EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 25.03.2004 
COM(2004) 200 final 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARL IAMENT, THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the European Union 
 
 2    COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARL IAMENT, THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the European Union 
  
(Text with EEA relevance) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
2. Background .................................................................................................................. 4 
2.1. The development of a legal co-operation framework in civil protection..................... 5 2.2. How the Community Mechanism works today............................................................ 6 3. Review of the re sponse capacities................................................................................ 8 
3.1. Information gaps .......................................................................................................... 8 
3.2. Training and focus on inter-operability...................................................................... 10 
3.3. Better communication and improved co-ordination .................................................. 11 3.4. Financial issues .......................................................................................................... 14 
4. Next steps.................................................................................................................. . 16 
5. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 1 7 
 
 3    1. I NTRODUCTION  
The European continent has recently been experiencing more extreme weather conditions. 
Floods in Central and Eastern Europe in the summer of 2002 were followed by a heat wave 
and extensive forest fires in southern Eur ope in the summer of 2003. In December 2003, 
France was hit by severe flooding. All these events  have resulted in difficult social, economic, 
and environmental consequences. They have led to loss of life and major costs for national 
budgets. During the same period, there have been a number of earthquakes and several 
manmade disasters1, some of them at sea such as the Prestige oil spill.  
In addition the most recent devast ating terrorist attack in Spain reinforces the need to improve 
the European capacities in order to offer immedi ate assistance in case of disaster and thereby 
giving a tangible sign of European solidarity.  
Outside Europe, similar patterns can be obs erved. Data on major natural disasters at 
international level show an in crease both in the number of di sasters and in their economic 
repercussions. Several factors, such as increas ed population density in areas prone to hazards 
or negative effects of adverse we ather conditions, have contribut ed to this. These trends call 
for action by governments to strengthen pr eventive measures and enhance response 
capacities. 
The Community responds with different mech anisms according to the type of emergency. 
When a disaster strikes a country inside or outside the EU, the Community Mechanism 
provides immediate assistance through the civil pr otection teams of the pa rticipating states. At 
the same time, during emergencies in third countries, the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) provides relief to the victims of both na tural disasters and ma n-made crises in 
cooperation with its implementing partners (UN Agencies, Red Cross family and NGOs)
2.  
Moreover, when an emergency occurs outside the European Union within the context of crisis 
management referred to in the second pillar of  the EU Treaty (EU crisis management), recital 
12 of the Council Decision 2001/792 provides that the Community Mechanism can be a 
facilitating and supporting tool. Fu rther to the conclusions of the Seville European Council, 
the Council and the Commission agreed on the m odalities under which the Mechanism can be 
used in third countries in those circumstances3. Increasing the coherence between the different 
instruments the Union disposes of in the area of  external relations will 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 Decem ber. It will allow the establishment of 
appropriate crisis management capacity comb ining civilian and military means, while 
ensuring that the humanitarian aid remains i ndependent from political considerations. 
Governments around the world are also increasing ly facing new and emerging threats such as 
chemical, biological, radiological  and nuclear (CBRN) and terrorist  attacks which also call for 
new preventive and response capacities to comple ment the existing instruments. With this in 
                                                 
1 In this Communication, manmad e hazards are all hazards linke d to human activities such as 
technological hazards or terrori sts’ threats, for example. 
2 See also Council Regulation (EC) 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (OJ L 163, 
p. 1). 
3 Joint Declaration by the Council and the Commissi on 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 
 
 4    mind, in 2002 the Commission set up a new progr amme to help cooperation between Member 
States on preparation, dete ction and measures to reduce the consequences of CBRN or 
terrorist attacks inside the EU. 
People rely on governments to respond rapidly wh en large disasters strike. Civil protection 
services operate in most countries  to provide immediate relief and there is also a long standing 
tradition of solidarity in the in ternational community, with count ries dispatching relief teams4 
as soon as a catastrophe occurs. In recent years the EU has been working to strengthen its own 
civil protection co-operation in or der to provide a more effectiv e response to challenges inside 
the EU and as part of its growing international role.  
Moreover, in 2002 the European Union created a Solidarity Fund5. This Fund provides 
financial assistance to help peopl e, regions and countries hit by major disasters to return to 
living conditions that are as normal as possible. 
While the prevention of natural and man made accidents remains a high priority, the purpose 
of this Communication is to re view the civil protection respons e capacity of the EU and to 
propose improvements where necessary. The Comm unication deals with both the internal and 
third-country dimensions of civil protection – the needs are often similar but different 
procedures come into play when EU civil protection assistance is called upon to provide 
assistance outside the Union. 
A conference on “The Solidarity Fund and the EU  immediate response to disasters” will be 
held in mid – June 2004 and will allow an excha nge of views on some of the issues raised in 
this Communication. 
2. B ACKGROUND  
While the primary responsibility for dealing with the immediate effects of a disaster lies with 
the country where the disaster occurs, the ro le of the Commission in the field of civil 
protection has increased since early 1990s. Th e Member States agreed on the need to 
strengthen cooperation in civil protection and created a framework for it through the first 
Council Resolution which was adopted in 1987. Subsequently, the First Community Action 
Programme in the field of Civil Protection was agreed in 1997.  
                                                 
