all UNESCO-affiliated events, which has shown that Taiwan is being excluded from international participation. It also indicates that China’s influence within UN organizations continues to increase. Yet, this should not constrain sharing science across cities. Cities are about choices and choices bring opportunities for all.
According to the Taipei City Government Web site, it has established ties with 51 sister cities across 37 countries. Four of these are in Europe: Versailles (1986), Warsaw (1995), Vilnius (1998) and Riga (2001). Since 2012, Helsinki is also a “friendship city” of Taipei.
These partnerships need a fresh approach and adjustment to address current challenges. In addition, it is evident that more similar cooperation should be built across Europe. This will require rapprochement from Europe and Taiwan. Both sides must recognize the value of using city diplomacy to leverage existing strengths and to enable new ones to flourish.
A meeting between Budapest Mayor Gergely Karacsony and Representative to Hungary Liu Shih-chung (劉世忠), a former Tainan deputy secretary-general, is a welcome initiative. The two exchanged ideas on smart cities, innovation and city diplomacy. The next welcome step would be to establish a sister-city agreement. This would benefit both cities, just like the Grenoble, France-Taoyuan sister-city cooperation signed in March 2018 is hoped to do, particularly in technology, innovation and circular economy.
Kaohsiung, with the largest harbor in Taiwan and among the top 50 world container ports, should also consider expanding its network in Europe, with Rotterdam, the Netherlands, or Antwerp, Belgium, adding to its only sister city in Europe, Erzgebirgskreis, Germany (1993).
In a hyper-connected world, cities across Taiwan should further embrace the practical benefits of city diplomacy. At the same time, as the EU rethinks its China policy, European cities must be more involved, and expand their international sister-city network.
Following the Czech delegation visit, Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua (王美花) said the visit was proof that “nothing can stop Taiwan and the Czech Republic’s determination to defend freedom, democracy and protect human rights.”
Let city diplomacy take this forward into the year to come.
Over the past three years, working groups across the collegiate University have been assessing the impact of leaving the European Union with or without a deal. They have been making sure that the University and the Colleges are as well placed as they can be to deal with the consequences of any scenario.
In the weeks ahead, we will communicate directly to staff and students on issues including travel, personal data and research funding, as and when necessary. Staff and students can find the very latest information from the University on our Brexit webpages, which I ask you to consult regularly for any updates.
Cambridge colleagues will continue to engage with the government and policy-makers to seek clarity on issues where uncertainty remains.
Looking ahead
Today’s outcome is only the latest step in a long and complex process. While we now know the contours of the agreement, is impossible to predict exactly what the short, medium and long-term implications of this form of Brexit will be.
I am in no doubt that Cambridge will be able to adapt successfully to the new realities. Even as it does, I am determined that we look forward and continue to build on the decades of openness, collaboration and cross-border academic inquiry that have allowed us – working alongside our European partners – to create knowledge and tackle global challenges.
The collegiate University’s leadership is determined that the UK’s departure from the European Union will not deter us from remaining an open and welcoming University, or erase long-standing bonds of collaboration and friendship.
It is now up to institutions like ours to help shape our future relationship with our European and global partners. We have every intention of doing so.
We will continue to work alongside our valued European partners. We will continue to build collaborations with organisations and Universities across the continent that share our aspirations and values. And we will continue to reach out to friends around the world – from Munich to Nanjing, from Paris to Delhi – to show through our actions that we are a global university.
He also highlighted the need for strong health systems and social protection, support for communities on the frontlines, and technical cooperation for countries.
“Across this work, science must be our guide. Solidarity and coordination are crucial, within and among countries; no one is safe unless all of us are safe,” the Secretary-General added.
Mr. Guterres also honoured medical professionals, front-line personnel and essential workers globally for their “remarkable commitment” in face of the coronavirus pandemic.
“As we recover from the pandemic, let us resolve to build up our prevention capacities so that we are ready when the world faces the next outbreak,” he urged.
Similarly, Volkan Bozkir, President of the General Assembly, underscored that the “devastating experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear, the benefits of tackling epidemics.
“If we ready ourselves, then we can save lives and stop epidemics from developing into pandemics,” he said, adding that COVID-19 “must be our final warning.”
“We cannot afford to be complacent, and we must learn from our mistakes.”
Mr. Bozkir urged everyone to join him in trusting science, supporting early warning mechanisms, and standing together in solidarity.
“We will prepare as we have never prepared before – so that epidemics and pandemics can no longer cause the kind of suffering we have seen across the globe this year,” the President of the General Assembly urged.
One Health Approach
In a separate message, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted the importance of a “One Health Approach”, which integrates human health, animal health and plant health, as well as environmental factors.
This is all the more important given that 75 per cent of new and emerging human infectious diseases are zoonotic, caused by germs that spread between animals and people.
“Any efforts to improve human health are doomed unless they address the critical interface between human and animals,” said Dr. Tedros.
The head of WHO also urged countries to invest in preparedness capacity to prevent, detect and mitigate emergencies, and reiterated the importance of strong primary health systems as the foundation of universal health coverage as well as the “eyes and ears” of health systems everywhere.
“True preparedness is not just a job of the health sector, it requires an all-of-government and all-of-society approach,” he added.
The International Day
The International Day of Epidemic Preparedness, to be marked on 27 December annually, was proclaimed earlier this month by the General Assembly, to advocate the importance of the prevention of, preparedness for, and partnership against epidemics.
The General Assembly also recognized the role of the UN system, in particular WHO, in coordinating responses to epidemics, and supporting efforts to prevent, mitigate and address the impacts of infectious diseases.
