TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL PROTECTION HANDBOOK FOR EU …ec.europa.eu/echo/files/civil_protection/civil/prote/pdfdocs/savecoop... · HANDBOOK FOR EU MEMBER STATES AND EEA COUNTRIES

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL PROTECTION HANDBOOKFOR EU MEMBER STATES AND EEA COUNTRIES

Final Report save.cooperation 1

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL PROTECTION HANDBOOK FOR EU MEMBER STATES

AND EEA COUNTRIES

SAVE.COOPERATION FINAL REPORT

March 2007

Co-funded by the

European Commission, DG Environment, Unit Civil Protection

Grant Agreement No 07.030601/2004/391692

Contact information:

u [email protected] www http://save.redcross.at

z +43 1 58900 132

t Austrian Red Cross, Department of Ambulance service and national disaster relief Wiedner Hauptstraße 32, 1040 Vienna, Austria


Table of Contents Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................3 List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1 Introduction & Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 9 2 Project Management & Implementation........................................................................................................... 10

2.1 General Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Places of execution............................................................................................................................................ 18 2.4 Partnerships of the Project ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.5 Expected Results................................................................................................................................................. 21 2.6 Management of the project ........................................................................................................................23

3 Activities and Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Qualitative Methodology – Desk research......................................................................................... 25 3.2 Quantitative Methodology – Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 25 3.3 Qualitative Methodology – Site visits ................................................................................................... 27 3.4 Qualitative Methodology – Workshop .................................................................................................28

4 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 4.1 Desk research ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 4.2 Quantitative Evaluation - Questionnaire............................................................................................ 34 4.3 Qualitative Evaluation – Site visits......................................................................................................... 43 4.4 Qualitative Evaluation - Final Workshop ........................................................................................... 44

5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.1 Legal requirement ............................................................................................................................................ 48 5.2 Capabilities and interfaces............................................................................................................................ 51 5.3 Public resilience ................................................................................................................................................... 61 5.4 Finance and funding ........................................................................................................................................ 63

6 Recommendations and Guidelines...................................................................................................................... 65 7 Post project activities ................................................................................................................................................. 72 8 Literature .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73

8.1 Literature ............................................................................................................................................................... 73 8.2 Further reading.................................................................................................................................................. 74

Appendix 1: Questionnaire (incl. statistics) Appendix 2: Final Workshop Appendix 3: Contact information of experts involved Appendix 4: Presentations of the final workshop

The final report and the appendices can also be found on the CD-ROM attached.


Table of Figures Figure 1: Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS)........................................................................ 31 Figure 2: Legal requirement to perform tasks .......................................................................................................35 Figure 3: Legal requirement to make use of hazard analyses......................................................................38 Figure 4: Distribution of information ............................................................................................................................38 Figure 5: Effects of joint trainings.................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 6: Important lessons learned from evaluation......................................................................................... 42

List of Tables Table 1: Core-group Members ................................................................................................... 15 Table 2: Site Visits ..................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3: Speakers of Final Workshop ....................................................................................... 16 Table 4: Project meetings .......................................................................................................... 18 Table 5: Fields of interest of the questionnaire ......................................................................... 26 Table 6: Methods of statistical examination .............................................................................. 26 Table 7: Bivariate statistical analysis......................................................................................... 27 Table 8: Main topics and key questions of the final workshop .................................................. 29 Table 9: Advantages and disadvantages of a legal framework ................................................ 49 Table 10: Topics to be covered by an ideal legal framework .................................................... 49 Table 11: Topics to be dealt with in agreements ........................................................................ 50 Table 12: Advantages and disadvantages of possible forms of agreements ............................. 50 Table 13: Checklist for an ideal coordinating body .................................................................... 54 Table 14: Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection..... 55 Table 15: Potential parameters to measure Civil Protection efficiency ...................................... 55 Table 16: Guidelines for informing the public............................................................................. 62 Table 17: Topics to be covered by a legal framework ............................................................... 65 Table 18: Topics to be dealt with in agreements ....................................................................... 66 Table 19: Guideline for the development of a coordinating body.............................................. 67 Table 20: Potential parameters to measure Civil Protection efficiency ..................................... 70 Table 21: Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection .... 71


List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning ARC Austrian Red Cross BRC British Red Cross CBRN Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear C2 Command and Control DG Directorate General EC European Commission EEA European Economic Area EU European Union GIS Geographic Information System GO Governmental Organisation GRC German Red Cross IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IDP Internally Displaced Person IEMS Integrated Emergency Management System

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

MoI Ministry of Internal Affairs/Ministry of the Interior MoU Memorandum of Understanding MS Member State(s) MSF Médecins Sans Frontières

NEDIES Natural and Environmental Disaster Information Exchange System

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OCD Office Central de la Défense PMI Project Management Institute PNNC Permanent National Network Correspondents PR Public Relations RC Red Cross RC/EU Red Cross/European Union Office RCRC Red Cross Red Crescent ROHI Return On Humanitarian Investment ROI Return On Investment SLA Service Level Agreement UN United Nations UN/DHA United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs ZGV “Zentralstelle für Gesamtverteidigung"


Executive Summary Project history: In 2004 DG Environment called for proposals in the field of Community co-operation as regards Civil Protection. The Austrian Red Cross submitted a project proposal for the item 3.4, priority field 1: “A major project building on the civil protection systems of the Member States or other European Economic Area Countries to develop a coherent civil protection concept taking into account the following steps involved: Hazard analysis, mitigation, planning & preparedness, coordinated response and recovery. This civil protection concept should be applied on two scenarios, floods and CBRN risks.” The proposal was accepted by DG Environment. Project leader: Austrian Red Cross Project partner: German Red Cross Project duration: 27 months (13 December 2004 – 13 March 2007). Project funding: 75% European Commission, DG Environment, Unit Civil Protection 12,5% Austrian Red Cross 12,5% German Red Cross

Project objectives: Developing recommendations and guidelines for civil protection mechanisms on how to

proceed in the event of natural or man-made disasters in order to protect European citizens in a coordinated and efficient way.

Supporting the development of defining a common strategy on how to proceed in the event of a disaster.

Providing an overview of the status quo of cooperation in the field of civil protection systems within the European Union Member States and the European Economic Area Countries.

Identifying problems and possible solutions for the cooperation between Governmental Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations.

Optimising the communication process between organisations involved in disaster relief: interfaces, coordination, access to information, public resilience, legal basis.

Finding (good practice) ways to strengthen the interoperability and cooperation within the civil protection systems of the European Union Member States and the European Economic Area Countries.

Creating a sustainable forum with the aim to foster the exchange of experiences and knowledge between experts by implementing a website (http://save.redcross.at).

Project partnership: The Austrian Red Cross as project leader built up a close partnership with German Red Cross Core-group, consisting of

- Austrian Red Cross - German Red Cross - Red Cross/European Union Office


- Austrian Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs - German Federal Ministry of the Interior - European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre – Natural and Environmental Disaster

Information Exchange System (NEDIES) Red Cross National Societies Non-Governmental Organisations working in Civil Protection Governmental Civil Protection Units

Main phases of the project: Phase 1: Preparatory and research Phase 2: Exchange of results and organisation of a final workshop Phase 3: Final workshop Phase 4: Final report Methodology:

Project deliverables: Questionnaire Site visits Final workshop Final Report Project website

Findings

Desk

research

Question-

naire

Site

visits

Work shop

Conclusions

Recommendations


Recommendations: Based on more than one-hundred conclusions from the activities carried out, the following recommendations were drawn from save.cooperation and give an impression of the project findings: Establishing a legal framework

At an European Union level, consideration could be given to developing a recommendation that would encourage national initiatives to establish a comprehensive legal framework on the cooperation of government and non-governmental organisation in the field of civil protection. The National Governments of European Union Member States and European Economic Area Countries should establish a comprehensive legal framework, which is relevant and can also be applied at a regional level. Non-Governmental Organisations should use their lobbying ability to facilitate the process. Establishing a coordinating body

At an European Union level, coordination mechanisms (as for example the civil protection mechanism) could take the role of internationally acting NGOs more into account. The national governments of the European Union Member States and European Economic Area Countries should create the legal basis for effective coordinating bodies with clear attributes and tasks. This legal basis should be relevant and applicable also at a regional level. Non-Governmental Organisations should use their lobbying ability to facilitate the process. Intensifying cooperation

Non-Governmental Organisations should be working together during all phases of Civil Protection, creating national registers of Non-Governmental Organisations, forming platforms of common interest. At an European Union and national governmental level of the European Union Member States and European Economic Area Countries the responsible bodies should regard the resources and contributions of Non-Governmental Organisations through all phases of Civil Protection, integrating their “voice” into decision-making and coordinating bodies. Clear funding for Non-Governmental Organisations

Non-Governmental Organisations should procure a combination of channels to fund their activities in Civil Protection. One of the sources should be contributions by national and regional governments, who should define clear ways to contribute to the financing of Non-Governmental Organisation activities and create an Non-Governmental Organisation-friendly atmosphere. Raising public resilience

Non-Governmental Organisations should be aware of their important role in raising public awareness and establish and carry out joint programmes (with Governmental Organisations) on a level close to the beneficiary. Regional and national authorities should make full use of the potential of the Non-Governmental Organisations. The Commission and National Governments could call for proposals in this area of activity. Using management by relationship

National Governments, regional and local authorities and Non-Governmental Organisations should carry out joint trainings and exercises bringing together players at strategic, tactical and operational levels of all organisations with special regard to informing about the advantages and disadvantages of management by relationship in Civil Protection.


The keyword is “common” The Commission, National Governments, regional and local authorities and Non-Governmental Organisations and other stakeholders (such as scientists, the private sector and public representatives) should be part of a comprehensive process of defining policies for Civil Protection – focussed on the needs of the beneficiaries. Establishing quality-assurance and efficiency-measurement

Sustainable systems to measure the efficiency of Civil Protection systems and the individual organisations involved should be developed. More joint research activities contributing to the challenges should be carried out on at European Union, national Governmental Organisation and Non-Governmental Organisation levels. Benefit from all-organisation approach

The European Commission and the national and governmental level should go through a formal process of documenting the nature of cooperation with the Non-Governmental Organisations, for example by signing memoranda of understanding, or service-level agreements or contracts. Defining common terms

Commission and National Governments supported by scientists, Non-Governmental Organisations and private sector representatives should define key terms of Civil Protection and implement them on all levels. Continuation: Several dissemination activities are planned after the official end of the project to inform organisations and stakeholders working in the field of civil protection in order to guarantee more sustainability of the project outcome. The following activities are included in the dissemination plan after approval of the report by the European Commission: The final report will be spread in hard copy and/or CD-ROM to all workshop participants,

interview partners of the site visits, Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations who answered the questionnaire, the Permanent National Network Correspondents, the Red Cross National Societies and relevant universities and libraries.

The final report will be published on websites of cooperation partners, for example European Union, NEDIES, Austrian Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs, Red Cross/European Union Office, Austrian Red Cross and German Red Cross.

Articles will be written about the main findings of the report and published in different journals. We have identified relevant journals and will also use media of the Red Cross network in Europe.

We are planning the use of the project results for the NEDIES project (e.g. including the lessons learned, good practice and other findings into the NEDIES database).

The save.cooperation website will be maintained by the Austrian Red Cross and will be used for further projects in the field of Civil Protection. We intend to use the recommendations in current projects and activities as well as in future projects (e.g. for DG Environment). Lessons learned shall contribute to avoid “re-inventing the wheel”.


1 Introduction & Acknowledgements In an environment suffering from change or even new risks and increasing complexity of supply systems, the citizens of the European Union Member States (EUMS) and the European Economic Area Countries (EEAC) have a right to expect a capable, persistent and comprehensive system of civil protection. Creating such a comprehensive system takes tremendous effort, using all the resources of all stakeholders (science and authorities, the private sector and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) - including voluntary and international organisations - and the population, the beneficiary) and therefore takes the focus in all activities. Interoperability and interoperation become more and more important, as we can only cope with the hazards if we respond in a joint manner. This project focuses on the joint work of Governmental Organisations (GOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), which is not always free of prejudice and tension. It looks at the status quo of European GO/NGO relations in civil protection in order to highlight possible ways of improving further cooperation. We are very happy to be part of a model of good practice that affected the project in a very positive way. The relationship between the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior (MoI) and the Red Cross Societies of Austria and Germany, which jointly carried out the project, can truly be seen as a role-model for good cooperation. The Austrian MoI has been totally supportive of the project using its international network and providing the venue for the final workshop. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the individuals and organisations that contributed to the success of our project: the European Commission, Austrian Red Cross and German Red Cross for their financial

support and encouragement each member of the project core-group members of Government and Non-Governmental Organisations in Austria, Germany,

Estonia, Finland, Poland and United Kingdom who participated in the site visits. members of Government and Non-Governmental Organisations who represented their

country as delegates or speakers at the workshop volunteers and staff of the Austrian Red Cross who facilitated at the workshop the project team within the Austrian Red Cross

We would like to give our very special thanks to Moya Wood-Heath of the British Red Cross for her support throughout the project.

Barbara Reischl Jürgen Högl Project manager Project coordinator


2 Project Management & Implementation 2.1 General Objectives

2.1.1 General Objectives – Initially planned The general objective of the project is to develop recommendations and guidelines for civil protection mechanisms on how to proceed in the event of natural or man-made disasters (verified by case studies on Floods and Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear - CBRN) in order to protect the European citizens in a coordinated and efficient way. The outcome of the project will assist the European Commission and relevant public authorities of the European Union (EU) Member States and European Economic Area countries (EEA countries) to develop a transferable and coherent civil protection system that is valid for all EU Member States and in the EEA countries. The aim is to analyse existing civil protection systems in partner countries based on case studies and lessons learned about real disasters (Flood & CBRN) in order to develop a set of guidelines that will take the following into account: identifying interfaces between organisations involved in disaster relief; identifying a common language within the sector; identifying ways to strengthen the inter-operability within the civil protection systems of

the EU Member States and the EEA countries; recommendations on how to increase the cooperation between stakeholders, i.e.

Governmental and Non-Governmental organisations, in order to support the development of defining a common strategy on how to proceed in the event of a disaster;

ways to inform the general public, with special focus on the affected population and how to support the victims.

In order to accomplish the targets set, the civil protection concept to be developed will, as stated in the 2004 Call for proposals, involve hazard analysis, mitigation, planning and preparedness, coordinated response and recovery. The project will facilitate the creation of a sustainable forum with the aim to foster the exchange of experience and knowledge between experts. The results will enable a clear improvement of national civil protection capabilities for dealing with disasters.

2.1.2 General Objectives - Actually implemented Due to the fact that the original title of the project “Towards a European Civil Protection Handbook for EU Member States and EEA Countries” did not clearly show the main focus of the project, in agreement with the Commission it was decided to add a subtitle, i.e. 'save.cooperation'. The use of a subtitle would better reflect the focus of the project - a handbook of best practices for the cooperation, especially interoperability, between NGOs and GOs in the field of civil protection.


The project save.cooperation gives an overview of the status quo of cooperation in the field of civil protection systems within EU Member States and EEA countries. In addition to the evaluation of the current state, particular problems and possible solutions in cooperation with organisations - particularly Governmental Organisations (GOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) - are identified. Recommendations for an improvement of this cooperation are based on good practise models and lessons learned from flood disasters in these countries and on conclusions of preparative measures in the field of CBRN. One key conclusion of the initial research phase of the project was, that independent from the type of disaster, interoperation works upon the same rules and needs, even more on the strategic level examined. In other words, there are no major differences in on the issues researched when comparing flood or CBRN disasters. Another result was, that a common language – seen from the technical point of view - is not a key for successful interoperability, but follows the will and aim to cooperate. This is why the objective “identification of a common language within the sector” was not a main focus of the project. A close look at the role allocation of GOs and NGOs in the field of civil protection reveals quite a different picture in every single EU member state. While NGOs have a crucial role to play in some states, they only have marginal tasks to fulfil in other countries. The intensity of cooperation between NGOs and GOs seems to correspond with the tasks foreseen for these organisations. The project helps to provide an overview of the situation and focuses on the joint activities of these organisations in planning and preparedness and lessons learned from the experiences of flood and CBRN disasters. It intends to find good practice models for functioning, cooperation and possible ways to strengthen the cooperation and interoperability between organisations involved in civil protection. The analyses of the existing civil protection systems finally led to a set of guidelines that take the following into account: optimization of the communication process between organisations involved in disaster

relief: interfaces, coordination, access to information, public resilience, legal basis; (good practice) ways to strengthen the interoperability and cooperation within the civil

protection systems of the EU Member States and the EEA countries; support the development of defining a common strategy on how to proceed in case of a

disaster. Furthermore, the project facilitates the creation of a sustainable forum with the aim to foster the exchange of experience and knowledge between experts by implementing a website http://save.redcross.at. All findings, conclusions and recommendations are summarised in the final report.


