Annexes to COM(2004)200 - Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the EU - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2004)200 - Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the EU. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2004)200  |
| date | March 25, 2004 |
- Humanitarian aid aims at saving lives and alleviating suffering during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters and must be guided by the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. All humanitarian organisations are linked to the respect of these basic humanitarian principles, which are key elements for their unhindered access to victims as well as for the physical security of their staff. Thus ECHO, as a humanitarian actor, provides apolitical, non-discriminatory humanitarian emergency assistance, based on the needs of the beneficiaries, and works through professional aid agencies including UN bodies, the Red Cross family and NGOs. ECHO’s intervention through its implementing partners, consists of basic humanitarian support (food, relief shelter, water, sanitation, medicines, etc.). ECHO’s humanitarian assistance is directly provided regardless of any request or agreement from the affected country.
- A civil protection intervention in the context of EU crisis management operations in third countries requires yet another approach. The link with crisis management under the Union Common Foreign and Security Policy was established in the Decision establishing the Community Mechanism, where recital 12 states specifically that it “could, under conditions to be determined, also be a tool for facilitating and supporting crisis management referred to in Title V (Common Foreign and Security Policy) of the Treaty on European Union”. The question as to how the Community Mechanism can play a part in a coherent EU approach to crisis management is addressed in the Joint Council-Commission Declaration of 29 September 2003, which lays down modalities for the use of the Community Mechanism as an integrated tool for crisis management without undermining its integrity, or its autonomous capacity in other situations. So far, the Community Mechanism has not been used in this context.
n order to ensure smooth co-ordination, a number of emergency scenarios, involving both types of assistance, have been identified15. An improved EU system could enhance EU contribution to UN-led operations.
EU Member States are already well used to co-operating internationally in responding to calls for civil protection assistance. Many Member States also contribute with both human resources and physical assets to the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) system for sudden on-set emergencies.
Civil protection operations rarely take place in isolation. Complementary humanitarian operations under the specific mandates of international humanitarian organisation (e.g. UN OCHA for international aid coordination, UNHCR for refugees, UNICEF for children, ICRC for the protection of civilians and prisoners) and under the umbrella of the IFRC, the National Red Cross or Crescent societies on the spot, will also be underway in a given emergency. In such circumstances, the assistance provided through the Community Mechanism will take place in close cooperation with all other international actors in order to ensure full complementarity.
The EU should be able to respond effectively as a Union to calls for assistance from third countries and have a visible, distinctive EU presence on the ground, complementing other Community policies. In the most recent emergency in Iran, the EU coordination on site proved to be an essential element of the international assistance. However, recent experience has also shown that there is a need for better co-ordination procedures which need to be decided in advance of responding to an emergency as there is little time or possibility to agree these on the ground in the middle of the emergency.
Earthquake in Iran
On 26 December 2003 Iran was hit by the most disastrous earthquake in recent years. The city of Bam was devastated, over 30 000 people died. In the afternoon of that day, the EU Community Mechanism had already issued a request for assistance, appointed an EU coordinator on site and made contacts with both Iranian authorities and international organisations. Eighteen participating countries responded and the EU coordination site was operational at very short notice. The assistance consisted of search and rescue teams, establishment of field hospitals as well as tents, equipment and food.
At the same time ECHO contacted its major partners, notably the IFRC, to help assess the immediate needs following the earthquake. On 28 December ECHO adopted a “primary emergency aid” decision to allocate humanitarian aid worth € 2,3 million to help meet the urgent needs of the victims. On 29-31 December and again on 5-8 January ECHO sent experts teams to Bam to assess the situation and co-ordinate with the relevant relief agencies on the spot.
A “lessons learnt” meeting was organised on 11 February with the EU civil protection coordinators as well as the representatives of intervention teams in order to increase effectiveness and coordination for future actions. A further “lessons learnt” meeting will be organised by OCHA on 14-15 April.
When Member States call for bilateral or multilateral assistance or when they supply assistance to another country, the Monitoring and Information Centre should be informed. In order to ensure that the necessary information is provided, the Commission will propose to amend the Council Decision.