4 In addition to the relief provided by humanitarian agencies. 
5 Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union 
Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, p. 3). 
 
 5    The Commission made a first step towards defi ning an EU Civil Protec tion strategy in 2000 
when it proposed a strengthened Community M echanism for Civil Protection to supplement 
the existing Community Action Programme in  the field of Civil Protection (2000-2004)6. This 
proposal led to the adoption of Council Decision 2001/7927. Acceding and candidate 
countries as well as EEA countries participat e in the Community Mechanism to facilitate 
reinforced cooperation in civil protection a ssistance interventions, hereinafter called the 
“Community Mechanism”. At the end of 2003 the Commission adopted the implementing 
instrument for the Council Decision 2001/792. 
Operating on a permanent basis 24 hours a day the Monitoring and Information Centre is at 
the heart of the Community Ci vil Protection Mechanism, suppor ted by a database, training 
and workshop programmes and a Common Em ergency Communication and Information 
System.  
2.1. The development of a legal co-opera tion framework in civil protection 
When the scale of a disaster overwhelms na tional response capacities, vital additional 
assistance can be provided at sh ort notice if other countries are willing to share their expertise 
and equipment. In order to do this effectiv ely, a co-ordination mechanism is essential. 
Experience of several major disasters in recen t years has prompted calls for improved civil 
protection response at Community level. The European Parliament has recently adopted a 
resolution and a repo rt inviting the Commission to  review its response capacity8. The main 
common element in these calls is the need for mo re effective co-ordination of assistance. In 
addition, the European Parliament has also called for the creation of a European Civil 
Protection Force9. 
                                                 
6 Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 199 9 establishing a Community action programme in 
the field of civil protection (2000-2004) OJ L 327, 21/12/1999 page 53. 
7 Council 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 
8 European 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)). 
9 European Parliament resolution on the effects of the summer heat wave in its paragraph 11 reads as 
follows: 
 “The European Parliament appreciat es the efforts of many Member Stat es which have made available to 
the Mediterranean countries affect ed 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 s ea 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”. 
 
 6    The Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe reinforces the case for co-operation 
between Member States in the field of preven tion and protection against natural or manmade 
disasters by proposing to introduce an ar ticle on civil protection (Article III-184)10. 
Furthermore, Article I-42 of the Draft Treaty ca lls for solidarity between Member States in 
the case of terrorist attacks and natural disasters11. This so-called solidarity clause provides 
for access to the complete array of civil protectio n instruments in order to protect citizens and 
democratic institutions, in particular in the case of terrorist attacks. In particular, it allows for common deployment of civil, military and legal means in the spirit of solidarity on the territory of the Union.  
2.2. How the Community Mechanism works today 
When hit by a major disaster, Member States or third countries can send an assistance request 
to the European Monitoring and Information Ce ntre at the Commission. The request is then 
immediately forwarded to all participating c ountries and the Centre compiles the responses. 
The work of the Centre is based on a pe rmanent network of contacts set up by the 
Commission to ensure uninterrupted links with th e civil protection centres of the participating 
states and to foster information sharing.  
The country affected by a disaster can call on th e network to get access to a ‘one-stop shop’ of 
specialised personnel and other re sources both in the public and pr ivate sectors. Within a few 
hours, this requesting country has an overvie w of the help available. In addition, the 
Monitoring and Information Centre is assisted by the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC), which 
provides technical support through advance modell ing, satellite applica tions and integrated 
analysis. The Monitoring and Information Centre also provides all partic ipating countries with 
information updates as the situation evolves. It  can also send on-the-spot experts and liaison 
officers to facilitate cooperation between inte rvention teams and can help with logistical, 
linguistic or ot her issues.  
                                                
 
10 The Article III – 184 reads as follows :  
“1. The Union shall encourage c ooperation 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 re ferred 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.” 
11 Article 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.” 
 