2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Methodology – initially planned The project is to consist of the following phases: Phase 1: Preparation and research (10 months) Phase 2: Exchange of results and organisation of a final workshop (8 months) Phase 3: Final workshop (3 days) Phase 4: Final report (6 months) 1st Phase: Preparation and research

Elements of the preparatory phase are: Formation of the core event planning group (8 persons), including the project leader

Core-group definition: o 1 Project manager o 1 Project coordinator = expert on floods (Austrian Red Cross) o 1 Expert on floods (German Red Cross) o 1 Expert on Disaster Management (Austrian Red Cross) o 1 Expert on biological disasters (University of Natural Resources and Applied Life

Sciences, Vienna) o 1 Expert on chemical disasters (French Ministry of the Interior) o 2 Experts on nuclear and radiological disasters (International Atomic Energy Agency

- IAEA, Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior)

Core-group planning meetings (8 persons to 6 meetings) Planning of the kick-off meeting Establishing the project management structures

2-day kick-off meeting (1st core-group meeting) The aim of the meeting is to set the scene for the project and to define criteria on how to analyse instruments and methods of flood and CBRN civil protection systems in every partner country.

Research: The partners will investigate the civil protection systems available in their country for different scenarios. This work package will include:

compilation of existing literature and documents; identification of disasters to perform case studies; site visits by a core-group member at identified sites of interests; building an inventory of best practices, experiences and lessons learned; identifying experts and institutions related to the project objectives; production of draft scenario reports to display at the following core-group meeting.

2nd core-group meeting, duration 1 day (mutual monitoring of procedure and preparation

of a 3-day work meeting).

Finalising scenario reports and sending them to the project coordinator.


2nd Phase: Exchange of results and organisation of a final workshop. 3-day work meeting (extended 3rd core-group meeting consists of core-group members

and other relevant experts from EU Member States and EEA countries) with the following aim:

summary of the scenario reports; identification of major topics for the final workshop, for example: horizontal aspects recommendations, guidelines and handbook implementation of a sustainable European network of civil protection experts establishing common training modules.

vertical aspects hazard analysis, mitigation, planning and preparedness, coordinated response and recovery. draft workshop design identifying potential participants for the final workshop.

The project co-ordinator in cooperation with the Austrian Red Cross and supported by the

Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior supported by the core-group will organise the final workshop.

Establishing the workshop design Establishing the workshop programme Invitation of participants Production of publicity material for the event and Workshop administration (travel, accommodation, etc.)

4th core-group meeting 1 day Preparation of the final workshop

3rd Phase: Final workshop 5th Core-group meeting (one day prior to the start of the final workshop) Final workshop

The workshop will be based on the findings of phase 1 and 2 and will lead to phase 4. The 3-day workshop will take place in Vienna and will be led by the Austrian Red Cross and supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior, supported by the core-group. English and French will be the official workshop’s languages. The workshop will be designed to secure the delivery of essential information by appropriate documentation distributed in advance and brief presentations by key speakers from a range of organisations. Delegate attendance will include: 2 representatives from each EU member state and EEA country, core-group members, speakers, workgroup facilitators, guests and administrators. A series of themed and facilitated simultaneous mini-workgroups will be the core method of the workshop and will encourage delegate participation, stimulate sharing of information, development of issues at a European level and suggestions for guidance.


The overall product of the workshop will be the formation of a European-wide forum of a Civil Protection Network. This platform will enable delegates to share good practice, identify issues at European level, learn from each other and develop guidelines and recommendations, in an interesting, active learning and participatory style.

Delegates:

Maximum to be accommodated – 70 persons Maximum funded representation of 2 persons from each European Union Member State

and European Economic Area Country to include 1 government representative and one NGO sector representative. The Permanent National Network Correspondents (PNNC) member of each European Union Member State and European Economic Area Country should nominate the representatives, aiming for individuals with relevant expertise.

Additional delegates may attend if they are able to secure alternative funding. Nominated persons should have knowledge of or involvement in civil protection systems. To reflect diversity and balance, the NGO sector delegates should represent a range of

voluntary organisations which are part of the established structure of national civil protection in European Union Member States and European Economic Area Countries.

4th Phase: Final Report A final report with the following contents will be developed: details of the purpose, aims and findings of the preparatory and research activities, an analysis and synthesis of the whole project process, results of the discussions held in the workshop, project conclusions, recommendations and suggestions regarding guidance, implementation (European Civil Protection Handbook) by the public authorities, the

involved services or organisations, description of follow-up activities to evaluate the impact of conducted actions.

The core-group will have a final 1-day meeting (6th core-group meeting) to discuss the final report and strategies for dissemination. The report will be available in English and distributed to European Union Member States and European Economic Area Countries, workshop delegates and other interested individuals. The final report will also be placed on the websites of the European Union, the Austrian Red Cross and the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior.

2.2.2 Methodology – Actually implemented The Project began on February 1st, 2005. Phase 1: Preparation and research (Feb. 2005 – Sept. 2006) Phase 2: Exchange of results and organisation of a final workshop (Jan. 2006 - Oct. 2006) Phase 3: Final workshop (26 – 28 Oct. 2006) Phase 4: Final report (Oct. 2006 – March 2007)


1A) Preparation: Formation of the Core-group:

Organisation Name

Austrian MoI Christian Krol

Austrian Red Cross Barbara Reischl (Project Manager)

Austrian Red Cross Jürgen Högl (Project Coordinator)

CBRN Expert Matthias Haiden

German MoI Willi Marzi

German Red Cross Ulrich Cronenberg

NEDIES – Joint Research Centre Stefan Scheer

Red Cross EU Office Moya Wood-Heath

Table 1 : Core-group Members

Kick-Off Meeting: the aim was to set the goal of the project and to define criteria on how to analyse instruments and methods of flood and CBRN civil protection systems in every partner country.

Think Tank with Austrian and German stakeholders to clarify the objectives of the project and identify relevant information and hypotheses.

1B) Research: The partners investigated the civil protection systems available in their country for different scenarios. This work package included: compilation of existing literature and documents, identification of disasters to perform case studies, development of a questionnaire and analysis, site visits by core-group members at identified sites of interests, build-up of an inventory of best practices, experiences and lessons learned, identification of experts and institutions related to the project objectives, production of draft scenario reports displayed at the following core-group meetings.

Date Country Organisation (Interview partner)

11 July 2006 + 26-27 July 2006

Austria Federal MoI, Fire Service, Mountain Rescue, Austrian Red Cross

14-18 July 2006 Germany Federal MoI, MoI Saxony-Anhalt, German Red Cross, Red Cross Saxony-Anhalt

20-21 July 2006 Poland Fire Defence University, Polish Red Cross, Water Voluntary Emergency Service

29-30 Aug. 2006 Estonia Estonian Defence League, Estonian Radiation Protection Centre, Estonian Rescue Board, Federal MoI, Estonian Police, Estonian Red Cross

4-5 Sept. 2006 Finland Federal MoI, Finnish Environment Institute, Police, Finnish Red Cross

18-19 Sept. 2006 United Kingdom London Resilience Team, Police National CBRN Centre, British Red Cross

Table 2 : Site Visits


2A) Exchange: Extended core-group meeting with other relevant experts from EU Member States and EEA countries with the following aims: summary of the site visits (6 countries: Germany, Estonia, Finland, United Kingdom, Poland,

Austria), feedback and analysis of the questionnaire, identification of major topics for the final workshop draft workshop design, identification of potential participants for the final workshop.

2B) Organisation of the Final Workshop: In cooperation with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoI) establishment of the workshop design, establishment of the workshop programme, invitation of the participants, production of publicity material for the event, workshop administration (travel, accommodation, etc.).

3) Final Workshop 26-28 Oct. 2006 in Vienna: prior distribution of appropriate documentation, brief presentation by key speakers from a range of organisations, English as the official language of the workshop, core method of the workshop: themed simultaneous mini-workshops to encourage

participation and sharing of information, to develop issues at a European level and suggestions for guidance,

overall product was the formation of a European-wide forum of a Civil Protection Network to share good practice, identify issues at European level, learn from each other in an interesting, active learning and participatory style and develop guidelines and recommendations,

delegates: 65 experts from 21 European Union Member States, 8 key speakers from the following institutions:

Name Organisation Country

Rudolf Christoph Department of Crisis Management, Vienna Austria

Wolf Dombrowsky University of Kiel Germany

Paul Forbes Police National CBRN Centre United Kingdom

Wolfgang Kastel Civil Protection Association of Vienna Austria

Johannes Leitner University of Economics, Vienna Austria

Merja Rapeli Finnish Red Cross Finland

Gary Silver London Resilience Team United Kingdom

Kerry Williams Civil Contingencies Secretariat United Kingdom

Table 3 : Speakers of Final Workshop


4) Final Report: With the following contents: details of the purpose, aims and findings of the preparatory and research activities, an analysis and synthesis of the whole project process, results of the discussions held in the workshop, project conclusions, recommendations and suggestions, regarding guidance for

implementations, available in English and on websites of European Union, Austrian Red Cross, Austrian MoI.

Dissemination Plan:

Questionnaire: gives information about the project, encourages visiting the project website to get more information and to save the date of the final workshop.

Project website (http://save.redcross.at) gives information about: the project in general (applicant, partner, EU, objectives, team, contact), the findings (questionnaire, site visits, final workshop, final report), other relevant projects, meetings, experts in the field of civil protection, the national profiles of the EU Member States and EEA countries.

Final Workshop: The 3-day workshop took place in Vienna and was led by the Austrian Red Cross and supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior. The official workshop’s language was English. Representatives (NGO and GO) from each EU Member State and EEA country, Bulgaria and Romania (both countries were not EU members at this time) were invited to the workshop. Final Report: is published on the project website and sent out to all addressees of the questionnaire after acceptance of the report by the EU. The results of the project will be disseminated by articles published in various journals.

2.2.3 Comments and Lessons Learned In addition to all initially planned activities, we decided to develop a questionnaire to send out to GOs and NGOs in all EU Member States and EEA countries in order to survey a wide range of information and experience concerning the objectives of the project. The desk research pointed out that the differences between the civil protection systems in Europe are partly so huge that it was necessary to collect as much information as possible. The number of returned and filled out questionnaires and the participation at the final workshop give evidence to this assumption. Moreover this activity boosted the European-added value of the whole project. Furthermore, it was discovered that the only efficient and cost-effective way to create a sustainable forum for experts to exchange experience and knowledge is the creation of a website. It provides a platform for communicating results or planned activities to all relevant and interested organisations and individuals. Even the specially designed logo of the project received very good feedback and raised the awareness of the project and its objectives as well as appreciation for the whole project team.


2.3 Places of execution

2.3.1 Places of execution – Initially planned The head office of the project will be located in Vienna at the Austrian Red Cross headquarters.

The kick-off meeting (1st core-group meeting) and the final 6th core-group meeting will be held in Brussels at the Red Cross EU Office.

The final workshop in combination with the 5th core-group meeting as well as the extended 3rd core-group meeting will be hosted in Vienna.

The 2nd and the 4th core-group meeting will be in Berlin at the German Red Cross headquarters.

One core-group member will attend every site visit in each partner country in order to overview the project process.

2.3.2 Places of execution – Actually implemented

Date Title Location Participants

16-17 March 2005 Kick-Off Meeting / Project Partner Meeting

Berlin (RC) 5 pers.: ARC, GRC

19-20 May 2005 Think Tank Vienna (RC) 10 pers.: Austrian and German Stakeholder

15 Apr. 2005 Project Owner Meeting Brussels (DG Env.) 4 pers.: DG Environment, ARC, GRC

28-29 July 2005 Project Partner Meeting Berlin (RC) 7 pers.: ARC, GRC 20-21 Sept. 2005 Project Partner Meeting Vienna (RC) 7 pers.: ARC, GRC

15-16 Dec. 2005 Project Owner Meeting Brussels (DG Env.) 4 pers.: DG Env., RC/EU-office, ARC, GRC

14-15 March 2006 Core-group Meeting Vienna (RC) 11 persons: core-group, ARC 5-7 Apr. 2006 Project Partner Meeting Schweinfurt 3 pers.: ARC, GRC 12-14 July 2006 Core-group Meeting Berlin (RC) 9 pers.: core-group

5 Oct. 2006 Project Partner Meeting Vienna (RC) 3 pers.: ARC, GRC

26-28 Oct. 2006 Final Workshop incl. Core-group Meeting

Vienna (MoI) 65 pers. from 21 EU Member States

14 Feb. 2007 Core-group Meeting Vienna (RC) 10 pers.: core-group, ARC 26-28 Feb. 2007 Think Tank Ispra (EC JRC) 4 pers.: ARC, JRC

9 March 2007 Final Project Presentation Brussels (DG Env.) 9 pers.: DG Env., core-group, ARC, GRC

Table 4 : Project Meetings

2.3.3 Comments and Lessons Learned The most important lesson learned here is that regular meetings are necessary for a successful project process, above all between project partners. This is why more meetings took place than initially planned; nevertheless the travel costs were kept to a minimum.


As one core-group member was a representative of the Joint Research Centre, the idea arose that the results of the project could be linked with NEDIES to guarantee some kind of sustainability. 2.4 Partnerships of the Project

2.4.1 Partnership – Initially planned Austrian Red Cross (ARC) and German Red Cross (GRC) work in close cooperation: ARC tasks:

responsibility for project management, to build up relevant co-operations, formation of the core-group, planning of all meetings, establishing a sustainable forum between EU-wide experts on civil protection topics, identification of institutions and experts relevant to the project, compilation of existing literature and documents identification of relevant disasters to perform case studies, including site visits, to create an inventory of best practices, experiences and lessons learned, development of scenario reports, ARC will investigate the civil protection systems available in Austria on both scenes,

according to the call, organise the final workshop, responsibility for the composition of the final report.

GRC tasks:

investigation of the civil protection systems, available in Germany on both scenes employment of a project assistant, identification of institutions and experts relevant to the project, compilation of existing literature and documents, identification of relevant disasters to perform case studies, including site visits, to create an inventory of best practices, experiences and lessons learned, development of scenario reports participate in all core-group meetings and extended meeting with an expert, help to organise the final workshop and participate in the final workshop with an

expert, support the composition of the final report.

Further partnership with:

Red Cross National Societies; Governmental Civil Protection Units; relevant organisations working in the field of CBRN issues

expected tasks: identification of relevant experts, contribution to the practices collection and analysis, involvement in the development of the final recommendations and guidelines, participation and support in the dissemination of the results, involvement in the monitoring and evaluation stages.


2.4.2 Partnership – Actually implemented Austrian Red Cross and German Red Cross work in close cooperation: Austrian Red Cross tasks:

responsibility for project management, building up relevant co-operations, formation of the core-group, planning all meetings, establishing a sustainable forum of the EU wide experts on civil protection topics, identifying institutions and experts relevant to the project, compilation of existing literature and documents, identification of relevant disasters to perform case studies, including site visits, to build an inventory of best practices, experiences and lessons learned, development of site visit reports, investigating the civil protection systems available in Austria and all other EU Member

States and EEA countries on both scenes, development and analysis of the questionnaire sent out to all EU Member States and

EEA countries, organisation of the final workshop, responsibility for the composition of the final report.

German Red Cross tasks:

investigation of the civil protection systems available in Germany on both scenes, employment of a project assistant, identification of institutions and experts relevant to the project, compilation of existing literature and documents, participation in all core-group meetings and other relevant meetings with an expert, participation in the final workshop with an expert as facilitator.

