Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community mechanism for the coordination of Civil Protection intervention in the event of emergencies"
Date: 2001-02-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, action programme, civil defence, cooperation policy

11.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 139/27

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision
establishing a Community mechanism for the coordination of Civil Protection intervention in
the event of emergencies’

(2001/C 139/07)

On 24 October 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 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 1 February 2001. The rapporteur
was Mrs zu Eulenburg.

At its 379th plenary session of 28 February and 1 March 2001 (meeting of 28 February 2001), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Gist of the Commission proposal

2.2. Planned measures

The proposal provides for more effective coordination
1.1.
of the individual
interventions of national Civil Protection
teams in the event of a disaster, and so supplements the
existing Community Action Programme for Civil Protection.

1.2.
The plan to improve the effectiveness of Community
Civil Protection procedures is the outcome of calls for urgent
improvement of Civil Protection action at Community level
prompted by all the recent disasters that have caused serious
damage in several Member States and neighbouring countries.

The measures proposed — such as early notification,
1.3.
identification of operational teams, setting up of assessment
and coordination teams and establishment of common rules
for joint interventions — are not provided for in the above-
for a more
mentioned action programme. The proposal
effective Community mechanism thus goes beyond the existing
action programme, also by providing for a training programme
to improve mutual intervention capability.

2.2.1.
The proposed measures for strengthening the mech-
anism seem in principle to be appropriate for improving
cooperation and coordination in disaster situations. They
include:

— identification of resources available for coordinated assist-

ance intervention in the event of emergencies;

— setting-up of a training programme;

— establishment of assessment and coordination teams;

— establishment of an emergency communication system.

1.4.
The present system for dealing with emergencies is
based on the Resolution of 8 July 1991 on improving mutual
aid between Member States in the event of natural or
technological disaster.

2.2.2.
However, it will be impossible to avoid difficulties
when implementing the proposal because in many cases the
situation varies widely between the Member States. Details of
this aspect are discussed in the specific comments on the
various articles and the Annex (point 3 below).

2. General comments

2.1. Basic position

2.2.3.
The Commission should also vigorously promote
the development of preventive systems in the applicant
countries.

The ESC welcomes the Commission proposal: introducing a
Community mechanism for Civil Protection measures in
serious emergencies, or imminent threat of emergency, which
may require urgent response action, will enhance the existing
Community action programme on Civil Protection.

2.2.4.
The ESC shares the Commission’s view that the
strengthened Civil Protection mechanism could also contribute
to the Union’s overall non-military response to crises in third
countries under the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

C 139/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.5.2001

3.

Specific comments

3.4. Requests for assistance (Article 5)

3.1. Notification (Article 2)

Mutual and extensive notification between the Member States
and to the Commission in the case of serious emergencies and
disasters should be welcomed. However, the channels of
communication must be clearly and bindingly specified in
advance, in order to avoid unnecessary work and to ensure
effective procedures.

3.2. Capability (Article 3)

The wording ‘... intervention teams which are avail-
3.2.1.
able or could be established for intervening abroad at very
short notice’ has been kept very vague. In order to improve
the quality of information and to facilitate the information-
gathering procedure, the ESC recommends that a standard
system be developed in the context of
the management
committee provided for in Article 8. Standardised information,
e.g. on the size of the team and the objectives of assistance,
will make it possible to compare and thus assess efficiency.

3.2.2.
Existing transnational information and databases —
in particular the resources of non-governmental organisations
— should as far as possible be used and integrated into the
information system in an appropriate way. The Member States
will thus be asked to improve the usefulness of information-
gathering by contributing themselves.

3.3. Coordination of intervention (Article 4)

3.3.1.
Developing a training programme inevitably raises
the question of precise objectives. A training objective should
be defined in agreement with the Member States which is as
concrete and realisable as possible.

The ESC notes that

the options described for
3.4.1.
requesting assistance complement — as far as necessary —
existing bilateral agreements between certain Member States
and the transnational civil protection or assistance provided
under mutual aid arrangements. A reference to such existing
arrangements would be useful.

3.4.2.
The phrase ‘where an emergency occurs within the
Community’ in Article 5(1) should be followed by ‘or if a
Member State is threatened by an external emergency’.

3.5.

Involvement of third countries (Article 6)

We very much welcome the involvement of the candidate
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and Cyprus, Malta
and Turkey.

3.6. Specific comments on the Annex — Fundamental principles

of assistance intervention within the Community

3.6.1.
It is difficult to ensure logistical independence in situ
for 48 hours, but the aim should be to achieve this. Since the
intervention teams have to be incorporated into existing
structures anyway, it should be adequate to request logistical
independence for the first 24 hours.

3.6.2.
Point 3 of the fundamental principles (direction
according to tasks) seems to make sense. However, the limits
of the tasks entrusted to the intervention team should always
be specified in order to avoid misunderstandings.

3.6.3.
Point 5 of the fundamental principles (provision of
means of assistance and communications by the Member
State requesting assistance) could be problematic in practice.
Cooperation must be agreed prior to intervention and com-
munications problems resolved in advance.

3.3.2. We welcome the setting-up of a programme for the
evaluation and dissemination of lessons learned.

3.6.4. We welcome points 6 and 7 of the fundamental
principles (support and simplification of administrative pro-
cedures).

Brussels, 28 February 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS