Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Improving the Community Civil Protection Mechanism (COM(2005) 137 final)
Date: 2005-12-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, action programme, civil defence

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/41

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Improving the Community Civil Protection
Mechanism’

the European Parliament,

(COM(2005) 137 final)

(2006/C 65/08)

On 3 June 2005, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 November 2005. The rapporteur was
Ms Sánchez Miguel.

At its 422nd plenary session, held on 14 and 15 December 2005 (meeting of 14 December 2005), the
European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 133 votes to one.

1. Introduction

1.1
Disasters are occurring with increasing frequency within
the borders of the EU and throughout the world; some are
caused by natural phenomena such as floods, earthquakes, fires,
droughts, hurricanes etc., while others are due to terrorist acts
which spread terror among innocent people. Human action
could be said to be the cause of any of these, to some extent,
although the degrees of intentionality cannot be compared. The
EU has pledged to implement preventive action in response to
climate change, not just through the commitments made in the
Kyoto Protocol, but also through a number of provisions
relating to measures for preserving land, water and air. This
undertaking is geared towards prevention;
it could help to
maintain and regenerate our land, seas and atmosphere, and to
encourage action to be taken on a worldwide scale. Meanwhile,
the response to terrorist activity (1) has resulted in many police
and justice-related coordination instruments, which have made
it possible to improve cooperation relations between Member
States.

1.2
Nevertheless, the EU has had to set up a Community
system for providing assistance in the event of a disaster of any
type occurring within its borders. This system is the Com-
munity Civil Protection Mechanism, which supports and facili-
tates the mobilisation of vital civil protection assistance for the
immediate needs of disaster-stricken areas, even those outside
the Community. The aim of the Communication is to improve
the Civil Protection Mechanism, which was set up in 2001 (2),
and to enhance the Civil Protection Action Programme (3) with
a Proposal for a Regulation by the Council establishing a rapid
response and preparedness instrument for disasters (4).

1.3
Here, it would be useful to define the term ‘civil protec-
tion’, which is often confused with the concept of humanitarian

(1) The following instruments have been presented by the Commission:
Communication establishing a framework programme on ‘Security
and Safeguarding Liberties’ for the period 2007-2013 (COM(2005)
124 final
(6.4.2005)); Council Decision establishing the specific
Programme ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Manage-
ment of Terrorism’, for the Period 2007-2013; Council decision –
General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ (SEC(2005)
436).

(2) Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom.
(3) Council Decision, 1999/847/EC, 9 December.
(4) COM(2005)113 final / 2005/0052 (CNS) of 6.4.2005.

aid. In this sense, the Commission makes a clear distinction
between the two terms, although they share the same purpose:
‘to save lives and alleviate the effects of a disaster during the
first days’. The Commission sets out the differences between
the two concepts: firstly, civil protection assistance can address
the environmental consequences of disasters, not just those
affecting the population; secondly,
is provided through
resources and teams from Member States rather than humani-
tarian bodies and NGOs; thirdly, it can be delivered both inside
and outside the EU, although the procedures for action in non-
EU countries are different (5).

it

1.4
The specific role of the Mechanism is to act within the
EU, and always at the request of the Member State in which
the disaster occurred. However,
it is worth noting that the
Mechanism also operates on an international scale in coordina-
tion with other international organisations such as the UN
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA),
with which it has established various operational procedures,
and also working with the Red Cross and NGOs which operate
on the ground.

1.5
The EU's stance towards the disasters that have occurred
(and which, sadly, seem to have no end) led the General Affairs
and External Relations Council, at its extraordinary meeting of
7 January 2005, to propose the improvement of the Com-
munity Mechanism and the development of a rapid response
capability. A few days later, on 13 January, the European Parlia-
ment issued a Resolution on the recent tsunami disaster in the
Indian Ocean,
calling for human, material and training
measures to be set up and made available in the event of a
disaster.

(5) Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Article 6. 6.

C 65/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

the Community Civil

The framework that currently regulates action in the
1.6
the two instruments
field of civil protection consists of
mentioned previously:
Protection
Mechanism and the Civil Protection Action Programme. The
Communication focuses on the former, particularly the Moni-
toring and Information Centre (MIC) which is based at the
European Commission and operates around the clock. It has a
database on the civil protection services in each Member State,
incorporating data from the military database.

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

Improving

the Community Civil

2.1
Protection
Mechanism: The latest reports have highlighted the need to
improve the Civil Protection Mechanism, and the need for
greater coordination between Member States and with the
other bodies involved. The Communication proposes four areas
for improving the system:

Reinforcing preparedness by training teams and
2.1.1
carrying out preparatory exercises. To achieve this,
firstly,
current capability must be assessed; secondly, a plan must be
drawn up setting out a series of rapidly deployable modules;
lastly, training courses and joint exercises must be carried out
to enhance interoperability and develop a common interven-
tion culture.