Further partnership with:

National Red Cross Societies; Governmental Civil Protection Units; relevant organisations working in the field of CBRN issues (for example Estonian

Radiation Protection Centre, Police National CBRN Centre United Kingdom etc.); expected tasks:

identification of relevant experts, contribution to the practices collection and analysis, involvement in the development of the final recommendations and guidelines, participation and support in the dissemination of the results, involvement in the monitoring and evaluation stages.

A detailed contact list of all experts involved in the project can be found in appendix 3.

2.4.3 Comments and Lessons Learned The project partner (German Red Cross) mandated a staff member as project assistant but sadly the candidate was on sick-leave from October 2005 onwards (almost until the end of project) and the German Red Cross suffered from a lack of personnel resources. This resulted in the shift of project tasks from the GRC to the Austrian Red Cross project team. In the course of these changes, the personnel costs also shifted. The necessity for a backup of personnel resources in the event of loss of a partner/staff member became clear.


Moreover, it is not reasonable if the project assistant is dislocated from the other main team partners – in our case the assistant was located in Berlin, the project manager, coordinator and other personnel, like trainees and administrative staff were in Vienna. Regarding communication, this dislocation requires an increase in time and effort. The cooperation with the core-group was important for the success of the project because it’s feedback supported our work. This group was composed of GOs as well as NGOs, thus bringing in different perspectives. Nevertheless the problem at the beginning of the project was the establishment of the planned core-group. Some of the prospective core-group members changed their minds and were not at our disposal when the project started. The lesson learned here was that a clear partner commitment is necessary. We had very good experiences with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoI). A meeting at the beginning of the project facilitated the immediate nomination of a core-group member, who accompanied us through the whole project and even joined us at some site visits. The Permanent National Network Correspondents (PNNCs) and the National Red Cross Societies in Europe were very helpful by spreading the questionnaire and organising the site visits. Although our contact person changed at DG Environment, successful cooperation continued. At the first meeting with the new representative we received very supportive project coaching. 2.5 Expected Results

2.5.1 Expected Results – Initially planned Building on existing civil protection systems and based on Flood and CBRN case studies, a general concept on measures for the interoperability and a common understanding is to be established. This concept will take into account the following steps: hazard analysis, mitigation, planning and preparedness, coordinated response, recovery.

The concept will contribute to finding best practices for the co-operation of countries in a disaster or emergency situation in order to increase the interoperability of the civil protection systems within EU Member States and EEA countries

Target groups: Civil protection authorities of EU Member States and EEA countries Civil protection organisations/institutions European citizens

Final product: Guidelines and recommendations (European Civil Protection Handbook) Network of experts


2.5.2 Expected Results – Actually implemented Questionnaire: To obtain an overview of the cooperation between GOs and NGOs in the field of civil protection within EU Member States, EEA countries, Bulgaria and Romania. Site visits: Based on the analysis and findings of the questionnaire, site visits to Austria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Poland and United Kingdom were arranged and held from May to September 2006. The aim of the site visits was to complete the findings of the questionnaire with special focus on the response-phase of flood and CBRN incidents in the countries visited. The project manager, the project coordinator and a member of the Austrian MoI met relevant players involved in disaster management in these countries to analyse relevant factors for interoperability and efficient disaster management. The discussion was based on real cases, lessons learned and best practices. Final Workshop: The workshop themes were based on the findings of the questionnaire and the site visits. Recommendations for the European Commission were explored in several working groups. These recommendations focus on improvements for the cooperation between GOs and NGOs. Through a series of themed and facilitated simultaneous mini-workgroups recommendations and guidelines were developed. The workshop also focused on identifying issues at a European level. Final report: Details of the purpose, aims and findings of the research and exchange activities are documented in the final report. This report includes an analysis and synthesis of the whole project process and documents the results of the discussions held in the workshop. Project website: http://save.redcross.at was created as a sustainable forum to obtain information and exchange knowledge. Target groups: Civil protection authorities of EU Member States and EEA countries Civil protection organisations/institutions European citizens

Final product: Final report including recommendations and guidelines Website including a list of experts, country profiles for Civil Protection and other project

relevant information

2.5.3 Comments and Lessons Learned We developed a detailed questionnaire and created a website which had not been initially planned. Moreover, we conducted site visits in six instead of four countries to gather more information and provide a north-to-south and east-to-west view on the civil protection systems. We also tried to involve the experience, knowledge and needs of new member states. Nevertheless collecting information and analysing “facts” on the issues of interoperability and cooperation in the field of civil protection was challenging.


2.6 Management of the project

2.6.1 Management – Initially planned Personnel resources: project coordinator employed by the Austrian Red Cross (28 hours per month for the total

duration of the project) project manager employed by the Austrian Red Cross within its research institute (86.5

hours per month for total duration of the project) project assistant employed by the German Red Cross (86.5 hours per month for duration

of 12 months) 6 core-group experts (18 days per expert for meetings and development of expertises)

Quality control mechanism: cost statements and progress reports will be delivered to the EU as required and

determined in the contract with the EU. Establishment of project management structures according to the Project Management Institute (PMI)-Standards

employment of a project manager of the Research Institute of the Austrian Red Cross

2.6.2 Management - Actually implemented Personnel resources: project coordinator employed by the Austrian Red Cross: Jürgen Högl, planning officer of

the department “national disaster relief and ambulance service” project manager employed by the Austrian Red Cross within its research institute: Barbara

Reischl project assistant employed by the German Red Cross: Heidi Richter (only from Feb. to Sept.

2005) 8 experts building up the core-group (including project manager and coordinator) additional personnel resources of the Austrian Red Cross for research and administration:

Hedwig Milchram, Hermann Danninger, Markus Werth, Gerlinde Haindl, Karma Heiss, Markus Fiala, Oliver Rapouch

Quality control mechanism: Cost statements and progress reports were not required in the grant agreement with DG

Environment Establishment of project management structures according to the PMI-Standards by the

project manager 4 Core-group meetings as a steering committee for the project process and 4 Project

Partner Meetings to enhance the cooperation 3 Meetings with representatives of DG Environment in Brussels and one core-group

meeting in Vienna with a representative of DG Environment


2.6.3 Comments and Lessons Learned The establishment of a core-group was very important for the project success because their critical questions and feedback maintained quality assurance during the whole process, and the meetings with this group of experts heralded important milestones. It is also very important to “live” the cooperation with the European Commission, DG Environment. This means communication not only by mails or letters but also in meetings. Much funding from the European Commission is invested in a project of this kind and it is necessary to clear the expectations and objectives during the whole process. One very good example of this was a meeting in Vienna where we worked together on the questionnaire and “acted in concert”. Furthermore, it was beneficial to involve trainees and young academics doing their alternative civilian service in the project, especially during the research phase.


3 Activities and Methodology Quantitative and qualitative research techniques were applied in order to achieve sound recommendations and guidelines. A questionnaire with univariate and bivariate statistics brought quantitative results, the qualitative information came from desk research activities, site visits with semi-structured interviews and the workshops held. 3.1 Qualitative Methodology – Desk research The initial desk research was based on the following methods: literature Research (especially project reports from other civil protection projects and

papers on legal and strategic framework of civil protection), internet Research (deepening and completing information about relevant topics identified in

the literature research). Desk research was subsequently carried out throughout the whole project to get additional, complete and complementary information in order to support the result of the quantitative and qualitative methods. 3.2 Quantitative Methodology – Questionnaire The Quantitative Research was carried out in form of a questionnaire.

3.2.1 Design, Sample, Distribution The following kinds of questions were used:1 rating of statements in 5 categories (1 to 5), ranking questions, multiple-choice and single-choice questions, dichotomous yes/no questions, (half-)open questions.

The questionnaire was distributed via e-mail to organisations involved in civil protection activities in EU Member States and EEA countries. The PNNCs and National Red Cross Societies were used as multipliers, spreading the questionnaire in order to reach as many organisations as possible.

3.2.2 Research questions – Univariate statistical analysis The fields of interest covered in the questionnaire came from findings of the initial desk research phase (see the complete questionnaire in appendix 1):

1 DIEKMANN, A.: “Empirische Sozialforschung”, publisher: Rohwolt Hamburg-Germany, 12th edition, 2004, p. 404 ff


What phases of civil protection are GOs/NGOs active in? Are there any differences? What is the geographical range of the organisations? What are the main tasks of the organisations?

Fields of activity

Is there a legal requirement to perform tasks in civil protection? Which ways of cooperation in civil protection are common? Is there a legal requirement for cooperation? Is there a coordinating body? Are there any joint activities in hazard analysis? Which hazard analyses are carried out? Who has access to the findings? How are they rated? Are there any joint activities to strengthen the resilience of the population? Are there periodically-held joint meetings? How are they rated? Are there joint trainings and exercises? How are they rated? Are there coordinated response plans? Do any response plans exist? Are they coordinated with other organisations? How are they rated? What can be learnt from occurred incidents (especially floods/CBRN)? Which problems/good examples can be seen/given for cooperation?

Cooperation in civil protection

Rating of the general cooperation Table 5 : Fields of interest of the questionnaire

Depending on the type of answers and questions and depending on the scale level of the data, the following methods for further statistical examination were used:2

absolute and relative frequency cumulated absolute and relative frequency

data with nominal and interval scale

mode (only with non-dichotomous questions) arithmetic average

data with interval scale unbiased standard deviation

Table 6 : Methods of statistical examination

3.2.3 Research questions – Bivariate statistical analysis Bivariate statistical analysis was carried out against the three independent variables: the existence of legal requirement for the performing of tasks, the existence of a coordinating body for cooperation, the occurrence of incidents within the last 10 years in order to find any dependencies of

other parameter values factors.

2 DIEKMANN, A.: “Empirische Sozialforschung”, publisher: Rohwolt Hamburg-Germany, 12th edition, 2004, p. 555-571


The independent variables were examined for possible dependencies with the dependent variables

existence of a legal requirement existence of a coordinating body

access to hazard analysis for floods and CBRN threats hazard analysis as a basis for further measures in the

organisation quality of findings of hazard analysis

distribution of information of hazards analysis joint activities, joint meetings, joint trainings own organisation participating in trainings

valuation of trainings strengthening cooperation added value of trainings

existence of response plans coordination of response plans with other organisations´

plans testing of response plans in exercise and training

standardization of response plans

existence of a legal requirement

existence of a coordinating body

occurrence of incidents in the last decade

general valuation of the cooperation between GOs and NGOs

Table 7 : Bivariate statistical analysis

The answer categories “strongly agree” and “agree” as well as “strongly disagree” and “disagree” from 5-step rating questions were combined and used as antipoles; neutral valuations were not taken into account in further analyses. 3.3 Qualitative Methodology – Site visits On the basis of the results of the questionnaires, some European countries reflecting the different specifications of European Civil Protection systems were chosen for site visits. Potential interview partners were asked to give a semi-structured interview based on the results of the questionnaires (with special regard to the individual country situation). The PNNCs and/or RC National Societies of the countries chosen were supported by organizing appointments with persons, who filled out the questionnaire and also with other relevant partner organisations in the specific countries. The aim of the site visits was to attain more information about the main issues of the questionnaire (clarification) to identify best/good practice models of cooperation between NGOs and GOs to identify lessons learned about real disasters and consequences on the cooperation to identify speakers or workshop leaders for the workshop in October 06


Expected results of the site visits were to obtain clear answers on the questions raised in the questionnaire to collect ideas for workshop issues to have key speakers and workshop leaders for the final workshop to obtain good contacts for future activities and for establishing an expert-forum

Method applied: meeting every organisation alone; no group-meetings interview with the experts (max. duration: 2 hours): initial overview of the results of the questionnaire in the specific country interview with the person (semi-standardised questions along the main issues of the

questionnaire) focus on “lessons learned” from the latest disaster(s) summarizing facts, ideas, recommendations as a basis for workshop and final report

3.4 Qualitative Methodology – Workshop

The final workshop took place in Vienna from 26-28 October 2006. It was led by the Austrian Red Cross and strongly supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs. Two representatives (representing GOs and NGOs) from each EU Member States and EEA country, Bulgaria and Rumania were invited.

See the complete programme of the workshop in appendix 2.

The purpose of the workshop was to complete the analyses on identified topics of the questionnaire and the site visits.

Five main topics were launched by keynote speeches. Later these were discussed in four parallel working groups (using the key questions). The aim was to identify good practise models, to share knowledge and to share lessons learned. In the closing discussion for each of the five main topics recommendations and guidelines were summed up. The workshop focused on identified issues at a European level as well as at national and regional levels.


Main topic Key questions

1. Does a legal definition of cooperation make sense? What opportunities and risks could be present?

2. What should be defined/not defined by legislation – targets, quality criteria, responsibilities, roles, players, funding, capacities, sanctions, interfaces, etc.?

LEGAL REQUIREMENT

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different kinds of legal bases – contracts, laws, memoranda?

1. What should the attributes be of the “ideal coordinating body”? Which tasks should be coordinated?

2. What can be done to improve the knowledge about competences and capabilities of each other in the field of civil protection?

3. What are the advantages and disadvantages for NGOs cooperating in civil protection (e.g. voluntary rescue service board)?

CAPABILITIES and INTERFACES

4. Which aspects/phases are essential to the cooperation between

GOs and NGOs? What should be done to improve “Civil Protection networking”?

1. What principles should be the basis for giving information and raising the resilience of the public? Are the needs of the population known? Which information should be shared?

2. How can GOs and NGOs support each other in their efforts to raise public resilience? Are there particular target groups that should be dealt with as a higher priority?

PUBLIC RESILIENCE

3. What are common targets regarding the resilience of the population? Which quality criteria could be defined to measure the efficiency?

1. Is it a financial benefit to involve NGOs in Civil Protection? What activities can be performed more cost effectively by NGOs?

2. What are possible ways for NGOs/GOs to finance civil protection activities?

3. Are NGOs supported by the government or do NGOs support the government? Is the government responsible for financing NGO activities in Civil Protection?

FINANCE and FUNDING

4. Fundraising after emergencies is a domain of NGOs. How important is this competence for financing Civil Protection activities?

1. What can be done to improve the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned between organisations?

2. Can NGOs/GOs be replaced by organisations for profit? Which tasks can be done only by GOs/NGOs? How will role assignment in Civil Protection develop? Will NGOs gain/lose importance?

3. What can/should be done to prevent dysfunctional competition among the Civil Protection players?

FUTURE CHALLENGES

4. Do we need a more comprehensive approach in Civil Protection? What are the 3 main challenges for cooperation in Civil Protection?

Table 8 : Main topics and key questions of the final workshop


4 Results 4.1 Desk research The desk research facilitated an overview of the status quo in civil protection and assisted in redirecting the focus of the project on specific issues. The findings of the desk research were the basis for further activities.

4.1.1 Definitions of terms One of the aims of the desk research was to find definitions of terms in civil protection. As there are no standard definitions for “Civil Protection” or the phases of Civil Protection within the EU Member States and EEA countries, the following definitions are used in this project:

4.1.1.1 Civil protection In this project the term “Civil Protection” was defined in the following way: “Civil Protection is to be understood as a series of actions and activities put forward by a country in order to protect human lives, goods, settlements and the environment from damage or from the danger of damage deriving from natural calamities, catastrophes and other disastrous events. In this context civil protection includes police and intelligence services”.3

4.1.1.2 Interoperability “Interoperability is the ability of systems, units or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together”.4 The above definition also reflects the essence of other definitions found. The term “interoperability” is mainly used in telecom, internet technology and the military. The Swiss defence department divides interoperability into mental, structural and material interoperability.5

4.1.1.3 Non-Governmental Organisations In the context of this project we use the following definition of the term NGO: An NGO is a not-for-profit or voluntary organisation or group, organized outside of institutionalized governmental structures and therefore typically independent from the authorities, though it may receive public funding. It can be organized at a local, regional, national or international level.6

3 Definition Civil Protection, February 2006; Adapted from Multilingual Glossary on Civil Protection 1990, European Commission/Member States Working Party International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, www.ifrc.org Wörterbuch für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe, Ständige Konferenz für Katastrophenvorsorge und Katastrophenschutz, 2.Auflage, Januar 2006 4 Definition Interoperability Dec. 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability 5 “Eidgenössisches Departement Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport” (Switzerland) 6 Definition NGO, February 2006, adapted from http://www.olev.de , http://ngo.org, http://docs.lib.duke.edu


4.1.2 Phases of Civil Protection

Figure 1: Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS)7

4.1.2.1 Hazard Analysis The systematic search and identification of factors, events or actions that present a potential risk, assessment of the ways these hazards may occur, and the evaluation of the risks and damages they may cause.

