Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 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)
Date: 2004-03-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European cooperation, civil defence, exchange of information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.03.2004 
COM(2004) 200 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the European Union 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 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. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

5. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Background .................................................................................................................. 4 

The development of a legal co-operation framework in civil protection..................... 5 

How the Community Mechanism works today............................................................ 6 

Review of the response capacities................................................................................ 8 

Information gaps .......................................................................................................... 8 

Training and focus on inter-operability...................................................................... 10 

Better communication and improved co-ordination .................................................. 11 

Financial issues .......................................................................................................... 14 

Next steps ................................................................................................................... 16 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 17 

2 

 
 
  
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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  Europe  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 devastating terrorist attack in Spain reinforces the need to improve 
the European capacities in order to offer immediate assistance in case of disaster and thereby 
giving a tangible sign of European solidarity.  

Outside  Europe,  similar  patterns  can  be  observed.  Data  on  major  natural  disasters  at 
international  level  show  an  increase  both  in  the  number  of  disasters  and  in  their  economic 
repercussions. Several factors, such as increased population density in areas prone to hazards 
or negative effects of adverse weather conditions, have contributed to this. These trends call 
for  action  by  governments  to  strengthen  preventive  measures  and  enhance  response 
capacities. 

The  Community  responds  with  different  mechanisms  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 protection teams of the participating states. At 
the same time, during emergencies in third countries, the European Community Humanitarian 
Office (ECHO) provides relief to the victims of both natural disasters and man-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. Further to the conclusions of the Seville European Council, 
the Council and the Commission agreed on the modalities 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  December.  It  will  allow  the  establishment  of 
appropriate  crisis  management  capacity  combining  civilian  and  military  means,  while 
ensuring that the humanitarian aid remains independent from political considerations. 

Governments around the world are also increasingly 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 complement the existing instruments. With this in 

1 

2 

3 

In  this  Communication,  manmade  hazards  are  all  hazards  linked  to  human  activities  such  as 
technological hazards or terrorists’ threats, for example. 
See  also  Council  Regulation  (EC)  1257/96  of  20  June  1996  concerning  humanitarian  aid  (OJ  L  163, 
p. 1). 
Joint  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 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
mind, in 2002 the Commission set up a new programme to help cooperation between Member 
States  on  preparation,  detection  and  measures  to  reduce  the  consequences  of  CBRN  or 
terrorist attacks inside the EU. 

People  rely  on  governments  to  respond  rapidly  when  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 international community, with countries 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 order to provide a more effective 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  people,  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  review  the  civil  protection  response  capacity  of  the  EU  and  to 
propose improvements where necessary. The Communication 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 exchange of views on some of the issues raised in 
this Communication. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

While the primary responsibility for dealing with the immediate effects of a disaster lies with 
the  country  where  the  disaster  occurs,  the  role  of  the  Commission  in  the  field  of  civil 
protection  has  increased  since  early  1990s.  The  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 
5 

In addition to the relief provided by humanitarian agencies. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2012/2002  of  11  November  2002  establishing  the  European  Union 
Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, p. 3). 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The Commission made a first step towards defining an EU Civil Protection strategy in 2000 
when it proposed a strengthened Community Mechanism 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  participate  in  the  Community  Mechanism  to  facilitate 
reinforced  cooperation  in  civil  protection  assistance  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  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  supported  by  a  database,  training 
and  workshop  programmes  and  a  Common  Emergency  Communication  and  Information 
System.  

2.1. 

The development of a legal co-operation framework in civil protection 

When  the  scale  of  a  disaster  overwhelms  national  response  capacities,  vital  additional 
assistance can be provided at short notice if other countries are willing to share their expertise 
and equipment. In order to do this effectively, a co-ordination mechanism is essential. 

Experience  of  several  major  disasters  in  recent  years  has  prompted  calls  for  improved  civil 
protection  response  at  Community  level.  The  European  Parliament  has  recently  adopted  a 
resolution  and  a  report  inviting  the  Commission  to  review  its  response  capacity8.  The  main 
common element in these calls is the need for more effective co-ordination of assistance. In 
addition,  the  European  Parliament  has  also  called  for  the  creation  of  a  European  Civil 
Protection Force9. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Council  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. 
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 
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)). 
European  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”. 

