EU Crisis Coordination and Response - PowerPoint Presentation

1. EU Crisis Coordination and Response Planning: Extreme Weather Events. A Finnish Case Study.Extreme Weather Events and InfrastructureDr Timo Hellenberg & Prof Pekka VisuriFriday 24th March 2017 – Regent House, Trinity College Dublin

2. Study FrameworkRiskSituational awareness Early WarningAlarmDecisionActionEUNationalRegionalLocalEmergencyCrisisINFRA

3. Polar types of crisis management CentralizedIntegratedInstitutionalizedPolitical (mandate)PublicAdministrativeComprehensiveInformation openDecentralizedSpecializedProfessionalPrivateTechnologicalCivil/MilitaryAd hocSegmented

4. European Crisis Management TrendsAfter the Cold War a clear emphasis on the preparation for the prevention and response to peace-time disasters and terrorism.Trend towards all-hazards principle in CM.More centralization and integration of CM leadership and coordination for civil-military cooperation.More centralized surveillance and building of the situation picture, but borderlines between the sectors of administration still exist as hindrance.In many EU countries the CM systems have been fundamentally modernized during the last years.Emerging trend to standardize CM structures and practices, but the process is slow advancing.

5. European Union Institute for Security Studies, November 2013

6. The EU policy evolvement in crisis managementDependent of simultaneous success with the political-strategic level coordination (Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements IPCR) and the operational-tactical level action, coordinated by the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC).Basing on the Solidarity Clause (Art 222 in Lisbon Treaty)

7. Principles Policy Decision making Situational awareness

8. Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements (IPCR)It replaced the old EU Emergency and Crisis Coordination Arrangements (CCA).The new arrangements (IPCR) are flexible and permanent (no ad ahoc groups needed).Based on existing, well-known and tested procedures.The central role in decision making has COREPER with permanently working officials.IPCR arrangements are not only coordinating but also building a decision making body if needed.Systme if neededbobbody ody dy

9. EU Crisis Management Instruments

10. Situational awareness in EU Crisis Management

11. European crisis management in general has been developed towards comprehensive and integrated organisations and inter-operable solutions. Challenges remain especially in intergovernmental cooperation between Member States and within EU regions.An important problem: personnel of civil security organisations have only limited experience and often limited capacities.

12. THE FINNISH CONCEPTThreats and RisksDisturbance ineconomyTerrorismInformation network malfunctionIllegalimmigrationPandemicdiseasesEnvironmentalthreatsMajor accidentExtreme weatherphenomenonPressureUse of militarypowerResources at disposalResources withinadministrationNGOs andcitizens BusinesscommunityEU and interna-tional resourcesSecuringfunctionsvital to societyMonitoringof securityenvironmentAssessingofconsequencesReviewing ofcapabilitybuildingCoordinationofpreparationsCoordinationofresourcesdeploymentCOOPERATION AND COORDINATION

13. Some Finnish CM problemsComprehensive national defence is a well functioning and integrated system – but is it too big and clumsy for new, complicated threat situations?Decision-making in swiftly emerging crisis situations is too much terraced and segmented.Guarding the bureaucratic reviers is notable in administrative practices.Need for more comprehensive and integrated situation picture on the government level.

14. Regional Rescue authority1. Helsinki2. Western Uusimaa3. Central Uusimaa4. Eastern Uusimaa5. Finland Proper6. Tavastia Proper7. Päijänne Tavastia8. Kymenlaakso9. Southern Carelia10. Southern Savonia11. Central Finland12. Pirkanmaa13. Satakunta14. Southern Ostrobothnia15. Ostrobothnia16. Central Ostrobothnia17. Northern Savonia18. Northern Carelia19. River Valleys20. Kainuu21. Oulu-Koillismaa22. Lappland14

15. New Finnish Crisis Coordination

16. Storm ”Asta” 2010

17. 29-30th July 2010The ”Asta” arrived to Finland at 02.00 am.Asta storm (30.7.) was followed by Veera storm (4.8), Lahja storm (7.8.) and Sylvi storm (8.8.)These severe storms had an impact on 11 days at the same regions multiplying their costs/effects.Asta was typical thunderstorm with downward flows but its strength and amount of lightnings (24 415) made it exceptional.Especially its occurrence during night hours with downward flows makes it rare – but fortunate as it prevented human losses.