This International Day falls on the birthdate of Louis Pasteur, the French chemist and microbiologist, responsible for ground-breaking work on vaccinations.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/20121 , and in particular Article 110 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid2 (‘the Humanitarian Aid Regulation’ or ‘HAR’), and in particular Article 1,
Article 2, Article 4 and Article 15(2) and (3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 2013/755/EU of 25 November 2013 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Union (‘the Overseas Association Decision’)3 , and in particular Article 79 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In order to ensure the implementation of the humanitarian aid actions of the Union for 2021, it is necessary to adopt an annual financing decision for 2021. Article 110 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (‘the Financial Regulation’) establishes detailed rules on financing decisions.
(2) The human and economic losses caused by natural disasters, whether sudden- or slowonset, are devastating. Natural disasters are increasing in intensity and scope due to climate change, and entail a constantly increasing loss of life, physical and psychological or social suffering, or material damage.
(3) Man-made humanitarian crises, also referred to as complex crises and mostly resulting from the consequences of conflicts, are today the main source of humanitarian and protection needs in the world, and increasingly protracted.
(4) Direct and indirect humanitarian consequences of pandemics such as COVID-19 can be equally catastrophic and need to be addressed also from the humanitarian perspective.
(5) The humanitarian aid funded under this Decision should also cover essential activities and support services to humanitarian organisations as referred to in Articles 2(c) and 4 HAR, including notably the protection of humanitarian goods and personnel.
(6) The Union became party to the Food Assistance Convention on 28 November 20124 ; the Convention entered into force on 1 January 2013. In accordance with Article 5 of the Convention, an amount of EUR 350 000 000, to be spent as food and nutrition assistance funded under this Decision, is to be counted towards the minimum annual commitment for the year 2021 of the Union under the Food Assistance Convention.
(7) Although as a general rule grants funded by this Decision should be co-financed, by way of derogation, the Authorising Officer in accordance with Article 190(3) of the Financial Regulation, may authorise their financing in full, providing appropriate justification in the award decision.
(8) The envisaged assistance is to comply with the conditions and procedures set out by the restrictive measures adopted pursuant to Article 215 TFEU5 . The needs-based and impartial nature of humanitarian aid implies that the Union may be called to finance humanitarian assistance in crises and countries covered by Union restrictive measures.
In keeping with the relevant principles of international humanitarian law and with the principles of impartiality, neutrality and non-discrimination referred to in Article 214(2) of the TFEU, the Union should allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded access to humanitarian relief by civilians in need. The relevant Union restrictive measures should be interpreted and implemented in such a manner as not to preclude the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the intended final beneficiaries.
(9) The Commission should acknowledge and accept contributions from other donors made in accordance with Article 21(2)(a)(ii) of the Financial Regulation, subject to the conclusion of the relevant agreement. Where such contributions are not denominated in euro, a reasonable estimate of conversion should be made.
(10) It is advisable to maintain a part of the Union budget for humanitarian aid unallocated in order to cover unforeseen operations, as part of an operational reserve.
(11) In cases where Union funding is granted to non-governmental organisations in accordance with Article 7 HAR, in order to guarantee that the beneficiaries of that funding are able to meet their commitments in the long term, the Authorising Officer responsible should verify if the non-governmental organisations concerned satisfy the requisite eligibility and selection criteria, notably as regards their legal, operational and financial capacity. The verification to be made should also seek to confirm whether the non-governmental organisations concerned are able to provide humanitarian aid in accordance with the humanitarian principles set out in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid .
(12) In cases where the Union finances humanitarian aid operations of Member States’ specialised agencies in accordance with Article 9 HAR, in order to guarantee that the beneficiaries of Union grants are capable of fulfilling their commitments in the long run, the Authorising Officer responsible should verify the legal, operational and, where the entities or bodies concerned are governed by private law, financial capacity of any Member States’ specialised agencies desiring to receive financial support under this Decision. The verification to be made should notably seek to confirm whether the Member States’ specialised agencies concerned are able to provide humanitarian assistance or equivalent international relief outside the Union in accordance with the humanitarian principles set out in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid.
(13) Pursuant to Article 195(a) of the Financial Regulation, it is appropriate to authorise the award of grants without a call for proposals to the non-governmental organisations satisfying the eligibility and suitability criteria referred to in Article 7 HAR for the purpose of humanitarian aid.
(14) The Commission should authorise the eligibility of costs as of a date preceding that of submission of a grant application, which is prior to the date of adoption of this Decision, for reasons of extreme urgency in crisis management aid or in other exceptional and duly substantiated emergencies, whereby an early engagement by the Union would be of major importance.
(15) In order to ensure an effective delivery in the field of Union-funded humanitarian aid in all relevant crisis contexts while taking into account the specific mandates of international organisations, such as the United Nations and the international component of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement (International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), it is necessary to use indirect management for the implementation of Union-funded humanitarian aid operations.
(16) The Commission is to ensure a level of protection of the financial interests of the Union with regards to entities and persons entrusted with the implementation of Union funds by indirect management as provided for in Article 154(3) of the Financial Regulation. To this end, such entities and persons are to be subject to an assessment of their systems and procedures in accordance with Article 154(4) of the Financial Regulation7 and, if necessary, to appropriate supervisory measures in accordance with Article 154(5) of the Financial Regulation before a contribution agreement can be signed.
(17) It is necessary to allow for the payment of interest due for late payment on the basis of Article 116(5) of the Financial Regulation.
(18) In order to allow for flexibility in the implementation of the work programme, it is appropriate to allow changes which should not be considered substantial for the purposes Article 110(5) of the Financial Regulation.
(19) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Humanitarian Aid Committee established by Article 17(1) HAR,