Complementarities at international and EU level between civil protection and humanitarian assistance operations will be pursued and reinforced. Co-ordination procedures with UN-OCHA and UNDAC should be further clarified and agreed to ensure a swift, on the spot co-ordination especially in the early stages of responding to an emergency, in particular to avoid duplication of effort.
3.4. Financial issues
The rules and budgetary possibilities for providing EU financial support as part of civil protection operations are different for operations inside and outside the EU.
Inside the EU
The implementing rules of the Community Mechanism provide that, in the absence of a specific agreement between the relevant countries, the country affected by a disaster bears the cost for receiving assistance. For example, combating the forest fires during the summer of 2003 cost an estimated €3,2 million (in the context of an estimated total cost of €2,1 billion in damages) and first estimations of assistance costs during the floods in southern France are €1million. Inside the EU (and in acceding countries) the bulk of this cost is for transport of equipment and of rescue teams since Member States usually provide equipment (or use local equipment, hence the importance of inter-operability) and rescue teams for free.
The Solidarity Fund provides financial assistance to assist people, regions and countries concerned to return to living conditions that are as normal as possible. It is available to “beneficiary States”, defined as Member States or countries involved in accession negotiations. The main purpose of the Fund is to grant assistance in the event of major disasters (mainly natural) with serious repercussions on living conditions, the natural environment or the economy in one or more regions of the affected country.
Under the Solidarity Fund, public expenditure incurred for essential emergency operations such as combating the disaster, restoring infrastructure to working order and rescue services to meet immediate needs are eligible for assistance. Therefore, the cost for transporting rescue teams and equipment to the place of disaster or paying for the intervention of rescue teams and/or equipment is in principle eligible for compensation under the Solidarity Fund Regulation.
The total amount that can be mobilised in a given year is €1 billion. Since entry into force of the Regulation 14 requests for assistance have been submitted and a total of €832,8 million has been granted.
Given the increasing number of emergencies on the one hand and budgetary constraints in the Member States on the other, the cost of providing assistance under the Community Mechanism may likely become an issue in the future, in particular if the support from the EU Solidarity Fund proves insufficient. Transport costs are estimated to vary between € 0,2 – 1 million depending on the location and type of emergency. Assuming an average of 10 disasters at a cost of €0,6 million each the annual cost would be around €6 m. If Community funding is made available, a procedure for rapid decision making would be necessary.
Experience with the forest fires of the summer of 2003 showed the limits of purely voluntary action and highlighted the need for a source of rapid financing. Consideration should be given to the question to what extent such a facility, which could be deemed repayable at a later stage should also be introduced for disasters inside the EU. Such a facility should help Member States whose national response capacities are overwhelmed by the scale of a disaster to buy in assistance from outside in order to bring the disaster under control as soon as possible.
Outside the EU
The issue of paying for transport costs also arises externally. In certain, limited circumstances, it may be possible to use funds for humanitarian assistance to defray the transport costs associated with civil protection assistance. However, as pointed out above, the rationale and the rules for humanitarian assistance are different and there have already been cases, as in Algeria, where the Community was unable to provide support for transport costs because of the current unavailability of a suitable, rapid source of finance.
During the earthquake in Iran, some participating states (Slovenia, Malta and Hungary) were able to offer material and equipment but asked the Community Mechanism to provide transportation. Provision of transportation through the Mechanism would have ensured that all assistance was delivered rapidly to the site.
The estimation of transportation cost for third countries are based on previous experiences (earthquakes in Algeria and Iran). On the basis of three cases par year the likely annual costs would be about € 9 million.
The Commission intends to make proposals aimed at ensuring that funding is available for transport and other costs incurred in the early stages of crises, inside and outside the Union. These will be part of the detailed proposals which will be presented following the Commission Communication “Building our common Future Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013”adopted on 10 February 2004.
4. Next steps
In the light of the experience gained to date and of the analysis set out above, the Commission considers that the time has come to complement the functioning of the Community Mechanism by proposing ways of dealing with the main problems encountered to date. These proposals would enable the EU to reinforce its civil protection capacity so that it can respond more effectively to disasters and CBRN or terrorist attacks inside the EU and in third countries, including in the context of crisis management operations under the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In particular the Commission proposes the following steps.
- To overcome information gaps and upgrade the database by working with participating countries to define the available response capabilities in terms of personnel and equipment. This will be done by defining the types of emergencies which are most likely to trigger the Community Mechanism. This information should include details on the associated costs, the possible use of military assets, etc.
- To continue to develop a programme of training and joint exercises in order to ensure that teams and experts from different participating countries can work together efficiently when intervening. In this context, the issue of inter-operability of equipment will also be examined and, if necessary, proposals to enhance inter-operability will be made.
- With regard to assistance provided outside the EU, procedures for coordination between teams from different participating countries will be examined in order to ensure that they are clear, known in advance to all participants and can be activated rapidly when a crisis occurs. The establishment of effective relationships with all actors involved in an emergency and in particular with the lead UN agencies having an international coordination mandate (e.g. UN OCHA) will also be addressed;
- As far as for the use of the Community Mechanism in EU crisis management operations under the Common Security Policy is concerned, the Commission will work with the Council to ensure the effective implementation of the Joint Declaration of 29 September 2003 so as to increase the coherence between the different instruments the Union disposes in the area of external relations. This is part of a wider effort to allow the EU to better address the challenges and threats as set out, inter alia, in the European Security Strategy that was endorsed by the European Council in December 2003. The Commission is committed to the establishment of appropriate crisis-management capacity combining civilian and military means, while ensuring that humanitarian aid remains independent from political considerations. The future European Foreign Affairs Minister will have a crucial role to play here.
- To provide EU coordinated rescue teams with common insignia and equipment in order to allow for easy identification on site of members of EU coordinated teams as part of an ad hoc European Civil Protection Force drawn from existing national units;
- To provide better information, communication and co-ordination by requiring Member States to inform the Monitoring and Information Centre when a major disaster occurs and/or whether they call for assistance on a bilateral or multilateral basis or respond to such calls for assistance. The Commission intends to make a formal proposal to modify Council Decision 2001/792 to introduce this requirement;
- To address current financial constraints by:
- reviewing and possibly extending the possibility of Community funding for transport costs linked to providing assistance inside the EU. This possibility could be created in the post-2006 financial perspectives by increasing the current allocation of the Community Mechanism if an additional instrument to supplement the Solidarity Fund proves necessary. On the basis of between 5-10 of such cases per year the likely annual cost would be in the order of €6 million;
- examining the feasibility of providing immediate funding (e.g. “fonds de trésorie”) in certain cases so as to allow Member States to pay for additional measures to deal with emergencies which overwhelm their immediate financial capacities. Funding would have to be repaid. Granting assistance would be independent from any later decision on eligibility for the Solidarity Fund. This is estimated at €10 million a year.
- creating the possibility of funding transport costs for assistance provided to third countries. This possibility could be included in the post-2006 financial perspectives. In the intervening period, in cases where funding from the ECHO budget is not possible, the use of other financial instruments as appropriate could be explored. On the basis of three cases par year at a cost of €3 million each, the annual cost would be at €9million.
- A Conference on “The Solidarity Fund and the EU immediate response to disasters” will be held mid – June 2004 and will allow an exchange of views on some of the issues raised in this Communication.
5. Conclusions
The Commission invites the Council and the European Parliament to endorse the orientations generated by the review and to give their support to the proposals outlined in this Communication.
FINANCIAL AND HUMAN IMPLICATIONS
1. Financial resources
- The Commission bears the transport costs when a Member State sends assistance or means to another Member State – if the need for this becomes an issue and coverage from the EU Solidarity Fund proves insufficient - or to a third country in the frame of the Mechanism. Such transport costs are estimated to vary depending on the location and type of emergency.
○ Inside the EU, assuming an average of 10 disasters at a cost of €0.6 million each the annual cost would be around €6 million.
○ Outside the EU, assuming an average of 3 disasters at a cost of 3 millions each, the annual cost would be around €9 million.