5 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
 
 
The Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe reinforces the case for co-operation 
between Member States in the field of prevention and protection against natural or manmade 
disasters  by  proposing  to  introduce  an  article  on  civil  protection  (Article  III-184)10. 
Furthermore,  Article  I-42  of  the  Draft  Treaty  calls  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 protection 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 Centre at the Commission. The request is then 
immediately  forwarded  to  all  participating  countries  and  the  Centre  compiles  the  responses. 
The  work  of  the  Centre  is  based  on  a  permanent  network  of  contacts  set  up  by  the 
Commission to ensure uninterrupted links with the civil protection centres of the participating 
states and to foster information sharing.  

The country affected by a disaster can call on the network to get access to a ‘one-stop shop’ of 
specialised personnel and other resources both in the public and private sectors. Within a few 
hours,  this  requesting  country  has  an  overview  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  modelling,  satellite  applications  and  integrated 
analysis. The Monitoring and Information Centre also provides all participating countries with 
information updates as the situation evolves. It can also send on-the-spot experts and liaison 
officers  to  facilitate  cooperation  between  intervention  teams  and  can  help  with  logistical, 
linguistic or other issues.  

10 

11 

The 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.” 
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.” 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  capacities  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, equipment 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  Disasters”.  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  also  a  “lessons  learnt”  meeting  in  Catania,  Sicily 
one year after the accident. 

● 
At  the  request  of  the  Spanish  authorities  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 the economic recovery of the area. 

Forest fires in Portugal 

The 2003 summer fires in Portugal showed the limits of voluntary assistance at a time when 
several  neighbouring  countries  were  dealing  simultaneously  with  large-scale  emergencies. 
Although  21  participating  countries  expressed  a  clear  political  will  to  help,  Portugal  finally 
only received assistance from Italy (2 Canadairs) and Germany (3 helicopters) because most 
available  capacity  was  already  being  used  to  fight  fires  elsewhere  in  the  Mediterranean 
region. 
One  of  the  “lessons  learnt”  was  that  when  many  countries  were  affected  simultaneously  by 
the same type of disaster they had difficulties in offering assistance to their neighbours.  
The Monitoring and Information Centre was supported 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  countries  with  resources  meeting  the 
technical needs were identified and a further five possible sources were subsequently found. 
Ultimately, four countries provided assistance (pumps 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 

7 

 
 
  
 
  
  
                                                 
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 presidency, 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 authorities requested European assistance. The 
Monitoring  and  Information  Centre  then  sent  out  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  consultation  with  the  Presidency,  a  Franco-Spanish 
coordination team was appointed. Immediate contacts with UN-OCHA were also established 
in order to coordinate effectively 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 needs for medical assistance, drinking 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-Cooperazione  e  Sviluppo  (Italy)  and  Movimiento  para  la  Paz  el 
Desarrollo y la Libertad (Spain). 

The civil protection operation lasted three days engaging more than 17 European countries. 

3. 

REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE CAPACITIES 

The  operation  of  the  current  system  requires  relatively  few  human  and  budgetary  resources 
because of the inherent characteristics of its structure. Two years after its entry into force, the 
Community  Mechanism  has  shown  that  it  can  work  to  the  benefit  of  participating  countries 
and has already become established as an increasingly 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. The points that need to be reviewed include: 

- information gaps; 

- a need for more training and focus on inter-operability; 

- a need for better communication and improved co-ordination; 

- financial issues, both inside and outside the EU. 

3.1. 

Information gaps 

When assistance is requested under the Community Mechanism, personnel and equipment are 
provided  by  participating  countries  on  a  voluntary  basis.  In  order  to  be  aware  of  what 

8 

 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
response capabilities exist so that 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  intervention  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  participating  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 information 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  availability  of  equipment  and/or  personnel  will 
always  need  to  be  confirmed  in  real  time,  participating  countries  have  recognised  that  the 
availability of such information in the database 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  and  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 protection services. Highly specialised equipment is needed to deal 
with  a  series  of  threats  and  hazards  but  it  is  neither  feasible  nor  practicable  for  individual 
Member States to be prepared for each and every eventuality. 

Member  States  have  already  agreed  to  extend  their  own  response  capacities  through  a  co-
ordinated  mechanism  for  pooling  expertise  and  resources  in  response  to  disasters.  This  co-
ordinated approach will only work if the system can provide all necessary information so that 
all participating countries are aware of what is available. This 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 provide civil protection assistance. Moreover, in 
case of CBRN or terrorist attacksthey often constitute core equipment. Therefore 
it will be important to include such equipment in the database. 

–  When  an  emergency  is  developing,  valuable  time  cannot  be  spent  on  financial 
issues. Determining what could be the cost of providing assistance and accepting 
it have proved to be time consuming issues. This problem could be solved if the 
database contains the standard cost for supplying the relevant equipment etc. 

The  database  will  be  reviewed  and  participating  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. 

