Seville Agreement

The Seville Agreement, adopted in 1997 by the Council of Delegates, was then heralded as a revolution in the way the Red Cross and Red Crescent would work together in international emergency operations. The preamble referred to a “profound change in attitude” and a “collaborative mind”, which clearly acknowledged that the 1989 agreement between the Federation and the ICRC had not worked well. In addition, the function of the pen agency is defined as a temporary response to a particular emergency. The complementary measures also mention various measures aimed at promoting a better knowledge of the agreement within the movement itself. They call on the ICRC and the association to design training modules for the agreement, with the participation of national societies, and invite all components to provide training for staff and volunteers. The Seville agreement provided a framework for better cooperation, but could not guarantee it. The actual experience of the activity is mixed. In Sierra Leone, there have been “recurrent deformies in organizing a solution acceptable for the organization of the movement`s international work,” as noted in the 1999 report to the Council of Delegates. The overwhelming answer to this question is yes.

Recruitment is stagnating considerably, reflecting the success of training and information for staff and delegates on the impact of the new agreement. The agreement deals with active cooperation and not just on the division of labour between the components of the movement. It is a matter of using their different legal tasks and their complementary capacities in a cooperative way in order to achieve common goals. Sevilla has been more modest in its goals and has not solved all the problems facing the movement. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the Seville Agreement provides the necessary guidance for the future. The new spirit of cooperation, which also concerns areas that are not covered by the agreement, is eloquently expressed in the preamble. It`s worth reading and reading. For a movement that is a little sensitive to worldly language, it`s inspiration. Tansley would certainly have been satisfied, and it is indeed a eulogy for many in the movement with long institutional memories. The agreement should not be seen as a mere division of labour.