WRITTEN QUESTION P-2679/01 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Protection of the civilian population in the EU.
Date: 2001-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, civil defence, cooperation policy, enlargement of the Union, international human rights law, public safety, state of emergency, terrorism

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/77

(2002/C 134 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2679/01

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2001)

Subject: Protection of the civilian population in the EU

The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington have highlighted serious shortcomings in the protection
of the civilian population there. It may be assumed that such shortcomings also exist in the EU Member
States. Following the end of the Cold War, the resources allocated to civil protection in Germany, for
example, were reduced considerably in the light of the altered perception of the threat. Since then, experts
have begun to perceive the threat by ABC weapons from terrorists as a realistic scenario. This raises the
question of the protection of the civilian population, particularly in Europe’s conurbations.

On 19 September 2001 the German Bundestag adopted an ‘Anti-Terrorism Package’ to strengthen the
army and security bodies. Civil protection was not mentioned. In questions below the term ‘protection of
the population’ covers both the protection of civilians in an armed conflict within the meaning of the
Geneva Convention and protection against disasters in general.

1.

Is the protection of the population in the European Union regarded as adequate?

Are there plans for a comprehensive protection of the population within the Union? If so, what are

2.
they?

Does the Commission see any reason to step up its efforts in this area in the light of the events of

3.
11 September 2001?

Is it conceivable that the EU will develop binding minimum standards for the protection of the

4.
civilian population, particularly in European conurbations or cities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

According to Article 33 of
the Treaty on European Union the responsibilities with regard to the
maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security are incumbent upon Member
States. The Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy of Title V of the Treaty on European
Union have lead to the development of European Crisis Management capabilities ; both military and civil.

Moreover, with regard to the development of capability in non-military crisis management, for instance,
the Community, through the Commission, is already playing a conspicuous external political role through
a wide range of instruments of diverse purpose and aimed at various regions. Council Regulation (EC) No
381/2001 of 26 February 2001 creating a rapid-reaction mechanism (RRM) was adopted on 26 February
2001 on the basis of Article 308 (ex Article 235) of the EC Treaty. This RRM together with the Crisis
Management Unit established within the Commission should be considered as two, mutually supporting
components of a wider approach.

In the field of civil protection, the Community aims to establish robust and lasting cooperation between
the Member States to help ensure better protection for people, the environment and property in the event
of natural and technological disasters inside and outside the Community.

All civil protection initiatives at Community level are implemented on the basis of the subsidiarity
principle laid down in the Maastricht Treaty. The Commission’s aim has been to support and encourage
efforts made at national level through a flexible legal and administrative basis (resolutions and Community
action programme in the field of civil protection).

C 134 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

More specifically Civil Protection has been focussed on the following objectives:

; to support and supplement efforts at national, regional and local

level with regard to disaster
prevention, the preparedness of those responsible for civil protection and the intervention in the event
of disaster;

; to contribute to the information of the public in view of increasing the level of self-protection of the

European citizens;

; to establish a framework for effective and rapid cooperation between national civil protection services

when mutual assistance is needed;

; to enhance the coherence of actions undertaken at international level in the field of civil protection
especially in the context of cooperation with the candidate Central and Eastern European countries in
view of enlargement and with the partners in the Mediterranean region.

At its meeting on 20 September 2001, the Justice and Home Affairs Council welcomed the imminent
adoption of the Commission proposal for setting up a Council Decision establishing a Community
mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in Civil Protection assistance intervention (1). Through this
mechanism, it will be possible in case of natural, technological and environmental disasters, to mobilise the
necessary operational resources to provide prompt support and assist a country (inside and outside the
Community) in need of help.

At the same meeting, the Council also asked the Civil Protection General Directors to focus, at their
extraordinary meeting in October 2001 in Knokke, on the response to major terrorist attacks inside and
outside the Community, in order to identify issues for further work, areas requiring increased co-operation,
etc.

Supplementary information on the Community civil protection activity is available under the following
address: http://europa. eu. int/comm/environment/civil/.

(1) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.

(2002/C 134 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/01

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Life ; Environment 2000 Programme ; commune of Sabaudia (Italy)

In October 2000 the commune of Sabaudia (Italy ; Lazio Region) submitted a project (Sab-acqua) under
the Life ; Environment 2000 Programme. On 16 August 2001, the Environment Directorate-General
informed the commune that its project had not been selected (letter DG ENV. D.1. D511917).

Will the Commission state:

; what was lacking in the project, the applicants or the documents submitted?

; what selection criteria were used, to what extent they were objective or at the selectors’ discretion?

; which projects were selected and which were rejected, together with the marks given to each of them

and the reasons for each decision?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2001)

The project did not get sufficiently high score in selection criteria No 2 ‘Demonstration character and
dissemination’ and No 3 ‘Soundness and reliability of the participants’.

For criterion No 2, the following arguments were given:
‘Scale appropriate, results inadequate. The
expected results are neither quantified/qualified, nor validated. The beneficiary does not explain according
to which criteria it has selected the core actions and it does not set forward a clear thesis to be validated
through the implementation of the project. No specific methodology emerges from the proposal and no