- The Commission bears the assistance costs for disasters inside the EU so to allow Member States to pay for additional measures to deal with emergencies which overwhelm their immediate financial capacities. Experience from the previous years shows that such costs could vary between €50,000- €2 million. Assuming an average of 10 disasters at a cost of €1 million each, the annual cost would be around €10 million. Funding would have to be repaid (or to be offset against any Solidarity Funding support the country may receive at later stage).
2. Human resources
To meet the objective of a more proactive response implies that the Commission will need additional human resources to deal with the additional tasks involved. The table below describes the additional staff that would need to be allocated to Civil Protection for 2005 and 2006.
| Types of post | Staff | Total | Description of tasks | ||
| 2005 | 2006 | ||||
| Officials or Temporary staff | A B C | 4 1 1 | 1 1 1 | 5 2 2 | - to ensure a timely response to disasters: - to inform immediately all countries when a disaster has occurred; - to pool the offers for assistance and other information coming from the different participating countries and send it to the affected country; - to help the affected countries to make best use of the European assistance by liaising with the authorities of the affected country; - to prepare for the emergencies: - to implement a rapid, modern and reliable Communication System between the participating countries Emergency Centres; - to create and maintain the data base of available resources and draw up intervention scenarios; - to ensure training and exercises of the intervention teams and to further develop specific training requirements in particular to improve the interoperability of civilian and military means; - to create and maintain a database of means and equipment available in third countries; - to programme, manage and control the required additional financial expenditures; - to reinforce the link with other actors (also international) and institutions and bodies; - to refine the information and communication strategy. |
| Total | 6 | 3 | 9 |
1In this Communication, manmade hazards are all hazards linked to human activities such as technological hazards or terrorists’ threats, for example.
2See also Council Regulation (EC) 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (OJ L 163, p. 1).
3Joint Declaration by the Council and the Commission on the use of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism in Crisis Management referred to in Title V of the Treaty on European Union of 29 September 2003
4In addition to the relief provided by humanitarian agencies.
5Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, p. 3).
6Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2000-2004) OJ L 327, 21/12/1999 page 53.
7Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community Mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance OJ L 297, p. 7
8European Parliament resolution on the effects of the summer heat wave of 4 September 2003 (P5_TA-PROV (2003) 0373); European Parliament Report on improving safety at sea in response to Prestige accident (2003/2066 (INI)).
9European Parliament resolution on the effects of the summer heat wave in its paragraph 11 reads as follows:
“The European Parliament appreciates the efforts of many Member States which have made available to the Mediterranean countries affected additional resources, both human and material, and calls on the Commission and the Council to address the question of establishing a European Civil Protection Force as a matter of urgency”.
European Parliament Report on improving safety at sea in response to Prestige accident in its paragraph 22 reads as follows:
“The European Parliament calls on the European Union to establish, through the offices of the Commission, a coordination and intervention structure that enables it to respond to emergencies by channelling European assistance as soon as they arise”.
10The Article III – 184 reads as follows :
“1. The Union shall encourage cooperation between Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing and protecting against natural and man madder disasters within the Union.
Union action shall aim to:
(a) support and complement Member States’ action at national, regional and local level in risk prevention, in preparing their civil-protection personnel and in responding to natural or man-made disasters;
(b) promote swift, effective operational cooperation between national civil-protection services;
(c) promote consistency in international civil –protection work.
2. The measures necessary to help achieve the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 shall be enacted in European laws or framework laws, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.”
11Article I-42 reads as follows:
“1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in the sprit of solidarity if a Member State is a victim of a terrorist attack or natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
(a) – prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
– protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;
– assist a Member State in its territory at the request of its political authorities in the event of a terrorist attack;
(b) – assist a Member State in its territory at the request of its political authorities in the event of a disaster;
2. The detailed arrangements for implementing this provision are at Article III-231.”
12Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency
13Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (OJ L 268, p. 1).
14Commission Decision of 22 December 1999 on the early warning and response system for the prevention and control of communicable diseases under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 21, p. 32).
15See: “Responding to Goteborg targets: civil protection capabilities in EU civilian crisis management”. Commission non paper on the interplay between civil protection and humanitarian assistance in crisis situations – 3 May 2002.
EN EN