2.1.2
Analysis and assessment of needs by means of a
warning system using the resources of the MIC and collating all
information enabling it to act in cooperation with other bodies,
particularly the UN. Improving the assessment of needs at the
site of a disaster makes it possible to determine needs in each
case, so that
is
proposed that the staff of the MIC be increased, and its assess-
ment methods and standards revised.

the intervention can be more effective.

It

2.2
The improvement measures proposed by the Commis-
sion should be accompanied by an increase in the resources
available for civil protection. The Council has therefore called
for proposals in order to develop current resources. The EU
Action Plan of 31 January 2005 highlighted the most impor-
tant areas for action.

it

Firstly,

proposes

2.2.1
protection
resources so that when national resources and capabilities are
not sufficient to meet needs, steps can be taken at European
level in order to improve the efficiency of action taken.

pooling

civil

2.2.2
Strengthening the analytical capacity of the MIC can
pave the way for a more pro-active approach, particularly
when it comes to informing non-EU countries. It is therefore
necessary for there to be a fluid relationship that enables avail-
able resources to be deployed flexibly, at the request of the
affected country.

2.2.3
Standby modules fulfil an important role when it
comes to intervening in large-scale disasters or when requested
by other Member States or non-EU countries. It is therefore
important to implement the system proposed in the Communi-
cation, so that each country can rely on key modules that are
on permanent standby for interventions within or outside the
EU.

Reinforcing the logistical basis

2.2.4
and sufficient
resources to enable the MIC to act swiftly and efficiently. The
costs of hiring equipment for interventions will benefit from
some European funds (6), although when it comes to interven-
tions outside the EU, synergies with the UN need to be
explored.

2.2.5
Lastly, international coordination is one of the key
factors for a rapid response to disasters. The Community
Mechanism has access to capabilities which, when coordinated
with those of other bodies, result in a better response. United
Nations bodies and humanitarian aid organisations should both
be taken into consideration.

Enhanced coordination is one of the most extensive
2.1.3
improvements. This
involves more effectively coordinating
Member States' contributions in order to achieve coordinated
European assistance, as well as greater complementarity and
coordination with the UN and other bodies involved in huma-
nitarian aid, and with military counterparts. This coordination
should strengthen the operational planning capacity on site,
including the various Commission departments.

2.1.4
Improved assistance to citizens As the tsunami
disaster showed, the protection of European citizens is achieved
through cooperation between civil protection and the consular
authorities of
the countries involved. Cooperation must be
strengthened between the countries affected by a disaster and
Member States.

3. General comments

3.1
The EESC welcomes the proposal to improve the Com-
munity Civil Protection Mechanism, given the need to
strengthen and enhance all available resources so that action
can be taken in the event of a disaster within or outside the
EU. Experience acquired over the years has shown that many
operational aspects of Community civil protection could be
improved; the Committee therefore believes that certain preli-
minary observations should be made in order to optimise the
the measures proposed to improve the Com-
efficiency of
munity Mechanism.

(6) Proposal for a Council Regulation, 6.4.2005.

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/43

3.2
Firstly, the EU's response capability must be enhanced,
based on the national civil protection systems, in various areas:

3.2.1 Regional communication and information systems

The CECIS (7) system should be enhanced, moving to
3.2.1.1
a satellite-based system with video, voice and data capability,
which is secure and linked up via the MIC (8) to specific knowl-
edge centres providing data, experts and models (e.g. foresee-
able consequences) that will be useful in the circumstances of
specific emergencies. Some basic examples include the Euro-
pean Space Agency and the Joint Research Centre for current
maps of non-EU countries and damage assessment, or maps
updated after a disaster (e.g. earthquakes or floods) which could
disable an infrastructure network for routing aid. The network
would be based on contact points for each Member State,
which could help respond to the emergency.

The information flow between the EU's assistance
3.2.1.2
units and the MIC should be constant, secure and tamper-
proof:

— communications with disaster-stricken areas are usually
highly deficient, due to the destruction and/or saturation of
infrastructure (conventional and mobile networks);

— nevertheless, we cannot dismiss the possibility of govern-
ments controlling the information issued about a disaster
located within their borders,
in the same way that the
movements of assistance units are controlled.

The most obvious response would be to use satellite
3.2.1.3
communications. Indeed, experience has shown this method to
be:

— fairly safe from environmental destruction (all

is
required is a case and the ability to generate electricity for
transmission);

that

— safe when subject to information monitoring and surveil-

lance by third parties.

