European Union
In response to a disaster, the Commission In the heat of the relief effort, it is all too easy for the
can provide financial aid via the European
Union Solidarity Fund. The financial
best laid plans to be pulled apart as the various groups
assistance programme was set up in
November 2002 and is used in cases
involved pull in different directions
of “major natural disasters with serious
repercussions on living conditions, the
natural environment or the economy in
one or more regions of a member state
or a country applying for accession.” The
Commission defines a disaster as an event
which causes a financial impact of over
0.6% of GDP or over €3.5bn.
For the solidarity fund to be mobilised
the affected state must submit an
application detailing the estimated
financial damage caused by the event
to the Commission. If the Commission
acknowledges that the fund should
be mobilised it must then apply to the
European Council and Parliament for
approval before funds can be released.
The fund can also be used in response to
regional disasters, although the severity of the Mechanism which has been adopted mobilised. “We believe,” he said, “that
the event must be extreme with a major by the Council, which he said, in addition it would be a good move if we have the
impact on living conditions and on the to strengthening its effectiveness, had also chance in cases where we know that the
stability of the regional economy. “We given “new opportunities to co-finance funds will be mobilised to use up-front,
have paid out from the fund in 21 cases the transport of assistance and to develop immediate payments in order to be more
for natural disasters at a national level readily available modules of civil protection effective on the ground,” although, he
and in 11 cases of regional disasters,” equipment.” He added that they are also added that they still had not received
said Niessler, adding that, “so far [the devoting time and effort to improving the agreement from the member states to put
Commission] has not rejected any requests EU’s response capacity by examining the in place such a process. He did, however,
to mobilise the fund for major disasters at a opportunities for establishing an ‘EU Rapid point out that a proposal was currently with
national level.” Response Capability’, “that would ensure the European Council and Parliament to
that key resources and essential equipment enhance the efficiency of the solidarity fund
A work in progress are always available to form a part of the “by ensuring that we are in a position to
While there is a general acknowledgement European response.” provide immediate support.”
that the EU has taken fairly significant steps Hans Das added that the Commission,
towards enhancing resilience within its with the support of the European The Lisbon Treaty
borders and offering assistance to those Parliament, was currently reviewing various The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on
outside, there is also an acceptance that new arrangements to have extra assistance 1 December 2009, has given additional
there is still much that has to be done, available on standby so that in the event impetus to the drive for greater EU
particularly in relation to speeding up the of an emergency in which the EU is called resilience. In particular, the Treaty includes
EU’s response capabilities and removing upon to respond it can do so in a way in a solidarity clause, which calls upon the
some of the administrative stumbling which “we can effectively show solidarity”. European Union and its member states to
blocks. act jointly “in a spirit of solidarity” should
As was acknowledged in 2007, the Speed of response a fellow states be the subject of a natural or
existing infrastructure of the Community One of the big issues which the EU faces is manmade disaster, or a terrorist attack. The
Mechanism for Civil Protection is in its ability to mobilise itself quickly. Despite Treaty in effect provides a legal basis for
need of a shake-up if it is to meet the the wealth of resources potentially at its civil protection within the EU and places an
disaster management requirements of an disposal in terms of equipment, finances obligation on countries to come to the aid
every expanding EU. In the Recast of the and expertise, it is an unwieldy and often of other members.
Council Decision mentioned earlier, it lethargic entity restrained by the ties of Commenting ahead of the eventual
was stated that in recent years there has bureaucracy. These are not characteristics signing of the Lisbon Treaty, Hakan Jewrell
been considerable growth in the number that lend themselves to situations where from the Ministry of Defence in Sweden
of countries calling upon the Mechanism speed is of the essence. described it as a “reason for hope” in the
for civil protection assistance. As a result, This slowness in response was clearly context of civil protection and added that
it should be “strengthened to ensure a demonstrated in comments made by 2009 was the year in which the EU “laid
more effective and visible demonstration Rudolf Niessler at the Forum when he the foundations for the next step in disaster
of European solidarity and to allow for the told delegates that only that morning he management.” However, he stated that
development of a European rapid response had signed off on the transfer of €494m “it is crucial to find the balance between
capability based on the civil protection to the Italian Government for emergency national response and solidarity. We are
modules of the member states”. operations conducted in the aftermath equally dependent on each other when it
In his vision for European resilience, of the L’Aquila earthquake. While this is comes to preventing and mitigating major
Stavros Dimas highlighted the fact that clearly a significant amount, it must be disasters, but every country needs to take
the Commission had been striving to noted that the event itself occurred some proper action to prevent and prepare for
implement the new legal framework for seven months before these funds were possible catastrophic scenarios.”
22  Continuity  January/February 2010
Cont Jan/Feb 2010_insides.indd 22 3/2/10 14:51:09
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44