 7    The Prestige case 
The Prestige accident is a clear example of where the scale of a disaster calls for resources on 
a scale which go beyond national response capaciti es and where co-ordinated action at EU 
level can be effective: 
● The Monitoring and Information Centre  launched eight different requests for 
assistance which resulted in ships, aircraft, equi pment and experts from different participating 
countries being put at the disposal of the Spanish, Portuguese and French authorities.  
● The Monitoring and Information Centre and the Joint Research Centre, in coordination 
with the Spanish authorities, acquired satellite images of the area in the framework of the 
Charter “Space & Major Disaster s”. All the images were analysed by the Joint Research 
Centre. 
● Following the “Prestige” accident, the Commission proposed to widen the scope of the 
European Maritime Safety Agency, which will act in support of the Community 
Mechanism12. The Commission organised al so a “lessons learnt” meeting in Catania, Sicily 
one year after the accident. 
● At the request of the Spanish authorit ies the EU Solidarity Fund contributed €8,626 
million to the cost of the emergency measures and two loans from the EIB were approved for 
a total of € 500 million to assist th e economic recovery of the area. 
  
Forest fires in Portugal 
The 2003 summer fires in Portugal showed the li mits of voluntary assistance at a time when 
several neighbouring countries we re dealing simultaneously with large-scale emergencies. 
Although 21 participating countries expressed a cl ear political will to he lp, Portugal finally 
only received assistance from Italy (2 Canadair s) and Germany (3 helicopters) because most 
available capacity was already being used to fight fires el sewhere in the Mediterranean 
region. 
One of the “lessons learnt” was that when ma ny countries were affected simultaneously by 
the same type of disaster they had difficul ties in offering assistan ce to their neighbours.  
The Monitoring and Information Centre was su pported by the Joint Research Centre, which 
provided daily information on fire risks and provided a rapid estimate of the damage.  
  
Floods in France 
During the floods in the south of France in December 2003, a request was made for high 
capacity pumps. Within less than three hours, two countrie s with resources meeting the 
technical needs were identified and a further fi ve possible sources were subsequently found. 
Ultimately, four countries provided assistance (p umps of daily pumping capacity of 1 872 000 
m³/day) which facilitated the handling of the emergency and a more rapid return to normal 
living conditions in the affected areas. 
                                                 
12 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 
1406/2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency  
 
 8    The experience of this emergency has once again confirmed the insufficiency of the database 
and the need to ensure the compatibility of equipment. It is important to know where the 
equipment is located in order to be able to ensure its immediate relocation/transfer. 
  
Earthquake in Morocco 
On 24 February 2004 Morocco was hit by a serious earthquake. The Monitoring and 
Information Centre, in coordination with the pr esidency, established rapidly contacts with the 
EU delegation in Morocco and with the Moroccan  Mission to the EU with a view to better 
asses the seriousness of the situation and the needs. 
In the evening of the same day the Moroccan au thorities requested European assistance. The 
Monitoring and Information Centre then sent ou t to all participating countries a request for 
immediate assistance concerning in particular search and rescue teams and power generating 
plants. At the same time, in close consulta tion with the Presidency, a Franco-Spanish 
coordination team was appointe d. Immediate contacts with UN- OCHA were also established 
in order to coordinate effec tively the assistance on site. 
The Commission, through ECHO, adopted a € 975.000 primary emergency Decision with 6 
partners in order to assist the victims of the earthquake. The funding provided by ECHO 
aimed to meet initial basic n eeds for medical assistance, dri nking water, household utensils, 
hygiene products and shelter. ECHO’s partners for this operation were the French, German 
and Spanish Red Cross Societies and three European NGOs – Asamblea de Cooperacion Por 
la Paz (Spain), CESVI-Cooperazi one e Sviluppo (Italy) and M ovimiento para la Paz el 
Desarrollo y la Libertad (Spain). 
The civil protection operation lasted three days  engaging more than 17 European countries. 
3. R EVIEW OF THE RESPONSE CAPACITIES  
The operation of the current sy stem requires relatively few human and budgetary resources 
because of the inherent characteristics of its stru cture. Two years after it s entry into force, the 
Community Mechanism has shown th at it can work to the benef it of participating countries 
and has already become established as an incr easingly important part of the civil protection 
response capacity at EU level. However, there are topics that may become an issue in the 
future and experience has also shown the limits of the current system and revealed a number 
of issues which require special attention. Th e points that need to be reviewed include: 
 - information gaps;  - a need for more training and focus on inter-operability;  - a need for better communicati on and improved co-ordination; 
 - financial issues, both in side and outside the EU. 
3.1. Information gaps 
When assistance is requested under the Commu nity Mechanism, personnel and equipment are 
provided by participatin g countries on a voluntary basis. In order to be aware of what 
 
