The European Union gives the most humanitarian aid in the world, and when a natural disaster has struck, it can act within hours. Yet these facts remains obscure in the minds of its citizens and little visible on the ground. Fault or virtue? Our guests ME

Focus: The main donor of aid in the world...?

On 12 January   the earth trembled in the Caribbean,

Europe and the whole world   are bustling to send in aid:

Europe is again the world's main donor.   It gathered 500 million euros

in help for the NGOs, funds for the UN,   and direct aid from the Member States.

But Europe suffers from   a lack of visibility,

and, some countries say,   from a lack of political coordination.

Julie Martin explains to us the mechanism   of European aid from the disaster in Haiti

back to Pakistan, where another terrible   earthquake took place four years ago.

15 days after the catastrophe, Haiti   is still counting the injured and dead.

Over a million are homeless, of which   half are in Port-au-Prince, the capital.

ECHO, the EU's   Humanitarian Aid department,

ECHO does not act directly   but finances the NGOs on the ground.

More than 180 of them have benefited   from these funds around the world.

We have a long-term   partnership with ECHO

and understanding of its   procedures of initial emergency aid,

which allow access to funds   to launch emergency aid operations.

ECHO is often one of the few donors   to provide financing within a few hours.

On the ground, the EU has spread itself   around in a discreet manner.

It is not as visible as the US mission   put in place after the quake.

The first EU representative,   the Commissioner, Karel De Gucht

arrived on the scene a week   after the disaster.

He was the only one.   10 days after the disaster,

there's still no visit from   Catherine Ashton, head of EU diplomacy.

In Strasbourg, she answered   the criticism from MEPs.

with a High Representative   who is Vice-President of the Commission.

That person must be more visible   on issues of this kind.

The EU has responded quickly,   not seeking headlines,

but with a total focus on getting help   to the people in need.

On advice from the UN, we resisted   the urge to travel to Haiti immediately.

That would have diverted attention   and resources away from the relief effort.

For many NGOs the need for action   from the EU is essential,

even if, like Médecins Sans Frontières,   they're not financed wholly by EU funding.

We can account for our actions,   operations and activities on the ground

but not on behalf of other organisations.

The EU has a clear logistical role   in this type of natural disaster

because it brings logistical support,   like planes and transport

which are desperately lacking.   They could definitely do more.

Within EU corridors the   idea of creating a civil protection force

like that of the US has existed   for a long while.

President of the European Council,   Herman Van Rompuy, is in favour

of the creation of   a humanitarian rapid reaction force.

as the world's main donor of   humanitarian and development aid.

a huge donation of almost   430 million euros to Haiti,

a sum that will be allocated   to emergency aid,

as well as to the medium   and long-term reconstruction of Haiti.

It's hard to believe   that this will be sufficient.

I have with me Michèle Striffler   from the European People's Party,

a network of 85 humanitarian NGOs   in Europe.

Let's go straight to our first section -

the paradox of European   humanitarian aid.

As the largest donor in the world   in terms of finance,

Europe remains discreet,   as we saw in the report.

Sometimes it appears to be absent -   a lack of visibility.

Michèle Striffler, how is   the humanitarian aid to Haiti working out?

Do you think it's going   in the right direction?

Yes, it is. I hear a lot about visibility,

but I'd like to talk   about effectiveness as well.

It's better to be effective and less visible   than the opposite.

our citizens need to know   what is happening and how,

so there is certainly a dysfunction there.

Improvements must be made,   but, as I said,

it's better to be effective and less visible   than the opposite, and we are.

That is clear, but it is still not right   that we give the most money

and that this money is then used   by other NGOs who make the decisions -

the UN in particular,   who centralise everything.

Wouldn't it be better to see "EU aid"   instead of "US aid" most of the time?

Yes, of course.   Certain Commissioners and others

have asked for there to be armbands, etc.

The money is centralised,   it's not distributed just anyhow.

The DG for Economic Affairs manages   more or less all the money paid,

and we give money to the NGOs,   we give money to the UN...

It's really something   that is very well organised.

So we mustn't confuse visibility   and effectiveness on the ground.

So is it a good decision for Mrs Ashton   not to go to the area up till now,

when the crisis in Haiti   is her first major test?

I think Mrs Ashton   made the right decision.

It's about alleviating immediate suffering.

I think visibility   is not the most important thing,

even if it is understandable from the point   of view of the EU and the politicians.

But it is important that aid is given   in a professional and impartial manner,

which means that it's given   where people need it the most,

at the right place   and by professional people.

Do you agree that Mrs Ashton   shouldn't visit the area?

It's not that she shouldn't go.   I really think she could have gone.