Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection"(1)

(1999/C 169/06)

On 9 February 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 April 1999. The rapporteur was Mrs zu Eulenburg, with Mr Liverani and Mr Wilkinson acting as co-rapporteurs.

At its 363rd plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 87 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

1.1. Civil protection measures, which are provided for in the Treaty Article 3f, are necessary to deal with major natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides and forest fires which devastate areas of the European Union time and again. Since 1985 the Community has therefore been working to establish effective mechanisms, based on the principle of subsidiarity, for reinforcing co-operation between civil protection players in the EU.

1.2. In 1998, following the adoption by the Council of a two-year civil protection action programme (1998-99), the Commission launched several major projects in close cooperation with the civil protection authorities in the Member States. The purpose of all these projects is to establish common rules and guidelines and provide for networking between experts in the relevant fields.

1.3. The civil protection action programme now proposed by the Commission will cover the period 2000-2004 and will help to ensure that the results of the aforementioned major projects have a greater and more lasting effect. It will also help launch new major projects in the fields of prevention, preparedness, response and restoration and will contribute to the continuation of existing good practices (establishment of common rules and guidelines, training, pilot projects, supportactions, etc.). The Commission proposes the allocation of an annual budget of 2 million euros for this programme.

2. General comments

2.1. Introduction

2.1.1. No matter what the causes of a disaster may be, it is a fact that the effects - and thus the threat which the disaster poses to man and his natural environment - are for ever increasing and, because of their complexity, are becoming more and more difficult to assess and contain.

2.1.2. It is not possible to react effectively and efficiently to a disaster unless the response has been planned well in advance on the basis of a comprehensive risk assessment and unless the measures to be taken by the organizations, institutions and government bodies involved have been coordinated and carefully rehearsed.

2.1.3. Disasters obviously know no national frontiers. If EU citizens, who are exposed to a wide range of risks, are to be effectively protected and far-reaching threats to the environment are to be averted or at least minimised, assistance must not be jeopardised by Member States failing to cooperate or adopting different plans of action.

2.2. Objectives of the action programme

2.2.1. Full support is given to the objectives of the programme as listed in point 7 of the Commission's explanatory memorandum. These objectives tally with the criteria indicated in Article 3(2).

2.2.2. At a time when resources are becoming increasingly scarce, it would seem vital to exploit synergies and involve other bodies and institutions in providing efficient assistance. Efforts made by the EU to this effect should be supported.

2.3. Content of the action programme

2.3.1. The Committee thinks that research and technological development should be taken into consideration.

2.3.2. Since the response to a disaster has to be based on a comprehensive and sound risk analysis if it is to be effective and efficient, Member States should be encouraged to support research projects which investigate the cross-border effects of natural and technological disasters.

2.3.3. If civil protection in the EU is to be developed properly, it would seem expedient to carry out a comprehensive risk analysis as the basis for adequate precautionary measures.

2.3.4. This should be overseen by an external group of experts from the relevant areas of science, government bodies and NGOs. An addition to this effect should be included in the action programme.

2.3.5. Since disasters are much easier to deal with if Member States' citizens are able to help themselves, public information, training and awareness campaigns in this area are to be endorsed.

2.3.6. Consideration should also be given to involving the general public more in permanent organizational structures, since this would allow potential to be exploited which would otherwise be left untapped.

2.4. Legal bases

2.4.1. The legal bases for civil protection should be reviewed, especially in the light of Community enlargement, since Article 235 of the EC Treaty might not be sufficient in future.

2.4.2. Creating a legal basis which can also be used in future, too, for Community civil protection activities should not, however, lead to a move away from the subsidiarity principle, even if technical guidelines and guidelines for responding to disasters would basically make sense - at least in the event of cross-frontier disasters or protective measures.

2.4.3. In addition, national plans and measures should continue to be supported and promoted by Community-wide cooperation.

2.4.4. It is necessary, with a view to the future, to review the present legal bases for an action programme jointly and possibly discuss the need for additional provisions.

2.5. Future outlook

2.5.1. The Committee thinks it appropriate to give some thought to the future outlook for civil protection work after a period of assessment.

2.5.2. Steps must be taken to ensure that knowledge and experience acquired in the course of the action programme is put into practice after the programme has ended.

3. Summary of the opinion

3.1. As the experiences of recent years clearly show, disasters and their effects on society have become increasingly complex in Europe, too.

3.2. Comprehensive risk analyses are available only rarely and cannot therefore provide a sound basis for civil protection planning.

3.3. For this reason it makes sense to not simply focus research into disasters on risk prevention. Interdisciplinary risk analyses must also be given priority.

3.4. In addition, synergies must be exploited in every respect, i.e. other Community policies and measures must be applied to civil protection.

3.5. In the event of a disaster the initial assistance comes from the local population. This means that EU citizens must be taught how to help themselves more and must be made more aware of the fact that civil protection concerns each and every one of us.

3.6. Cooperation between Member States in the field of civil protection should also be promoted beyond the period covered by the planned action programme.

Brussels, 28 April 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

(1) OJ C 28, 3.2.1999, p. 29.