 9    response capabilities exist so th at a rapid response can be made, the Commission has set up a 
database which identifies potentially available assistance. At present, this database is fairly basic and mainly contains information on inte rvention teams. For example, when France 
recently needed high capacity pumps, only one country had registered teams equipped with pumps in the database and the capacity of these pumps was not specified. The reply to the call for assistance revealed that six participatin g countries had equipment that fulfilled the 
technical specifications. 
Therefore, early experience with the Community Mechanism has shown that the database 
needs to be completed so that it contains the necessary inform ation on the response capacities. 
On the basis of some pre-defined scenarios for natural disasters, CBRN or  terroristattacks, the 
database should give an immediate overview of the teams and equipment which could be 
called upon in case of need. Even if the ava ilability of equipment and/or personnel will 
always need to be confirmed in real time, pa rticipating countries have recognised that the 
availability of such information in the databa se would encourage them to use the Community 
Mechanism more often and would help them  to identify the persisting shortcomings. 
Usually, Member States have the necessary equipment to deal with the main recurring 
disasters that they are likely to face in their national contexts . However, large scale disasters 
can overwhelm national response capacities a nd with the likelihood of some hazards 
increasing while new threats, such as CBRN or terrorism are emerging, heavy pressure is 
being put on national civil protect ion services. Highly specialised equipment is needed to deal 
with a series of threats and hazards but it is  neither feasible nor pr acticable for individual 
Member States to be prepared for each and every eventuality. 
Member States have already agreed to exte nd their own response cap acities through a co-
ordinated mechanism for pooling ex pertise and resources in res ponse to disasters. This co-
ordinated approach will only work  if the system can provide all necessary information so that 
all participating countries are aw are of what is available. Th is can best be done through the 
Community Mechanism. 
In addition to supplementing and upgrading the database, two further issues need to be 
addressed – the possible use of military assets and the cost of the assistance provided: 
– When major disasters occur, military or dual purpose equipment, such as 
helicopters, is frequently used to provid e civil protection assistance. Moreover, in 
case of CBRN or terrorist attacksthey ofte n constitute core equipment. Therefore 
it will be important to include such equipment in the database. 
– When an emergency is developing, valu able time cannot be spent on financial 
issues. Determining what could be the co st of providing assistance and accepting 
it have proved to be time consuming issues . This problem could be solved if the 
database contains the sta ndard cost for supplying the relevant equipment etc. 
The database will be reviewed and participat ing states will be asked to provide more 
complete information to enable faster and more effective responses to be given to 
requests for assistance. Where necessary the Commission intends to propose a 
modification of the Council Decision 2001/792. 
 