4.1.2.2 Mitigation The range of activities that prevent or mitigate the adverse affects of disasters.

4.1.2.3 Preparedness The range of activities that limit the impact of disasters by structuring the response and effecting a quick and orderly reaction to the disasters as well as planning actions to recover.

4.1.2.4 Response Activities addressing the immediate and short-term effects of an emergency or disaster. Response includes immediate actions for saving lives, protecting property, and meeting basic human needs.

4.1.2.5 Recovery Decisions made and actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring or improving the pre-disaster living conditions of the stricken community, while encouraging and facilitating necessary adjustments to reduce disaster risk.8

4.1.3 Civil protection as public good Public goods are commodities for which the cost of extending the service to an additional person is zero and which can be enjoyed by anyone (no one can be excluded)9

7 UCI Health Sciences of the University of California, Irvine, Dec. 2005, http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/emergencymanagement/emergencyMngtProgram/programPdfs/integratedEmergencyMangementSystems.pdf 8 IFRC, March 2007, www.ifrc.org 9 SAMUELSON P.A./NORDHAUS W.D.: “Economics”, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 16th International Edition, Boston 1998, p. 36

Mitigation

Preparedness

Response

Recovery Hazard Analysis


In a wider context public goods can be referred to as all goods and services that are of public interest and are vital to a country. Many tasks in civil protection affect the primarily public good’s health and security. Health and protection of citizens clearly lie within governmental responsibility. Normally the population is not in a position to choose or even have the will to choose whether or not to consume civil protection-goods (e.g. dams against flooding, avalanche-protection constructions) or services (for example CBRN decontamination, emergency ambulance services). Thus civil protection can be characterized as action taken for the good of the public.

4.1.4 Findings from other projects and meetings The purpose of the analysis of other relevant projects and meetings was to identify the status quo of cooperation between GOs and NGOs involved in civil protection activities (see additional review of the literature used on the accompanying CD or the project homepage http://save.redcross.at ). The most important conclusions, lessons learned and good practises of these activities were thus analysed and summarised:

4.1.4.1 Role of NGO volunteers in civil protection in EU member states and EEA countries British Red Cross, 200210

There are significant differences between the number of NGOs and the range of roles

undertaken within and between countries; in some countries the contribution of NGOs is dominated by large, sometimes international organisations like the Red Cross.

In some countries, NGOs are an integral part of the nation's infrastructure and are

responsible for provision of emergency services on a daily basis. In some countries, they provide specialised activities, for example security, logistics, technical support, communications and administrative centres, elsewhere their strength may be in the provision of medical services, including first aid.

In most countries, NGOs are responsible for the provision of practical support such as

shelter, transport, documentation and food. There was little evidence of corporate sector involvement, whether working with NGOs or

local communities in the development of civil protection arrangements. There is a need for consistency in the quality and range of support accessible to an

individual. The level of care an individual receives should be unilateral wherever an incident occurs. What may vary is who or which organisation provides the support in the response.

10 British Red Cross: “Role of NGOs volunteers in civil protection in EU- member States and EEA- countries”, 2002


The higher the volunteering profile and recognition of the value of volunteering within a community, the more capable citizens and communities are to prepare and support themselves, should an emergency situation arise.

A joint and co-ordinated approach should militate against gaps in service provision and

remove wasteful duplication and destructive competition. Indeed it may be helpful to nominate an NGO to take the lead on behalf of other NGOs and volunteers in the planning and response stages.

The governments of EU Member States and EEA countries should ensure that NGOs and

volunteers are involved with the different tiers of government at each stage of civil protection planning, response and review.

4.1.4.2 Report “Flood prevention in Germany” – German Committee for Disaster Reduction, (2003)11

The discussion about flood risks should be linked with the discussion about other natural

and technological risks. The aim is coherent when dealing with all risks. Periodical information events, thematic presentations and media presentations on relevant

occasions help improve the public awareness of flood risks. There is a need for regular public awareness campaigns if effective public response and

limitation of flood damage is to be achieved. Lack of communication between participants - the absence of points of contact in day-to-

day business, deficiencies in communication and lack of willingness to cooperate. Primarily not a question of technical equipment, but of “soft skills”.

Self-centred attitude and no consideration of the context - organisational thinking, independent processing and the absence of an overview of the qualification and equipment of others. There could be more awareness of the inefficiency of redundant structures and complementarities.

Weakness of value-positioning instances – lack of skills, self-discipline, motivation and

competency as well as over- or underassessment of own and others’ skills. The legitimacy of rules and instructions are not always accepted.

A clear identification process of targets that deserve protection and the implementation of

an objective scoring system for disasters should be implemented. 11 Schriftenreihe des DKKV (Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V.) (2003): Hochwasservorsorge in Deutschland – Lernen aus der Katastrophe 2002 im Elbegebiet, Bonn, 2003


4.1.4.3 Report “Lessons learned from flood disasters” – NEDIES Project, Joint Research Centre, European Commission12

Local authorities should review past flooding experiences and identify vulnerable areas and

associated sources of flooding and consider what procedures might be adopted to mitigate the effects of flooding.

All operational organisations with a flood response role should carry out flood risk

assessments and prepare contingency plans for their assets in flood risk areas. Keep past incidents in mind to maintain awareness (films, “remembrance” events).

The value of disseminating up-to-date and accurate information on the flooding situation

including the use of Internet web sites for this purpose should be promoted. 4.2 Quantitative Evaluation - Questionnaire The purpose of the questionnaire was to get an overview of the cooperation between GOs and NGOs in civil protection within EU Member States and EEA countries. We dealt with two main aspects in the questionnaire: Questions regarding the framework and conditions of civil protection:

These questions intended to help paint a picture of the surrounding conditions regarding the civil protection work of GOs and NGOs asking for the field of activity in a geographical, phase-oriented and functional approach; to question the existence of a legal requirement (to perform civil protection tasks, to cooperate, for having response plans) and the necessity for the existence of a coordinating body. We also asked about incidents that have occurred in the past 10 years.

Questions regarding outcomes of civil protection work: These questions were used to measure the outcomes dealing with topics such as efficient hazard analyses, joint efforts in planning and preparedness, coordinated response plans and joint review and evaluation. They also included the intention of finding good practice models of cooperation and possible ways to strengthen the collaboration (good practices, lessons learned).

The answers were used to set up further correlations between framework and conditions and outcomes: The questions measuring the outcomes were then used to find correlations between a given

framework represented by the existence of legal requirements, to perform civil protection tasks and the existence of an operational coordinating body of occurred incidents. We also looked for correlations between the outcomes subject to incidents that occurred in the last decade.

12 European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Nedies Project, “Lessons learned from flood disasters”, 2002


The variable “existence of legal requirement to perform civil protection tasks” was chosen, because this variable could be seen as a basis for clearly defined and structured rights and responsibilities and therefore can have a great influence on the work - especially of NGOs - in the field of civil protection.

The variable “existence of an operational coordinating body” could be seen as an indicator

for an effective and cooperative civil protection work with clear roles and tasks. The variable “occurred incidents in the past 10 years” can be seen as a parameter to show

the effects of lessons learned assuming the “outcome variables” would show dependencies as a consequence of changes resulting from past disasters.

4.2.1 Results of the questionnaire: Sixty-four valid (37 from GOs and 27 from NGOs) questionnaires were returned, 28 from EU Member States and EEA countries. Three questionnaires were invalid and therefore not processed. The section below shows the most relevant findings of the questionnaire (see all data and analyses from the questionnaire in Appendix 1 - Questionnaire). Results in the different sections are based on univariate and bivariate statistical analysis and additional comments and examples given by the respondents.

4.2.2 Profiles of the organisations A vast majority of NGOs and GOs are active in planning and preparedness as well as in the response phase of civil protection. Two-thirds of all organisations are also active in post-disaster activity.

4.2.3 Legal Requirement to perform tasks Nearly all GOs and half of the NGOs have a legal requirement to perform civil protection tasks in a response situation.

legal requirement for resp. situations

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

yes no

dont

know n.a

.

GO

NGO

Figure 2: Legal requirement to perform tasks


The absence of a legal requirement can make it difficult for NGOs to help effectively, on the other hand it can also be an advantage not to have a duty to respond (especially with volunteers) in any circumstances. Financing and funding benefit from a legal requirement because the duty (by law) to perform several tasks normally implies being given the necessary funds (ideally also defined by law). With a given legal requirement to perform, the following dependencies for NGOs were found (in contrast, because nearly all GOs have a legal duty to perform, these dependencies do not apply to them): information and findings are distributed more effectively and more quickly, a slightly higher possibility for joint activities exists, but there is no effect on more joint

meetings and joint trainings, there is a slightly more positive effect on the general valuation of the cooperation between

NGOs and GOs.

There is no greater possibility for a legal requirement after occurred incidents, so the existence of a legal requirement doesn’t seem to be a result of “lessons learned” in real disasters. Some EU Member States have a legislation that places statutory responsibility on GOs, requiring them to regard the NGOs’ contributions and to include these in their planning. This partnership also implies the need for joint planning, training, exercising, review and amendment to work effectively.

4.2.4 Cooperation with GOs/NGOs A majority of GOs cooperate mainly with other GOs, but also with NGOs; one-third of GOs works together with both GOs and NGOs. About half of the NGOs work mainly with GOs, most of the rest cooperate equally with GOs and NGOs. This asymmetric distribution in favour of GOs could indicate the NGOs’ dependencies on GOs. It also reflects the competitive situation between NGOs (due to the scarceness of funds, for example), which might have a negative influence on an efficient civil protection system. In order to optimise the whole system it will be necessary to clearly define the role of NGOs to prevent competitive situations, as competition does not lead to optimisation when the public good is at stake.

4.2.5 Legal requirement for cooperation In accordance with the result of the question for a legal requirement to perform, a majority of GOs cooperates on a legal basis, while “common practise” is the background for cooperation for a majority of NGOs. About a third of the organisations have signed contracts or Memoranda of Understanding (MoU).


4.2.6 Provision of a coordinating body in your country for GOs and NGOs A large majority (more GOs than NGOs) of the organisations think that there is a coordinating body on an operational level in their country. Three-quarters of these organisations affirm that there is a coordinating body on a political level. With an operational coordinating body, the following dependencies were found: NGOs register a marginally positive effect from the distribution of information. There is a positive correlation between the existence of a coordinating body and joint

activities held in the Civil Protection system. GOs see a positive effect on joint meetings, there is also a positive tendency for NGOs. GOs see a strong positive influence on the existence of joint trainings; NGOs do not.

Nevertheless NGOs are participating more frequently in trainings. NGOs feel that the coordination of response plans is strongly supported through a

coordinating body. GOs generally valuate the cooperation between the organisations as more positive when

a coordinating operational body exists; NGOs are neutral. The leading role in a coordinating body is with a GO. It seems a coordinating body is a key element for good cooperation between GOs and NGOs. Some EU Member States and EEA countries have regulations to avoid unwanted competition by defining quality criteria for players involved in Civil Protection. In some EU Member States and EEA countries one NGO coordinates the services of a number of NGOs involved in Civil Protection towards the governmental side.

4.2.7 Hazard analyses Nearly all GOs have hazard analyses for floods in their country; three-quarters know about analyses for CBRN. NGOs have lower rates, therefore it can be assumed that there is insufficient distribution of information or restricted access to analyses for NGOs. The access to relevant analyses as a basis for improved planning and preparedness and good coordination should be improved for NGOs involved in Civil Protection to enable them to perform best. This should – especially for CBRN analyses – be done with regard to aspects of confidentiality. Almost all GOs and more than half of NGOs are able to introduce their interests and suggestions in the hazard analysis process (if they are involved). Hazard analyses for floods are carried out mainly at a local and regional level, while CBRN analyses are mainly done at a national level.


Most of the NGOs have no legal basis to make use of hazard analyses:

legal requirement for hazard analysis

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

st. ag

reeag

ree

neutr

al

disag

ree

st. di

sagre

e

GO

NGO

Figure 3: Legal requirement to make use of hazard analyses

About two-thirds of GOs have to use the results of hazard analyses, while a majority of NGOs have no requirement for setting up further work on the findings. Information on hazards and risks is granted to those who have an obligation to make use of it; access for organisations without an obligation to use the information tends to be restricted and may only be given at will. Nevertheless, most of the NGOs that have access to the findings use them as a basis for taking further measures – as well as the GOs do. A majority of all organisations feel satisfied with the quality of the hazard analysis. There is room for some improvement regarding the effective and timely distribution of information, as two-thirds of the GOs, but less than half of the NGOs, are satisfied:

effective and timely distribution

0,00%10,00%20,00%30,00%40,00%50,00%60,00%70,00%80,00%90,00%

100,00%

st. ag

reeag

ree

neutr

al

disag

ree

st. di

sagre

e

GO

NGO

Figure 4: Distribution of information

Many NGOs - especially in new EU Member States – see the establishment of a better legal background as an important base for joint hazard analyses.


The distribution of information to the public on hazard analyses was valuated differently. Countries with an especially high risk of terrorist threat are reserved about sharing – especially CBRN analyses.

4.2.8 Joint activities to strengthen public resilience Sixty-five per cent of all GOs, but only 44% of all NGOs see joint activities as strengthening the population’s resilience. Most of these joint activities include measures such as education programmes in schools, publications for the public, etc.

4.2.9 Joint meetings to plan common approaches and activities More than half of all organisations report joint meetings at a local, regional and national level. Joint meetings – like joint activities and trainings – were one of the variables that showed dependencies from the existence of a coordinating body. Some EU Member States hold annual plenary meetings of joint boards in which various different sub-groups contribute their results from regular meetings on specific sub-topics and identified challenges of Civil Protection. Parameters for a “most effective meeting”: multi-organisational (with GOs and NGOs) held at adequate intervals each organisation can introduce interests and suggestions (very important!) important outcomes, but findings do not have to be binding.

4.2.10 Joint training and exercises to prepare for flood/CBRN threats Both GOs and NGOs see the same amount of joint training for flood protection - from about 50% on local to about 30% at a nationwide level. Joint trainings for CBRN were judged differently – about 40% of the GOs on all levels reported joint trainings for CBRN; only a minor percentage of NGOs did. It can be assumed that only a few NGOs are attending these trainings, which might be based on the aforementioned security concerns and the areas of activity of NGOs, which is more a consequence of management than of response. GOs see a positive correlation between the existence of joint trainings and a coordinating body. NGOs participate in joint trainings more often when a coordinating body exists. It can be assumed that more NGOs participate when they are better informed about joint exercises and trainings.


strengthen cooperation

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

st. ag

reeag

ree

neutr

al

disag

ree

st. di

sagre

e

GO

NGO

added value

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

yes no dont know

GO

NGO

GOs dominate the planning process of joint trainings; NGOs are involved in the process in a majority of cases. This may be due to the funding situation as GOs are in the position to fund joint trainings and are therefore also able to lead the planning process. A majority on both sides agrees that joint trainings and exercises support shared learning, with NGOs being more critical. GOs see sufficient review/evaluation, while only half of the NGOs agree with that statement. There is a clear majority on both sides that valuates the outcomes as positive, even if not all are certain that cooperation has positive effects:

Figure 5: Effects of joint trainings The funding of joint trainings is predominantly the task of GOs, although each group tends to estimate its own role as bigger than it is seen by the other group. Other financiers only play a minor role. Standards for the review and evaluation of trainings are often not given and should be implemented on different levels.

4.2.11 Response plans for Flood/CBRN About 40 to 65 per cent of GOs have response plans for flood incidents - with a decreasing percentage at a local to national level. Fewer NGOs have response plans for floods (about half of them with, half without, legal requirement). CBRN incidents are similar to GOs, but only every eight NGO has CBRN response plans (all having a legal requirement). There seems to be intense involvement and an active role for NGOs in flood incidents, but a quite small role in CBRN cases. About three-quarters of GOs are legally required to coordinate their flood and CRBN response plans with other organisations. A clear minority of NGOs declares having this duty as a result of not being required to have any have plans at all.


More than two-thirds of GOs, less than half of NGOs, agree to the statement “The response plans of my org. are well coordinated with the response plans of other organisations” (the NGO sample was quite small as only a minority of NGOs has specific response plans). A high percentage of GOs and NGOs agree that the existing response plans are tested in exercise. There seems to be room for improvement where standardization of response plans in form and content is concerned. Only about 40 per cent of the GOs and 15 per cent of the NGOs see this goal reached.

4.2.12 Occurred incidents and lessons learned About three-quarters of all organisations experienced major incidents during the last decade. These incidents exhibited the following dependencies:

No dependencies for GOs or NGOs as far as legal requirement to perform Civil Protection

tasks is concerned. Experiences from real disasters do not lead to changes in the legal framework under this aspect.

There is a slightly more positive effect on the existence of a coordinating body from the GO side. This does not seem necessary with NGOs.

There is no indication that access to the findings of hazard analyses or the distribution of information was improved (CBRN and floods).

There is a positive effect on joint activities to raise public resilience, joint meetings to plan

common approaches and activities and joint trainings, which could be the result of identified deficits. These points can therefore be seen as “lessons learned” after incidents.

There were no dependencies for response plans. GOs tend to consider the general cooperation between the organisations as being slightly

better after incidents occurred, while NGOs do not. It could be assumed that NGOs suffer from bad experiences in real incidents.

It can be concluded that the cooperation between the organisations intensifies after the occurrence of incidents.

4.2.13 Review and evaluation The internal review/evaluation of flood/CBRN incidents within the individual organisation was rated positively by a vast majority of GOs, but only by a third of NGOs. A majority of the GOs agreed when asked about “satisfactory joint review/evaluation between GOs”, while NGOs see this more critically. GOs have a rather neutral view of “satisfactory joint review/evaluation between NGOs”, while NGOs do not rate their review positively.


The quality of joint reviews between GOs and NGOs is rated positively by half of the GOs and NGOs; as above NGOs have a more negative attitude. In total, GOs have a much better attitude towards the quality of review and evaluation than NGOs. It could be assumed that GOs have a more intense review processes than GOs or that they process their work in a more effective way. There are different opinions about the value of the “lessons learned”:

important lessons learnt from evaluation

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

st. ag

reeag

ree

neutr

al

disag

ree

st. di

sagre

en.a

.

GO

NGO

Figure 6: Important lessons learned from evaluation

There is positive feedback about lessons learned on both sides, even if it seems that GOs learn more important lessons than NGOs do. Both sides rate the transformation of lessons learned to “the meetings dealing with planning and preparedness” positively. GOs seem to better implement lessons learned into joint trainings than NGOs do. The effects of lessons learned on cooperation were valuated differently, as a majority of GOs agreed that lessons learned caused changes in the cooperation between GOs and NGOs, but NGOs are close to neutral. Evaluation fits with the general valuation of the cooperation between organisations - this was more positive for GOs, more negative for NGOs.

4.2.14 General valuation of cooperation A vast majority of the GOs agreed with the statement “excellent cooperation between GOs” while NGOs were neutral. Both sides rated the cooperation between NGOs as being not so good, while the cooperation between GOs and NGOs is rated positively by a majority on both sides (with some negative votes from NGO side).


Generally, GOs have a much better attitude towards the quality of review and evaluation than NGOs. It could be assumed that GOs have a more intense review processes than GOs or that they process their work in a more effective way. It can be concluded that GOs have a better picture of the cooperation than NGOs have – this reflects the overall situation in Civil Protection systems with GOs having the dominant role.

4.2.15 Review of the activity and lessons learned The statistics and findings of the questionnaire were the basis for the design of further measures and allowed an initial picture of the cooperation between organisations in the field of civil protection to be drawn. On the basis of the results of the questionnaires, some European countries were chosen for site visits. 4.3 Qualitative Evaluation – Site visits The purpose of the site visits was to complement and complete the findings of the questionnaire, to identify good practice models and lessons learned and to collect ideas for workshop issues. Key speakers and workgroup leaders for the final workshop should be identified as well. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were held in six EU Member States.

4.3.1 Key results from interviews made at the site visits: Legal framework - Intended to set the targets, define responsibilities and assign roles;

the less clear the general conditions and objectives, the more inefficient and redundant structures may be.

Coordinating body – The existence of a coordinating body in a civil protection system has

a positive influence on the extent of cooperation between GOs and NGOs. Appreciation of different parameters of cooperation is higher with a coordinating structure.

Expectations - GOs expect NGOs to contribute by providing additional resources and at

a reduced cost. They are afraid of limited control and a lack of reliability with NGOs. Clustering – NGOs’ opportunities to contribute their ideas and implement their aims are

increased if they combine their strengths and work together (“together we are strong”). (Re)funding – Generally, governmental funds partly contribute to financing NGO and

voluntary sector activities; usually the direct costs of operations are refunded. Funds for NGO activities are raised from a broad range of sources.

Resilience of the public - Joint information and training activities to strengthen the

resilience of the population take place only to a minor degree. The focus of the systems lies on the operational management of incidents.


Awareness - NGOs are not fully aware of their contributions as far as increasing the resilience of the population (civil society) and in the recovery phase after disasters and emergencies. GOs also tend to underestimate the NGOs’ opportunities for fundraising.

Management by friendship/relationship - Personal knowledge of the individuals in

participating organisations can lead to faster and more efficient task performance and may improve results. When used in an appropriate way, it can reduce risks, especially in the response phase of an incident, but it can also endanger the overall performance when used to bypass official channels.

“Communication is a state of mind” - Problems encountered in communication matters

are not only based on technical incompatibility, but also on a lack of mental/organisational interoperability.

Ongoing cooperation – Efficient cooperation in response to incidents is based on ongoing

cooperation in all phases of civil protection. Knowledge of the capabilities of the partners and the interfaces between the organisations is of vital importance.

Pooling - NGO resources increase the capacity, capability and adaptability of NGO staff.

This facilitates the undertaking of responsibilities. Volunteers & paid staff – To state that an NGO is equal to a voluntary organisation and

a GO equal to paid staff is an oversimplification. “Governmental volunteers” with significant numbers of “professionals” also exist. Thus traditional categorisation and boundaries can become blurred.

Responsibility assignment – When no additional expenses involved, GOs or “for profit

organisations” tend to manage civil protection tasks by themselves rather than handing them over to NGOs. Opportunities for NGOs are in fields of activity that may be new, too costly or marginal.

Intensity of cooperation – Cooperation of GOs and NGOs is normally more intense on

the local, operational level than on a national, strategic level. Quality assurance and evaluation – These are often not properly developed in Civil

Protection systems. Critical review especially regarding inter-organisational cooperation is often lacking. Meeting the needs of the population affected is the most frequent key parameter for evaluation.

Post-disaster amendments - After being struck by major crises or disasters, joint

activities intensify, cooperation between organisations deepens. This seems to be a consequence from lessons learned and public concern and expectations.

4.4 Qualitative Evaluation - Final Workshop Based on the findings of the questionnaire and the site visits, a European workshop was held. The purpose of the workshop was to complete the analyses on specific topics of the questionnaire and the site visits.


Five main topics were introduced by keynote speeches and then discussed in four themed and facilitated simultaneous parallel working groups (working through key questions). The groups found answers and worded first recommendations. The results were combined and extensively discussed. The final workshop proved to be a very fruitful and successful way of getting additional results and reviewing the findings of measures taken and drawing conclusions and making recommendations. It proved to be a very good way to obtain coordinated and target-oriented results from the experts. See presentations of the workshop in Appendix 4, a detailed workshop report in Appendix 3 and a summary of the workshop results below.

4.4.1 Summary of results from the final workshop Topic 1 - Legal requirement: “As many regulations as necessary, as much liberty as possible” The right balance of legislation is needed. There should be a defined legal framework that keeps responsibility with the state but places a directive to take the NGOs into account (“you should cooperate”). The structural framework (“how to cooperate”) should then be defined in contracts Memoranda of Understanding, for example. The term cooperation should not be defined, as this needs to remain sufficiently flexible to enable the players to adapt to changing circumstances and to form new NGOs spontaneously. Limits on legal regulations also depend on the local conditions: in some communities there is a lack of organisations and a lack of capacities: regulations may see the cessation of services offered by the few small organisations, leaving no other body to provide them (low-level services may be better than no services at all). The form the legal basis takes needs to fit the structures of the national Civil Protection systems in EU Member States and EEA countries as well as the arrangements and needs of the organisations involved. How and whether the legal basis meet the needs to be reviewed. Adjustments of the legislation may be necessary if new disasters occur. Topic 2 - Capabilities and interfaces: The existence of a coordinating body is important. The attributes and tasks depends on the phase (planning & preparedness - response), the level (strategic – tactical – operational level) and the scale of the emergency - in some places bodies are formed for certain tasks only; more than one coordinating body will appear when incidents exceed level-borders. The coordinating body should connect all involved organisations (GOs and NGOs). Topic 3 - Public resilience: NGOs are often closer to the population than GOs (NGOs’ volunteers are often recruited from the local population).


“Local messages” have a higher impact than national ones (adapted to local threats, given by local players). Thus there is a clear advantage in making use of NGO resources. Often people are more ready to believe NGOs than the government representatives (this may differ from country to country). Volunteers of NGOs tend to be “more resilient” and are usually better informed than the average citizen – NGOs therefore play an important role in raising the public awareness and resilience of the population. Topic 4 - Finance & funding: Although there may be a financial benefit in sometimes using NGOs, this is not usually the main reason for involving them. Civil Protection cannot be judged by financial criteria only, but a sound financial background is necessary for both GOs and NGOs. There are no effective systems for measuring the efficiency of organisations in Civil Protection or the Civil Protection system in general, but an effort should be made to find some. Identified parameters could be a basis for funding as well. Potential parameters for measuring the efficiency of Civil Protection systems could be: the number of “survivors”/affected population the reduction of the number of casualties/affected population the total damage to an economy that could be avoided polls showing the status of how well the population is informed(“Do you know what to do in

case of …”) indirect measurement, for example survivor rate after “out of hospital” cardiac arrest gives

information about the public resilience in terms of first aid Topic 5 - Future challenges: The following issues regarding possible improvements were listed in the workgroups: Databases accessible for all partners; improved “knowledge management”: Those who

carry knowledge, sometimes need to be motivated and have to get incentives to share information.

Multi-agency approach/debriefing Working closer together (“learning from the best”), for example in terms of project

Sharing evaluations, reviews and adjustments Multi-agency planning for all hazards benefits from focused risk planning, for example bird

flu, flooding Development of networks Conferences, workshops, meetings, seminars to share findings and learning (face-to-face

meetings) Cooperation at all levels (local level cooperation and joint working at strategic, tactical and

operational level) Improved information sharing across the EU and within international NGOs, including early

warning systems “Write down” the lessons, incorporate them into the review process and make use of them


A huge limitation to sharing knowledge is the organisations´ fear of possible mistakes and failures becoming public by sharing information. It is important to establish a culture of fault-tolerance. Another limitation can occur due to economical reasons (competition vs. cooperation) - as information might not be shared for fear of losing “shares”. NGOs will gain importance if they are willing and able to adapt to the new challenges. In many cases it is most important for good cooperation to overcome intellectual differences, boundaries between organisations and self-centred attitudes.


5 Conclusions The results of the activities taken in the project (desk research, questionnaire, site visit and final workshop) were compiled to draw relevant conclusions on the following topics. “Key-conclusions” can be found at the end of the chapters: 5.1 Legal requirement (1) The vast majority of GOs working in civil protection have a legal requirement to perform

civil protection tasks. The requirement for NGOs varies from no requirement to common praxis, Memoranda of Understanding, service level agreements, contracts and statutory obligation.

(2) The state is clearly in charge of Civil Protection in the EU Member States and EEA

countries. NGOs can operate in a supportive role in conjunction with public authorities. (3) The absence of a legal requirement has advantages and disadvantages for NGOs. It can

make it difficult to provide effective aid and may cause difficulty in financing and funding sector. On the other hand, there is no obligation to work in any circumstance.

(4) The existence of a legal requirement can be beneficial as it may enhance cooperation

between NGOs and GOs, encourage joint activities and assisting in the distribution of information.

(5) There is no greater possibility of a legal requirement to perform after incidents occurred.

The existence of a legal requirement does not seem to be a “lesson learned”. (6) Civil protection is a “public good”. Its services affect all citizens and are vital for a country. (7) Opening Civil Protection as a “market” would cause market failures on the demand side

(for example “adverse selection”) as well as the supply side (negative effects on area-wide provision of services or costs) when there is no clear legislation that enforces all service providers to act in a non-discriminating way at a nationwide level and with given quality standards.

(8) If all market failures are neutralized by law, competition could have positive effects on

efficiency and prices. Therefore services may only be out-sourced to profit-organisations within a detailed regulatory framework.

(9) The implementation of a coordinating body (led by GOs) based on legislation can help to

prevent dysfunctional competition and to regulate and optimize the Civil Protection system.

(10) Due to the differences in the Civil Protection systems in EU Member States (distinguished

for example by the degree of centralisation), intentions of normalising and unifying the national systems will not be successful. Establishing a policy framework that defines aims and creates interoperability at both European and national level of the Member States would be more effective.


(11) A legal framework in each individual EU Member State and EEA countries should be defined at a national level and be agreed on jointly by both Government and Non-Governmental organisations. The implementation should take place on a regional and local level.

(12) The legal framework needs to fit national structures and arrangements and to meet the

needs of the participating organisations. It must be adaptable to the needs of the stakeholders:

Legal Requirement

Advantages Disadvantages

+ Clear financing and access to funding (especially for NGOs)

+ Standardisation defines policies, players and roles to avoid

gaps in service reduces duplication sets quality standards

− Inflexibility decrease in situational adaptability organisations may not be able to deliver adverse impact on voluntarism by scaring off NGOs negative impact on convergent volunteers and spontaneous self-help groups

+ Supports mutual understanding, the recognition of suitable NGOs the definition of capacities (of NGOs)

− Conflicts of interests and ethical principles threat to the independence of NGOs freedom for community-based organisations may be reduced

Table 9 : Advantages and disadvantages of a legal framework

(13) Many NGOs, especially in the new EU Member States, would like to see their role anchored in a legal framework with the expectation of getting more support for their activities

(14) We recommend that, in developing a legal framework, these topics be covered:

Checklist for an ideal legal framework Priorities and targets of civil protection o

Overall command structure o Minimum quality standards/criteria for activities/services (national, perhaps also at EU

level with regard to the liberalisation of the market) o

Interfaces between organisations (enhance interoperability) o

Definition of (lead)roles, division of tasks (responsibilities) o

Funding principles and mechanisms/rules for reimbursement o

Paying “regard” to contributions made by NGOs and including them in planning o

Consideration of international regulations/standards (UN, IFRC, etc.) o

Sanctions o

Kinds of possible agreements (contract, MoU, SLA etc.) oTable 10 : Topics to be covered by an ideal legal framework


We recommend that the following topics, rather than being defined by a legal framework, should be dealt with in contracts, MoU, SLA, especially with regard to quality aspects:

Checklist for topics dealt with in agreements Funding of individual organisations o Selection of personnel o Training o Interfaces between organisations o Capacities o How organisations fulfil their tasks o

Table 11: Topics to be dealt with in agreements (15) Advantages and disadvantage of possible forms of agreements:

Possible forms of agreements

Advantages Disadvantages Laws:

+ recognition of involved NGOs and their contributions

− the process of establishing and changing agreements may be time consuming

+ “Back-up” for GOs and governments, follow democratic rules

− agreements are often general and can be misinterpreted

MoU: + create synergies − may prevent capacity building

+ demonstrate trust and commitment − not legally binding and have no practical value

+ flexible and reliable + “sign” of willingness

Contract + more flexible and precise (could be

combined with SLAs) − uncertainty of situation after

expiry + can follow the life-cycle of projects + binding, therefore giving certainty to

planning + framework contracts are possible

(long-term contracts)

Table 12: Advantages and disadvantages of possible forms of agreements Key conclusions of this chapter: Legal framework – Intended to set the targets, define responsibilities and assign roles; the less clear the general conditions and objectives are, the more inefficient and redundant structures may be.