3.2.1.4
However, this method also has a limited data trans-
mission capacity and, in some cases, can become saturated due
to other requirements or users (e.g. the media). It is therefore
necessary to ensure that there are dedicated — i.e. permanent
— satellite wavelengths, enabling satisfactory communication
between the affected area(s) and the MIC, and between the
different intervention areas.

As regards coverage,

3.2.1.5
it might seem that a specific
geographical area would suffice (EU and neighbouring areas);
however, in reality, coverage should be worldwide. The case of
the recent tsunami clearly showed the former solution to be
unsatisfactory, as coverage was not only required for communi-
cation with the MIC, but also for communication between
areas of operation as distant from each other as the Maldives,
Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia.

(7) The communication system for the mechanism.
(8) The monitoring centre for the mechanism.

3.2.1.6
In order to ensure that communication is effective,
the EU must therefore a have a satellite transmission system
that is dedicated (i.e. exclusive), secure (tamper-proof), reliable
and global in scale. This system must be able to support video-
conferencing, data- (fax, mail and high-definition images) and
voice-based communications.

The Joint Research Centre,

3.2.1.7
the European Space
Agency and the Commission (DG Information Society) have
sufficient capability to meet
the needs expressed by the
Management Committee for the Action Programme and the
Mechanism, which is accountable to the Directorate-General
responsible for civil protection (DG Environment).

3.2.2 Requirement for minimum intervention resources

3.2.2.1

Interventions by assistance teams:

— intervention teams are equipped by Member States with
resources enabling them to act with sufficient
indepen-
dence, and with suitable systems for communication in the
field;

— these teams are coordinated by an EU coordinator whose
duties include coordinating the different
teams sent by
Member States, liaising with the authorities of the affected
country, liaising with the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, etc.;

— to date,

the coordinator has not been supplied with
resources by the EU; but only has certain communication
equipment; the EU should obtain suitable resources and
equipment in order to facilitate the duties of the coordi-
nator and his support team, from communication equip-
ment to tents, in order to coordinate with other teams and
authorities in the affected country, and to ensure that the
coordinator's work is carried out efficiently in often difficult
conditions;

— furthermore, these resources and equipment, which should
be clearly marked with EU symbols, should serve as a clear
indication of the EU's presence and commitment to the
stricken population. Within the EU, this sends a message of
inter-regional solidarity, while outside the EU, it emphasises
the EU's position in the international arena.

3.2.2.2
gency:

Support to Member States in the event of an emer-

— in certain cases, Member States cannot provide the requisite
support, either because those in possession of the necessary
resources and equipment require them for some foreseeable
or declared emergency, or because the resources would
only be used in exceptional cases which do means they are
not worth acquiring;

C 65/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.3.2006

— forest fires are one typical example of the former scenario,
as states equipped with air facilities are in the same situa-
tion at the same time. A dangerous situation in one's own
to send resources to
country usually makes it difficult
another country;
solidarity between the Mediterranean
countries of the EU is very strong, and resources are occa-
sionally sent
from one area to another in particularly
serious cases;

— severe floods requiring high-volume pumps are an example
of the latter scenario: these types of pumps do not usually
feature among the equipment of intervention teams in most
EU countries;

— in another type of situation, resulting from the new types
of terrorism, resources and equipment could be requested
to respond to situations which, although exceptional, are
still potentially serious;

— in light of the above, the EU should be able to obtain
resources and equipment, either owned or contracted out,
enabling it to back up the response capabilities of Member
States.

3.2.3 Centralisation of operational bases

The Mechanism's current structures are based on
3.2.3.1
EU-wide provision of various intervention teams, assessment
resources and equipment. While this is an improvement on the
vacuum that had existed before, it is still not fully satisfactory.

3.2.3.2
Due to the geographical expansion of the EU and
the variety of risks facing the area, it might be worth consid-
ering setting up regional support structures as part of the
these would have various teams and resources
Mechanism;
already in place which would therefore be more quickly
deployable and better suited to the specific nature of regional
risks within the EU.

3.2.3.3
fight forest fires) or permanent.

These resources could be seasonal (e.g. aircraft to

Another potential

improvement would involve
3.2.3.4
sharing out
the task of gathering resources among neigh-
bouring countries; the resources could then be made available
to all the countries in that region. In this way, the EU could
promote the acquisition of resources shared between countries
of medium size or facing a common risk (floods in a particular
basin, earthquakes, etc.).

3.2.4 Provision of a centralised technical body on 24-hour standby

able to emergency centres
Commission should pledge to change this.

in most Member States. The

However,

3.2.4.2
the Commission's current approach is
restricted to obtaining resources determined in accordance with
the emergency. It is worth considering whether this approach
is as ambitious as the situation requires.