 10    3.2. Training and focus on inter-operability 
Training 
Effective use of the Community Mechanism re quires the availability of highly qualified 
personnel with appropriate experience and of team s which are used to working together in a 
European context. At the end of 2003, the data base contained informa tion on a total of 6737 
persons specialised in very diffe rent fields such as search and rescue, CBRN, terrorism, clean 
up, logistical support etc. To be efficient when  called to work together, the operational teams 
should know each other well and know the techniques used by their colleagues in other Member States.  
Regular training courses and exercises are organised by th e Commission. Recently, three 
exercises and two workshops on CBRN issues we re organised (EU finance of € 1,5 million). 
Five exercises on natural disasters and techno logical accident s will take place in 2004 and 
2005 (EU finance of € 1,56million). Ten training courses for 220 experts will be organised 
and evaluated in the first half of 2004 (EU finance of €1,1million). Another 14 courses for 
330 participants have recently been identified  and will take place in 2004/5 (EU finance of 
€1,7million). The Commission has also set up an  Exchange of Experts Programme to share 
experience and enhance cooperati on between experts from partic ipating countries (EU finance 
€0,8million). 
Training, exercises and other forms of co-ope ration which are being de veloped under existing 
policy decisions contribute to a more visible ex pression of EU solidarity in response to crisis 
and to more effective cooperation than in the past. Common equipment and insignia, such as 
coats and tents, will help to identify members of  the EU coordinated teams on site as part of 
an ad hoc European Union Civil Protection Fo rce drawn from existing specialised national 
units. 
Inter-operability 
At present, the civil protection teams operating abroad are usually self-sufficient and come 
with their own equipment. In the future, provide d that sufficient training  is given, such teams 
should be able to use specific foreign equipmen t. The exercises and training courses which are 
planned under the Community Mechanism will be pa rticularly useful in highlighting practical 
difficulties such as communication and compa tibility of technical equipment which is 
essential to ensure a rapid response. In addition, technological research is necessary to further 
improve the inter-operability of technical equi pment, hence the efficiency and co-ordination 
among the users. 
In view of recent developments, particularly in the context of the European Security and 
Defence Policy (ESDP), civilian – military inter-operability has also been addressed. To that 
effect, it was decided that the content of the military database will be made available to the Community Mechanism. This will be very relevant in case of CBRN or terroristattacks. 
 
 11    The Commission will further develop a programme of training and joint exercises in 
order to ensure that teams a nd experts from different part icipating countries can work 
together efficiently using foreign equipment. 
Common insignia for the intervention teams w ill contribute to identifying the ad-hoc EU 
Civil Protection Force and enhance th e visibility of European Solidarity.  
3.3. Better communication and improved co-ordination 
The role of the Member States 
Participating countries often ac tivate the Community Mechanism at  a very late stage when the 
emergency has already reached major propor tions. Under the current Decision, Member 
States are not required to inform the Moni toring and Information Centre when a major 
disaster occurs, even if it may have trans boundary effects. However, experience has shown 
that sending information to a ll participating countries at th e earliest possible stage allows 
them to be prepared to respond should a request for assistance be made. 
Since the use of the Monitori ng and Information Centre is purely voluntary at present, 
participating countries do not always inform th e Centre when assistance has been offered on a 
bilateral or multilatera l basis. However, they recognise that it is important to have information 
on assistance being supplied by ot her countries in order to maxi mise the efficiency of any 
assistance they may be able to provide. 
Improving the link with other networks 
The Council Decision foresees the developm ent of a Common Emergency Communication 
and Information System between the Civil Prot ection administrations of the Member States 
and the relevant services of the Commission. The system will be operational in 2004 and will guarantee the authenticity, integrity and conf identiality of information exchanged among 
Member States under routine conditions and in emer gencies. Some of thes e features will be of 
particular importance towards improving th e preparedness and response to CBRN and 
terrorist threats. Provision has been made for interlinking this  communication system with the 
other existing networks, in particular for radiological and health emergencies. The 
interconnections will be tested and validated through exercises. 
The Civil Protection Monitoring and Information Ce ntre also serves as an interface with other 
networks likely to be involved in dealing with an emergency such as: 
– the European Community Urgent Radiol ogical Information Exchange system 
(ECURIE) that ensures an immediate alert and information exchange in the event of 
a major radiological or nuclear emergency, not  only to the Member States but also to 
the Accession States and Candidate Countries . Under this system the participating 
countries are required to notify major ra diological emergencies to the Commission; 
 