The legal framework should include a directive which takes the NGOs into account. Structural framework should subsequently be defined in a different form to agreements. Legal framework must be kept flexible and adaptable to fit national structures. Over-regulation should be avoided. Constant review and adjustments may be necessary to meet changing needs. Quality assurance and efficiency measurement – Sustainable systems to measure the efficiency of Civil Protection systems and the players involved should be developed, with the outcome possibly used as a basis for funding. With this comes a culture of error tolerance. 5.2 Capabilities and interfaces

5.2.1 Overall aspects of cooperation and coordination (16) A requirement for cooperation is legally given for most GOs but only for a minority of

NGOs. Nevertheless both intend to cooperate. (17) NGOs involved in Civil Protection mainly work together with GOs and generally

cooperate less with other NGOs. This seems to be due to the dominant role of GOs, the orientation towards potential sources for financing/funding, the competitive situation between NGOs and the weaknesses in NGO networking. This is particularly significant with NGOs in new EU Member States.

(18) GOs see the overall cooperation more positively than NGOs, which are more critical

about their own performance. NGOs in new EU Member States in particular have quite a negative view of their cooperation with other organisations (both NGOs and GOs).

(19) NGOs are in a satellite position, circling around central GO stars. They tend to play a role

in consequence management rather than first response, which is mainly with GOs in most EU Member States and EEA countries. Nevertheless they should be an integral part of the Civil Protection systems.

(20) NGOs work mainly in response and recovery, and their integration into other phases of

Civil Protection is often insufficient. (21) In some EU Member States, NGO involvement is restricted due to organisation size as

only nationwide acting NGOs are integrated into the Civil Protection system. (22) A coordinating federal authority, if it exists, is normally situated in the MoI. In many cases

it is combined with the federal authority responsible for the fire services. (23) The existence of a coordinating body is beneficial as it encourages good cooperation

between GOs and NGOs, sharing of information and joint activities. Cooperation is more effective with a coordinating body in place.

(24) The establishment of a coordinating body could be a consequence of a “lessons learned”

report drawn up following an incident.


(25) The benefits of having a coordinating body in place include better distribution of information and more joint activities.

(26) A coordinating body on a federal level should include both GOs and NGOs and may also

involve the science community, economy and media. It should ensure that the functioning of mechanisms is in place as well as perform horizon-scanning for risks.

(27) International NGOs (such as Red Cross/Red Crescent, Caritas) seem to play a dominant

role on the NGO scene. In many countries they operate at a local, national and international level.

(28) The opportunity for NGOs to contribute their ideas and implement their aims increases if

they combine their strengths and proceed together (“together we are stronger”). This could be achieved by coordinating their activities through one focal point, which acts as a contact for the GO side, as a lobbyist and information and coordination structure within the NGO cluster. Clustering also releases small NGOs from administrative burdens (for example by making use of integrated databases). Based on this cluster it can be helpful to identify one NGO as the operative leader for all NGOs in planning, response and recovery.

(29) Conflicts of interest may arise when one NGO manages another, especially with scarce funds and resources. An absolutely neutral point of view must be maintained.

(30) The clustering of organisations specialising in similar activities (i.e. divers, rescue dogs)

could be set up. (31) The importance of the personal acquaintance of players involved is stressed on every level.

Therefore activities that underline and support personal social interaction and networks of players should be strongly supported (for example with job-rotation programmes, internships). This must never lead to a bypass situation in the field, which could gravely endanger the efficiency of the command and control (C2) system in operation.

(32) Integrated groups or platforms including GOs and NGOs (including science, economy and

representatives of the public) should be established at local, regional, national and international levels (through forums, interest groups, working groups, advisory groups, etc.). The integration of NGOs is also possible through representatives of NGO clusters.

(33) An integrated, comprehensive Civil Protection system includes 5 groups: GOs, NGOs,

science, economy, public. The process of finding common understanding and common aims is time consuming and difficult, but should be undertaken to increase output.

(34) Common language should be used, as technical language may not be understood at all

levels (for example differences in scientific and operational level). (35) There is an expressed lack of reliability toward the NGOs from GO side. NGOs are

sometimes distrusted with regard to their capacities and efficiency (“over-motivation”), their integration in a command and control system seems to be sometimes challenging


(“lack of discipline”). NGOs have to prove their liability: “Show that you do what you promise”.

(36) International NGO networks (such as RCRC, Caritas, MSF) with their possible contribution

to Civil Protection should be more integrated at an EU level. (37) Organisations tend to think within their own area of responsibility without considering the

common aims and needs of collaborators. This is more likely to happen when directives and inter-organisational control are missing.

(38) The newer the challenge, the more important intense cooperation becomes. For example

this is the case with CBRN threats, as knowledge, resources and innovations have to be integrated to control the risks.

(39) Public pressure and pushy media increase the speed of innovation as well as “virtual

onsets” (hype risks e.g. bird flu pandemia, terror threats) that carry the chance of improvement, problem solving, creating awareness and improving cooperation.

(40) We recommend that, in developing coordinating bodies, these topics be taken into

consideration:

Checklist for an ideal coordinating body

Attributes

Neutrality o Openness (planning and preparedness: open to all

operations; limited to main players) o

Sufficient strength and means for the coordinating of tasks o Access to the “big picture”/strategic level o Clear mandate o Knowledge of all resources o “Common language” o Adequate means of communications, documentation tools, handover procedures

(high level of inter-agency communication) o

Embodied in legislation at different levels of government structures o In planning and preparedness: accept the competitive situation of organisations

wanting to keep their identity o

In operations: common task is to provide aid, therefore higher acceptance is needed for taking commands

o

Switching of leadership techniques: democratic leading in planning and preparedness, C2 structure during operations

o

Strong commitment from all participating organisations, strong “group feeling” o Regular meetings to foster acquaintanceship in order to promote trust o


Tasks

Distribution of information o Funding of operations and deployments; funding of organisations, public fundraising o Information transfer procedures from one body to another (“handover procedures”) o Setting standards for joint training & common exercises o Speak on behalf of the associated organisations (also NGOs) o Contact point for all organisations o Preparation of action plans o Preparation of C2 structures for operations o Only limited Public Relations (PR) activities, as players are highly dependent on

individual PR o

Policies defined in order to have “common objectives” oTable 13 : Checklist for an ideal coordinating body

(41) The Civil Protection system must be needs-driven, not driven by media, resources,

contractor, paragraph and interest. (42) Interfaces of technical equipment (such as communication tools, decision-support systems,

GIS systems should consider inter-organisational use. Information, under the limitation of relevance, should be open to all players.

(43) When crisis situations exceed the level of the norm, additional coordinating bodies come

to existence (for example making use of the local bodies and regional coordinating bodies).

(44) It is essential that organisations work together throughout all phases of Civil Protection.

The individual and the organisation involved must be aware that there are others involved with other interests.

(45) With flood scenarios in particular, consistent cross-regional efforts that go beyond political

boundaries must be implemented throughout all phases of Civil Protection. It is essential not only to have a multi-agency but also a multi-regional approach.

(46) Structural deficits sometimes hinder efficient performance:

Lack of communication - the absence of points of contact in daily business, deficiencies in willingness to cooperate and in communication. Primarily these are not a question of technical equipment but of “soft skills”.

Self-centred attitude without consideration of the context - reflects organisation-focussed thinking, independent processing and the absence of looking at the “bigger picture”. The attempt of each party to hold and provide everything results in the duplication of services and equipment.

Weakness of value-positioning instances - lacking skills, missing self-discipline, motivation and competency as well as over- or underestimation of personal and others´ skills. Rules and instructions are not always accepted. The focus is not on supporting the beneficiaries.


(47) Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection:

Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection

Advantages Disadvantages + services added – more resources, easier

mobilisation, sharing of resources to fill gaps − high coordination efforts

+ resources of organisations benefit from division of work − possible lack of flexibility

+ networking and exchange of knowledge − loss of autonomy for the individual organisation

+ possible cost advantage in making use of volunteer organisations (volunteers are less expensive, but not free)

− risk of becoming a scapegoat

+ better knowledge and more efficient communication between organisations

− NGOs may not be capable or accountable for what they do

+ marginal fields of Civil Protection will be covered by NGOs (e.g. washing birds after oil spills)

− loss of identity, neutrality and independence

+ NGOs may respond more flexibly to actual problems

− some players may act out “cherry-picking” strategies

+ volunteers can act as multipliers in the population and therefore strengthen public resilience

− risk of socialising costs and privatising revenues

+ motivation of volunteers is high, therefore lower efficiency can be balanced

Table 14 : Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection

(48) There are no adequate evaluation systems to measure the efficiency of organisations in

Civil Protection. We could also not find any adequate evaluation systems to measure the efficiency of the Civil Protection system as a whole. Efforts should be made in the research and development of these systems. Suggested parameters/factors for measuring efficiency of Civil Protection systems:

Potential parameters for measuring Civil Protection efficiency

the number of “survivors” per affected population after disasters the reduction of the number of casualties per affected population after disasters the total damage to an economy that could be avoided consistent quality-level of support accessible to the individual independent of location

and classification of an occurred incident polls showing the information status of the population (“what if”) indirect measurement: e.g. survivors rate after “out of hospital” cardiac arrest gives

information about the public resilience (in terms of first aid) Table 15 : Potential parameters to measure Civil Protection efficiency


(49) The absence of common Civil Protection terms leads to confusion at national and international levels.

Key conclusions of this chapter: Coordinating body – The extent of coordination between GOs and NGOs can be influenced by the existence of a Civil Protection coordinating body. Attributes and tasks vary depending on the phase (from hazard analysis to recovery) and the level (strategic, tactical, operational level). The coordinating body should make the relevant contributions to all stakeholders. Clustering – NGOs´ opportunities to contribute their ideas and implement their aims are increased if they combine their strengths and proceed together (“together we are strong”).

Pooling – of NGO resources increases the capacity, capability and adaptability of NGO staff. This facilitates the undertaking of responsibilities and improves Civil Protection systems. Ongoing cooperation – Efficient cooperation in response to incidents is based on ongoing cooperation in all phases of civil protection. Knowledge of the capabilities of the partners and the interfaces between the organisations is of vital importance. “Communication is a state of mind” – Problems encountered in communication matters are not primarily based on technical incompatibility, but rather on a lack of intellectual or organisational inter-operability that must be overcome. Volunteers and paid staff – It is too simple to state that an NGO is equal to a voluntary organisation, and that a GO is equal to paid staff. There are “governmental volunteers” as well as NGOs with significant numbers of “professionals”. Thus traditional categorisation and patterns of thoughts should be jettisoned. Intensity of cooperation – The cooperation of GOs and NGOs is normally more intense at the local and operational level than on a national level. The strategic role of NGOs should be taken into account when creating new policies.

Benefits of NGO Integration – Other than financial benefits, the main advantages of NGO integration in Civil Protection systems include additional resources and competence, a secured service level and a strengthened civil society.


The keyword is “common” – Policies should focus on working together in joint spirit. This is the basis for intellectual, structural and technical interoperability and subsequent cooperation. All players/partners must be aware of their own, and other organisations´ contribution to cope with the complex challenges of civil protection. Post-disaster amendments support this process.

5.2.2 Hazard analysis (50) Hazard analysis/risk-assessment is a task for GOs in most MS. NGOs are normally not

involved in this task and often have no information about the process or the results of the analysis. This lack of knowledge transfer could be overcome with a more comprehensive integration of NGOs in all phases of Civil Protection.

(51) Flood hazard analysis is well done at all governmental levels from local to national. For

CBRN risks, the rate of assessment is rising from the local to the national level. In new EU Member States there seems to be a need for improvement on CBRN hazard analysis.

(52) Results of CBRN hazard analysis are treated more confidentially than flood risks. This

causes a deficit in possible measures and preparations taken, as organisation may not be informed about possible threats. In most countries NGOs will not be involved in first response in CBRN cases.

(53) The majority of NGOs have no possibility to pursue their interest in the process of hazard

analysis. (54) Most GOs have a legal requirement to make use of the results of hazard analysis, while

only a few NGOs have this duty. As most NGOs do not have access to these results, this is consistent yet not satisfying with regard to planning and preparedness.

(55) A more timely and effective distribution of the findings for NGOs could be achieved

through a more comprehensive approach, integration in information systems and other measures of building trust and regular communication.

(56) There should be territorial and functional hazard analysis involving over organisational

networks of experts to support the process of risk assessment and planning. (57) Area-wide risk mapping should be carried out, following clear procedures in a given

framework of hazard analysis (set up at least at a national, or even better at an EU-wide level).

5.2.3 Joint meetings (58) NGOs are more satisfied than GOs with the intervals between joint meetings. (59) Joint meetings of GOs and NGOs are generally seen positively with relevant outcome, but

the results are not always binding for the participants. These non-binding results seem to be more common in new EU Member States.


(60) Joint meetings are often held after an incident has occurred, not before. (61) A number of EU Member States have structures which enable them to hold very efficient

meetings. Many of these meetings are on a very large scale or at a high level of policy makers.

(62) An effective meeting should have the following attributes:

o multi-organisational (with GOs and NGOs) o held at adequate intervals o open to introducing interests and suggestions from all organisations invited o important outcomes for the organisations

(63) Conferences, workshops, meetings, seminars (face-to-face meetings), as well as virtual meetings to share findings should be used to develop networks. Meetings should also include social events (to foster personal acquaintances).

5.2.4 Training and exercises (64) Less than half of the organisations are taking part in joint trainings and exercises. Flood

trainings are generally held at a local and regional level. There is no difference for CBRN training at the different levels.

(65) The planning process of training and exercises lies mainly in the hands of GOs. NGOs are

therefore restricted in bringing in their ideas and needs.

Generally NGOs in new EU Member States are more discontented with participation, involvement and review of training and exercises than their colleagues in the old MS.

(66) Shared learning is supported by joint training and exercises. NGOs do not see the positive

effect as much as the GOs do. There is a strong feeling of having an added value from training and exercises through all the organisations.

(67) GOs are not very satisfied with the intervals between training and exercises. Interviews

reveal a wish to hold more training sessions. (68) A majority of GOs, but only half of the NGOs, believe that trainings are funded mainly by

GOs. Each party thinks it makes bigger contributions than is perceived by the others. NGOs are financially dependent on GOs in the organisation of joint trainings.

(69) There is little corporate sector involvement in training and exercises, a problem resulting

from the costs for exercises. (70) Joint training centres and emergency management academies allow course participants to

learn about structures and procedures of Civil Protection in a national and international context.


Key conclusions of this chapter: Management by relationship – Personal acquaintance of the individuals in participating organisations can lead to faster and more efficient performance of tasks and may improve results. However, it can also endanger the overall performance when used to bypass official channels, especially in the response phase of an incident.

5.2.5 Response plans (71) The majority of the GOs have specific response plans for different kinds of incidents. Most

NGOs do not have specific response plans (e.g. for floods and even less for CBRN), as they can fulfil their support role in “any situation” regardless of the type of incident. Normally these specific response plans are not required.

There seems to be good cooperation between agencies. NGOs have an active role to play in flood incidents but only a small role in CBRN incidents.

(72) NGO plans, especially for CBRN, only exist, if there is a legal requirement - “legal

requirement” can therefore be seen as an important precondition to enable NGOs to take part in the planning and preparation process and consequently improve the cooperation of GOs and NGOs.

(73) Coordinating plans with others for a majority of NGOs is not required, whilst GOs are

required to coordinate their planning. This means that NGO plans – if they exist - are not really coordinated with the plans of others.

(74) GOs feel that their planning is supported by adequate training, however NGOs do not.

Improvement in the training status of NGO plans – if there are any in place - could be made.

(75) Response plans are normally not standardized in form and content, therefore

comparability and coordination is more difficult; this seems to be even worse with NGO plans. Templates or standards on planning could give support.

(76) Efficient systems to manage convergent volunteers should be established – either GOs or

NGOs could make use of the convergent volunteers. (77) Currently not all players seem well prepared enough to work in CBRN conditions; gaps

appear in the accountability and accomplishment of tasks.

(78) Multi-agency planning for all hazards benefits from focused risk-planning, for example bird flu and flooding.