There is no questioning the fact that the MIC, by
3.2.4.3
definition, is not a decision or emergency coordination centre.
However, when helping to make decisions or implement assis-
tance, improvisation must be avoided, and there must be a set
procedure for action which varies according to the circum-
stances of the emergency. Action in response to a flood will
differ from that taken in response to a landslide, earthquake or
volcanic eruption. Resources are also different.

Therefore,

3.2.4.4
in addition to having access to reliable
data in the event of an emergency, the MIC must have prede-
fined assistance plans, so that the Commission can plan contact
with specialised bodies within and outside the EU. These plans
should be defined according to the type of emergency, severity,
country, etc. and should seek to provide effective and rapid
responses. Naturally, the modules that can be mobilised in each
country should be included.

3.2.4.5
The question is whether the MIC, in addition to its
role as monitoring centre, could also coordinate national
bodies, specialised humanitarian aid organisations and, in par-
ticular, the volunteers that come forward to help after any
disaster. Coordination is a necessary task that should be carried
out by those organisations that have the information and
specific resources at their disposal.

3.2.5 Training of intervention teams

3.2.5.1
Unquestionably, the intervention teams preselected
by the Member States know how to act in an emergency. The
current training programme is achieving good results in terms
of joint action capabilities. The number of courses should be
increased, and attempts should be made to run them in
languages other than English, since, for example, action could
be taken in countries with cultural
links to other languages
such as French or Spanish.

3.2.5.2
The intervention teams should be made aware of the
advance assistance plans, once defined, and these should there-
fore be included in the training schemes.

3.2.4.1
Although the MIC is a 24-hour system, it currently
lacks sufficient human and technical resources, like those avail-

3.2.5.3
distance learning techniques for these courses.

It would also be worth considering the use of new

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/45

4. Specific comments on the Commission's proposal

5. Conclusions

4.1 While there is no doubt that this is a positive proposal,
there is room for improvement, given that the Mechanism is
essentially for use within the EU, and is therefore currently an
instrument (if not the instrument) for EU inter-regional soli-
darity.

4.2
Consequently, the EU should spare no effort to provide
the swiftest and most effective response to emergencies in all
their forms. This calls for predefined procedures or assistance
plans which should be tested by means of drills, and updated
on the basis of experience gained from these drills or from
actual interventions.

The plans must

4.3
include communications, up-to-date
maps and suitable resources to achieve satisfactory coordina-
tion. These resources should be owned by the EU. European
intervention plans must set an international standard which
will boost the image and influence of the EU on an interna-
tional scale.

Furthermore, EU assessment

4.4
teams and coordinators
must be able to have their say about the recovery of the
affected area and potential subsequent action plans.

4.5
The EESC believes that all the activities carried out by
the Community Mechanism should receive sufficient funding to
ensure the availability of both technical staff and resources, in
order to improve European interventions and visibility, particu-
larly for disasters occurring outside the EU. In particular, trans-
port is needed to permit rapid action to minimise the conse-
quences of disasters.

In the event of intervention in non-EU countries, inter-
4.6
ventions by the Mechanism must be considered an integral part
of EU foreign policy, and must be given the importance that
they deserve, as a sign of the EU's solidarity with countries
experiencing tragic events.

Brussels, 14 December 2005.

5.1
The EESC endorses the content of the Communication
on Improving the Community Civil Protection Mechanism.
However,
it believes that certain specific aspects could be
improved, and points out that certain of its observations result
from an assessment by the representatives of organised civil
society at this Committee.

5.2
As a starting point, and given the need for mandatory
compliance with the proposed measures, a suitable legal frame-
work is required. The EESC considers that the Regulation (9) is
the right instrument to play a mandatory, harmonising role in
all EU Member States.

Another aspect

5.3
that merits attention is the funding
earmarked for the Mechanism, which should be sufficient to
cover more staff and the purchase of resources. Furthermore,
although the Communication does not specify the financial aid
granted to Member States, the new proposal for the Solidarity
Fund (10) should cover and take account of all natural disasters,
including drought.

As

regards

to the Mechanism
5.4
proposed by the EESC and mentioned in this Opinion, the
following merit particular attention:

improvements

the

— creation of a satellite communication system;

— provision of assistance teams specific to the Mechanism;

— identification of persons and teams from the EU, particu-

larly for work outside the EU;

— regionalisation of operational bases

and coordination

between them;

— technical training for teams, with consideration given to

languages.

5.5
The EESC, as representative of civil society, wishes to
make public its support for those volunteers who work unpaid
and often full-time in the field of disaster relief. This is not only
a form of practical solidarity but an essential contribution to
dealing actively with the damage to persons and property
occurring in areas affected by disasters.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(9) For example, there has been a Proposal for a Regulation establishing
for disasters.

instrument

a rapid response and preparedness
COM(2005) 113 final of 6.4.2005.

(10) COM(2005) 108 final adopted on 6.5.2005.