18. Asta proceeded with 100km wide storm front and it affected the Finnish territory during 4.5 h, highest measured wind was 29 m/s. It affected five regions: South-Savo, Southern Karelia, Northern Karelia, North-Savo and Central Finland.The economic losses of this storm surge was biggest for the forestry (30 000 km2) and in financial terms 50,4 million euro (refunded by insurers).The electricity network was badly damaged affecting 1/3 of electricity providers in Finland (480 000 clients).Situational awareness in the regional rescue services was often felt as rather poor and incoherent.

19. Winter storms of 2011

20. Winter storms Tapani and Hannu 2011Tapani strom hit the west coast after midnight on 26.12. and moved across the country lasting 16 hours. Hannu (27.12.) had some gust wind speeds of over 30 m/s on sea areas in the Bothnian Bay.Both storms caused severe faults on electricity lines and complicated CI repair efforts.Situational data and early warning awareness was felt better than in Asta strom among the regional authorities.

21. Flooding of 2005

22. Flash flooding 2005This case study describes early warning mechanism and emergency response procedures that were used in tackling the severe flooding incident of January 7-8th, 2005.It describes the material and socio-economic losses and societal damages caused by rising sea waters in the Gulf of Finland.It highlights the cascading effects on critical infrastructures (Nuclear Power Plant Loviisa).It draws conclusion of the national crisis management system and the regional risk mitigation efforts.

23. General conclusionsThere are administrative, organizational and strategic challenges related to decreasing civil protection budgets within the Member States. The wide range of actors – both national and multinational – are not fully involved nor sufficiently interlinked into EU disaster risk management (preparedness, response, consequence management) and critical infrastructure protection (PPP).Better interoperability along with deeper organizational synergies is needed - cross the sectors and cross the borders. Stronger EU partnerships and hybrid networks (academia, industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, agencies) allow better civil protection response and shared civil security capacities (compare military cooperation).Enhanced role of citizens and volunteers support the work of first responders – particularly in rural and long distance areas. The bottom line is a better response with more coordinated action.

24. Common European emergency response system (112)Bringing all the systems together in a common or mutual system will be important for the citizens of the EU countries, and will also provide opportunities for more efficient and cost-effective emergency servicesIt is a challenge to provide emergency response services in all EU languages. One solution to this problem that was outlined was that all callers are connected to their home country ERC in order to get assistance in their native languageThe Baltic Sea Region should be seen as a potential area for the European-scale pilot project on efficient 112-cross-border cooperation and a single call centre to handle all 112 calls from several countries should be set up on a trial basis There should be the same emergency number and the same responsible authorities in all countries. More information, with easier access and regular updates, should be put on the Internet, maybe via a joint EU 112-website

25. Cross-Border education, training and researchSo far, cross-border cooperation has been a very local issue, but it has worked rather well. However, it is recommended that higher-level basic agreements on cooperation are developed and implementedThere should be direct technical connections between ERCs in different countries so that calls from other countries can be transferred with easeThe vision should be of a Baltic Sea Region and European Union wherein an emergency situation, one can get hold of adequate information, in one’s own language in order to protect oneself more effectivelyIt is recommended that a systme is put in place that when one travels, works or studies in another country, one should be able to understand given signals, signs etc. If in danger, (earthquake, a flood, avalanche etc.) one should be able to understand warnings/notifications

26. Societal security and risk resilienceThere is no shared understanding in Europe or in the BSR on the limits of cooperation or integration in civil protection but most actors agree upon the desirability of further integration and closer regional cooperationThe following challenges and priorities are critical areas of concern for the whole disaster reduction process: Risk assessments for decision-makingReduce vulnerability and strengthen operational capacities as a priorityAddressing new trends in hazard and vulnerability (NB Increase in extreme weather events)Results and recommendations from risk assessment and mapping may create conflicts due to political and economic interests and thus require well-coordinated and established cross-border and cross-sectoral cooperation, exchange of information (including intelligence) and expertise, as well as the development of a cohesive regional safety culture through education, training and communication between all interested parties at regional, national and local levels

27. Review of crisis management strategyThere are administrative, organizational and strategic challenges related to decreasing civil protection budgetsThe wide range of actors – both national and multinational – are not fully involved nor sufficiently interlinked in disaster risk management (preparedness, response, consequence management)Better interoperability along with deeper organizational synergies is needed - cross the sectors and cross the bordersStronger partnerships and hybrid networks (academia, industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, agencies) allow better civil protection response and shared civil security capacitiesEnhanced role of citizens and volunteers support the work of first responders – particularly in rural and long distance areas is needed. The result will be a more effective response with more coordinated actionRAIN Project – DRMKC Workshop – 16th March 2017

28.

29.