5.2.6 Review and evaluation (79) Satisfactory review is held within GOs, but it is less common in NGOs. This may be due to

a lack of financing or resources for the review process or from being more critical in their self-evaluation.

(80) Inter-organisational review (interoperation) is seen as good between GOs, not so good

between GOs and NGOs and poor between different NGOs. It seems that the more NGOs are involved, the less efficient the evaluation process is. Overall, NGOs are less involved in inter-organisational review.

(81) GOs also take in more lessons learned from the review process. This may be a result of

more frequent reviewing. However, the total number of important lessons learned from reviewing the cooperation is low.

(82) GOs report that the lessons learned refer to planning, which is included in further training

and exercises and causes changes in the relations between the organisations; the status here with NGOs is not as good. NGOs in new EU Member States see more changes taking place. This may also be due to a basic redirecting and changing of countries’ Civil Protection systems in the last years.

(83) The majority of all GOs and NGOs have had experiences with major crises during the last

ten years. The intensity of joint activities, meetings and trainings has increased following theses incidents. According to GOs, the overall evaluation of cooperation is more positive after incidents have occurred. Interestingly, NGOs valuate management more negatively after incidents have occurred. It could be assumed that NGOs have suffered bad experiences, whilst GOs have had good experiences.

(84) With regard to intra-organisation and inter-organisation reviews, a common standard for

review and evaluation is lacking and should therefore be established. A multi-agency approach for the evaluation would be beneficial. Sharing the results of evaluations and reviews and offering the lessons learned for other organisations is a way of knowledge transfer, which is still hampered by the principle of “keeping my problems to myself”.

Key conclusions of this chapter: Review and evaluation – has not been properly developed in Civil Protection systems. There is often a lack of critical review, especially in regard to inter-organisational cooperation. Meeting the needs of the affected public is the most frequent key parameter for evaluation.


5.3 Public resilience (85) Hazard analysis findings are not shared with the public to a high degree. This could hinder

increasing public resilience. Countries that expect possible terrorist attacks in particular show legitimate reservation in sharing (CBRN) analyses with the public and many NGOs as well.

(86) GOs see that more joint efforts to inform the public exist than NGOs do. Most joint

activities are measures such as education in schools, publications for the public or workshops on self-help.

NGOs see this as being more efficiently integrated in the process of informing the public, as they often work very closely to the beneficiaries. Volunteers of NGOs are more “resilient” and better informed than the average citizen and can therefore take on a multiplier function.

(87) Three levels of information to be made available to the public can be defined as:

o overall information (“keep safe”) – target group: general public, o secondary information – special target groups: vulnerable groups (children,

elderly), o information for affected people (already victims).

(88) Information made available to the public after an incident has occurred should be based

on the “classic questions” asked of victims: o What happened? o What does this mean to me? o What happened to my people? o How long will it take to restore normal conditions? o Will help be available? o What can I do?

(89) We recommend the following guidelines for informing the public/raising public resilience:

Guidelines for informing the public

General:

Evaluation of campaigns and information activities (polls, tests) o

Information must be transparent, credible and reliable o

The balance between over- and under informing must be kept o Adequate information tools - different channels should be used (for example

media, schools, etc.). Information should be accessible (Internet). o

All relevant information should be shared in a target-group-oriented way o Even when all the information cannot be given, what is true and proven can be

shared! o

“Local messages” have a higher impact than national ones - adapted information to local threats, use local players.

o

People are more ready to believe NGOs than the government (this may differ from country to country). o


Before incidents – preventive:

Establish access of information to the public (passive PR) and inform the public actively (active PR) o

“Alerting, not alarming” – public information to raise public awareness about possible threats should not cause panic. Information should be balanced and accompanied by raising awareness about ways to reduce personal risks.

o

Implement an education system providing necessary information continuously over a life span (life-long learning). Ideally such programmes should be backed by legislation.

o

Integrate affected people in the creation of programmes o Give subtle reminders of past incidents to keep awareness high (boards showing

water levels, documentation movies, memorial days, etc.) o

Accept limitations of information policy (classified information) o

Needs of the population should be assessed in advance o Identify multipliers (opinion leaders) in society and recruit them for Civil

Protection information o

Links between risk assessment programmes and information policies should be created

o

Coordinate public relation strategies - support each other, give the same information

o

Too many false alarms are counterproductive o

After incidents - reactive: Distribute information before it is asked for o Catch the “spirit” (use the “golden hour”) of a disaster to inform the public and

create awareness and strengthen resilience. Experts from the field of sociology and psychology can make contributions to the strategies applied.

o

The acceptance for information correlates with the emotional consternation, which does not depend on the geographic distance from the disaster but the sociological and psychological parameter (for example Tsunami vs. Darfur crisis).

o

Communication with the public after an incident is a two-way communication (e.g. hotlines, questions of IDPs) o

Emphasis should be given to “vulnerable” target groups (e.g. elderly, migrants, poor people). Messages must be adopted for the different target groups. o

Information must be given in time o Briefed communication experts should be responsible for communication or at

least Civil Protection experts briefed and trained in media work o

Table 16 : Guidelines for informing the public

(90) NGOs have an important role to play through youth work in their organisation, which not only contributes to strengthening the individual competences, but also supports civil society by educating multipliers and responders.

(91) Different target groups need different information:

the most vulnerable target groups (depending on the scenario) have to be identified


well-responding target groups (children) and vulnerable groups that can be difficult to reach (elderly, homeless, poor).

cost-benefit ratio has to be considered when trying to reach target groups (some “difficult” groups that have significant barriers in reaching them)

information must be relevant for the target group (threats must be real) awareness of cultural and sociological differences - different models must be

applied. Key conclusions of this chapter: Resilience of the public – Joint information and training activities to strengthen the public resilience are taking place only to a minor degree. The focus of the systems lies in the operational management of incidents. NGOs have a closer relationship with the population – their local responders have a higher impact by carrying messages adapted to local threats. A policy of constant and true information should be applied in a joint approach. Awareness – NGOs should be fully aware of their contributions in increasing public resilience (civil society) and in the recovery phase after disasters and emergencies. GOs should overcome their tendency to underestimate NGOs´ opportunities for fundraising.

5.4 Finance and funding (92) Fundraising after disasters is the domain of NGOs. They are more efficient in raising funds

for the recovery (they are “closer” to the population, often also working with media partners), which makes up one of the three areas of post-disaster financial compensation. The other two are insurances and governmental payments.

(93) These recompense channels should be more integrative in order to give more efficient

support to the victims. (94) The public sector is shrinking, whilst the private and non-profit sectors are growing. The

tendency towards outsourcing public tasks is also seen in Civil Protection – especially in the security and health sector. At the same time there is a shift from grants and lump-sum subsidies to service contracts for NGOs. With this shift some “collateral damage” appears within NGOs:

o growing bureaucracy o money is given towards projects, not for structure o discounters endanger quality access (especially when contracts do not state quality

parameters and service levels) o “shift of contractor” – NGOs turn from victim orientation to contractor orientation o the more to steer, the less to deliver

(95) NGOs change their paradigm from not only “we are good” but also to “we are

managers”. They realise that multiple financing channels for NGOs is necessary.


5.4.1.1 Ways to finance civil protection activities: (96) The government should create a favourable environment supporting NGOs to finance

themselves (e.g. creating benefits for volunteer engagement and for donations in the taxation system).

(97) It is desirable that activities be funded before incidents occur. From an NGO point of view,

reimbursement is second best. A good model of support would be Sweden, giving basic support to NGOs (“to keep them alive”) and additional funds for performing (training and exercising, expenses for missions refunded, etc.).

(98) Different channels for financing NGOs:

o contributions by citizens o contributions by private sector o lotteries/gambling o service fees/service contracts o tax reduction for specific activities o (ear-marked) donations o sponsorship (Corporate Social Sponsoring) o one-shot project financing (mainly in international aid).

(99) Governments are not responsible for funding NGOs, but for fulfilling their responsibilities

to cover the needs of the public.

(100) Civil Protection systems must be protected from the dysfunctional influence of “cherry-pickers”, who would pick out some “profitable” areas and leave out areas that aren’t. This would make the protection for the rest of the population “not profitable”, more expensive (for example rural areas vs. urban centres). Legal framework must be established to avoid these effects, if Civil Protection systems should be open to “the market” (for example private water providers).

(101) The political system should put emphasis on strengthening the civil society by supporting

NGOs and therefore earning “ROHI” (Return on humanitarian investment) rather than supporting the profit organisations´ ROI (Return on investment).

Key conclusions of this chapter: (Re)funding – Funds for NGO activities should be raised from a broad range of sources. Governmental (re)funding should contribute to financing NGO activities with basic funds and compensating costs of operations.


6 Recommendations and Guidelines These recommendations focus on improvements for the cooperation between Government and Non-Governmental Organisations. (1) Establishing a legal framework A comprehensive legal framework tends to set the targets, define responsibilities and assign roles; the less clear the general conditions and objectives are, the more inefficient and redundant structures may be. The legal framework must be kept flexible and adaptable to fit structures. Over-regulation should be avoided. Constant review and adjustments may be necessary to meet changing needs. The comprehensive legal framework in the UK could be seen an a model of Good Practice13. At an EU level, consideration could be given to developing a recommendation that could encourage national initiatives to establish a comprehensive legal framework on the cooperation of government and non-governmental organisation in the field of civil protection. EU Member States and EEA countries National governments should establish a comprehensive legal framework, which is relevant and can also be applied at a regional level. NGOs should use their lobbying ability to facilitate the process. We recommend that in developing guidelines for an ideal legal framework, these topics could be included:

Topics to be covered by a legal framework Priorities and targets of civil protection Overall command structure Minimum quality standards/criteria for activities/services (national, maybe also on EU level

with regard to liberalisation of the market) Interfaces between organisations (enhance interoperability) Definition of (lead)roles, division of tasks (responsibilities) Funding principles and mechanisms/rules for reimbursement Paying “regard” to contribution made by NGOs and including them into planning Consideration of international regulations/standards (UN, IFRC, etc.) Sanctions Kinds of possible agreements (contract, MoU, SLA, etc.)

Table 17: Topics to be covered by a legal framework

13 “Civil Contingencies act” and accompanying legislation, http://www.ukresilience.info


We recommend that the following topics, rather than being defined by a legal framework, should be dealt with in contracts, MoU, SLA, especially with regard to quality aspects:

Topics to be dealt with in agreements Funding of individual organisations Selection of personnel Training Interfaces between organisations Capacities How organisations fulfil their tasks

Table 18: Topics to be dealt with in agreements (2) Establishing a coordinating body The extent of cooperation between GOs and NGOs can be influenced positively by the existence of a coordinating body. Attributes and tasks vary, depending on the phase (from hazard analysis to recovery), and the strategic, tactical, operational level. The coordinating body should make use of the relevant contributions of all stakeholders.

At an EU level, coordination mechanisms (as for example the civil protection mechanism) could take the role of internationally acting NGOs more into account. EU Member States and EEA countries national governments should create the legal basis for effective coordinating bodies with clear attributes and tasks. This legal basis should be relevant and applicable also at a regional level. NGOs should use their lobbying ability to facilitate the process. The interdisciplinary German “SKK”14 is a good example of an existing broad platform for the cooperation of organisations involved in Civil Protection, working as a “think tank”, initiating and creating policies for all phases of Civil Protection. We recommend that in developing coordinating bodies, these attributes and tasks could be taken into consideration:

14 Ständige Konferenz für Katastrophenvorsorge und Katastrophenschutz (Permanent conference on disaster-preparedness and disaster-reduction) http://www.katastrophenvorsorge.de


Guidelines for the development of a coordinating body

Attributes Neutrality Openness (planning and preparedness: open to all operations: limited to main players) Sufficient strength and means for the coordinating tasks Access to the “big picture”/strategic level Having a clear mandate Having knowledge of all resources Establishing a “common language” Fostering adequate means of communication, documentation tools, handover procedures

(high level of inter-agency communication) Being embodied in legislation at different levels of government structures In planning and preparedness: accepting the competitive situation of organisations that

want to keep their identity In operations: common task is to help, therefore higher acceptance for commands Switching of leadership techniques: democratic leading in planning and preparedness, C2

structure during operations Fostering strong commitment from all participating organisations, strong “group feeling” Holding regular meetings to foster acquaintances in order to promote trust

Tasks Distribution of information Funding of operations and deployments; funding of organisations, public fundraising Information-transfer procedures from one body to another (“handover procedures”) Setting standards for joint training & common exercises Speaking on behalf of the associated organisations (also NGOs) Being a contact point for all organisations Preparation of action plans Preparation of C2 structures for operations Only limited Public Relations (PR) activities, as players are highly dependent on individual

PR Policies defined in order to have “common objectives”

Table 19: Guidelines for the development of coordinating bodies

(3) Intensifying cooperation NGOs should find a way of working together more effectively at a local, regional, national and international level. They should join forces and “speak collectively” in order to optimise their contributions to the Civil Protection system on the different levels. The pooling of NGO resources increases the capacity, capability and adaptability of NGO staff. This facilitates the undertaking of responsibilities and improves Civil Protection systems.


The cooperation of GOs and NGOs is normally more focussed on a local and operational level than on national and strategic levels. New policies should take the strategic role of NGOs into account. Ongoing cooperation throughout all phases of Civil Protection is essential in order to achieve efficient cooperation in response. Knowledge of the capabilities of partners and the interfaces between organisations is of vital importance. Suggestions for improving NGO-structures could include: creating national registers of NGOs forming groups, communities or platforms of common interest

NGOs should be working together through all phases of Civil Protection, promoting and lobbying for integration in the decision-making and coordinating bodies. The pooling of operational resources facilitates reaching this aim. Possible ways of an improved cooperation between NGOs may be found in the ongoing project “Involving citizens in Civil Protection” (British RC). One good model of cooperation is Finland’s Voluntary Rescue Service15, an association of almost 50 volunteer organisations supporting the work of GOs. At an EU and national governmental level of the EU Member States and EEA countries the responsible structures should regard the resources and contributions of NGOs through all phases of Civil Protection, integrating their “voice” into decision-making and coordinating bodies. (4) Clear funding for NGOs Funds for NGO activities should be raised from a variety of sources, not depending solely on governmental contributions. Before an operation is carried out it should be clearly defined for each organisation how and by whom a Civil Protection activity will be financed. There should be written, transparent agreements about financing allowing for the pre-planning of activities. NGOs should procure a combination of channels (e.g. contributions by citizens/private sector, service fees/service contracts, tax reduction for specific activities, (ear-marked) donations or sponsorship (Corporate Social Sponsoring)) to fund their activities in Civil Protection. One of the sources should be contributions by national and regional governments, who should define clear ways to contribute to the financing of NGO activities and create an NGO-friendly atmosphere (e.g. by creating fiscal benefits).

15 Vapaaehtoinen pelastuspalvelu, http://www.vapepa.fi


(5) Raising public resilience Sharing of information and joint training activities to strengthen the public resilience are taking place, but only to a minor degree. NGOs have a closer relationship with the public – their local responders have a high impact by carrying messages adapted to local threats. A policy of constant and true information should be applied in a joint approach in order to raise and maintain public awareness. They contribute to creating a “civil society”. NGOs should be aware of their important role in raising public awareness and establish and carry out joint programmes (with GOs) on a level close to the beneficiary. Regional and national authorities should make full use of the potential of the NGOs. The European Commission and national governments could call for proposals in this area of activity.

The Austrian “safety tour”16 for scholars, held annually in collaboration with GOs and NGOs, is a good example of raising resilience in a playful way.

(6) Using management by relationship Personal acquaintance of individuals in participating organisations can lead to faster and more efficient task performance and may also improve results. However, it could also endanger the overall performance when used to bypass official channels, especially in the response phase of an incident. National Governments, regional and local authorities and NGOs should carry out joint trainings and joint exercises, bringing together relevant players on the strategic, tactical and operational levels of all organisations. Special regard should be given to passing on information about the advantages and disadvantages of management by acquaintanceship in Civil Protection. (7) The keyword is “common“ Policies should focus on working together in joint spirit. This is the basis for intellectual, structural and technical interoperability, and subsequently interoperation. All players involved must be aware of their own and other organisations´ contributions to coping with the complex challenges of Civil Protection. Post-disaster amendments support this process. Problems encountered in communication matters are not primarily based on technical incompatibility, but rather due to a lack of mental or organisational interoperability that must be overcome (“communication is a state of mind”).