 12    – the Early Warning and Response System  (EWRS) which is a monitoring and 
response information system in the field of communicable dise ases as laid down 
under Decision 2119/98/EC13 and Decision 2000/57EC14. It links the Commission 
and the national health and response surv eillance authorities of each Member State 
and can use specialised databases located in some Member States; 
– the Rapid Alert System for Biological a nd Chemical Attacks and Threats (RAS-
BICHAT) that was set up to allow prompt transmission of alerts and exchange of 
information between the representatives of th e Member States in the Health Security 
Committee and the competent services of  the Commission con cerning deliberate 
releases of biological and chemical agents  to cause harm. The system complements 
the EWRS as regards the requirement of Decision 2119/98 on mechanisms and 
procedures for the prevention and control of communicable diseases and on counter-
measures to be implemented. 
– The two latter systems have recently extended  their coverage to include the acceding 
states, the candidate countries and the EEA countries. They will be reinforced by the development of a Medical Intelligence Sy stem (MedISys) which rapidly detects 
tracks and assesses threats.  
Co-ordination of operations in third countries 
Where disaster and crises occur outside the European Union, there is often a need for 
humanitarian aid as well as fo r civil protecti on assistance: 
– Civil protection assistance t ypically includes activities such as search and rescue, 
evacuation, fire fighting, medical expertis e/equipment, field hospitals, and other 
specialised activities, such  as detection, analysis, measurement, safety and 
security/decontamination in case of nuc lear, bacteriological, radiological or 
chemical incidents. Civil protection assist ance is only provided in response to a 
request from the relevant state and the re sponse is decided in agreement with the 
EU presidency.  
– Humanitarian aid aims at saving lives a nd alleviating suffering during and in the 
aftermath of man-made crises and natu ral disasters and must be guided by the 
humanitarian principles of humanity, im partiality, neutrality and independence. 
All humanitarian organisations are li nked to the respect of these basic 
humanitarian principles, which are key elements for their unhindered access to 
victims as well as for the physical securi ty of their staff. Thus ECHO, as a 
humanitarian actor, provides apolitic al, 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 implemen ting partners, consists of basic 
humanitarian support (food, relief shelter, water, sanitation, medicines, etc.). 
                                                
 
13 Decision 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). 
14 Commission Decision of 22 Decem ber 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). 
 
 13    ECHO’s humanitarian assistance is directly provided rega rdless of any request or 
agreement from the affected country. 
– A civil protection intervention in the cont ext of EU crisis management operations 
in third countries requires yet another ap proach. The link with crisis management 
under the Union Common Foreign and Security Policy was established in the Decision establishing the Community M echanism, 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 Tr eaty 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 th e Joint Council-Commi ssion Declaration of 
29 September 2003, which lays down modalities for the use of the Community Mechanism as an integrated tool for cr isis 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 num ber of emergency scenarios, involving both 
types of assistance, have been identified
15. An improved EU system could enhance EU 
contribution to UN-led operations. 
EU Member States are already we ll used to co-opera ting internationally in  responding to calls 
for civil protection assistance. Many Member States also contribute with both human 
resources and physical assets to the UN Disa ster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) 
system for sudden on-set emergencies.  
Civil protection operations rare ly take place in isolation.  Complementary humanitarian 
operations under the specific mandates of international human itarian organisation (e.g. UN 
OCHA for international aid coordination, UNHC R for refugees, UNICEF for children, ICRC 
for the protection of civilians and prisoners) a nd under the umbrella of the IFRC, the National 
Red Cross or Crescent societies on the spot, wi ll also be underway in a given emergency. In 
such circumstances, the assistance provide d through the Community Mechanism will take 
place in close cooperation with all other inte rnational actors in or der 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 emerge ncy 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. 
                                                
 
15 See: “Responding to Goteborg targets: civil prot ection capabilities in EU civilian crisis management”. 
Commission non paper on the interplay between civil protection and humanitarian assistance in crisis 
situations – 3 May 2002. 
 
 14    Earthquake in Iran 
On 26 December 2003 Iran was hit by the most disast rous earthquake in recent years. The city 
of Bam was devastated, over 30 000 people died. In the afte rnoon 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 particip ating countries responded and th e 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 humanitari an 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-ord inate 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 le arnt” meeting will be 
organised by OCHA on 14-15 April. 
  
When Member States call for bilateral or mu ltilateral assistance or when they supply 
assistance to another country, the Monito ring 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 shou ld be further clarified and agreed to 
ensure a swift, on the spot co-ordination esp ecially 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 providi ng 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 Mech anism provide that, in the absence of a 
specific agreement between the re levant countries, the country a ffected by a disaster bears the 
cost for receiving assistance. For example, co mbating the forest fire s 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 St ates usually provide equipment (or use local 
equipment, hence the importance of inter-operability) and rescue teams for free.  
The Solidarity Fund provides financial assistan ce to assist people, regions and countries 
 
 15    concerned to return to living c onditions that are as normal as possible. It is available to 
“beneficiary States”, defined as Member St ates or countries involved in accession 
negotiations. The main purpose of the Fund is to grant assistance in  the event of major 
disasters (mainly natural) w ith 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 infras tructure to working order and rescue services 
to meet immediate needs are eligib le 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 eligib le for compensation unde r 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 numb er 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 futu re, in particular if the support from the EU 
Solidarity Fund proves insufficient. Transport co sts 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 m illion each the annual cost woul d be around €6 m. If Community 
funding is made available, a procedure fo r rapid decision making would be necessary. 
Experience with the forest fires of the su mmer of 2003 showed the limits of purely voluntary 
action and highlighted the need for a source of rapid financin g. 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 cap acities are overwhelmed by the s cale 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 transpor t 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. Howe ver, as pointed out above, the rationale and 
the rules for humanitarian assistance are differe nt and there have already been cases, as in 
Algeria, where the Community was unable to pr ovide support for transp ort costs because of 
the current unavailability of a suitable, rapid source of finance. 
During the earthquake in Iran, some participatin g states (Slovenia, Ma lta and Hungary) were 
able to offer material and equipment but asked the Community Mechanism to provide transportation. Provision of trans portation through the Mechanism would have ensured that all 
assistance was delivered rapidly to the site. 
The estimation of transportation cost for thir d 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. 
 
 16    The Commission intends to make proposals aime d at ensuring that funding is available 
for transport and other costs in curred in the early stages of cr ises, inside and outside the 
Union. These will be part of the detailed pr oposals which will be presented following the 
Commission Communication “Building ou r common Future Policy challenges and 
Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013”adopted on 10 February 2004.  
4. N EXT STEPS  
In the light of the experience ga ined to date and of the anal ysis set out above, the Commission 
considers that the time has come to comp lement the functioning  of the Community 
Mechanism by proposing ways of dealing with th e main problems encountered to date. These 
proposals would enable the EU to reinforce its civil protecti on capacity so that it can respond 
more effectively to disasters and CBRN or te rrorist attacks inside the EU and in third 
countries, including in the context of cris is 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 av ailable 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 Co mmunity Mechanism. This information 
should include details on the associated co sts, the possible use of military assets, 
etc.  
• To continue to develop a programme of tr aining and joint exer cises in order to 
ensure that teams and experts from diffe rent participating countries can work 
together efficiently when intervening. In th is context, the issue of inter-operability 
of equipment will also be examined a nd, if necessary, proposals to enhance inter-
operability will be made.  
• With regard to assistance provided outsi de 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. Th e establishment of effective relationships 
with all actors involved in an emergenc y and in particular with the lead UN 
agencies having an international coordi nation 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 Polic y is concerned, the Commission will 
work with the Council to ensure the effective implementation of the Joint 
Declaration of 29 Septembe r 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-man agement capacity combining civilian and 
military means, while ensuring that human itarian aid remains independent from 
political considerations. The future Europ ean Foreign Affairs Mi nister will have a 
crucial role to play here.  
 
 17    • To provide EU coordinated rescue team s with common insignia and equipment in 
order to allow for easy identification on s ite of members of EU coordinated teams 
as part of an ad hoc European Civil Pr otection Force drawn from existing national 
units; 
• To provide better information, communi cation and co-ordinat ion 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 assi stance. The Commission intends to make a 
formal proposal to modify Council Decision 2001/792 to introduce this 
requirement; 
• To address current fina ncial constraints by: 
– reviewing and possibly extending th e possibility of Community funding 
for transport costs linked to providi ng assistance inside the EU. This 
possibility could be created in th e 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 provi ding 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. Fu nding would have to be repaid. 
Granting assistance would be indepe ndent from any later decision on 
eligibility for the Solidarity Fund. Th is is estimated at €10 million a year. 
– creating the possibility of  funding transport costs for assistance provided 
to third countries. This possibilit y could be included in the post-2006 
financial perspectives. In the interv ening period, in cases where funding 
from the ECHO budget is not possible, the use of other financial instruments as appropriate could be e xplored. 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 a nd will allow an exchange of views on 
some of the issues raised in this Communication. 
5. C
ONCLUSIONS  
The Commission invites the Council and the Europ ean Parliament to endorse the orientations 
generated by the review and to give their support to the proposals outlin ed in this 
Communication. 
 
 18    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 trans port 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 fo r disasters inside the EU so to allow 
Member States to pay for additional measures to deal with emergencies which 
overwhelm their immediate financial capac ities. Experience from the previous 
years shows that such costs could va ry 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 th e additional tasks invol ved. The table below 
describes the additional staff th at would need to be allocated to Civil Protection for 2005 and 
2006. 
Staff  Description of tasks 
Types of post 
2005 2006 Total  
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; 
 
 19    - 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