9 

 
 
  
 
3.2. 

Training and focus on inter-operability 

Training 

Effective  use  of  the  Community  Mechanism  requires  the  availability  of  highly  qualified 
personnel with appropriate experience and of teams which are used to working together in a 
European context. At the end of 2003, the database contained information on a total of 6737 
persons specialised in very different 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  the  Commission.  Recently,  three 
exercises and two workshops on CBRN issues were organised (EU finance of € 1,5 million). 
Five  exercises  on  natural  disasters  and  technological  accidents  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 cooperation between experts from participating countries (EU finance 
€0,8million). 

Training, exercises and other forms of co-operation which are being developed under existing 
policy decisions contribute to a more visible expression 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  Force  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, provided that sufficient training is given, such teams 
should be able to use specific foreign equipment. The exercises and training courses which are 
planned under the Community Mechanism will be particularly useful in highlighting practical 
difficulties  such  as  communication  and  compatibility  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 equipment, 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. 

10 

 
 
  
 
The  Commission  will  further  develop  a  programme  of  training  and  joint  exercises  in 
order to ensure that teams and experts from different participating countries can work 
together efficiently using foreign equipment. 

Common insignia for the intervention teams will contribute to identifying the ad-hoc EU 
Civil Protection Force and enhance the visibility of European Solidarity. 

3.3. 

Better communication and improved co-ordination 

The role of the Member States 

Participating countries often activate the Community Mechanism at a very late stage when the 
emergency  has  already  reached  major  proportions.  Under  the  current  Decision,  Member 
States  are  not  required  to  inform  the  Monitoring  and  Information  Centre  when  a  major 
disaster  occurs,  even  if  it  may  have  transboundary  effects.  However,  experience  has  shown 
that  sending  information  to  all  participating  countries  at  the  earliest  possible  stage  allows 
them to be prepared to respond should a request for assistance be made. 

Since  the  use  of  the  Monitoring  and  Information  Centre  is  purely  voluntary  at  present, 
participating countries do not always inform the Centre when assistance has been offered on a 
bilateral or multilateral basis. However, they recognise that it is important to have information 
on  assistance  being  supplied  by  other  countries  in  order  to  maximise  the  efficiency  of  any 
assistance they may be able to provide. 

Improving the link with other networks 

The  Council  Decision  foresees  the  development  of  a  Common  Emergency  Communication 
and  Information  System  between  the  Civil  Protection  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  confidentiality  of  information  exchanged  among 
Member States under routine conditions and in emergencies. Some of these features will be of 
particular  importance  towards  improving  the  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 Centre also serves as an interface with other 
networks likely to be involved in dealing with an emergency such as: 

– 

the  European  Community  Urgent  Radiological  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 radiological emergencies to the Commission; 

11 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

the  Early  Warning  and  Response  System  (EWRS)  which  is  a  monitoring  and 
response  information  system  in  the  field  of  communicable  diseases  as  laid  down 
under  Decision  2119/98/EC13  and  Decision  2000/57EC14.  It  links  the  Commission 
and  the  national  health  and  response  surveillance  authorities  of  each  Member  State 
and can use specialised databases located in some Member States; 

the  Rapid  Alert  System  for  Biological  and  Chemical  Attacks  and  Threats  (RAS-
BICHAT)  that  was  set  up  to  allow  prompt  transmission  of  alerts  and  exchange  of 
information between the representatives of the Member States in the Health Security 
Committee  and  the  competent  services  of  the  Commission  concerning  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  System  (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 for civil protection assistance: 

–  Civil protection assistance typically includes activities such as search and rescue, 
evacuation,  fire  fighting,  medical  expertise/equipment,  field  hospitals,  and  other 
specialised  activities,  such  as  detection,  analysis,  measurement,  safety  and 
security/decontamination  in  case  of  nuclear,  bacteriological,  radiological  or 
chemical  incidents.  Civil  protection  assistance  is  only  provided  in  response  to  a 
request from the relevant state and the response is decided in agreement with the 
EU presidency. 

–  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.). 

13 

14 

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). 
Commission  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). 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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. 

15 

See: “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. 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
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 

14 

 
 
  
 
  
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. 

15 

 
 
  
 
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.  

16 

 
 
  
 
•  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 
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; 

to  supplement 

instrument 

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. 

17 

 
 
  
 
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  

2005 

2006 

Total 

Description of tasks 

- to ensure a timely response to disasters: 

Officials or 

Temporary 
staff 

A 

4 

B 

C 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

2 

2 

- 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; 

18 

 
 
  
 
 
-  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 

19