16 http://www.safety-tour.at


The comprehensive approach to Civil Protection in the UK could act as a role-model for other systems17. The European Commission, National governments, regional and local authorities and NGOs and other stakeholders (such as scientists, the private sector and public representatives) should be part of a comprehensive process of defining policies for Civil Protection – focussed on the needs of the beneficiaries. (8) Establishing quality-assurance and efficiency measurement Sustainable systems for measuring the efficiency of Civil Protection systems and the individual organisations involved should be developed, especially for the (inter-organisational) evaluation of response and recovery activities. The outcome could also be used as a basis for funding. In conjunction with this comes a culture of fault-tolerance, allowing efficient use of the lessons learned. More joint research activities contributing to the challenges should be carried out at an EU, national GO and NGO level.

Potential parameters to measure Civil Protection efficiency

The number of “survivors” per affected population after disasters The reduction of the number of casualties per affected population after disasters The total damage to an economy that could be avoided

Consistent quality level of support accessible to the individual independent of location and type of incident that occurred

Polls showing the information status of the population (“what-if scenarios”)

Indirect measurement: e.g. survivor-rate after “out of hospital” cardiac arrest offers information about the public resilience (in terms of first aid)

Table 20: Potential parameters for measuring Civil Protection efficiency

(9) Benefits of an all-organisation-approach Other than the financial benefits, the main advantages of NGO integration in Civil Protection systems include additional resources and competence, a secured service level and a strengthened civil society. The European Commission and the national and governmental level should go through a formal process of documenting the nature of cooperation with the NGOs, for example by signing memoranda of understanding, service-level agreements or contracts.

17 http://www.ukresilience.info


Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection

Advantages Disadvantages

+ services added – more resources, easier mobilisation, sharing of resources to fill gaps − high coordination efforts

+ resources of organisations benefit from division of work − possible lack of flexibility

+ networking and exchange of knowledge − loss of autonomy for the individual organisation

+ possible cost advantage in making use of volunteer organisations (volunteers are less expensive but not free)

− risk of becoming a scapegoat

+ better knowledge and more efficient communication between organisations

− NGOs may not be capable or be held accountable for what they do

+ marginal fields of Civil Protection will be covered by NGOs (e.g. washing birds after oil spills)

− loss of identity, neutrality and independence

+ NGOs may respond more flexibly to actual problems

− some players may act out “cherry-picking” strategies

+ volunteers can act as multipliers in the population and therefore strengthen public resilience

− risk of socialising costs and privatising revenues

+ motivation of volunteers is high, therefore lower efficiency can be balanced.

Table 21: Advantages and disadvantages for cooperating organisations in Civil Protection

(10) Defining common terms Different entities in the EU Member States and EEA countries use different terms in the field of Civil Protection. A lack of clear definitions of key terms causes incertitude, hampers interoperability and common approaches. Some terms are used as coextensive in some countries, while having a different meaning in other states; for example “civil protection, civil defence, emergency planning/management, disaster management, emergency management, disaster preparedness and response”. Also the term “NGO” is not commonly defined. Phases of Civil Protection should also be clearly defined to facilitate a common approach.

European Commission and National governments – supported by scientists, NGOs and private sector representatives - should define key terms of Civil Protection with special regard to UN definitions and implement them on EU level and in EU Member States and EEA countries.


7 Post project activities Several dissemination activities are planned after the official end of the project for informing stakeholders and organisations working in the field of civil protection in order to guarantee more sustainability of the project outcome. The following activities are included in the dissemination plan:

The final report will be spread in hard copy and/or CD-ROM to all workshop participants, interview partners of the site visits, Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations who answered the questionnaire, the Permanent National Network Correspondents, the Red Cross National Societies and relevant universities and libraries.

In addition, the report will be published on websites of cooperation partners, e.g. European Union, NEDIES, Austrian Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs, Red Cross/EU Office, Austrian Red Cross, German Red Cross, etc.

After approval of the report by the European Commission several articles will be written about the report’s main findings and published in different journals. We have identified relevant journals and will also use media of the Red Cross network in Europe.

We are planning the use of the project results for the NEDIES project (e.g. including the lessons learned and recommendations into the NEDIES database).

The save.cooperation website will be maintained by the Austrian Red Cross and will be used for further projects in this field. The homepage will also link project activities in the field of Civil Protection. We intend to use the recommendations in current projects and activities as well as in future projects (e.g. for DG Environment). Lessons learned shall contribute to avoid “re-inventing the wheel”. Moreover, this project has helped to build new contacts and find new project partners. The European football championship 2008 held in Austria and Switzerland will be a challenging event for all organisations involved in Civil Protection – not only in the host nations of the games, but also surrounding EU Member States. Interoperability counts and will make the difference. We hope to find some of the conclusions and recommendations taken into account or implemented.


8 Literature 8.1 Literature

British Red Cross: “Role of NGOs volunteers in civil protection in EU member States and EEA countries”, 2002

Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS), Cabinett Office UK, March 2007, www.ukresilience.info

Definition Civil Protection, Feb. 2006; Adapted from Multilingual Glossary on Civil Protection 1990,European Commission/Member States Working Party; International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, www.ifrc.org; “Wörterbuch für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe”, Ständige Konferenz für Katastrophenvorsorge und Katastrophenschutz, 2. Auflage, January 2006

Definition Interoperabililty Dec. 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability

Definition NGO, Feb. 2006, http://www.olev.de , http://ngo.org, http://docs.lib.duke.edu

DIEKMANN, A.: “Empirische Sozialforschung”, publisher: Rohwolt Hamburg-Germany, 12th edition, 2004, p. 404 ff

DIEKMANN, A.: “Empirische Sozialforschung”, publisher: Rohwolt Hamburg, Germany, 12th edition, 2004, p. 555-571

“Eidgenössisches Departement Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport” (Switzerland), leaflet, http://www.vbs.admin.ch/

European Commission, Joint Research Centre: NEDIES Project, “Lessons learned from flood disasters”, 2002

European Commission/Member States Working Party: Multilingual Glossary on Civil Protection, 1990

Finnish Voluntary rescue Service (Vapaaehtoinen pelastuspalvelu), March 2007, www.vapepa.fi

International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), March 2007, www.ifrc.org

Österreichischer Zivilschutzverband, Safety Tour, March 2007, www.safety-tour.at

SAMUELSON P.A./NORDHAUS W.D.: “Economics”, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 16th International Edition, Boston 1998, p. 36


Schriftenreihe des DKKV (Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V.) (2003): Hochwasservorsorge in Deutschland – Lernen aus der Katastrophe 2002 im Elbegebiet, Bonn, 2003

Ständige Konferenz für Katastrophenvorsorge und Katastrophenschutz: Wörterbuch für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe, 2. Auflage, January 2006. www.katastrophenvorsorge.de

UCI Health Sciences of the University of California, Irvine, Dec. 2005, http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/emergencymanagement/emergencyMngtProgram/programPdfs/integratedEmergencyMangementSystems.pdf

8.2 Further reading

Adam, Verena (2006): Hochwasser-Katastrophenmanagement – Wirkungsprüfung der Hochwasservorsorge und –bewältigung österreichischer Gemeinden, Wiesbaden, 2006

Akademie für Ehrenamtlichkeit, http://www.ehrenamt.de/, March 2007

Bowers, Helen et al. (2006): Making a difference through volunteering – The impact of volunteers who care and support people at home, London, 2006

Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (2005): Basisschutz für Katastrophenschutz- und Hilfeleistungsorganisationen sowie Einrichtungen der Wohlfahrtspflege, Bonn, 2005

BREYER F./ZWEIFEL P.: “Gesundheitsökonomie”, Springer Verlag, 3. Auflage 1999

British Red Cross: Information Sheet “London bombings” article from August 2005, http://www.redcross.org.uk/standard.asp?id=47934, 31. Aug. 2006

Charity Channel – Connecting non-profit organisations worldwide, http://charitychannel.com/, March 2007

Christou, M.D.; Porter, S., Institute For Systems Informatics And Safety (1999): Guidance on land use planning as required by council directive 96/82/EC (SEVESO 2), Report EUR 18695 EN, Joint Research Centre – European Commission, Luxembourg, 1999

Colombo, Alessandro G. et al., European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen – Technological and Economic Risk Management – Natural Risk Sector (2002): NEDIES PROJECT – Guidelines on Flash Flood Prevention and Mitigation, Report EUR 20386, Ispra, 2002

Colombo, Alessandro G. et al., European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen – Technological and Economic Risk Management – Natural Risk Sector (2003): NEDIES PROJECT – Lessons learned from Forest Fire Disasters, Report EUR 20662, Ispra, 2003


Cruz, Ana Maria et al., European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2004): State of the Art in Natech Risk Management, Report EUR 21292 EN, Italy, 2004

Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V. (2002): “Journalisten-Handbuch zum Katastrophenmanagement 2002 – Erläuterungen und Auswahl fachlicher Ansprechpartner zu Ursachen, Vorsorge und Hilfe bei Naturkatastrophen”, Bonn, 2002

Dombrowsky, Wolf R. et al. (2003): Zivilschutzforschung – Schriftenreihe der Schutzkommission beim Bundesminister des Innern, Band 51: Erstellung eines Schutzdatenatlasses, Bonn, 2003

Dubrovin, Tanja, et al. (2006): Flood management in Finland – Introduction of a new information system, 7th International Conference on Hydroinformatics, Nice, 2006

EMM – Europe Media Monitor, http://emm.jrc.it/NewsBrief/worldedition/de/de.html, March 2007

European Seminar "Information and lessons learned from the actions after the terrorists attack of 11th March in Madrid”, 2004

European Union – Directive Flood Risk Management, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm, March 2007

Fabbri, Luciano et al., Major Accident Hazard Bureau, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2006): Community Documentation Centre on Industrial Risk – Bulletin 21, Report EUR 22195 EN, Italy, 2006

Finish Environment Institute, www.environment.fi/syke, February 2007

French Red Cross: “Best practices and life support kits for self-protection of EU citizens in households, in the case of a daily or disastrous emergency”, Workshop minutes, 2005

Gametheory.net: “Volunteers dilemma”, http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/Games/VolunteersDilemma.html, 20.9.2006

Goldammer, Johann Georg, Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V. (2001): Erstes Forum Katastrophenvorsorge – „Extreme Naturereignisse und Vulnerabilität“, Freiburg im Breisgau, 29. – 30. September 2000, Bonn, 2001

Government of Japan, Office for Disaster Reduction Research, MEXT et al. (2005): Disaster Reduction Technology List On Implementation Strategies – A Contribution from Japan, Kobe-Hyogo, 2005

Hervás, Javier, European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen – Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit (2003): NEDIES PROJECT – Lessons learned from Landslide Disasters in Europe, Report EUR 20558 EN, Ispra, 2003


Hervás, Javier, European Commission, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen – Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit (2003): NEDIES PROJECT – Lessons learned from Fires in Buildings, Report EUR 21006 EN, Ispra, 2003

Hervás, Javier, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen – Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit (2003): NEDIES PROJECT - Recommendations to deal with Snow Avalanches in Europe, Report EUR 20839, Ispra, 2003

HM Government: Emergency Preparedness – Guidance on Part 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, its associated Regulations and non-statutory arrangement, Chapter 14: The role of the voluntary sector, www.ukresilience.info/ccact/eppdfs/emergprepfinal.pdf, February 2007

Independent Sector – A vital force for us all, http://test.independentsector.org/, March 2007

Institute for Volunteering Research, http://www.ivr.org.uk/, March 2007

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies, http://www.floodsite.net/default.htm, March 2007

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies, 6th Framework Programme, www.floodsite.net, February 2007

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Disaster Response Laws, Rules and Principles programme, http://www.ifrc.org/what/disasters/idrl/, March 2007

ISDR – International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, http://www.unisdr.org/, March 2007

KIRGUSKESKUS 10 (2006): Estonian Radiation Protection Centre, Tallinn, 2006, http://www.envir.ee/kiirgus/

Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (2006): Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlamentes und des Rates über die Bewertung und Bekämpfung von Hochwasser (SEK (2006) 66), Brüssel, KOM (2006) 15 endgültig vom 18.01.2006

Major Incident – Procedure Manual, 6th Edition – July 2004, www.leslp.gov.uk/frames.htm, February 2007

Managing the risks of flooding in Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/newsanddoc/article_3249_en.htm, March 2007

MERRIAM WEBSTER Dictionary, Definition of Civil Defence, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil+defense, 19 Sept. 2006


Mertsch, Sabine, Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V (2004): Risikomanagement als Konzept zur Risikominderung am Beispiel der überflutungsgefährdeten Räume Schleswig-Holsteins, Bonn, 2004

Ministry of the Interior Finland (2005): Annual Report 2005, Helsinki, 2005

Multilingual Glossary on Civil Protection 1990, European Commission/Member States Working Party

MYATT D.P. / WALLACE C.: “An Evolutionary Analysis of the volunteers dilemma”, University of Oxford, July 2006, http://malroy.econ.ox.ac.uk/ccw/pdf/Volunteers.pdf, 19.9.2006

NCVO – The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/, March 2007

Office Central de la Défense - OCD, Aide en cas de catastrophe,1996, p. 14

ReliefWeb – Glossaries and Reference Material, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/doc207?OpenForm&query=4&cat=Glossaries%20and%20Reference%20Material, March 2007

Ranguelov, Boyko et al., European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2005): Natural hazards and nonlinearities – NEDIES – Research and benefits to the NEDIES Project, Report EUR 21643 EN, Ispra, 2005

Schriftenreihe des DKKV (Deutsches Komitee für Katastrophenvorsorge e.V.): Hochwasservorsorge in Deutschland – Lernen aus der Katastrophe 2002 im Elbegebiet, Bonn, 2003

Serviceleader.org, Volunteer Management USA, http://www.serviceleader.org/new/index.php, March 2007

Smith, E. J.; Purdy, G., Institute For Systems Engineering And Informatics (1990): Community Documentation Centre On Industrial Risk – Lessons learned from Emergencies After Accidents in the United Kingdom Involving Dangerous Substances, Report EUR 13322 EN, Joint Research Centre – European Commission, Luxembourg, 1990

The European Volunteer Center, http://www.cev.be/, March 2007

United Nations (2006): Global Survey of Early Warning Systems – An assessment of capacities, gaps and opportunities toward building a comprehensive global early warning system for all natural hazards, Bonn, 2006

United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs – UN/DHA, Gloss. Disaster Management, 1992, p. 22

Vetere Arellano, Ana Lisa et al., European Commission, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen – Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit (2004):


Analysis of Natech (Natural Hazard Triggering Technological Disasters) Disaster Management – NEDIES Workshop Proceedings – Ispra, Italy, 20 – 21 October 2003, Report EUR 21054, Ispra, 2004

VON KIRCHBACH, H.-P., FRANKLE S., BIELE H., MINNICH L., EPPLE M., SCHÄFER F., UNNASCH F., SCHUSTER M. (2002): „Bericht der Unabhängigen Kommission der Sächsischen Staatsregierung“, Flutkatastrophe 2002. Dresden, cited in: DKKV (2002), Hochwasservorsorge in Deutschland, p. 96 and 97

Vorschriften und Erlasse – Landesfeuerwehrschule Schleswig-Holstein, http://www.lfs-sh.de/LFS_2005/Vorschriften/Dienstvorschriften.php, March 2007

WIKIPEDIA (2006): “Marktversagen und Öffentliche Güter”, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marktversagen, 18 Sept. 2006

WorldNet 2.1, Princeton University 2005, http://www.linguasphere.org/dictionary/n-58039-protection.html, 19 Sept. 2006

World Volunteer Net, http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/, March 2007

Zentralstelle für Gesamtverteidigung - ZGV, Switzerland, Grundzüge der Katastrophenhilfe, 96, p. 13

Documents

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CIVIL PROTECTION HANDBOOK FOR EU …ec.europa.eu/echo/files/civil_protection/civil/prote/pdfdocs/savecoop... · HANDBOOK FOR EU MEMBER STATES AND EEA COUNTRIES