Implementation of the EU Host Nation Support Guidelinesec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/2012_final_report_eu_host_nation.pdfImplementation of the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines

Implementation of the EU Host Nation

Support Guidelines

HNSG Implementation ECHO/SUB/2012/638451

Final Report

Implementation of the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines

Project funded by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument 2013-2014

Funded by ECHO

Associated Partners: Coordinating Partner:

2

3

Contents About the project .................................................................................................................................... 6

Financial Report ....................................................................................................................................... 7

About the Beneficiaries ......................................................................................................................... 10

Icelandic Red Cross ............................................................................................................................ 10

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies .................................................. 10

Finnish Red Cross ............................................................................................................................... 10

The Irish Red Cross ............................................................................................................................ 11

The Latvian Red Cross........................................................................................................................ 11

The Polish Red Cross.......................................................................................................................... 11

Planned objects and results .................................................................................................................. 12

Progress overview ................................................................................................................................. 13

Start-up tasks ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Country level studies ......................................................................................................................... 13

Mid term meeting ............................................................................................................................. 18

Country level workshops ................................................................................................................... 18

Tabletop exercises ............................................................................................................................. 20

Preparation of the draft synthesis report ......................................................................................... 20

Organization of regional level workshop .......................................................................................... 21

Analysis of Procedures for Host Nation Support in Disaster Response in the EU and a Selection of

Member States ...................................................................................................................................... 23

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ 25

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 29

2.a Past Disaster Experience and Likely Disaster Scenarios .............................................................. 29

2.b The EU Framework for Disaster Assistance ................................................................................. 31

The EU Host Nation Support Guidelines ........................................................................................ 31

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism ............................................................................................... 32

The EU Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements (IPCR) ................................................ 33

On 25 June 2013, the Council approved the IPCR, reinforcing the European Union's ability to

take rapid and coordinated decisions with regard to disasters requiring a response at the

political level. These arrangements finalise the review of the EU Emergency and Crisis

Coordination Arrangements (CCA), which were formally agreed in 2006. ................................... 33

2.c Other Arrangements for Disaster Assistance .............................................................................. 33

Informal Arrangements ................................................................................................................. 33

Multilateral Agreements ............................................................................................................... 34

NATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre ........................................................ 36

4

Other International and Regional Organisations .......................................................................... 36

2.d Overview of Disaster Management within National Legal Systems ........................................... 37

Responsible Authorities ................................................................................................................. 37

Legislative and Policy Frameworks ................................................................................................ 39

2.e Role of Armed Forces .................................................................................................................. 39

Domestic Armed Forces ................................................................................................................. 41

2.f Role of the National Societies and Other Voluntary Organisations ............................................. 41

Coordination of Other Actors and Relation with International Movement ................................... 42

Other Voluntary Organisations and Private Sector ....................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 3: REGULATION OF THE ENTRY AND OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE ............ 45

3.a Availability of Legal Facilities and Domestic Legal Status ............................................................ 45

Recommendations: ........................................................................................................................ 47

3.b Form and Content of Requests and Termination of Assistance .................................................. 47


3.c Entry Into EU Territory ................................................................................................................. 49

3.d Recognition of Professional Qualifications.................................................................................. 51


3.e Customs and Taxation ................................................................................................................. 53

Customs ......................................................................................................................................... 54

Taxation ......................................................................................................................................... 55


3.f Food and Medicine ....................................................................................................................... 57

Food ............................................................................................................................................... 57

Medicine ........................................................................................................................................ 58


3.g Rescue Animals ............................................................................................................................ 59


3.h Transporting Relief ...................................................................................................................... 61

Road Transport .............................................................................................................................. 61

Air .................................................................................................................................................. 62

Maritime ........................................................................................................................................ 63

Access to the disaster-affected site ............................................................................................... 64


3.i Extended Hours ............................................................................................................................ 65


3.j Telecommunications .................................................................................................................... 66

5


CHAPTER 4: MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ............................................................................... 68

4.a Quality Control ............................................................................................................................ 68


4.b. Security Control and Insurance .................................................................................................. 69


Insurance ....................................................................................................................................... 71


4.c Diversion, Misappropriation and Fraud ....................................................................................... 72


4.d Responsibility for Costs ............................................................................................................... 74


4.e Liability, Damages and Reparations ............................................................................................ 76

Liability .......................................................................................................................................... 76

Damages and Reparations ............................................................................................................ 78


CHAPTER 5: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 80

5.a Introduction and Update ............................................................................................................. 80

Coordination .................................................................................................................................. 80


Data Protection ............................................................................................................................. 81

Language ....................................................................................................................................... 82

Dissemination ................................................................................................................................ 82

5.b Early Warning, Notification and Information Exchange .............................................................. 82


5.c Media and Communication ......................................................................................................... 85


5.d Currency Exchange and Cross-border Payments ........................................................................ 86


5.e Terminology and Definitions ....................................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER 6: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 90

6

About the project The preparedness project Implementation of the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines (HNSG

Implementation) seeked to assist the governments of Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia and Poland to

strengthen their legal preparedness for the facilitation and regulation of international assistance

through the preparation of a comprehensive study report based on the EU’s Host Nation Support

Guidelines (HNS Guidelines) and the Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of

International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance (IDRL Guidelines). It examined relevant

national and provincial laws and policies, bilateral agreements among states, as well as the

implementation of key international and regional legal instruments. It involved legal research,

consultations, workshops and exercises leading to an analysis of the strengths and areas that might be

strengthened in the domestic regulatory framework, with recommendations in this regard.

Project beneficiaries were as follows: Coordinating beneficiary: Icelandic Red Cross; associated

beneficiaries: Finnish Red Cross, Irish Red Cross, Latvian Red Cross, Polish Red Cross and the

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The objective of this project was to improve the effectiveness of host nation support among Civil

Protection Mechanism Participating States through a detailed analysis of existing domestic legislation

and regulation in Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia and Poland, regional table top exercises, and a

regional workshop, based on the EU Guidelines on Host Nation Support, and drawing on the IDRL

Guidelines, as adopted by EU member states at the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and

Red Crescent.

Law and regulations in the above-mentioned five North-European countries were examined in order

to see how they promote or hinder the speedy and effective flow of cross-border assistance in disaster

situations in areas including (but not limited to) customs, tax, transport, and telecommunications, co-

ordination and quality control. The project therefore assisted the authorities in these five countries in

preparations to implement the EU Guidelines on Host Nation Support.

On behalf of the project team

Jón Brynjar Birgisson

Project Manager

Icelandic Red Cross

7

HNSG IMPLEMENTATION ECHO/SUB/2012/638451

Financial Report

Breakdown of action by task

Actual cost Budget Percentage

Task A - Startup tasks

Personnel 4.316 € 5.710 € 76%

Travel and subsistance 6.978 € 6.035 € 116%

Indirect cost 150,00 € 822 € 18%

Subtotal Task A 11.294 € 12.567 € 89,9%

Task B - Preparation of country level studies

Personnel cost 6.200 € 7.965 € 77,8%

Travel and subsistence 1.545 € 1.400 € 110,4%

Equipment 497 € 939 € 52,9%

Subcontracting/external assistance

57.679 € 66.400 € 86,9%

Indirect costs/overheads

3.200 € 5.369 € 59,6%

Subtotal Task B 69.121 € 82.073 € 84,2%

Task C - Mid-term meeting

Personnel cost 3.300 € 8.333 € 39,6%


Equipment - € - € 0,0%


- € 1.020 € 0,0%


500 € 1.261 € 39,7%

Subtotal Task C 7.205 € 19.284 € 37,4%

Task D - Organisation of country level workshops

Personnel cost 14.200 € 15.125 € 93,9%

Travel and subsistence 416 € 5.630 € 7,4%



5.041 € 5.790 € 87,1%


1.800 € 1.858 € 96,9%

Subtotal Task D 21.457 € 28.403 € 75,5%

Task E - Finalisation of country level studies

Personnel cost 3.300 € 5.802 € 56,9%

8

Travel and subsistence - € 0,0%



12.003 € 24.790 € 48,4%


1.500 € 2.141 € 70,1%

Subtotal Task E 16.803 € 32.733 € 51,3%

Task F - Table-top exercises

Personnel cost 500 € 4.245 € 11,8%

Travel and subsistence - € 1.000 € 0,0%



- € 650 € 0,0%


- € 413 € 0,0%

Subtotal Task F 500 € 6.308 € 7,9%

Task G - Preparation of draft synthesis report

Personnel cost 4.170 € 4.462 € 93,5%




5.323 € 8.830 € 60,3%


1.100 € 1.206 € 91,2%

Subtotal Task G 13.593 € 18.428 € 73,8%

Task H - Organisation of EU level workshop

Personnel cost 5.600 € 6.893 € 81,2%




- € 5.000 € 0,0%


2.100 € 3.918 € 53,6%

Subtotal Task H 22.324 € 59.886 € 37,3%

Task I - Finalisation of synthesis report

Personnel cost 1.800 € 3.065 € 58,7%

Travel and subsistence - € 0,0%

Equipment - € 0,0%


5.377 € 2.530 € 212,5%


300 € 392 € 76,5%

Subtotal Task I 7.477 € 5.987 € 124,9%

9

Task J - Dissemination of synthesis report

Personnel cost 1.100 € 1.615 € 68,1%

Travel and subsistence - € 3.300 € 0,0%



- € 4.500 € 0,0%


- € 659 € 0,0%

Subtotal Task J 1.100 € 10.074 € 10,9%

Total project (task A through J) 170.873 € 275.743 €

62,0%

10

About the Beneficiaries

Icelandic Red Cross

The Icelandic Red Cross (IRC) was established in 1924. IRC has 80 employees, 23,000 members, 3,500

volunteers and 44 local branches. The work of IRC complements the Icelandic welfare system and is a

key component of the nation's emergency response capacity.

During national emergencies and mass casualty incidents the Icelandic Red Cross has a clearly defined

role as provider of care to those affected. An agreement between the National Commissioner of the

Icelandic Police – Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management and the Red Cross spells

out in detail the roles and responsibilities of each organisation. The role of the Red Cross is mass care

and psychosocial support, including the management of humanitarian assistance centres and provision

of temporary housing. Hundreds of volunteers around the country have been trained as Red Cross

disaster response volunteers.

Among other domestic programmes, the IRC runs shelters for the mentally disabled, home visiting

service, first aid training, a 24/7 helpline, assistance to immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. The

IRC owns and operates all ambulances in Iceland. The IRC cooperates with the International Committee

of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation (IFRC) in disaster response abroad.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies The International Federation is a global network of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,

representing 97 million volunteers, supporters and staff worldwide. Its Secretariat has its

headquarters in Switzerland but also maintains delegations in various parts of the world. The

International Federation coordinates and directs international assistance from the International Red

Cross and Red Crescent Movement following natural and man-made disasters in non-conflict

situations. It works with National Societies in responding to catastrophes around the world. Its relief

operations are combined with development work, including disaster preparedness programmes,

health and care activities, and the promotion of humanitarian values. Its mission is to improve the lives

of vulnerable people by mobilizing the power of humanity.

For the last fifteen years, the International Federation has also supported a dedicated programme on

“International Disaster Response Laws, Rules and Principles” (IDRL) (www.ifrc.org/idrl), undertaking

research and consultations on legal issues in disaster relief in various parts of the world.

Finnish Red Cross The Finnish Red Cross (FRC) consists of Headquarters, 12 District Offices and around 500 Branch

Activity Units. The number of members in the FRC is close to 90 000 persons, and there are some

45,000 active volunteers implementing the plans of action.

The FRC is an active player both in international operations and domestic activities. International

operations are divided into disaster relief and development cooperation. Main priorities and areas of

specialisation are community based health care and first aid, disaster preparedness/DRR and climate

change adaptation, capacity building and training. The Logistic Centre of the FRC has rather massive

amount of relief items pre-stocked in warehouse in order to enable timely response to any disaster

within Finland and abroad. Emergency Response Units (ERUs) are the most well-known product that

has been deployed to various relief operations internationally by the FRC.

11

The FRC's domestic activities include first aid, voluntary rescue service, HIV/AIDS programmes, psycho-

social support in crisis situations, blood transfusion service, refugee assistance and promoting

International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Red Cross volunteers form the basis for all these activities.

Organisational development is an interlinking component of the FRC activities. Due to its auxiliary role

to government of Finland, the FRC has a good working relationship with various authorities in the

country.

The Irish Red Cross

The Irish Red Cross has 5,468 members active through some 144 branches which are governed by an

Executive Committee elected from a broadly representative Central Council. The Society is active and

competent in the provision of services related to First Aid, Search and Rescue, Community Based

Health, Restoring Family Links and Ambulance Services. Such services are acknowledged by the

national authorities in accordance with the auxiliary role of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

worldwide in humanitarian affairs and supported by voluntary members and professional staff are

mobilised to meet local needs when disasters or crises arise by way of contribution to the National

Disaster Management Framework.

In the International context, the Society supports the IFRC and the ICRC in responding to crises

worldwide as well as longer term development activities and is thereby active along the full relief to

development continuum. Irish Red Cross also undertakes bilateral activities where possible in support

of disaster response and recovery as well as local capacity building internationally with a particular

geographical focus on Africa.

The Latvian Red Cross Latvian Red Cross (LRC) is non-profit humanitarian volunteer organization. Its activity covers whole

territory of Latvia. LRC provides assistance to the most vulnerable people in local communities. LRC

has 13,125 members, 1,685 volunteers, 344 local units, 28 regional branches and 19 LRC Youth units.

The purpose of the LRC is to act auxiliary to the State by improving living conditions of vulnerable

people.

To reduce human suffering and consequences of natural or manmade disasters the LRC is constantly

strengthening its disaster preparedness capacity. The LRC has 11 disaster preparedness units, which

are trained to provide support in disasters, engage in search and rescue operations, and provide first

aid and psychosocial support. In order to develop skills of volunteers, trainings and competitions are

organised in Latvia on annual basis as well as continuous cooperation with other Baltic and

Scandinavian partners is ensured.

The LRC Youth members and volunteers are actively engaged in disaster preparedness programme

activities focusing mainly on youth target group. Among other activities LRC Youth is organising

seminars, trainings, camps and public campaigns on Disaster preparedness, Civil protection, First aid

etc.

The Polish Red Cross

The organizational structure of the Polish Red Cross (PRC) is divided into levels: national, district and

local. The fourth level comprises the basic units (e.g. Voluntary Blood Donor’s Clubs), settled at the

bottom of the hierarchy and at the same time - the organization’s foundation. Detailed competences

12

of the structures are regulated by the Statute, as well as additional regulations and instructions issued

on its basis. The work of the organization is supervised by:

The National Council of Representatives (NCR) – the legislative body acting as the Red Cross

governance and regulating its internal functioning, as well as outlining the strategy of its

activity. The NCR is represented by field delegates (district representatives)

The Executive Board – the executive body that manages the work of the organization. Its

members are elected every four years by the NCR.

The main activities of the PRC are: health promotion, blood donation, first aid, rescue service,

assistance campaigns in case of disasters, tracing service, disemination of international humanitarian

law.

Planned objects and results The first stage consisted of individual country case studies conducted by the project partners in close

consultation with domestic civil protection authorities. The main actions were: (1) partnership

planning discussions establishing national priorities, transnational commonalities and to agree detail

of the research and approach; (2) desk research with all relevant stakeholders; (3) mid-term

stakeholders’ meeting where representatives of civil protection authorities and project partners

reviewed the draft country studies; (4) national workshops and consultation with expert peer support

group; and (5) production of reports.

Each country level study resulted in the production of a report identifying good practice, existing

disparities in domestic legislation and guidelines from the EU Guidelines on Host Nation Support, and

recommendations for national legislators and civil protection agencies in ensuring improved alignment

of national law and regulation.

The second stage consolidated the results of the research. Two table-top exercises were to be

organised in order to test how law and regulations help or hinder cross-border assistance.

Unfortunately these didn‘t go according to planned, as stated in the process chapter, which concluded

in the downscaling of the project. A regional level workshop was conducted to draw conclusions from

this and prior reports and to monitor progress in implementing the EU Guidelines on Host Nation

Support in other EU member states and at the EU level. In light of this experience, the

recommendations of a previous study, Analysis of Law in the European Union pertaining to Cross-

Border Disaster Relief, which was undertaken by fellow Red Cross partners and supported by the EU,

was revisited with an eye to updating and refining them.

The main actions of the second stage were: (1) organise a joint table-top exercise with civil protection

authorities in Finland and their respective Red Cross Society; (2) consolidate results of national studies

and the results of the exercises; (3) a regional level workshop with participants from other European

civil protection authorities and civil society; (4) preparation of a final report and recommendations; (5)

dissemination of results via national and EU level target beneficiaries, among Nordic countries and

among Baltic countries (through Latvia and Estonia – supported by Finnish Red Cross).

Reports were disseminated at European and national levels by project participants, and used as a basis

for dialogue with relevant authorities and civil protection actors. The outcomes of this stage were

targeted discussions for any necessary procedural or legislative change in each country. The result of

this stage added European-level value through consultation, collaboration and shared experience. It

provided value for money by addressing a target audience as well, who will influence the outcomes for

the general public.

13

The various reports and the consultative process of the project are expected to result in significantly

heightened attention to gaps in regulatory frameworks and provide recommendations to policy

makers on how best to address these at national as well as EU levels. If adopted, these

recommendations will lead to a reduction of the unnecessary red tape which still obstructs the flow

and quality of civil protection assistance within the EU.

Progress overview

Start-up tasks Steering committee was assembled on 1 February 2013.

Two representatives from the coordinating beneficiary (Icelandic Red Cross), Thorir Gudmundsson and

Jón Brynjar Birgisson, attended a kick-off meeting in Brussels at ECHO headquarters on 17 January

2013 and presented the project.

First steering committee meeting was held in Brussels in February at the Red Cross EU Office. The

meeting agreed upon an agreement that included terms of reference and standardised plans.

Attendees were: Jón B Birgisson from Icelandic Red Cross, Colm Byrne from Irish Red Cross, Melinda

Palomaa from Finnish Red Cross, Paulina Pajkiert from Polish Red Cross, Liga Kaca from Latvian Red

Cross, Elyse Mosquini from the IFRC and two guests from Red Cross EU Office. A Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) was drafted at the meeting. Terms of Reference were included in the MoU which

was signed afterwards by the Secretary Generals of the National Societies and the Under-Secretary

General of the IFRC.

A common research methodology and report structure were developed and agreed among the project

beneficiaries. The project team decided to collaborate on the web-based project management

platform Basecamp.

Country level studies Icelandic Red Cross contracted LOGOS law firm. LOGOS performed the country-level study in Iceland.

The study report was written in English with an Icelandic summary. Three researchers worked on the

project: Mr. Árni Vilhjalmsson supreme court attorney and firm partner, Sigurbjörn Ingimundarson B.A.

in law and firm associate and Sigvaldi Fannar Jónsson legal intern. The project was introduced to the

main government stakeholders. The National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police – Department of

Civil Protection and Emergency Management assisted the researchers with overall coordination and

consultation.

The country level research was conducted in three phases:

Identifying relevant stakeholders.

Focus group interviews

Drafting and finalisation of report

The following were identified as key stakeholders and were invited to participate in focus group

interviews: National Commissioner of the Police-Department of Civil Protection and Emergency

Management, Ministry of industries and Innovation, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Welfare, Ministry

of Finance, Directorate of Health, Directorate of Immigration, Directorate of Labour, Icelandic

14

Medicines Agency, Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority, Directorate of Internal Revenue, Central

Bank of Iceland, Directorate of Customs, Icelandic Transport Authority, ISAVIA-Aviation Agency, The

Icelandic Coast Guard, 112 Iceland, Post and Telecom Administration, Iceland Construction Authority,

ICE-SAR-Icelandic Search and Rescue Organisation. Stakeholder involvement varied from one focus

group to another, depending on relevance and expertise.

Focus group 1: Personnel

a. Policies relating to visas and employment permits for international assisting

actors

b. Employment rights and personal liability

c. Recognition of professional qualifications

d. Existing and potential derogations in crisis situations

Focus group 2: Customs, taxation, bank accounts and currency exchange

a. Customs procedures and conditions of import/export

b. Issues relating to the importation of food, medicine and animals

c. Taxation of international assisting actors under Icelandic law

d. Existing and potential derogations in crisis situations

Focus group 3: Transport and communication

a. Regulation under Icelandic law of international and national air, road and

sea transport during emergencies

b. Existing and potential derogations during emergencies

c. Regulation under Icelandic law of telecommunication during emergencies

Focus group 4: Request for and coordination of international assistance

Draft report was presented to the Icelandic Red Cross and the NCIP/DCPEM at the end of September

and finalised at the end of the year 2013.

The Finnish Red Cross filled the position for the country level research consultant in the beginning of

April 2013. The consultant was an undergraduate student who, in addition to the country level study,

did her graduation thesis in legislation on host nation support.

On the 8th of April a meeting was held with the Finnish Ministry of the Interior (head of international

affairs unit and her senior officer and ministerial adviser). They were committed to working closely

with the project team. The ministry planned a parallel Host Nation Support project alongside the HNSG

Implementation project. A steering group was established with the already mentioned MoI people,

the consultant and Finnish Red Cross: head of domestic disaster management unit and head of

international operations and programmes.

The research contractor worked on the study with material related to legislation and agreements as

well as expert statements and interviews from May through August.

The HNSG team in Finnish Red Cross met twice during the research period with the local civil protection

authorities, in order to conduct the study and invite participants to the country level workshop.The

15

first draft of the research report circulated in August through over 20 relevant stakeholders for

comments.

The finalised report was worked out from comments from the first round and translated to English.

The Irish Red Cross commissioned The Centre for Humanitarian Action at University College Dublin to

undertake the study.

This first tasks were characterised by the preparation of the project implementation plan on

conducting the country level research study in Ireland.

The first key activity for Irish Red Cross was recruitment of a suitable research consultant. Following a

successful tendering process, recruitment of the research consultant took place during the last month

of the reporting period.

The Irish Red Cross set up a steering sub-group, primarily, made up of key stakeholders in Ireland who

were responsible for faciliatating and monitoring the conduct of the research and reporting study. The

first meeting of this sub-group took place on 30 April 2013 in which the project was presented and

discussed.

Secondary tasks were a desk research and analysis of the data and secondly qualitative research based

on a mixed consultative approach with stakeholders.

Following development of a study framework incorporating the IDRL and HNS guidelines, existing laws

and policies, treaties, agreements and other international instruments were examined so as to analyse

Ireland‘s legal and policy framework for international disaster response.

The results of this research, together with tentative recommendations, were submitted to relevant

stakeholders for validation by means of focus group discussions and interviews. In the week of June 24

– 28 2013, four focus groups were held in relation to the following key themes:

- Personnel

- Goods and Equipment

- Transport and

- Requestes for, offers of, initiation, termination and coordination of relief.

These issues were chosen on the basis that there were a wide variety of stakeholders that could

contribute on each of the issues. Consultations with stakeholders concerning the remaining issues

were conducted by means of semi-structured interviews. These were conducted either in person or by

telephone.

In early September the first draft report including key findings and recommendations was circulated

to relevant stakeholders for feedback.

The Latvian Red Cross contracted the law firm ADVERSUS in March 2013. The firm has worked with the

Latvian Red Cross in previous partnership projects. The Latvian country-level study was written by

lawyer’s assistant Ieva Balcere in Latvian and was be translated to English. Researchers studied the

project tasks and gave information about the research methodology.

The project was introduced to the Latvian Civil Protection - Fire & Rescue Service, which served as the

primary civil protection consultant.

16

The research was conducted by using different research methods and techniques, including interviews

and workshops with experts from the state institutions, scholars and other stakeholders, and using

research methodology set out by the Project Terms of Reference (ToR). The research was done in five

stages:

1) Preliminary research;

2) Research of regulatory framework;

3) Preparation of the draft study report;

4) Coordination of the draft study report;

5) Translation of the study report into English.

Within the preliminary research the following was analised: EU’s Host Nation Support Guidelines (HNS

guidelines), Guidelines and comments for the domestic facilitation and regulation of international

disaster relief and initial recovery assistance (IDRL guidelines) and studied similar researches done by

other countries with respect to foreign disaster response. Laws, regulations, policies and rules relevant

to international disaster response were identified according to the guidelines and checklists provided.

The preliminary research was concluded by reviewing the ToR and developing detailed working plan

for performing the activities identified in the ToR.

After the detailed working plan was developed an analysis was conducted of national and international

laws, regulations, agreements, treaties, policies and rules relevant to international disaster response

and their compliance with HSN and IDRL guidelines. This stage involved not only research of regulatory

framework, but also meetings, workshops and/or consultations with relevant state institutions

(including the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, customs authorities, State Agency of

Medicines, Food and Veterinary Service, State Labour Inspectorate etc.) and cooperation partners-

State Fire and rescue service of Latvia and Latvian Red Cross. The analysis was conducted not only

based on the ToR but also on study framework developed by the Irish researches (Study Framework).

Based on the findings and information established during the preliminary research and research stage

drafting of the report was commenced. As the previous stages of the study were based on not only

ToR but also Study Framework, the draft report not only corresponds to the ToR, but also provides

answers to the questions specified in the Study Framework. This stage of the research included also

such activities as coordination of the draft report with Latvian Red Cross and State Fire and rescue

service of Latvia, preparation of appendixes, including translations of the relevant laws and regulations

and summaries of those relevant laws and regulations that do not have translations in English

language.

Translation of the draft study report was organised after the final draft was coordinated Latvian Red

Cross and State Fire and rescue service of Latvia. This stage included also proofreading of the

translation and formatting the final version of the translation.

Polish Red Cross identified an academic entity and its representatives were contacted in order to

discuss possibilities of collaboration. The talks were held with the sociologists working for the entity in

question (Collegium Civitas) and provisional terms of partnership were settled. It was decided that the

country-level study was conducted by two experts: one representing Collegium Civitas – with

knowledge of methodology and methods of investigation, data collection and interviews conducting;

and one representing the Polish Red Cross – with expertise in the area of the Host Nation Support. A

17

contract was signed with both consultants. The assigned researchers agreed on methodology and

standardised plans for the actions to follow, to clarify approaches, to conclude tasks division and to

establish a tentative agenda of work.

Simultaneously with the process of searching for and recruiting the researchers, the Polish Red Cross

initiated a preliminary overview of the issues that could be of relevance for the Project. A trainee was

contracted by the PRC International Cooperation Department. His primary task was to review pertinent

documents at respect (internal laws, bilateral agreements, regional and international treaties and

mechanisms of which Poland is party), as well as gather applicable information and systematize it in

order to facilitate and provide foundation for the future studies of the consultants.

Primary focal points representing the Polish civil protection system structures were contacted.

One of the researchers took part in a conference held by Jagiellonian University in the course of which

the panellists, scholars and auditing students discussed the current challenges of international public

law, including the international law concerning disasters and situations of emergency.

The researcher took part in a Community Mechanism Induction Course (CMI), offered by the European

Civil Protection Mechanism. The content of CMI course perfectly matched the range of knowledge that

would be precise and relevant for the Polish country-level study.

Since May, activities regarding the substantive dimension of the Project were performed by the Polish

Red Cross. First of all, an academic entity, Collegium Civitas – previously identified as adequate for the

research purposes – was contracted and the assigned investigators agreed on methodology, consistent

plans of action, agenda, approaches and tasks division.

In June, the country-level study was launched. Initially, desk research was conducted using existing

source documents and secondary data – Polish and international legislation, national operational

regulations (plans, strategies, procedures), reports, databases, publications and other information

available in the Internet. An in-depth verification of the gathered materials allowed the project group

to establish compliance of national laws with international legislation, in particular EU HNSG and Red

Cross IDRL Guidelines and Model Act. The analysis of institutional and legal environment enabled key

research questions to be formulated and then used in the field stage of the study.

The next step was 16 interviews with the total of 46 competent people. The interviews followed

qualitative social research methodology and the following research techniques were used: in-depth

interview (IDI) and focus group interview (FGI). Interviews were carried out with representatives of

national public institutions, central level authorities, ministries and NGOs. Units that could not

participate in an interview were asked to answer, via e-mail, specific questions formulated during the

field study. Explanations thus provided supplemented the information obtained during direct

interviews and were also included in this report.

Interviews and correspondence provided a broad range of empirical data that were analysed and

interpreted. The resultant expert material enabled authors to draw conclusions on experiences and

practices of hosting international support during calamities and disasters in Poland, to indicate certain

barriers and gaps in the national system and to formulate recommendations on the subject concerned.

18

The research phase finished at the beginning of September and the draft report was presented.

Afterwards, the final consultations with the relevant stakeholders were completed and the country-

level study was translated into English.

The IFRC participated in the Steering Committee meeting in Brussels on 25 February, and gave a

presentation to the Steering Committee members on the HNS Guidelines, the IDRL Guidelines and

lessons learned from a related project covering 6 other EU member countries in 2009/2010

(070401/2008/20842/SUB/A3). A side meeting was also held with Antonin Petr of ECHO to brief him

on the project and develop linkages with current strategies and on-going implementation efforts for

the HNS Guidelines.

The IFRC also met with several Italian professors leading a study on legal issues in international disaster

response. Their study included a review of host nation support and the legal framework for

international disaster assistance in Italy. Possible linkages between this project and their study were

explored.

The IFRC contributed to the refinement of the research methodology for the country studies. This

included hosting a teleconference of the steering committee and research consultants, as well as

advising several of the researchers individually.

The IFRC presented at the annual NATO Civil Protection Seminar. The seminar, under the theme “Host

Nation Support in International Disaster Assistance – Challenges and Perspectives” provided an

opportunity to profile the project and the issue of legal preparedness for international disaster

assistance among the civil protection authorities participating (including authorities from two of the

project countries).

The IFRC also continued discussions with the team leading a study on legal issues in international

disaster response in Italy. Following the discussions, the Italian project aligned its research

methodology. This became of benefit to this project, adding an additional study for comparative

analysis (from a country with considerable disaster risk exposure and response capacity. Initial

connections were also made with Italian civil protection authorities in view of the Italian Presidency of

the EU in 2014.

Mid term meeting The mid-term meeting was held in Dublin on 30 October 2013 with participation of the steering

committee and civil protection representatives from each country. Each country-level report was

introduced and discussed with focus on main findings and recommendations. Civil protection

participants discussed the relevance of the project and how these studies might impact national

contingencies.

The upcoming country level workshops were discussed and planned and modifiactions were made to

the reports according to the meeting‘s findings.

Country level workshops The Icelandic country-level study was finalised by the end of 2013 and sent to main stakeholders in

Iceland. The study was then formally introduced to stakeholders during a workshop that was held on

19 February 2014 in Reykjavik. 73 people from all stakeholders (ministries, governmental agencies and

NGOs) attended the event. The agenda consisted of three components: Introduction of the HNSG

Implementation project (presented by the Icelandic Red Cross); main findings of the country-level

19

study (presented by LOGOS legal service) and host nation support/civil protecion mechanism in Iceland

(presented by National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police – Department of civil protection and

emergency management).

The workshop got a lot of media coverage. The following media companies covered the event: Channel

2 (TV), Bylgjan Radio Station, both leading newspapers (Frettabladid and Morgunbladid) and National

Broadcasting Company - Radio 1. The coverage was unanimous: The government of Iceland should

implement host nation support guidelines without hesitation. The coverage put a lot of focus on

increased tourism in the Arctic region, especially cruise ships. It was stated that Iceland would not be

able to respond to a cruise ship accident in Icelandic waters without external assistance. HNSG-

implementation should should therefore become a priority. Other stakeholders, such as the Icelandic

Coast Guard and the University of Iceland followed up on the workshop and held a seperate conference

two months later, focusing on search and rescue in the Arctic Region, where HNS was included.

The Ministry of Interior put together a task group in February 2014 put together a task group that is

taking HNS further i.e. by examining needs for relevant legislational changes and/or contingency

planning. The national commissioner of the Icelandic police is furthermore working on HNS

contingency planning. An exercise will be held in the Reykjavik harbour in May where responders will

exercise for a cruise ship accident. HNS will be included in the exercise.

Finnish Red Cross distributed the country-level report on three occasions and it was complemented at

each round according to stakeholder’s comments. The third and final version of the assessment was

sent to interested parties for comments on 20 January 2014.

The workshop was conducted on the 5th of November 2013 in Helsinki. The Ministry of interior was

chairing the workshop. There were 17 participants (Finnish Ministry of Defence, Ministry for Foreign

Affairs, National Emergency Supply Agency, Regional State Administrative Agencies in Finland,

Estonian Red Cross, Departmental Rescue Services representative, Customs, Border Guard, Prime

Minister’s Office and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health). As one of the results of the workshop, new

matters were brought up, which can also be utilised for making the actual HNS plan. The invitations

for this workshop were accepted in a positive way and the discussion warmly welcomed by

participants.

The Latvian Red Cross conducted the national workshop on 22 January 2014 national workshop, during

which was presented Latvia country study for key stakeholders in relevant ministries. Participants

recognized relevance of the research and appreciated it as a good foundation for further discussions

and further actions. Furthermore most of the participants were interested in further cooperation with

respect to the research. All the participants agreed to the following main conclusions of the research:

o No consolidation – scattered in various laws, regulations, guidelines, and international agreements

o No practice – legal framework is developed isolated from the practice o Insufficient regulation – for example, procedure for request or coordination of relief

is not sufficiently regulated o Lack of regulation – for example, procedure for handling of relief offers, termination

of relief or use of relief is not provided or exemptions with respect to relief personnel, goods, and transport are not provided.

20

Polish Red Cross representative participated in the “International Course on Law and Legal Protection

in Natural Disasters” that took place in Sanremo, on 3th-7th December 2013. The course, co-convened

by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the Brookings Institution, and

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and hosted by the International Institute of

Humanitarian Law, was primarily directed at senior governmental officials and parliamentarians with

responsibility for legislative issues involved in disaster management, as well as for representatives of

National Societies of RC/RC and other relevant agencies. The lectures covered all aspects of disaster

law, including domestic legislation, international disaster response law and human rights. The course

strenghtened the Polish Red Cross representative’s expertise and skills necessary for the adequate

realization of the Implementation of the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines Project and further

activities in this domain.

On 16th January 2014, the country level workshop was held in the Headquarters of the Polish Red Cross,

in Warsaw. The meeting was attended by 30 representatives of the key institutions dealing with crisis

management, disaster response and international humanitarian aid in Poland. The meeting had a dual

nature – the first part was devoted to explaining basic premises of the Implementation of the EU Host

Nation Support Guidelines Project, as well as to introducing the results of a study of the Polish legal

and institutional system regarding disaster situations. During the first part of the workshop, a

discussion on the aforementioned report was held. The second part of the meeting included working

on a case study. The participants, divided into two groups, were asked to solve a crisis situation based

on a complex flood emergency in Poland. A discussion on the outcomes of the activity, as well as on

selected issues from a previously completed questionnaire about the Polish legal system, followed.

Consequently, key government actors received the report by e-mail in order to provide final

suggestions and notes. After collecting those answers final proofreading was conducted by the PRC

and civil protection experts.

Tabletop exercises Icelandic Civil Protection and the Finnish Ministry of Interior had both agreed to conduct table top

exercises with a focus on host nation support. Finnish civil protection Authority had planned to conduct

a tabletop exercise in Helsinki where Finland would reveive assistance from the authorities in Iceland,

Ireland, Latvia and Poland as well as Estonia and other neighbouring countries. Representatives of the

civil protection authorites in Estonia would be invited to participate in the exercise.

The exercise did not turn out to be the success that the steering committee had hoped for. The exercise

was very small scale with low impact.

The Icelandic civil protection department had also agreed to conducts a tabletop exercise in Reykjavik

in June 2014 where Iceland would receive assistance from the authorities in Finland, Ireland, Latvia

and Poland as well as neighbouring countries (possibly Norway). The tabletop exercise was first

postponed to August. Volcanic eruption in Bardarbunga volcanic system started in mid-August which

resulted in cancellation of most disaster preparedness activities in Iceland, including this exercise.

This part of the project was therefore not according to plans.

Preparation of the draft synthesis report The steering committee decided to contract The British Institute of International and Comparative Law

(BIICL) to produce the draft synthesis report. BIICL has previous experience of similar projects. The

21

findings and recommendations of countrylevel studies were consolidaded into a single synthesis report

with recommendation for the national level and EU. The report was produced from August through

December 2014

The steering committee met once in Helsinki in September 2014 and reviewed the first draft of the

synthesis report to ensure quality and approve of its approach and conclusions.

The committee monitored as well the progress of the project and planned the final steps including the

regional level workshop in Riga in February.

Organization of regional level workshop The steering committee planned an EU level workshop as the last part of this project. Approximately

30 participants attended from throughout the EU to discuss the synthesis report and other Project

outcomes. The workshop was held at Radisson Blu Hotel, Riga, Latvia on 18 February 2015 and was

co-hosted by the State Fire and Rescue Service of the Republic of Latvia and the Latvian Red Cross

Society.

.

The following organisations and authorities participated in the workshop: IFRC, Polish Red Cross,

Icelandic Red Cross, Czech Civil Emergency Preparedness Department, Romanian Red Cross, Portugal

Civil Protection, Malta Civil Protection, German Red Cross, Red Cross EU Office, Irish National

Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management, Greece Civil Protection, Latvian Department of

Disaster, State Emergency Medical Service, Lithuania Ministry of Interior, Italian Civil Protection, IDL

Project, National Customs Board of the State Revenue Service of Latvia, Lithuania, Fire and Rescue

Department under the Ministry of the Interior, Irish Red Cross, Bulgarian Red Cross, French Ministry of

Interior, DG ECHO, Latvian Red Cross, Hungarian Ministry of Interior, Hungarian Red Cross, Luxemburg

Administration of Rescue Services, Finnish Red Cross and Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency

The main topics of discussion at the workshop were the following:

The project

What did you see as some of the greatest areas of strength in your countries’ preparedness

for Host Nation Support? What might serve as an example for other countries?

What were the most important gap areas that you identified at the domestic level?

To what degree are potential HNS difficulties being solved by bilateral agreements in your

countries? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the bilateral approach?

Based on your study, are existing instruments at the EU level (such as the EU HNS Guidelines

and European directives on customs, etc.) sufficient to support better HNS preparedness in

your countries?

To what degree do you think that formal processes will be required to address HNS gaps in

your country? In other words, how much might be accomplished through awareness raising,

exercises, etc., instead of the developing new laws or policies?

HNS in each country

How far has your country gone to implement the EU HNS Guidelines?

What are the main challenges in strengthening preparedness for HNS?

22

What do you see as the main gaps in current laws, procedures and arrangements for HNS?

What further steps should be taken at the EU member state level to promote HNS?

The HNS project finished after the EU level workshop in Riga. Although not everything has been

according to plans, especially the absence of table-top exercises, still the beneficiaries believe that real

impact has been made, at least on country-levels. Broad discussions with various authorities and

organisations were a large part of the project. Parallel HNS projects were launched by governments

and HNS is increasingly being integrated into contingency planning, exercises and even government

policy making. In Iceland it has even been put into legislation with recent changes of the civil protection

act.

23

Analysis of Procedures for Host Nation Support in Disaster

Response in the EU and a Selection of Member States

Synthesis Report and Recommendations

24

About this report

This report was commissioned by the Icelandic Red Cross and prepared by Kristin Hausler and

Justine Stefanelli of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

The report synthesizes the findings from country case studies undertaken by the National Red

Cross Societies of Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Poland in collaboration with their

national civil protection authorities and the International Disaster Law Programme of the

University of Bologna, Roma Tre University, Uninettuno and Scuola Superiore of the University

of Pisa, Sant’Anna, in collaboration with the Italian Red Cross and the Italian Civil Protection.

This project is supported by the European Civil Protection Financial Mechanism and is intended to support EU member states in developing their approach to “host nation support” to cross-border support in disaster situations. Sole responsibility for the contents of this report and the individual case studies reside with the authors. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information herein.

http://www.eng.unibo.it/PortaleEn/default.htm

http://www.uniroma3.it/en2/

http://www.uninettunouniversity.net/

25

ACRONYMS

CPM Civil Protection Mechanism EADRCC Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre ECURIE European Community Urgent Radiological Information Exchange EEA European Economic Area EFTA European Free Trade Association EMU Economic and Monetary Union ERCC Emergency Response Coordination Centre EU European Union EURATOM European Atomic Energy Community EWRS Early Warning and Response System HNS Host Nation Support IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent

Societies IPCR Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements IDRL International Disaster Relief Law INSARAG International Search and Rescue Advisory Group NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCIP Icelandic Police NGO Non-governmental organisation NORDEFCO Nordic Defence Cooperation OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSOCC On-Site Operations Coordination Centre PSP State Fire Service (Poland) RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed STUK Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Finland) SYKE Finnish Environment Institute TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UN United Nations UNDAC UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination UNGA UN General Assembly VAT Value Added Tax VUGD State Fire and Rescue Service (Latvia) WHO World Health Organization

26

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In December 2010, the Belgian Presidency adopted Council Conclusions on Host Nation Support in December 2010, which called on the EU member states to increase their work on host nation support by integrating it into their emergency planning at the national, regional or local levels, making arrangements in existing structures to facilitate the receipt of transit of assistance, and to actively participate in the work of the Commission in establishing relevant guidelines.1 Following the Council conclusions, the Host Nation Support (HNS) Guidelines were adopted as a Commission working document in 2012.2 According to the Council conclusions ‘host nation support’ is meant to include all “all actions undertaken in the preparedness phase and the disaster response management by a Participating State in the Civil Protection Mechanism receiving or sending assistance, or the Commission, in order to remove as much as possible any foreseeable obstacle to international assistance so as to ensure that disaster response operations proceed smoothly.”3 This Report considers both the HNS Guidelines and the Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance (IDRL Guidelines).

The IDRL Guidelines were developed by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). The IFRC initiated its International Disaster, Laws, Rules and Principles (IDRL) Programme in 2001 to study global legal frameworks within which disaster assistance is provided and used. The Programme and its partners reviewed the international, regional and national frameworks regarding international response to natural and technological disasters as well as the operational experiences with regulatory problems in recent disasters. Among the several dozen studies produced was an initial examination of the broad lines of European Union (EU) law for disaster relief, carried out in 2003 by the Austrian Red Cross in cooperation with the IFRC.4

After several years of research and global consultations with governments and other stake holders to evaluate common problem areas and best practice, the IFRC led negotiations for the development of the IDRL Guidelines.5 The IDRL Guidelines address some of the problems commonly encountered in the context of cross-border disaster relief, such as customs and immigration rules that may delay or prevent relief equipment, aid or non-national aid personnel from entering the affected state and food quality standards that may render food supplied as aid unsuitable for use in the affected state.

In November 2007, the state parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions unanimously adopted the IDRL Guidelines at the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

1 Council conclusions of 2 December 2010 on Host Nation Support, 15874/10. 2 EU Host Nation Support Guidelines, SWD(2012) 169 final, 01/06/2012. 3 Council conclusions, n 1, p. 1 at fn 1. 4 ‘The Regulatory Framework for Disaster Response established within the European Union: A focus on

Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Legal Study’ (2005). See also, Council of Europe, ‘Europe’s response to

humanitarian disasters’ (2007), available at:

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11429.pdf; European Commission, ‘Vade-

Mecum of Civil Protection in the European Union’, (1999), available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/pdfdocs/vademec.pdf. 5 IFRC, “Introduction to the Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster

Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance” (2008), available at: http://www.ifrc.org.idrl.

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11429.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/pdfdocs/vademec.pdf

http://www.ifrc.org.idrl/

27

In addition to joining the consensus on the IDRL Guidelines, the EU Member States6 and their National Red Cross Societies7 signed specific pledges in support of the IDRL Guidelines. Support for the IDRL Guidelines was also included in the EU Consensus on Humanitarian Aid in 2007. A 2009 report by the IFRC noted that the progress in implementing the IDRL Guidelines has been encouraging, but still requires work before the Guidelines can achieve their intended impact.8

This Synthesis Report was coordinated by the Icelandic Red Cross and the IFRC and is funded in substantial part by the European Commission through the Civil Protection Financial Instrument. The study builds upon the IDRL Guidelines, examining the degree to which national and European legal frameworks address problems related to the facilitation of international assistance within Europe. Its scope is limited strictly to the provision of disaster assistance within the EU. It does not address security-related assistance, such as cooperation in the suppression of terrorist acts or other crime.

In 2010, the state of law and policy in both the EU and a selection of Member States was examined in a study of EU legislation, national laws, codes, policies and practice, and obligations arising under bilateral and multilateral agreements (2010 Synthesis Report).9 The Member States analysed in the 2010 Synthesis Report included Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The situation in those six states seems not to have altered much since the publication of the 2010 Synthesis Report. For example, in Austria, these issues have not topped the legislative agenda largely due to the fact that Austria has so far not suffered a disaster on the scale that would necessitate foreign assistance, and also a shortage of human resources in government to fully explore these issues.10 The situation is similar in Germany due to its constitutional system which splits the competence for disaster relief legislation between the Federal State and the Länder.11 However, the UK has updated its Concept of Operations for Responding to Emergencies by the Central Government to reflect the need to consider whether there is or likely to be an international dimension to the crisis at issue that might necessitate international assistance.12

In 2014, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law prepared a follow-up report (2014 Synthesis Report). This 2014 Synthesis Report updates the 2010 Synthesis Report with regard to the EU-level framework, including the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines, and summarises a series of new individual case studies prepared by the National Red Cross Societies of Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, and Poland.13 These reports discuss a wide array of issues concerning disaster response law and policy. However, for reasons of clarity

6 Pledges on IDRL: Section 3.1 – Strengthening the legal framework for international response to disasters,

Government, EU Joint Pledge, Pledge #95. 7 Ibid, National Societies, Pledge #56. 8 IFRC, “The Right Aid at the Right Time: Progress Report on the Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and

Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance” (November 2009), available at:

www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/125652/IDRL-Progress-Report_en.pdf 9 British Institute of International and Comparative Law, ‘Analysis of Law in the European Union pertaining to

Cross-Border Disaster Relief’ (IFRC 2010), available at: http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/idrl/193300-Analysis-

of-law-in-EU-EN.pdf. 10 Private communication with Bernhard Schneider 10/11/2014. 11 Private communication with Rieke Arendt, 19/11/2014. 12 Cabinet Office, ‘Responding to Emergencies: The UK Central Government Response—Concept of Operations

(April 2013), s 3.55. 13 The reports are available at: http://ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-law/news/europe/.

http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/125652/IDRL-Progress-Report_en.pdf

http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/idrl/193300-Analysis-of-law-in-EU-EN.pdf

http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/idrl/193300-Analysis-of-law-in-EU-EN.pdf

http://ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-law/news/europe/

28

and brevity, not all of those issues will be evaluated in this synthesis report. Greater detail can be found in the individual studies.

Through various parts of this Report, reference will be made to EU legislation. This is often necessary because the EU has legislated in a number of areas that will affect the legal systems in the give member states under consideration in this Report. Although the EU does not have an exclusive competence to legislate in the area of civil protection, it does possess either exclusive or shared competence in many areas touched on by the IDRL Guidelines, such as transport, immigration, customs and taxation.14 Consequently, some of the law applicable in the member states during a disaster is derived from, and may be limited by, EU legislation.

In addition, although Iceland is not an EU member state, it is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which unites EU Member States and the Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This means that Iceland is obliged to implement EU legislation relating to free movement of persons, goods, capital and services. Therefore, much of the EU legislation referenced in this Report will also apply to Iceland. Where it does not, this will be specifically indicated.

The focus of this report is the procedures and experience of the sample countries for managing incoming disaster assistance in light of the EU HNS Guidelines and Part V of the IDRL Guidelines. This report:

1. Identifies areas of law that states and assisting organisations should consider, both before and during the provision of cross-border disaster relief.

2. Highlights potential barriers to the effective delivery of international assistance in the EU member states;

3. Suggests possible steps that national authorities could take to address the problem areas identified.

14 For a full explanation of how EU competence works, see IFRC, ‘Analysis of Law in the European Union

pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief’ (prepared by S Williams and J Stefanelli, BIICL, 2010), available at:

http://www.biicl.org/documents/15_cross-border_disaster_relief_eu_report.pdf, (‘2010 EU Report’), Chapter 2.

29

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

2.a Past Disaster Experience and Likely Disaster Scenarios

Since the publication of the first synthesis report in 2010,15 the European Union continued to witness an increasing trend in the number and severity of both natural and man-made disasters, with a particularly significant increase in the former. The most recent Annual Report on EU humanitarian aid and civil protection indicated that the EU’s Civil Protection Mechanism (more below) was activated 12 times to respond to disasters such as flooding in Central Europe and forest fires in Portugal.16 The loss of human life, the destruction of economic and social infrastructure and the degradation of already fragile ecosystems is expected to worsen as climate change increases the frequency and magnitude of extreme meteorological events, such as heat waves, storms and heavy rains. According to the European Environment Agency, the last decade (2004-2013) was the warmest on record in Europe and has, on average, warmed more than the global temperature.17 Also, the expected sea-level rise within the European region is now higher than earlier projected.18 Across the EU as a whole, floods, droughts and storms comprise the most frequently occurring natural disasters. In 2013, flooding was the most common disaster event among member states as well as the most damaging in financial terms, with severe flooding and hailstorms in Germany and central Europe reported as the most expensive natural disaster of the year.19 In May 2014, flooding in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was deemed the worst in a century and led to mass evacuation, as well as loss of human lives.20 Earlier in 2014, a series of winter storms affected the United Kingdom particularly severely, leading to widespread and persistent flooding from January 2014 onwards.21 The number of wildfires has also increased significantly over the past decade, particularly in Southern Europe.22 An estimated 1,295,562 people in Europe have been affected by wildfires during the period 1984-2013.23 In July 2009, there was a series of particularly severe wildfires throughout Mediterranean countries,

15 Sarah Williams and Justine Stefanelli (BIICL/IFRC) ‘Analysis of Law in the EU and a Selection of Member

States pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief: Synthesis Report and Recommendations’ (2010). 16 European Commission, ‘Annual Report on the European Union's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

Policies and their Implementation in 2013’, COM(2014) 537 final, 28/08/2014.

Note that the EU Civil Protection Mechanism can also be activated to respond to disasters that take place outside

the EU, as it did with regard to the cyclones in the Philippines, for example. 17Global and European temperature (CSI 012/CLIM 001/CLIM 003) – Assessment published Aug 2014,

available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature/global-and-

european-temperature-assessment-8 18 See also the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC September

2013), available at:

For the most recent European temperature indicators, see the Global and European temperature (CSI 012/CLIM

001/CLIM 003) – Assessment published Aug 2014, available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature/global-and-european-temperature-assessment-8 19 http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/08/europes-floods-trump-haiyan-as-the-costliest-natural-disaster-of-2013/ 20 See, for example, EU Commission Memo of 16 July 2014, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-

release_MEMO-14-490_en.htm 21 ‘The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK’, Met Office/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, February 2014,

available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods 22 Note that many European wildfires are due to human activity rather than natural causes. 23 ‘Wildfire: A Burning Issue for Insurers?’, Lloyds 2013, p. 17, available at:

www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/.../wildfire%20final.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature/global-and-european-temperature-assessment-8




http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/08/europes-floods-trump-haiyan-as-the-costliest-natural-disaster-of-2013/

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-490_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-490_en.htm

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods

http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/.../wildfire%20final.pdf

30

including France, Greece, Italy and Spain, which killed at least eight individuals. The Italian Report also notes that 1,850 fires took place in the first eight months of 2013 alone, which is 58% fewer than in 2012.24 The EU member states generally considered to be particularly at risk of being impacted by natural hazards are those in the South and South East European regions, such as Italy which is considered in this report.25 However, Northern Europe is also at risk, in particular of flooding and storm surges, which may in turn cause different types of damages, including, for example, energy outages or dam failures.26 The countries analysed report the following additional risks of natural disasters within their borders: frost, snow avalanches, snowstorms, landslides, heavy wind,27 or tsunami.28 As noted above, the increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events have been attributed to the impact of climate change, and they are considered likely to continue to rise.

While the above-mentioned hazards are fairly widespread in Europe, others are more localised. For example, within Europe, the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program identified only Southeast Europe as having a relatively high earthquake risk. Elsewhere in Europe, the likelihood of a geophysical disaster is much lower, although the occurrence of such events remains extremely difficult to predict accurately. Within the member states analysed here, seismic activity and a risk of earthquakes have been reported in Finland, Iceland and Italy, the latter being the most earthquake-prone country in the Mediterranean, with a record of more than 50 earthquakes over a Richter magnitude of 5.0 in the past 31 years29 During that period, the strongest earthquake took place on 6 April 2009 in the Abruzzo region and reached a magnitude of 6.3, causing 308 casualties. More recently, on 20 and 29 May 2012, another major earthquake affected the Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto regions, causing 27 deaths.30

In addition to seismic activity, Italy and Iceland both identify active and dormant volcanoes as another source of possible natural disasters.31 In Italy, more than 300 eruptions occurred over the last 1,000 years, many of which affecting inhabited areas. Iceland has 30 active volcanic systems and, since 2008, its Civil Protection mechanism dealt with 4 eruptions, including the 2010 eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull, which led to large-scale air travel disruption. Most recently, this year, Icelandic authorities and civil society have been responding to the longest continuous volcanic eruption since the 19th century at Bárðarbunga, generating lava covering over 70 square kilometres, gas pollution, and many small and large earthquakes.

The member states studied do not only report natural disasters but also other probable threats, which may be considered as resulting more directly from human activity, include 24 Italian Report, p. 16 25 Territorial Dynamics in Europe – Natural Hazards and Climate Change (ESPON 2013), p. 8, available at:

http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Publications/Menu_TerritorialObservations/TO7_June2013.html 26 Territorial Dynamics in Europe – Natural Hazards and Climate Change (ESPON 2013), p. 9, available at:

http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Publications/Menu_TerritorialObservations/TO7_June2013.html

For example, within the selected Member States, Poland lists flood as the “most probable and frequent

calamity”, Polish Report, p. 12. Note that Italy also underlines the severity of the risk of floods, Italian Report, p.

15 27 Poland even cites risks of tornadoes, Polish Report, p. 12. 28 The risk of tsunami is mentioned in the Irish and the Italian reports. 29 Italian Report, p. 14. 30 During the last 40 years, earthquakes in Italy have caused an estimated EUR 80 billion in damages. 31 Italian Report, pp. 14-15, and Icelandic Report, pp. 12-13.



31

hazards related to the production, transfer and distribution of energy, including the operation of nuclear power plants,32 serious tanker oil spills, or more in general the use of hazardous substances.33 Other mentioned threats relating to human activity may consist of disturbances in public health or well-being, such as those resulting from pandemic influenza, epidemics, epizooty, or epiphytotic conditions, as well as the disruptions of food supply. Some member states also list critical infrastructure failures, including those related to the financial system or communication networks, such as cyber-incidents, as well as major transportation incidents.

Some of the member states studied, such as Finland, Italy and Ireland have also listed threats of terrorism among the risks of disasters they face. In fact, terrorism may lead to a ‘disaster’ in the sense of “a serious disruption of the functioning of society, which poses a significant, widespread threat to human life, health, property or the environment”. The only cause of disaster that is clearly excluded from the definition of disaster within the IDRL Guidelines is armed conflict. Therefore, disasters resulting from other forms of conflict may be considered, as long such conflict does not reach the threshold of international or non-international armed conflict.34 The EU Host Nation Support Guidelines (HNS Guidelines), which apply to ‘major emergencies’, do not contain a definition of ‘disaster’, despite referring to ‘disaster response’. The Treaty of Lisbon (Art 196) refers to both natural and man-made disasters.35 Although the EU legal framework does not appear to exclude armed conflict from its definition of ‘disaster’ expressly, it may be inferred from disasters listed in the 2010 European Parliament resolution on the ‘Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters’, despite the fact that this list is not exhaustive.36

2.b The EU Framework for Disaster Assistance

The EU Host Nation Support Guidelines

The Introduction to the Host Nation Support Guidelines states that the Guidelines are the result of lessons learned from past civil protection operations and trainings, and the recognition that it was necessary to develop EU-level guidelines for application to participating member states delivering assistance during an emergency. They are non-binding and are aimed at facilitating the ability of disaster-affected states to receive assistance efficiently by eliminating, as far as possible, any foreseeable obstacles to international assistance. The EU Guidelines make recommendations regarding matters such as on-site coordination, logistics, and legal and financial issues, to participating states along the same lines as those contained in the IDRL Guidelines. They include a number of annexes consisting of templates for requests and offers for assistance, a glossary of terms, and checklists for participating states. Although they are not binding, the Guidelines encourage member states to use them during EU civil protection operations both inside the EU and, where possible, through bilateral arrangements

32 For example, Finland has two nuclear power plants, each having 2 active nuclear power reactor units, with a

fifth unit currently under construction (Finnish Report, p. 14), Ireland refers to nuclear or radiological

emergencies (Irish Report, p. 14), as well as Latvia (Latvian Report, pp. 8-9). 33 Italian Report, pp. 16-17, which identifies chemical and petrochemical facilities as specific industrial-risk

factors. 34 Note that Finland has also adopted a strategy to prepare for the mass arrival into Finland of persons fleeing a

disaster situation from a neighbouring region, which may be a conflict. 35 Art 196 and 214 Lisbon Treaty. 36 European Parliament resolution of 21 September 2010 on the Commission communication: A Community

approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters (2009/2151(INI)) (L) (3).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2009/2151%28INI%29

32

with non-EU countries.37 They are also meant to be complementary to existing documents relating to disaster relief, such as the IDRL Guidelines, the Tampere Convention and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) principles and policies for HNS, and related checklist.38 The EU Guidelines include similar principles to those contained in the IDRL Guidelines, especially relating to legal aspects, such as reducing or waiving documentary requirements and fees, and exempting goods and people from the normal procedures associated with entry.39 However, the EU Guidelines do not address how these principles might be applied to private actors in the context of a disaster. They are primarily aimed at state actors.

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism

Predating and existing alongside the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines is the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM). Participating states may request disaster relief assistance through the CPM, which is managed by the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection.

The CPM currently includes 31 countries (the 28 EU member states, plus Iceland, Norway, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The main function of the CPM is to act as a framework for cooperation which the member states can utilise in times of disaster. The CPM was originally based on two primary pieces of legislation on disaster prevention, preparedness and response,40 but the legislation was revised in 2013, and it entered into force in 2014.41 It more strongly emphasises disaster prevention, risk management and preparedness. The new legislation created the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), which is a successor to the Monitoring and Information Centre.42 The ERCC acts both as a constant monitor and a response coordination centre which ensures that member states are fully informed regarding disaster situations, and helps to coordinate requests for and offers of assistance. It also plays a role in mobilising response teams and materials. In addition, the European Commission is tasked with supporting consistency in the delivery of assistance through a number of actions, including informing the member states of any requests for assistance; providing technical advice and advice on the appropriate type of assistance required; and acting as a general liaison with all relevant actors.43

As stated above, the EU Guidelines suggest that member states should take the Guidelines into account during civil protection operations under the CPM.44 An obligation to develop and update guidelines on host nation support has also been included in the 2013 CPM legislation.45

37 EU Host Nation Support Guidelines, n 2, p. 3. 38 Ibid at Annex 11. 39 Ibid section 9.4.2. 40 Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast) and

Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument. 41 Decision 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection

Mechanism; Commission Implementing Decision laying down rules for the implementation of Decision No

1313/2013/EU and repealing Commission Decisions 2004/277/EC, Euratom and 2007/606/EC, Euratom,

C(2014) 7489 final, 16/10/2014. 42 Details of its operation are set out in Decision 1313/2013/EU, ibid. 43 Ibid, Art.16(3). 44 Ibid section 4. 45 Decision 1313/2013/EU, above n 41, e.g., Art 8(i), Art 9(8) and Art 15(6).

33

The EU Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements (IPCR)

On 25 June 2013, the Council approved the IPCR, reinforcing the European Union's ability to take rapid and coordinated decisions with regard to disasters requiring a response at the political level. These arrangements finalise the review of the EU Emergency and Crisis Coordination Arrangements (CCA), which were formally agreed in 2006.

These arrangements are subsidiary to member states’ responsibilities and do not replace existing sectoral arrangements. Coordination for the purpose of the IPCR is supported by the EU Situation Room, a permanent

body that provides continuous monitoring and situation awareness around the world. The EU

Situation Room also manages and develops relations with the crisis response and coordination

centres of EU member states.

2.c Other Arrangements for Disaster Assistance

While some of the selected member states, such as Finland, mention having sent relief abroad, only Latvia reports having previous experience with requesting and receiving foreign relief.46 It requested and received disaster relief from Sweden, Lithuania, and Estonia in 2007, in order to deal with the consequences of a pipeline accident in Belarus. As there was no adequate legal framework nor responsible institution or coordination mechanism at the time, aid was received on an ad hoc basis. However, bilateral agreements were in place with these countries. The Latvian Humanitarian Aid Regulation came into force on 4 July 2009.

Should a member state determine that it requires international assistance, it has several options at its disposal, including the following: Informal Arrangements

Some member states make use of informal means of cooperation. For example, Ireland, which has not entered into a general treaty mechanism with the United Kingdom, does enter into mutual assistance arrangements with it on a pragmatic ad hoc cooperation basis.47 These informal arrangements are made both at the strategic and operational levels. There is also a long tradition of mutual assistance between the emergency services of the Irish border counties and those situated in Northern Ireland. This mutual assistance involve cooperation between the following services on both sides of the Ireland/Northern Ireland border: health service, fire service, police, coast guard and the respective Red Cross societies.48 Italy participates in three non-institutional frameworks which are relevant, including the Euro-Mediterranean project Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Natural and Manmade Disasters Programme (PPRD)-South, the intra-EU project Force d’Intervention Rapide Européenne (FIRE), and the Adriatic Ionian Initiative (AII).49

46 Latvian Report, p. 9. 47 Irish report, p. 18. 48 Irish Report, pp. 18-20. 49 Italian Report, p. 31.

34

Multilateral Agreements

Although there are a number of multilateral agreements governing other areas of the law that may facilitate disaster response, such as trade agreements with regard to the entry of goods, for example, or immunity-related agreements. In addition, there are a few treaties that regulate specific issues pertaining to disasters and which may provide early warning obligations or cooperation mechanisms.50 Many EU member states have entered into additional multilateral agreements with other EU member states or non-EU member states specifically for cooperation in disaster response. Assistance sought from other states through such arrangements is particularly valued because of the simplicity of the procedures and the rapid response time of the other party.51 In the Nordic region, there are a number of specific multilateral agreements. NORDRED is a formal civil protection agreement, entered between Nordic countries in 1989, which includes Iceland and Finland amongst the states examined (and also includes Norway, Denmark, and Sweden). It is an agreement on rescue services, which concerns the cooperation across state frontiers to prevent or limit damage in the case of accidents.52 Finland is also a party to the 2012 Barents Treaty, which covers cooperation within the field of emergency prevention, preparedness and response for the Euro-Arctic Region.53 This treaty, which seeks to create common principles for rescue operations, covers specific Northern regions within its member states. As members of the Arctic Council, Finland and Iceland, are also party to the 2011 Agreement on cooperation on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue in the Arctic, which relates to live saving rescue services in the open sea.54 The reinforcement of Nordic multi-lateral cooperation to prevent, reduce and manage the consequences of major accidents and disasters, stems from the Haga Declaration, which was adopted in 2009. A follow-up declaration (Haga II) was adopted in 2013 to further increase Nordic cooperation in this area. Bilateral Agreements Many EU member states have also entered into bilateral agreements for cooperation in disaster response, in particular with neighbouring countries. Some bilateral agreements relate to general cooperation,55 sometimes in relation to specific disasters such as the agreement between Latvia and Lithuania or Ukraine on nuclear safety,56 whereas others more specifically address the types of concerns raised by the IDRL Guidelines. For example, Poland notes that a number of its bilateral agreements deal with some of those specific issues, such as freedom

50 See, for example, the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (1986) or the Basel Convention

on the Movement of Hazardous Waste (1989). For more examples, see the Italian Report, p. 32. 51 Polish Report, p. 23. 52 Finnish Report, p. 20. Note that this agreement is complemented by NORDHELS, the Nordic Framework

Convention on Health Care. 53 Finnish Report, p. 20. 54 Ibid., p. 21. 55 For example, Poland states that the basic manner it provides support is by sending rescue teams and experts,

in-kind aid and information exchange, with all of these agreements regulating the operation costs borne by the

party providing aid. See Polish Report, pp. 22-23. 56 Latvian Report, p. 18.

35

from duty and taxes for equipment and aid resources.57 In addition to binding bilateral agreements, states may also enter into non-binding bilateral arrangements which may lead to increased cooperation in relation to disaster response cooperation in the future.58 Existing bilateral agreements among the examined states include not only state-to-state agreements but also localized agreements between a state and an individual region within another state, as is the case with Poland and certain German Länder, which are permitted to conclude agreements with foreign countries with the consent of the federal government.59 EU member states have also entered bilateral agreements with non-EU member states. Such agreements are generally made with countries with which EU member states share border, such as Italy and Switzerland, Poland and Ukraine, Finland and Russia, or Latvia and Belarus. Others have been entered between EU-member states and non-EU member states which do not share a border with them, although geographic distance may be an obstacle to rapid relief. For example, Latvia has signed bilateral agreements with Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan, on cooperation to prevent and respond to emergency situations.60 Italy has entered similar agreements with Tunisia, Argentina, and Russia. Furthermore, bilateral agreements can be used as a tool to develop trilateral or multilateral cooperation. This is for example the case between Latvia, Lithuania and Belarus.61 Iceland, which is geographically isolated, has not entered bilateral agreements in the same manner as other EU member states, precisely because of its lack of neighbours. However, Iceland also a bilateral defence agreement with the United States.62 Ireland, which is also rather isolated geographically, has not entered into a general agreement with its only close neighbour, the United Kingdom. However, the two states have entered into an agreement in 2004 which regards early notification in the case of a nuclear or radiological incident.63 Finally, authorities in the Nordic countries, including Finland, also benefit from an Agreement on inter-municipal cooperation. This agreement facilitates bilateral cooperation within municipalities in the region. For example, with regard to rescue services, Finland has entered into local cooperation agreements with Sweden and Norway.64 Participation in bilateral or multilateral agreements is a helpful way of addressing the issues covered by the IDRL Guidelines. In addition, they offer an element of flexibility in that they can be adapted to account for specific problems or issues routinely experienced by the Parties that may be specific to their experience. However, at the same time, they may lend themselves to confusion and inconsistency, both in terms of agreements entered into within each state (i.e. it may have different obligations or arrangements with different neighbours under each treaty) and also as to varying arrangements across states (i.e. there is not a uniform approach to negotiation of such treaties by EU member states). A more standardised

57 Polish Report, pp. 22-23. 58 Italian Report, pp. 34-35. 59 Polish Report, pp. 21-22. See also, ‘Analysis of Law in the EU and a Selection of Member States pertaining to

Cross-Border Disaster Relief – Synthesis Report and Recommendations’ (IFRC, 2010), p. 11. 60 See, for example, Latvian Report, pp. 16-17. 61 Latvian Report, p. 18. 62 Icelandic Report, p. 56. 63 Irish Report, p. 18. 64 Finnish Report, pp. 21-22.

36

approach such as that taken in the IDRL Guidelines, or the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines, may be of benefit to member states.

NATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre

NATO member states may participate in its framework for disaster response, the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC), which is the operational tool of its Civil Emergency Planning Committee (CEPC). The EADRCC operates as a coordinating body and is intended to complement any ongoing United Nations relief operations. The main responsibilities of the EADRCC are: to coordinate disaster response in the territory of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council; to act as an information-sharing clearance house; and to liaise closely with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the EU and any other organisations involved in international disaster response. NATO has also developed a Memorandum of Understanding on the Facilitation of Vital Civil Cross Border Transport. Within the selected States, Italy, Iceland, Latvia, and Poland are NATO Members, while Ireland and Finland are not.65 NATO member states work to improve the HNS mechanism with regard to its presence on their respective territories.66 In Latvia, the status of foreign armed forces carrying out duties in line within an international cooperation framework (including transiting through Latvia) is regulated by a specific law.67 Not having an army is not an obstacle in contributing to NATO operations. Iceland, which has no armed forces, provides NATO with financial contributions and civilian personnel.68 In 1997, NATO responded to the Polish government appeal for international aid to remedy flood damage.69 Other International and Regional Organisations

United Nations As member states of the UN, EU member states may benefit from its aid. OCHA is the key unit responsible for coordinating humanitarian aid within the UN system.70 Within the Emergency Services Branch of OCHA, the Field Coordination Support Section (FCSS) manages the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) system, which provides assistance during the first phase of sudden-onset emergencies. OCHA also provides administrative support to the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG), a network of states and international organisations which coordinates urban search and rescue operations.

65 Note that Finland has signed a Partnership for Peace agreement with NATO in 1994, which means that it

participates in the Planning and Review Process of forces and capabilities and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership

Council. Ireland has also signed such agreement. 66 See, for example, Latvian Report, pp. 12-13. 67 Law on Status of Foreign Armed Forces in the Republic of Latvia. 68 Icelandic Report, p. 16, 69 Polish Report, p. 18. 70 Note that Italy is also host to a UN Humanitarian Response Depot, which stores material that may be

transported within 48 hours to areas hit by humanitarian crisis, Italian Report, p. 30.

37

For example, Poland has used UN support in relation to the 1997 flood, including the use of an emergency relief coordinator and aid in value totalling USD 26 million.71 During the 2001 floods, OCHA supported Poland again by purchasing sets of hepatitis vaccines.72 While Latvia considers it might seek relief from UN mechanisms, it deems that it would first ask assistance based on EU laws or bilateral agreements.73 However, it further notes that UN mechanisms may more likely be used with regard providing relief to non-EU member states or to states with which it has not entered into bilateral agreements. Over the past few year, the UNGA has issued several resolutions encouraging its member states and regional organisations to strengthen the legal frameworks pertaining to international disaster relief.74 Council of Europe In 1980, the Council of Europe adopted a Framework Convention on Cross-Border Cooperation, which allows bordering regions and municipalities to enter into civil protection arrangements.75 Finland, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, and Poland have all ratified this treaty, while Iceland has only signed it. In 1987, the Council of Europe also established a cooperation platform, the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement (Partial Agreement on the Prevention of, Protection Against, and Organization of relief in Major Natural and Technological Disasters).76 However, not all Council of Europe member states participate in this cooperation mechanism. For example, Italy, Poland and Finland are not participants.77 2.d Overview of Disaster Management within National Legal Systems

According to the HNS Guidelines, member states should ensure that they have a framework in place for emergency planning and management.78 Responsible Authorities

71 Polish Report, p. 17.

Note that, at the time, the relevant body was called the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, replaced by OCHA

in 1998. 72 Polish Report, p. 17. 73 Latvian Report, pp. 11-12. See also p. 14 where it is said that Latvia would likely seek aid from NATO before

the UN. It also notes that it has only used UN assistance so far at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. 74 See, for example, UNGA 66/119 (2011), UNGA Res 67/87 (2012), UNGA Res 67/231 (2012), UNGA Res

68/102 (2013), UNGA Res 68/103 (2013). See also Resolution 2011/8 adopted by UNESCO. 75 European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities

(1980). 76 Council of Europe Resolution (87) 2 of 1987. 77 Polish Report, p. 20 78 HNS Guidelines, 9.1.

38

Authority is generally distributed between various entities. In Ireland, for example, the responsibility for emergency planning falls onto various government departments, depending on the type of disasters. In Finland, the rescue services also fall within various sectors, as well as within various regional administrative regions.79 Civil protection often falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior. For example, in Poland, while crisis management is the responsibility of the Council of Ministers, special competences in this area fall on the Minister of the Interior.80 In Finland, the Minister of the Interior entails the Department of Rescue Services.81 Any other operations in which Finland participates abroad, such as humanitarian missions, fall under the scope of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Note that provisions regarding civil protection can be found in various instruments, including the Rescue Act, which identifies several authorities responsible for civil protection tasks. In Iceland, the Minister of the Interior is also the key authority for civil protection, assisted by the National Commissioner of Icelandic Police which runs a Civil Protection and Emergency Department, and the Civil Protection and Security Council, which is responsible for the government's policy on civil protection.82 However, in Ireland, it is the Office of Emergency Planning of the Department of Defence which is responsible for the coordination and oversight of emergency planning.83 It is also the Minister of Defence who chairs the government taskforce on emergency planning. In some of the member states, coordination centres are in place, while in others they are activated in case of emergency. In Poland, the National Centre for Rescue Coordination and Civil Protection is responsible for the coordination of foreign aid. In Finland, there is the Government Situation Centre which serves as a coordinating authority.84 In Iceland, there is a coordination and command centre that is activated when necessary.85 Similarly, in Ireland, it is in the case of major emergencies that a National Coordination Group may be formed with the relevant ministers and senior officials. Varied levels of governance within a state may affect the way in which disaster response is arranged. For example, in Finland, municipalities, which are self-governed, are jointly responsible for rescue services in government-assigned rescue regions.86 Border municipalities may have agreements on mutual assistance in rescue services with municipalities across the border. This is for example the case of Finnish and Russian or Swedish municipalities.87 An additional level can be taken into account: the individual level. In Latvia, the civil protection plans adopted by companies or institutions are also considered within the state's civil protection plan.88 79 Finnish Report, pp. 26-30. 80 Polish Report, p. 27. 81 Finnish Report, pp. 26-27. 82 Icelandic Report, p. 14. 83 Irish Report, p. 22. 84 Finnish Report, p. 35. 85 Icelandic Report, p. 14. 86 Finnish Report, p. 29. 87 Ibid., p. 29. 88 Latvian Report, p. 19.

39

Legislative and Policy Frameworks

Specific arrangements regarding response also affects the national legal frameworks. The member states employ a framework reflecting the focus on local response. Generally, one or two main pieces of legislation govern the issue nationally, such as in Finland where the key legislation is the Rescue Act or in Latvia, which adopted a similar instrument, i.e. the Civil Protection Law, which deals specifically with disasters, establishing the legal basis for the protection of persons, property and the environment in the event (or threat) of disasters. Latvia has also adopted a Humanitarian Aid Regulation, which covers the receipt of foreign humanitarian assistance and its provision to a state affected by disaster.89 Poland has adopted several acts and regulations that are applicable to disasters, including a 2007 Act on Crisis Management and a 2002 Act on Natural Disasters.90 In addition to national legislation, legal frameworks may also generally supplemented by policy and operational guidance. In one of the member states studied, Ireland, there is little specific emergency planning legislation.91 When such legislation exists, it is fragmented across different legislative domains. However, there are a number of relevant policy documents, including a general framework which provides operational and tactical guidance to the response agencies, as well as other strategic documents geared at government departments. In addition, much of the practice regarding disaster response in Poland is derived from its State Fire Service (PSP) Regulations. 2.e Role of Armed Forces

With regard to foreign military assistance, the IDRL Guidelines provide that military assets should only be deployed for disaster relief or initial recovery assistance at the request, or with the express consent of the affected state, and after civilian alternatives have been considered.92 Terms and conditions of deployment (including the duration of deployment, the arming of personnel, the use of national uniforms, and the mechanisms for cooperation with civilian actors) must be agreed by both states beforehand. This approach is in line with the Oslo Guidelines on the use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief,93 according to which foreign military and civil defence resources are complementary to humanitarian aid operations. Thus, they should only be used if there is no civilian alternative and if they meet a critical humanitarian need. Within the EU framework, while the EU HNS Guidelines do not address foreign military assistance, the Lisbon Treaty provides for the EU and its member states to cooperate in assisting a member state victim of a man-made or natural disaster.94 In doing so, all available resources must be mobilised, including military resources. The EU approach does not mention the use of military assets for disaster relief as a mean of last resort, contrary to the view taken

89 See Civil Protection Law, para 2, and Latvian Report, p. 20. 90 Polish Report, p. 25. 91 Irish Report, p. 21. 92 IDRL Guidelines, Part III, Section 11. 93 The Oslo Guidelines on the Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief were adopted

in 1994 and revised in 2007. 94 Art 222 Lisbon Treaty.

40

by the IDRL and Oslo Guidelines. However, the EU framework requires that affected member states only invoke the solidarity clause once all other available means have been exploited.95 Foreign Military Assistance

The Icelandic Report notes that, while it does not have any specific legislation or procedure in place to deal with foreign military relief assistance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be responsible to address such request for acceptance of foreign military relief.96 With regard to foreign military ships and aircrafts which are not at war, Iceland has a directive which allows them to enter territorial waters and airspace upon announcement.97 There are, however, restrictions applicable to the number of foreign ships allowed in a particular harbour at any given time (i.e. three), as well as to their length of stay (i.e. 15 days).98 In addition, this directive provides that the crew of foreign military ships is not allowed to bear arms on land but that those of particular ranking (officers, petty officers or cadets) may do so.99 In Ireland, the Irish Defence Act (1954) prohibits anyone to enter its territory wearing the military uniform of another State, unless a Minister consents to it. Such exception could be granted in case of an emergency requiring foreign military assistance, which must be provided within tight constitutional constraints.100 In a similar fashion, the Minister for Foreign Affairs must expressly allow foreign military aircrafts to land in Ireland. In Poland, in case of shortage of available national resources to respond to a disaster, there is a specific order that must be followed when requesting foreign assistance to an international coordination centre, with the NATO coordination centre (EADRCC) being last, after the ERCC (CECIS) and UN OCHA (V-OSOCC).101 In Finland, while there is no specific rule on the use of foreign military assistance in disaster response, they may be used but appropriate authorisations are required for military forces to enter into the Finnish territory.102 In addition to multilateral defence cooperation participation, such as NATO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO), states may also enter into bilateral agreements to cooperate on defence issues. Iceland, a party to the three alliances just mentioned, has also concluded such an agreement with the United States, as well as other cooperation agreements with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom, on security and defence issues, including matters of search and rescue, for example.103 95 Council Decision 2014/415/EU on the arrangements for the implementation by the Union of the solidarity

clause. 96 Icelandic report, p. 56, citing the Defence Act No. 34/2008. 97 Directive on the Access of Foreign Military Ships and Military Aircrafts, that are not at war, to Icelandic

Territory No 44/1939. 98 Directive No 44/1939, Article 1. 99 Directive No 44/1939, Article 6. 100 Irish Report, p. 65. 101 Polish Report, p. 36. 102 On the entry into Finnish territory (or transit via Finland) of foreign military forces, see the Finnish Territorial

Surveillance Act, which regulates the entry of means of transportation, including military vehicles, see Finnish

Report, p. 45. 103 Icelandic Report, p. 56.

41

Domestic Armed Forces

Domestic armed forces have a role to play in disaster relief. In Ireland, the Defence Forces may be requested by civil authorities to provide assistance to them.104 In Poland, the armed forces may support civil authorities in emergency situations, a method of cooperation that has proven effective in dealing with its most recent floods.105 Finnish Defence Forces also participate in rescue operations by providing equipment, personnel and expert services.106 The Italian armed forces provide personnel, facilities, military vehicles and assist with road safety, firefighting and the prevention of water pollution.107 Note that, alone within the countries studied, Iceland has no army. 2.f Role of the National Societies and Other Voluntary Organisations

National Societies National Red Cross Societies have a unique status as “auxiliaries to the public authorities in the humanitarian field” under national and international law.108 This “auxiliary status” was originally linked to National Societies’ assistance with emergency medical services for their national militaries. Over time, however, the status has taken on a more general nature, and consists of assisting the authorities with humanitarian assistance in situations of crisis, including natural and man-made disasters. At the same time, as recognized by national “Red Cross laws” and international instruments, National Societies are expected to abide by the Fundamental Principles of the Movement, including the Principle of Independence. The national reports indicate that, in practice, the National Societies involved have a variety of roles in national disaster response arrangements. Generally, the role of the National Society in responding to disasters is specifically recognised by the state concerned. The National Society performs a supporting role to the central government and is often a member of ministerial committees responsible for making decisions and coordination during disasters. In Iceland, the Icelandic Red Cross provides an auxiliary role to the government under a 2012 agreement.109 The role of the Irish Red Cross is also considered as auxiliary in relation to the principal response agencies.110 Finland, Italy, Latvia and Poland have all passed a specific act regulating their respective National Society.111 As the Polish Act is considered to be outdated, the Polish Red Cross is currently working with authorities to update it.112 104 Irish Report, p. 61. 105 Polish Report, p. 18, which cites its 2007 Act on Crisis Management, the 2002 Act on the state of calamity,

and the 1967 Act on general defence obligation, which render the Minister of National Defence and the Polish

Armed Forces as part of the responsible actors in emergency situations. 106 Finnish Report, p. 27. 107 Italian Report, pp. 26-27. Note that the Italian Report also highlights the role of the police forces, which also

participate in civil protection activities. 108 Resolution 2, 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (2007). 109 Icelandic Report, p. 18. 110 Irish Report, p. 63. 111 Finnish Report, p. 31, Italian Report, p.27 citing DLgs 178/2012 (with regards the Association of the Italian

red Cross, which replaces the Italian Red Cross Society in January 2015), Latvian Report, p. 50, citing the Law

on Latvian Red Cross, and the Polish Report, p. 52, citing the Act on the Polish Red Cross of 16 November

1964. 112 Polish Report, p. 52, citing the Act on the Polish Red Cross of 16 November 1964.

42

Coordination of Other Actors and Relation with International Movement

In addition to its auxiliary role, the Finnish Red Cross also coordinates an association of 50 organisations, the Volunteer Rescue Service (Vapepa). The Icelandic Red Cross facilitates external assistance in accordance with the decisions taken by the civil protection department.113 In addition to their role in support national disaster response, National Societies also form part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. They are therefore entitled to call on assistance from other components of the Movement in response operations (and are also committed to offer their help in case of disasters in other countries, where feasible), while at the same time functioning as gate keepers for incoming assistance.114 This role should be borne in mind by authorities when approaching the issue of international assistance.

Own Response Activities

The Icelandic Red Cross provides representatives in the coordination and command centres at the national and local levels. It operates emergency relief centres and evacuation shelters, as well as canteens and emergency kitchens for victims and responders. It also does registration of victims and public communications (through a specific helpline) and assist family and friends of victims through temporary support centres, including with psychological support.115 The objectives of the Latvian Red Cross include training the general public for actions during emergencies, as well as supporting the relevant governmental institutions to remedy the consequences of emergency situations and provide assistance to the victims (in cooperation with local resources), and organise international relief.116 Under its emergency situations program, the Latvia Red Cross has established 8 early response units, trained in delivering first aid and psychological support, as well as in search and rescue. These units may thus support the work of the State Fire and Rescue Service (VUGD) and other relevant bodies.117 Under its emergency situations program, the Latvian Red Cross also provides material support to victims of disasters, including clothing, blankets, etc. Following a disaster, the Italian Red Cross assesses the event, verifying the availability of resources to respond to the disaster, and providing assistance to those affected by it, including by providing medical assistance and setting up temporary shelter. It also deploys its own resources, such as special transportation facilities, and distributes food and water to both

113 Icelandic Report, p. 18. 114 These roles are set out in international regulations endorsed by states at the quadrennial International

Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. These include the Principles and Rules of Red Cross and Red

Crescent Disaster Relief and the Statutes of the Movement (originally adopted in 1969 and revised several

times, including, most recently with a change of name to the “Principles and Rules of Red Cross and Red

Crescent Humanitarian Assistance – set for endorsement at the upcoming 32nd International Conference in

2015). 115 Icelandic Report, p. 18. 116 Law on Latvian Red Cross, Article 5. 117 Latvian Report, p. 50 (and footnote 158).

43

victims and disaster relief personnel. The Italian Red Cross is represented in the operational civil protection committee of the Italian Civil Protection Department, which is responsible for coordinating emergency activities.118 The Irish ‘Framework for Major Emergency management’ provides guidance to governmental agencies working with voluntary emergency services, including the Irish Red Cross, which has also developed guidelines with regard to its role in emergency situations.119 For example, it has established the “Restoring Family Links” service which assist people living in Ireland to regain contact with family members from whom they have been separated as a result of natural disasters, for example. Although the participation of the Irish Red Cross in high-level planning and operational committees is limited, it is recognised as a competent auxiliary with regard to coordination of international relief. The Irish Red Cross also cooperates closely with the British Red Cross, as they meet biannually, although no agreement on mutual assistance nor joint exercises have so far been completed.120 Other Voluntary Organisations and Private Sector

Many other voluntary organisations may be involved in providing disaster relief besides the National Red Cross Society. Civil society organizations (such as church groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)) may play a significant role in the provision and distribution of assistance in an emergency. However, there is no framework legislation at the EU level dealing with the role of other voluntary organisations in the context of international assistance. Moreover, the role of foreign voluntary organizations in disaster response is also largely unaddressed in the existing laws and policies of the member states. Note that the EU HNS Guidelines do not cover the relations of affected states with third parties such as NGOs or other voluntary organisations because they are normally the responsibility of the requesting state. Nevertheless these guidelines encourage states participating in EURATOM to consider developing a plan to deal with all third parties offering assistance during emergencies.121 In Iceland, although there are no particular laws or procedures in place to deal with such third parties, the Civil Protection Act provides that the National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police (NCIP) may conclude agreements regarding civil protection measures, under the approval of the Minister of Interior, with such bodies, no matter if they are domestic or foreign.122 While ministers may determine that certain public or parties have to provide assistance, it is unclear whether they can do so with regard to foreign entities. According to the Finnish Rescue Act, volunteers and volunteer organisations “may be used to assist in the training, advisory and educational duties of rescue services and in rescue operations”.123 The role of the voluntary sector is explicitly limited as it cannot conduct duties that require public authority. In Finland, volunteers engaged in rescue operations are supported by the rescue service authorities, which must ensure the operating conditions, “to

118 Italian Report, p. 28. 119 Ibid. 120 Irish Report, pp. 20 and 64. 121 HNS Guidelines referring to Council Decision 2007/779/EC. 122 Civil Protection Act, Article 8. 123 Finnish Rescue Act, Chapter 7.

44

the best of their abilities”. Moreover, by virtue of the Rescue Act, occupational safety and health standards are also applicable to volunteers.

In Italy, any entity may participate in the Civil Protection Service, including private companies, in particular those of public utility, and volunteer organisations.124 The latter must first join a national register in order to contribute to the Civil Protection Service. The Civil Protection Department can also train volunteer organisations at their request and provide them with financial benefits.125 In Ireland, the role of private sector assistance is acknowledged in the ‘Framework for Major Emergency Management’, but that there is no specific provision in disaster management policy relating specifically to foreign private sector assistance.126 It is the Controller of Operations of each principal response agency which determines whether the services provided by the private sector must be requested. The Irish Report also notes that an appeal fund to seek assistance from private sources abroad could be established through a charitable trust.127 With regard to individual assistance, the Irish ‘Framework for Major Emergency Management’ recommends that a certain category of such volunteers be offered a temporary volunteer status with the Civil Defence service.128

124 Italian Report, p. 28. 125 Ibid., p. 29. 126 Irish Report, p. 65. 127 Irish Report, pp. 65-66. 128 Irish Report, p. 66.

45

CHAPTER 3: REGULATION OF THE ENTRY AND OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

3.a Availability of Legal Facilities and Domestic Legal Status

IDRL Guidelines

Part IV Section 14 of the IDRL Guidelines recommends that affected states should be

prepared to grant special legal facilities to foreign humanitarian organizations, as well as

their relief personnel, goods and equipment when their assistance is needed to respond to

a disaster. This should be based on eligibility criteria consistent with internationally agreed

quality standards.

Part V Section 20 of the IDRL Guidelines provides that the affected states should grant

assisting organizations and their personnel temporary domestic legal status, allowing them

to enjoy certain private rights while they are in the affected state.

EU Host Nation Support Guidelines

Section 9.4.2 of the EU Guidelines is devoted to advising states to consider granting legal

exemptions in relation to things such as tax, customs and visas, which will be discussed

below in more detail.

The EU Guidelines also suggest that the host nation should be prepared to provide assisting

countries and relevant international organisations with temporary authorisation to operate

on the host nation’s territory legally. This will ensure that these actors can enjoy rights

necessary to provide assistance, such as opening bank accounts, acquiring or disposing of

property, or instituting legal proceedings.

As part of their membership in or relationship with the EU, the states under consideration in

this report are required to grant privileges and immunities to bodies established under the

Treaty on European Union, their officers, other persons connected with the body and their

family members. Under Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(TFEU), the Community “shall enjoy in the territories of the member states such privileges and

immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks”. A protocol was drafted and

attached to the Treaty which presents the conditions of such privileges and immunities

(Protocol (No 36) on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (1965).

These provisions would therefore apply to employees and agents of any of the EU institutions

working in other member states, such as Commissioners involved in disaster relief operations.

It is unclear, however, whether these provisions would apply to members of civil protection

modules. Although the modules are coordinated at the EU level, they are made up partly of

expert member state nationals who may not necessarily be considered employees or agents

46

of the EU bodies. Most likely, therefore, they would not benefit from privileges and

immunities under the above sections.

Organisations established in EU member states have the right to freely establish themselves

in other EU member states under Article 49 TFEU. They are also entitled to provide services

on a temporary basis in other member states under Article 56 TFEU. However, they may

remain subject to applicable registration requirements in the host state.

Each of the six states reviewed in this Report are signatories to the United Nations (UN)

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN (1946) and the Convention on the

Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies (1947). The two Conventions expand on

Articles 104 and 105 of the Charter of the UN that clarify the legal status, rights and privileges

and immunities of UN personnel and specialized agencies.

The laws and regulations in the states evaluated do not make provision for special procedures

or exemptions regarding registration of not-for profit organisations in case of emergency.

Generally, the ability of assisting organisations and their personnel to acquire temporary

domestic legal status turns on where they are registered or incorporated. In most cases,

registration in the host nation will allow the assisting organisation to enjoy domestic legal

status, consequently enabling them to enter into contracts, buy or sell property, open bank

accounts, and take other legal steps in the name of their organisation. For example, although

assisting organizations need not be registered in Finland, it is likely that, on a practical level, it

may be very difficult to operate in Finland without registering.129 It may also be possible for a

foreign assisting organisation to legally operate in Finland, depending on the outcome of an

evaluation of the organisation’s home state regulation. In Iceland, citizenship or domicile

requirements might apply. For example, to acquire property there, a company must either be

composed entirely of Icelandic citizens, or have been domiciled in Iceland for at least five

consecutive years.130 The rules vary further if the company members do not bear liability for

company debt. These requirements do not apply where the organisation wishes to

temporarily hire real property.131 In such cases, the rights attached to such real property

would be exercisable by the hiring organisation. Ireland also includes a registration procedure

for foreign humanitarian organisations which can establish legal identity in three ways: (1) by

becoming an incorporated association; (2) by creating a trust; or (3) by incorporating as a

company that is limited by guarantee. The Charities Act 2009 provides for an exemption from

the registration requirements for charities if the Charities Regulator believes the requirements

to be too onerous in the circumstances. The Irish report suggests that this exemption might

prove quite useful for assisting actors in disaster relief operations.132 In Italy, public bodies,

both foreign and domestic, are permitted to take part in the Italian Civil Protection Service.133

However, the situation is less clear with regard to foreign NGOs. Because they are not

129 Finnish Report, p. 60. 130 Icelandic Report, p. 50. 131 Ibid, p. 51. 132 Irish Report, p. 68. 133 Italian Report, p. 45.

47

permitted to join the civil protection register, which is maintained by the Italian Civil

Protection Department, foreign NGOs are not permitted to take part in civil protection

activities.134 They must therefore take part as “private organizations”, but there are no rules

in place which specifically address the position of foreign private organisations with regard to

civil protection.135 Because of this, foreign NGOs do not benefit from certain privileges, such

as tax exemptions, that domestic NGOs enjoy.

Recommendations:

States should consider developing an expedited procedure of registration for

emergency situations to allow for tax exemptions and similar benefits without requiring

standard company registration.

Alternatively, States might consider whether the national rules could allow for delayed

registration under the standard procedures, within a certain timeframe following entry

to the state.

3.b Form and Content of Requests and Termination of Assistance

IDRL Guidelines

Part III Section 10 of the IDRL Guidelines suggests that affected states should decide in a

timely manner whether to request international assistance. Where a state does make such

a request, the content of the request should be as specific as possible, and include any

relevant information about domestic laws and regulations relevant to the entry and

operation of disaster relief.

Part III Section 12 of the IDRL Guidelines suggests that affected states provide notice when

they wish to terminate assistance. This notice should give rise to a consultative process

between the affected State and the assisting actor in order to consider the impacts of

termination.


The EU Guidelines include templates for requests for and offers of international assistance

in its annexes 2-5. Section 3 of the EU Guidelines recommends that these templates be used

in order to streamline the procedures relating to this process. Each of the templates is quite

detailed and includes space for a variety of relevant information, such as the contact details

of the requesting authority; a description of what is required; the estimated time period for

which assistance will be needed; location of entry points to the state; a provision on liability,

134 Ibid, p. 46. 135 Ibid, p. 47.

48

and whether the host state will be able to grant special legal facilities to the assisting state,

of the type discussed in this report.

Aside from rules regarding who is authorised to make the request for assistance, these

matters are largely unregulated in the studied member states. In some states, the power to

request international assistance will depend on the type of disaster at issue. For example, in

Iceland, if the emergency is a nuclear disaster, the Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority will

make the decision whether assistance is needed, and then make the request.136 The situation

is similar in Ireland, but only the relevant government department at the national level is

empowered to make the request.137 However, certain cross-border mutual assistance

operations with Northern Ireland do not require explicit central government approval.138 The

appropriate authority in Poland depends on the site and extent of the disaster.

For example, at the border zone, assistance is accepted and coordinated at the regional level

but if the disaster is such that it is considered national in nature, the relevance authority is the

Naitonal Centre for Coordination of Rescue Operations and Civil Protection in the State

Headquarters of the Fire Service.

Latvia employs a parallel system in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sends a request

through its diplomatic channels, but the State Fire and Rescue Service acts as the national

focal point regarding disaster management and response.139 In Finland, the director general

of the Ministry of Interior Affairs Rescue Services department decides whether a request will

be made, and which makes the request itself.140 Arrangements may also vary according to

whether a specific treaty framework for disaster cooperation is applicable.141 In Italy, the

distribution of competences depends in part on the level of the disaster at issue. If the disaster

is one that can only be handled through the imposition of extraordinary measures (known as

a “Type C” disaster), the response is centrally located.142 In addition, there seem to be fairly

clear rules regarding competence in the context of using the EU CPM or other international

frameworks. Beyond that, Italian domestic law does not regulate requests for assistance in

any detail.143 However, it is clear that volunteer organisations are permitted to provide

assistance only where explicitly requested by the relevant authority, and in any case, this only

applies to domestic organisations.144

None of the states evaluated use request or acceptance templates, although some national

rules or procedures specify that requests must be detailed and explicit.145 Although there is

136 Icelandic Report, p. 20. 137 Irish Report, p. 24. 138 Ibid. 139 Latvian Report, p. 23. 140 Finnish Report, p. 34. 141 Ibid. 142 Italian Report, p. 41. 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid, p. 42. 145 Finnish Report, p. 34; Polish Report, p. 36.

49

no specified form or content regarding requests for assistance, the Latvian report notes that

bilateral cooperation agreements often have specific requirements.146

Recommendations:

The responsible authority should be identified in law or policy ahead of time

The states should consider adopting the request and response templates provided in

the Annex to the Host Nation Support to optimize coordination and ensure that they

are disseminated to all appropriate officials.

If practical, states with existing arrangements for response through bilateral or

multilateral arrangements with non-EU states should consider including similar

templates in those frameworks, and/or renegotiating treaty arrangements, where

possible.

3.c Entry Into EU Territory

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 16 of the IDRL Guidelines provides that affected states should provide for

expedited and free-of-charge visa and work permit procedures for relief and recovery

personnel.


The EU Guidelines recommend in section 9.4.2 that the host nation should either waive or

expedite visa formalities for relief personnel, when necessary and possible.

Laws relating to who is legally permitted to enter the territory of the states evaluated in this

report very much depend on whether the state is a member state of the EU or has a

relationship with the EU. The EU member states established the Schengen Area, which

includes a common framework of conditions for entry into the EU at its external borders.

Common arrangements for visas into the Schengen Area have been developed at EU level and

are mandatory for those member states that participate in the Schengen arrangements.147

Iceland is a participating state. Once a non-EU national has been granted entry by one member

state, he or she will be allowed access into the territory of other states participating in the

Schengen Area. Moreover, participation in the Schengen Area means the state is obliged to

grant entry to nationals from other EU or EEA states. Of the six countries evaluated in this

146 Latvian Report, p. 24. 147 Council Regulation 539/2001/EC listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas

when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. This Regulation

replaces Regulation 574/1999/EC which covers similar subject matter.

50

study, only Ireland is not part of the Schengen Area, and so entry into its territory is regulated

completely by national law, although Ireland is still required to grant entry to EU/EEA nationals

with minimal border checks.

It is also important to note that the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the

United Nations and the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized

Agencies entitle holders of the UN laissez-passer to expedited visa processes.148 Similar

arrangements apply to EU officials.149

Aside from the above, some of the states evaluated have granted visa waivers under regional

agreements or through other special arrangements. Finland has abolished the need to present

passports for citizens of other Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland) under a

special protocol.150 Ireland shares a Common Travel Area with the United Kingdom, the

Channel Islands and the Isle of Man which obviates the need for passports, but still requires

photo identification.151 Latvia has a number of arrangements in place which remove the

requirement to hold a visa for stay within Latvia for up to 90 days, and which reflect

arrangements common to other EU member states.152 The Polish system also reflects such

arrangements.153

The common rules applicable in the Schengen Area include a discretionary exemption from

the visa requirement for helpers in the event of a disaster.154 The EU has therefore considered

that expedited external assistance may be necessary in the event of a disaster. Some of the

six states have exemptions in place, but it is unclear whether these exemptions are directly

related to the discretionary exemption in the EU framework. These exceptions would

obviously only apply where relief personnel are not already exempted from the visa

requirement under any arrangement discussed above. The Finnish Aliens Act exempts rescue

personnel from visa requirements in an emergency, but does require identification and a list

of personnel to be prepared ahead of time.155 The Iceland report notes that, although there

are no explicit exceptions for relief personnel in law, it is unlikely that the administrative

structure would prevent or delay the arrival of foreign personnel.156 In Ireland the Minister for

Justice and Equality can issue an order exempting classes of non-nationals from visa

requirements and, in that regard, the report indicated that the Irish Government would be

flexible regarding visa requirements if assistance is urgently needed.157 In Italy, bilateral

arrangements with Argentina, France, Russia and Switzerland regulate the entry of foreign

operators into the country, although none specifically refer to foreign responders in the event

148 See Art VII and Art VII, respectively. 149 Protocol (No 36) on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (1965), Art.7. 150 Finnish Report, p. 37. 151 Irish Report, p. 33. 152 Latvian Report, p. 27. 153 Polish Report, pp. 38-39. 154 Council Regulation 539/2001/EC, Art.4(c). 155 Finnish Report, p. 38. However, at the Russian border different rules apply. 156 Icelandic Report, p. 24. 157 Irish Report, p. 33.

51

of a disaster.158 Where non-EU citizens seek entry, they will need a visa, which will likely be a

“mission visa”, which is issued for temporary stays for political, governmental or public

interest reasons.159 Moreover, non-EU foreign nationals without a residence permit from

another Schengen state must be listed in the register of residents or acquire a residence

permit. There are no relevant exceptions.160 The Polish State Fire Service Regulations require

that specified border points be identified in advance in the state’s request for assistance. Once

assistance has been accepted, the National Centre for Coordination of Rescue Operations and

Civil Protection will send to the Chief Commander of the Border Guard an application to

facilitate crossing or waive entry procedures, particularly for relief personnel from outside the

EU/EEA.161

Recommendations:

States should implement the discretionary visa exemptions in EU legislation for disaster

assistance personnel.

States should ensure that all relevant exemptions are included in the law or policy, in

order to enhance legal certainty and promote proper planning.

States should consider whether requiring in advance a list of incoming relief personnel

might enhance disaster response capacity and address any problems associated with

the entry of incoming personnel.

States should consider establishing a ‘one-stop shop’ to which all assistance and

personnel can be directed following a disaster in order to avoid delays and better

streamline the delivery of assistance to affected areas.

States should waive any fees normally applicable in the context of entry visas.

3.d Recognition of Professional Qualifications

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 16 of the IDRL Guidelines suggests that affected states should establish

procedures for the temporary recognition of professional qualifications of foreign medical

personnel, architects and engineers from approved humanitarian organisations and foreign

states.


158 Italian Report, p. 54. 159 Ibid. 160 Ibid, pp. 55-56. 161 Polish Report, p. 39.

52

Section 9.4.2 of the EU Guidelines recommend that, where possible, the host nation should

recognize the relevant professional qualifications of relief personnel for the time necessary

to carry out the disaster relief assistance, including professions such as doctors, nurses,

paramedics, and engineers.

Personnel sent to assist member states in the aftermath of a disaster may possess specific

skills and qualifications that are regulated in the affected state. There is legislation at the EU

level concerning the recognition of professional qualifications for regulated professions, such

as doctors, nurses, paramedics and engineers.162 This Directive establishes rules which oblige

the member states to recognise professional qualifications obtained by EU nationals in one or

more other member states. The Directive also permits the member states to grant recognition

to qualifications held by an EU national which were obtained outside the EU, subject to certain

conditions regarding training. This, however, is a matter for each member state to decide

under its own national rules.

For qualifications obtained within the EU, existing EU law calls for a so-called “automatic”

system of recognition when services are provided on a temporary basis. However, states are

permitted to take up to one month to process the request for recognition of EU-obtained

qualifications. There is no maximum processing time limit for degrees from non-EU states. The

Directive distinguishes between those individuals established in other member states who

want to provide services in another, and individuals wanting to re-locate and establish

themselves in a new member state. Where an individual wishes only to provide services in a

member state on a temporary basis, the Directive provides under Article 5(1) that the member

states may not restrict the individual’s freedom to provide services. However, Article 7 permits

the member states to require that the service provider issue a written declaration to the host

member state’s competent authority to the effect that the individual intends to provide

services in that member state. The competent authority may then require additional

documentation such as proof of establishment, proof of nationality or evidence of

professional qualifications. It then has one month to come to a decision as to whether the

authority is going to carry out an in-depth check of the individual’s qualifications. There is no

expedited procedure.

In 2013, amendments to the Directive created the European Professional Card. The European

Professional Card may be applied for by European nationals as long as they are licensed to

practice their profession in their home state. The card allows the individual to provide his or

her services in another member state on a temporary basis (18 months with possible

extension), or to establish him or herself in another member state. For most professions,

possession of the card will automatically entitle the person to practice in another member

state.163 The European Professional Card would likely be very helpful regarding the entry of

certain disaster relief personnel during a disaster. However, it should be emphasised that

162 Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, consolidated. 163 Some professions that have public health or safety implications may be subject to additional checks by the

host member state (see Directive 2005/36/EC, arts 4a(4) and 7(4).

53

these provisions only apply to EU nationals, and would therefore not cover situations where

disaster relief personnel carrying out a regulated profession are from a third country.

Each of the six countries in this study have implemented the EU Directive, and each has some

system in place for recognition of qualifications obtained outside the EU. In some cases, other

arrangements might apply, for example the Agreement on Joint Nordic Labour Market for

Health Care Personnel and Veterinarians applies to the recognition of those professions in

Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.164 However, none of the six countries have

explicit exceptions for disaster situations in their law. Despite this, some relevant rules might

be helpful in disaster situations. The Finnish report specified that it might be possible to

prioritize applications from relief personnel on the same day, and also that in cases of

necessity, doctors licensed outside of Finland are always permitted to carry out medical

procedures for a limited period of time out of necessity in emergencies.165 However, it should

be noted that this situation is perhaps not ideal because it does not provide much protection

to doctors regarding criminal liability, as doctors may still be subject to criminal investigation

if something goes wrong and results in malpractice, etc.166 In Ireland, registration can be

delayed for 15 days for doctors whose services are urgently required, and foreign nurses are

exempt from the normal registration requirement when they are in Ireland for humanitarian

purposes for less than 30 days.167 Latvia has similar possibilities in its legal system.168 A

bilateral agreement with Russia permits doctors to perform their functions in Italy, but apart

from that, there are no rules facilitating the recognition of qualifications obtained in a non-EU

country or held by a non-EU national, and the applicable time-frames are quite time-

consuming.169 The Polish State Fire Service Regulations exempt rescue groups that are UN-

certified under the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) from the

official recognition procedure.170

Recommendations:

States should endeavour to expedite the procedures applicable to the recognition of

qualifications, for example by developing exceptions which allow registration to be

delayed or less onerous if they are only in the affected state for a short time.

3.e Customs and Taxation

IDRL Guidelines

164 Finnish Report, pp. 39-41. 165 Ibid, p. 40-41. 166 Ibid. 167 Irish Report, p. 37. 168 Latvian Report, p. 32. 169 Italian Report, pp. 58-59. 170 Polish Report, p. 42.

54

Part V Section 17 of the IDRL Guidelines provides for the exemption from customs duties,

taxes, tariffs, import restrictions and fees on goods and equipment imported by approved

humanitarian organizations and foreign states.

Part V Section 18 of the IDRL Guidelines discusses the reduction of barriers to the

importation of special goods and equipment.


Section 9.4.2 of the EU Guidelines suggest that participating States should exempt goods

and equipment needed for relief operations from all customs duties, taxes, tariffs or fees,

and from all export, transit and import restrictions. This includes simplifying and minimising

documentary requirements, waiving or reducing inspection requirements and arranging for

inspection and release outside of normal business hours.

Certain aspects regarding customs and taxation (specifically VAT) in the states are regulated

at the EU level through legislation and through the Treaty of Lisbon, and will be discussed

below.

Customs

The Treaty provides for the free circulation for Community goods throughout the European

Union. The principle of free circulation applies to goods made in the Community and imported

goods that have been released for free circulation after payment of any duties for which they

are liable. Release of non-Community goods into free circulation gives the goods the status of

Community goods. EU legislation specifically contains provisions on temporary importation

and includes exemptions from customs duties for disaster relief materials.171 Such materials

are defined as: “materials to be used in connection with measures taken to counter the effects

of disasters affecting the customs territory of the Community”. The exemption will apply as

long as the goods are (1) imported on loan free of charge, and (2) intended for state bodies or

bodies approved by the competent authorities.172

There are also provisions which exempt medical, surgical and laboratory equipment from

duties where they are imported on a temporary basis and intended for use free of charge by

hospitals or other medical institutions in on what is called an “occasional basis” (that is, they

are not for typical use, but rather for exceptional circumstances of urgent need), and if they

are intended for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes.173 A number of other goods are exempt

171 Regulation 2454/93/EEC laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)

2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, Art.678. 172 Ibid, Art.677(3). 173 Ibid.

55

from customs duties, including goods imported by charities or other philanthropic

organisations intended for distribution free of charge to victims of disasters affecting the

territory of one or more member states.174 EU law also suspends import duties for goods

imported to meet the needs of disaster relief agencies during their activity in the member

state.175 Grants for relief must be approved by the Commission, after a request from the

member state or states concerned. However, the member state can still suspend import

duties pending the Commission’s decision, under the understanding that if rejected, relief

must be paid by the importing organization.176 It should be noted, however, that the system

of reliefs from customs does not apply to goods and equipment intended for rebuilding

disaster areas.177

In addition to the EU law discussed above, five of the six states evaluated in this Report have

ratified the Convention on Temporary Admission (Istanbul Convention) (1990).178 The Istanbul

Convention provides for the free importation of certain goods on a temporary basis, including

goods imported for humanitarian purposes such as relief consignments and medical

equipment, rescue animals, certain types of professional equipment and means of transport.

The two UN conventions on privileges and immunities discussed above in relation to visas and

immigration also contain provisions which exempt the UN, its specialised agencies and their

assets, income and other property from customs duties and other restrictions on imports and

exports.179

Each of the member states evaluated in this Report are obligated to give effect to the law

discussed above in their national frameworks. Therefore, much of what is applicable at the

national level is derived from international and EU law. Other aspects may vary, especially

where EU legislation is discretionary as to the method of implementation at the national level.

In addition, some of the applicable rules are derived from bilateral agreements, such as that

between Finland and Russia which permits relief personnel to freely import rescue supplies

and goods and contains rules relating to release and export of goods free of charge.180 Iceland

and Finland have multilateral arrangements in place which release assisting nations from

import and export formalities,181 and the Latvian State Revenue Service expedites customs

clearance of humanitarian aid shipments.182

Taxation

174 Regulation 1196/2009/EC setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, Art.74(1). 175 Ibid, Art.74(2). 176 Ibid, Art.76. 177 Ibid, Art.75. 178 Finland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Poland have ratified the Convention. 179 UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN (1946) s 7; the Convention on the Privileges and

Immunities of the Specialized Agencies (1947) s 9. 180 Finnish Report, p. 43. 181 Icelandic Report, p. 28; Finnish Report, p. 43. 182 Latvian Report, p. 33.

56

EU law also exempts goods imported for the benefit of disaster victims from the Community

harmonised VAT where they are intended for distribution free of charge to victims of disasters

affecting the territory of one or more member states, or to be made available free of charge

to the victims of such disasters, while remaining the property of the organisations in

question.183 A number of other VAT exemptions apply to certain transactions, such as the

provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions, and the

supply of human organs, blood and milk.184 It is up to the member states to determine the

conditions for these exemptions.185 However, as with the system of relief from customs duties,

the VAT legislation also excludes materials and equipment intended for rebuilding disaster

areas.186

In addition, the two sections from the UN conventions on privileges and immunities

referenced above in relation to customs, also include provisions regarding exemptions from

direct taxation.

In most of the evaluated states, whether an individual or corporation is taxed depends on

where it is resident, and residency is determined by various time limits, such as that in Latvia

which provides that residency is recognised if present in the country for 183 days within a 12

month period. Most states have concluded tax treaties which prevent the double taxation of

individuals or corporations working in the contracting states, as was specifically indicated in

reports from Finland,187 Latvia188 and Poland189. The Polish report additionally referenced tax

exemptions on income given as aid, and for organisations considered to be of public benefit

on certain transactions.190 Irish tax law also includes exemptions for charitable

organisations,191 and Icelandic law includes exemptions from auto tax for vehicles owned by

rescue groups.192 In Finland, non-profit organisations are exempt from income tax for non-

business-related activities and, in some instances, for real estate income.193 The extent to

which these national provisions apply to foreign individuals and companies is unclear.

Recommendations:

The EU should consider amending its legislation to provide for customs and VAT

exemptions for disaster materials intended for rebuilding disaster areas.

183 Established in Directive 77/388/EEC, Ibid and recast in Council Directive 2006/112/ EC on the common

system of value added tax, Art.49. 184 Ibid, Art.132. 185 Ibid, Art.131. 186 Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14 (1) (d) of Directive 77/388/EEC

as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods, Art.50. 187 Finnish Report, p. 47. 188 Latvian Report, p. 39. 189 Polish Report, p. 44. 190 Ibid. 191 Irish Report, p. 45. 192 Icelandic Report, p. 35. 193 Comments from author of Finnish Report, November 2014.

57

The states should give effect to EU exemptions for disaster relief goods in their domestic

legislation.

States should waive any fees for the import of disaster relief materials that normally

apply.

Consider tax exemptions for charitable organisations that will allow them to operate

effectively in the host nation.

3.f Food and Medicine

IDRL Guidelines

Customs exemptions should, of course, apply to any food and medicines intended as relief.

In addition to these exemptions, Part V Section 18(3) of the IDRL Guidelines suggests that

assisting states and organisations should take steps to ensure the quality and safety of any

imported medications.

Part V Section 18(4) urges states to consider reducing or modifying requirements relating to

prohibitions and restrictions on food imports and exports.


Section 9.3 of the EU Guidelines recommends that the supporting nation be responsible for

ensuring the quality and adequacy of offered food and medicine.

Food

Any food imported into the EU for distribution must satisfy several general and specific pieces

of legislation regarding food hygiene, plant health, animal health and animal welfare.194 This

is true whether or not a disaster situation is at hand. Relief organisations routinely purchase

food for distribution free of charge as aid, and may therefore be held responsible for ensuring

that any food they purchase and distribute satisfies the requirements of EU food law. There is

a vast body of EU food law aimed mainly at the production and distribution of food outside

the context of an emergency.195 This legislation does not include any exceptions that would

allow for flexibility regarding standards during a crisis situation. It is mandatory and must be

implemented by the member states.

194 See, e.g., Regulation 178/2002/EC laying down the general principles and requirements of food law,

establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety; for

more, see the 2010 EU Report, pp. 29-32. 195 2010 EU Report, pp. 29-32.

58

Each of the states in this Report operate some type of licensing and authorisation scheme for

food, part of which is derived from EU law.196 Some states’ law may also include prohibitions

on food based on country of origin, or rules aimed at protecting against certain types of animal

disease197. In Ireland, food imports of animal origin must enter the state at a special border

point operated by the Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine.198 None of the law in

the states evaluated includes specific rules relating to food quality and safety in times of

disaster, although in Latvia there are some priority rules regarding highly-perishable foods

that would likely assist in times when assistance is necessary.199 However, in Iceland, the

Minister of Industries and Innovation is empowered to grant exemptions from applicable

quality and safety standards to certain types of organisations, which may be relevant to

assisting organisations during disasters.200 Moreover, in Italy, applicable controls over the

import of food can be waived through an emergency order by the head of the Civil Protection

department, or by the Ministry of Health.201

Medicine

The EU extensively regulates pharmaceuticals.202 However, that regulation is primarily

concerned with good manufacturing practice and product authorisation procedures

ultimately aimed at enduring safe marketing of the product. Therefore, relief organisations

will be responsible for ensuring that any medicines distribute satisfy the requirements of EU

law. Like EU food law, there are no specific exceptions applicable to disaster situations that

would reduce or remove applicable standards. The EU legislation is mandatory and must be

implemented by the member states.

In addition to satisfying EU pharmaceutical standards, relief organisations must be aware of

any law applicable which aims at protecting against the importation of controlled substances.

This is particularly important as relief organisations may wish to import controlled substances

for medical purposes, such as methadone, morphine, opium, codeine and tranquilisers.

Because these are controlled substances, relief organisations may run the risk of violating anti-

drug trafficking laws if they are not aware of the types and amounts of controlled substances

that can be brought into the member states. The EU has limited competence to act within this

field and does not have its own system for the classification of narcotics. Rather, it uses the

system adopted in the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the UN Convention

on Psychotropic Substances (1971). The UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs contains an

exception for medical purposes in Article 4 to the general obligation not to export, import or

196 See, e.g., Regulation 853/2004/EC laying down specific hygiene rules on the hygiene of foodstuffs. 197 Finnish Report, p. 46; Icelandic Report, p. 30. 198 Irish Report, p. 42. 199 Latvian Report, p. 38. 200 Icelandic Report, p. 30. 201 Italian Report, p. 62. 202 2010 EU Report, pp. 32-35.

59

distribute illicit drugs. While the EU is not itself a party to the relevant international

agreements on controlled substances, all 28 EU member states are parties.203

In the states evaluated, a number of exemptions to the normal rules exist with regard to public

health emergencies, that would be relevant in the disaster context. For example, the Finnish

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health can derogate from some of the licensing rules to prevent

communicable diseases that constitute an immediate threat to public health, and the

Emergency Powers Act allows the Government to make exceptions to import restrictions on

certain medicines.204 In Iceland, exemptions to the authorisation rules can be granted by the

Medicines Agency in special circumstances and for reasons of public health, and doctors may

individually be given permission to use unauthorised drugs under their own responsibility.205

The Icelandic Medicines Agency also permits the temporary distribution of unauthorised

medicine to protect against pathogens, toxic substances, chemical agents or nuclear

radiation—a provision which was nearly used during the swine flu epidemic.206 The Latvian

State Agency of Medicines is able to grant special authorisations for the import, export, transit

and distribution of medicines in case of disaster.207 Finally, specific arrangements may be

made under bilateral agreements, as is the case in Latvia and Finland.208

Recommendations:

States should endeavour to ensure the quality and safety of food aid by respecting

applicable rules, while still allowing for the efficient importation of food items by, e.g.,

establishing expedited procedures for customs clearance, waiving applicable fees, or

establishing special entry points.

3.g Rescue Animals

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 18 of the IDRL Guidelines, which was referenced above in the section on

customs, discusses the reduction of barriers to the importation of special goods and

equipment. Although not specifically mentioned by the Guidelines, rescue animals may be

considered within the scope of this provision.

203 However, the EU is party to the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances (1988), which is intended to support the other two UN conventions and encourage further co-

operation between parties. 204 Finnish Report, p. 45. The authors of the Finnish Report additionally noted that although exceptions can be

made under the Emergency Powers Act, they must be approved by the Finnish Parliament. 205 Icelandic Report, p. 32. 206 Ibid, p. 33. 207 Latvian Report, p. 37. 208 Latvian Report, p. 38; Finnish Report, p. 50.

60


The Host Nation Support Checklist in Annex I of the EU Guidelines suggests that the customs

stats of animals should be clarified at several stages, in particular prior to entry into the

affected state.

EU law regulates the non-commercial movement of animals within the EU.209 Foreign rescue

animals are therefore subjected to various documentary requirements and veterinary tests,

depending on whether or not the animal originates from another EU member state. The EU

creates framework for the free movement of pets between the EU member states if they are

accompanied by a passport which certifies that the animal has received the requisite

vaccinations. There is also separate legislation which is applicable to animals coming from

third countries, which requires the member states to ensure that the animals are subjected to

a documentary and identity check at the border, as well as an official veterinarian check before

transit through the territory is authorised.210 None of this legislation specifically applies to

rescue animals. If a rescue animal falls within a category covered in the legislation, then it

must satisfy the requirements therein. In December 2014, a new Regulation will repeal the

current regime.211 Many of the relevant rules will remain the same, however, Article 10(3)

specifically permits the member states to grant entry to military or rescue animals at a

designated point of entry, provided that the owner has been granted a permit in advance and

the animal undergoes a compliance check upon entry.212

All states but Iceland are bound by the EU rules described above. At the domestic level, there

are no national provisions which provide for exceptions to applicable rules or special

procedures in disaster situations. The Irish report indicated that the relevant Government

Minister has a wide range of powers to regulate animal entry that might be relevant in a

disaster situation.213 In Iceland, animals need to obtain a permit and to undergo a quarantine

process which lasts at least four weeks.214

Recommendations:

States should consider developing expedited procedures for granting entry to rescue

animals that have satisfied minimum standards of health and veterinary protection. As

209 Regulation 998/2003/EC on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of

pet animals. 210 Council Directive 91/496/EEC laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on

animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and

90/675/EEC; see also 2010 EU Report, pp. 35-36 for more details on this and other legislation related to the

movement of animals in the EU. 211 Regulation 576/2013/EU on the non-commercial movement of pet animals and repealing Regulation

998/2003/EC. 212 Ibid, art. 10(3). Article 34 describes the compliance checks. 213 Irish Report, p. 43. 214 Icelandic Report, p. 34.

61

is the case with visas for relief personnel, this could perhaps be sorted with in advance,

during the negotiation of assistance.

3.h Transporting Relief

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 19 of the IDRL Guidelines presents several recommendations relating to

transport, including speedy passage of land, marine and air vehicles operated by approved

humanitarian organisations and foreign states.

Part V Section 16(c) of the IDRL Guidelines recommends expedited procedures for the

recognition of driving licenses of foreign relief workers from approved humanitarian

organisations and foreign states.


Section 9.3 of the EU Guidelines suggests that participating states should pre-identify points

of entry for all assisting teams at roads, rivers, railroads, airports and seaports, and develop

a catalogue of these entry points. They also urge transit states to facilitate movement across

their territories by removing potential obstacles through, e.g., providing escorts or

establishing route plans in advance.

Vehicles carrying relief goods and assistance personnel must be permitted to quickly and

efficiently reach their intended destination during a disaster. As was the case in several other

areas considered in this Report, the EU framework includes legislation relating to road, air, rail

and sea transport that may be relevant to disaster situations in the states evaluated. Because

EU transport policy seeks to eliminate the borders between member states and enhance the

free movement of goods and people, vehicles carrying goods and coming from other member

states can enter freely and travel in other member states for five years once they have been

authorised. Third country carriers do not benefit from these arrangements; rather, it may be

the case that similar arrangements exist through bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Road Transport

EU legislation on intra-EU road transport includes authorisation exemptions for the carriage

of medicinal products, appliances, equipment and other articles required for medical care in

62

emergency relief, in particular for natural disasters.215 Valid driver’s licenses are also a

prerequisite for entering and transiting through these territories. The EU has also introduced

legislation harmonising the conditions for issuing drivers licenses in member states and a

model license, which must be recognised in other EU/EEA states.216 This legislation is binding

on all the states evaluated.

In addition to the EU rules, a number of national conditions on road transport may apply in

relation to vehicle safety, size, weight and general condition, as was specifically mentioned in

reports by Iceland and Ireland,217 or regarding requirements to carry third party insurance, as

in Iceland, Ireland and Latvia.218 The Irish report indicated that the Minister for Transport can

issue special permits for vehicles that might not satisfy conditions relating to size and weight,

such as civil protection vehicles.219 A similar possibility also exists in Poland.220 In Italy, civil

protection vehicles enjoy exemptions from several normally-applicable rules, such as size

requirements or tolls.221 In Latvia, foreign vehicles can remain un-registered for three months

or less.222 With regard to driver’s licenses, Iceland recognises licenses from EEA states and the

Faroe Islands, and a foreign license can be used in Iceland for up to six months.223 In Ireland,

no operator’s license is required to transport emergency medical relief supplies.224

Air

Each of the states’ regulatory frameworks requires that incoming flights obtain permission to

land or fly over the territory. However, all of the states involved in this Report are Parties to

the Convention on International Civil Aviation (1947) (also known as the Chicago Convention).

Annex 9 of the Convention provides suggested standards and practices regarding the

facilitation of formalities for clearance of aircraft and commercial traffic through customs,

immigration, public health and agriculture authorities in the context of relief operations. In

Iceland, the Minister of the Interior is in charge of granting permissions and can make

exceptions in times of urgency.225 Because Iceland has only recently begun to implement

Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention, previously unscheduled flights require a special

permission. However, because of Iceland’s obligations under EU law, this permission is

unnecessary if the flights are operated by operators in position of a license valid within the

215 Regulation 881/92/EEC on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or

from the territory of a member state or passing across the territory of one or more member states. 216 See Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licenses, and Directive 2006/126/EC. More detailed rules regarding EU

road transport legislation is available in the 2010 EU Report, pp. 37-38. 217 Icelandic Report, p. 38; Irish Report, p. 48. 218 Icelandic Report, p. 38; Italian Report, p. 68; Latvian Report, p. 42. 219 Irish Report, p. 48. 220 Polish Report, p. 46. 221 Italian Report, p. 69. 222 Latvian Report, p. 42. 223 Icelandic Report, p. 39. 224 Irish Report, p. 49. 225 Icelandic Report, p. 40.

63

EEA or the EFTA.226 In addition to the requirements of EU law and the Chicago Convention, in

Latvia, aircraft carrying relief personnel and materials can land outside designated points if

they obtain special permission by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.227 In Ireland, the Minister for

Transport is empowered to order the Irish Aviation Authority to take action or refrain from

taking action if it is necessary or expedient in the public interest.228 Government aircraft or

vessels from a foreign state can enter Finland for an urgent rescue mission. However, there

are no exceptions to the requirement to pay fees such as airport charges or landing fees.

Moreover, a permit must be obtained 48 hours in advance.229 Government aircraft either

notify Finland in advance of their arrival, or obtain a permit.230 Some reports indicated that

fees would be waived for relief flights, such as Poland and Ireland,231 while the report from

Iceland stated specifically that no such exemptions apply232. The Italian Report indicated that

the Ministry of Transportation may issue a decree which would place foreign aircraft on the

same footing as Italian state aircraft, thus making them tax-exempt.233 Finally, it may be the

case that relief flights are given landing priority, as is the case in Ireland.234

Maritime

Each of the states in this Report are party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

(1982).235 The Convention requires that all states party give ships innocent passage through

their territorial waters. This means that ships must be given access unless they are considered

a risk to the peace, order or security of the state.236 However, some formalities may still apply.

For example, in Ireland, non-EU arrivals must provide notice of arrival in advance.237 A similar

situation exists in Iceland.238 Another formality may include the payment of certain fees, such

as docking fees. This is the case in Iceland and Poland, although the latter report indicated

that certain vessels, such as police, navy, border guard vessels, are exempt from docking

fees.239 Finnish law and policy does not contain any fee exemptions for international aid

vessels.240

It is important to note that each of the states are also party to the International Maritime

Organization Convention on the Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (1965). Its aim is

to make uniform, as far as possible, the formalities and other procedures used by states in

226 Ibid. 227 Latvian Report, p. 43. 228 Irish Report, p. 50. 229 Finnish Report, p. 48. 230 Ibid, p. 62. 231 Polish Report, p. 47; Irish Report, p. 51. 232 Icelandic Report, p. 41. 233 Italian Report, p. 67. 234 Irish Report, p. 50. 235 The report from Iceland indicated that no implementing provisions could be found in domestic law or

regulations. 236 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), Art.17. 237 Irish Report, p. 49. 238 Icelandic Report, p. 42. 239 Icelandic Report, Ibid; Polish Report, p. 48. 240 Finnish Report, p. 48.

64

relation to the regulation of maritime traffic. Amendments to the Convention in 1977 and

1987 provided specific rules for the facilitation of maritime traffic for ships engaged in disaster

relief operations.241

Access to the disaster-affected site

It is also important that once in the territory, assisting actors are able to reach the disaster site

efficiently. The law in several of the member states studied exempts emergency vehicles from

tolls or other local road rules. In Finland, there are no local tolls.242 In Iceland,243 Ireland,244

and Poland,245 emergency vehicles are not required to pay tolls. In practice, it seems some

states offer escorts to assistance vehicles which means that they will not have to pay any fees,

as is the case in Poland, where the exemption from tolls does not strictly apply to humanitarian

aid transport, and Ireland.246 A similar situation exists with regard to road traffic rules, which

are largely inapplicable to emergency and police vehicles. However, in Ireland, the exemption

does not apply to fire brigade vehicles from other jurisdictions or other vehicles involved in

disaster relief, but the use of escorts typically resolves this issue.247

There may also be issues regarding access by foreign governmental and non-governmental

organisation to people unable to provide consent, such as children and vulnerable persons.

How to grant such access has been an issue experienced in Ireland, and underscores the need

to ensure appropriate coordination between the affected state and assisting actors.

Recommendations:

States should consider establishing priority rules for road use, docking, and landing.

States should waive any fees, such as road tolls, docking fees, or landing changes, for

assistance vehicles.

States should ensure that they have implemented EU legislation regarding the

recognition of licenses in the member states.

States should consider reducing or eliminating any obstacles to travel within the

territory through, e.g., waiving tolls or providing escorts from the entry point to the

disaster-affected site.

States should consider whether it might be possible to extend existing rules regarding

privileges for domestic emergency vehicles to foreign emergency vehicles.

241 IMO Convention on the Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (1965), part F. 242 Finnish Report, p. 49. 243 Icelandic Report, p. 39. 244 Irish Report, p. 47. 245 Polish Report, p. 47. 246 Polish Report, p. 47; Irish Report, p. 48. 247 Irish Report, p. 47.

65

3.i Extended Hours

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 23 of the IDRL Guidelines provides that affected states should ensure that

state-operated offices and services essential to the timely delivery of international disaster

relief operate outside normal business hours in the event of a disaster.


In the discussion regarding reduced or expedited customs procedures in Section 9.4.2, the

EU Guidelines urge the participating states to provide for the possibility of inspection

outside of normal business hours and possibly also at a location apart from the normal

customs office, to prevent delay.

The EU Working Time Directive set the maximum work week at 48 hours.248 However, the

Directive permits the member states to derogate from the maximum with regard to managing

executives or individuals with decision-making powers. However, the focus of the legislation

is on health and safety issues of a general nature, and therefore it does not include any specific

exemptions related to times of disaster.

In Finland, the Working Hours Act regulating working time and allows normal working hours

to be exceeded in times of emergency for a maximum period of two weeks. Should two weeks

not be a sufficient time period, the Emergency Powers Act must be invoked. However, the

authors of the Finnish report indicated that state officials seem reluctant to invoke this power

because to do so involves a lengthy process of the adoption of a special decree and triggers

the need for parliamentary supervision.249 Some border points in Finland are open 24 hours a

day, and the ministries also make use of ‘on call’ shifts for personnel, during which they may

be contacted 24 hours a day.250 The report from Iceland indicates that most of the relevant

actors assume that the normal hours of operation will not apply during a disaster, but there is

no legal or regulatory provision which explicitly provides for this.251 However, legislation does

make clear that rules on maximum working hours and rest time do not apply to things such as

necessary security activities, urgent law enforcement matters and work connected with civil

protection.252 The Irish report indicates that many of the services relevant in times of disaster

normally operate on a 24-hour basis, such as immigration, some airports and key seaports.253

In addition, national law includes explicit exceptions to the maximum working time. For

248 Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. 249 Finnish Report, p. 53, and additional comments from authors of the Finnish Report. 250 Ibid, p. 38. 251 Icelandic Report, p. 51. 252 Ibid, p. 52. 253 Irish Report, p. 56.

66

example, employers are exempt from the requirement to cap hours or to provide rest periods

in exceptional or emergency circumstances, and the ambulance, fire and civil protection

services are also exempt from the relevant legislation.254 Similarly, the Latvian report also

indicated that most essential services normally operate 24 hours a day.255

Recommendations:

States should implement existing EU exemptions from the maximum working week for

key decision-makers, at least in disaster situations.

Where not already specifically done, states should amend existing legislation regarding

working time to take into account disaster situations and relevant personnel.

States should ensure that key services remain open 24/7 or operate according to

extended hours, or on an on-call basis during a disaster.

3.j Telecommunications

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 18 states that affected states should waive or expedite licensing procedures

regarding the use of telecommunications and information technology equipment.


Section 9.3 of the EU Guidelines suggests that participating states should facilitate the use

of telecommunication, make arrangements to maintain contact with and within the

locations of international assistance and provide radio frequencies at entry or before.

There is no EU legislation relevant to this issue aside from rules regarding market access and

competition.256 Therefore, in the context of disaster, telecommunications is a national matter.

However, some of the states reviewed in this Report are party to the Tampere Convention on

the Provision of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations

(1999). The Tampere Convention establishes a framework for facilitating the use of

telecommunications resources in the event of a disaster. It requires state parties to reduce or

remove any barriers to bringing telecommunications equipment across borders during and

after a disaster. It requires states, non-state entities and intergovernmental organisations to

facilitate the use of telecommunication resources for disaster mitigation and relief. Finland,

254 Ibid. 255 Latvian Report, p. 46. 256 2010 EU Report, pp. 40-41.

67

and Ireland are party to the Convention; Italy and Poland have signed it, but not yet ratified

it. Although Iceland is a party and has ratified the Convention, it has not yet transposed its

provision into domestic law.257 In Iceland, the use of frequencies is subject to an application

and authorisation process managed by the Post and Telecom Administration, but this process

should not take longer than one day in an emergency.258 Any foreign visitors or those seeking

temporary use of equipment must obtain a permit and pay a fee.259 The Latvian report noted

that, in an emergency, broadcasting organisations and electronic communications companies

will allocate subscription lines at the request of the State Fire and Rescue Service in

accordance with the concluded agreements.260 In Poland, the assigned liaison will take care of

any telecommunications access issues.261 Many states use a special, internal frequency to

maintain communication during disasters, such as the TETRA system used in Finland,262

Iceland,263 and Ireland264. However, the Finnish report also points out that the TETRA system

does not support foreign TETRA systems.265

Recommendations:

States should ratify and implement the Tampere Convention.

States should establish internal telecommunications frequencies for use in emergency

situations and eliminate any applicable access fees.

States should ensure that any internal arrangements or systems for communication

can be accessed by foreign relief providers.

Reduce or waive any permit requirements (or sort them out either in advance or within

a certain time period after entry).

257 Icelandic Report, p. 44. 258 Ibid. 259 Ibid. 260 Latvian Report, p. 45. 261 Polish Report, p. 49. 262 Finnish Report, p. 51. 263 Icelandic Report, p. 43. 264 Irish Report, p. 53. 265 Finnish Report, p. 51.

68

CHAPTER 4: MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The IDRL Guidelines highlight other important issues in addition to the legal facilities considerations discussed in Chapter 3 of this Report, which can impact upon the effectiveness of the provision of international relief. In general, the IDRL Guidelines state that the principles of humanity (i.e. needs-based approach), impartiality (i.e. non-discrimination) and neutrality (i.e. non-interference) must be respected when providing assistance. In particular, they refer to the need to enforce quality and security standards in order to ensure that international relief is in fact helping rather than creating more problems.266 Firstly, it is essential that any international assistance offered to a member state affected by an emergency is of suitable quality, appropriate to the needs of the situation, and from a reliable source. It must also be provided in accordance with applicable security standards, in order to mitigate security risks as much as possible. The affected state must be confident that the assistance can be used without generating further problems or hindering assistance efforts. These concerns can be addressed partly, for example, by requiring that the aid be provided by another state or by approved humanitarian organisations. Requiring satisfaction of quality and security standards may will also address these issues. For example, the provisions relating to customs and VAT noted above in Part 3.e require that goods intended for relief must be sent by approved state or charitable organisations. Many of the types of regulation of technical issues discussed in Chapter 3 are intended to preclude unsuitable goods and unqualified personnel entering a disaster area. Thus when considering any amendment or exemption to such provisions, it is also essential to consider any potential impact on the quality of the goods received and the suitability of the personnel rendering assistance. Exemptions designed to facilitate the efficient delivery of aid should not be introduced if to do so may undermine genuine concerns regarding security and health and safety within the EU and its member states. 4.a Quality Control

IDRL Guidelines Part I, Section 4 of the IDRL Guidelines sets out minimum standards of coordination, quality and accountability that international assistance providers should be expected to meet. EU Host Nation Support Guidelines Section 9.3 of the EU Guidelines suggests that the supporting nation should that offered assistance is of sufficient quality, in particular, food and medicine.

266 See, for example, the cholera outbreak allegedly brought by UN Nepali peacekeepers in Haiti in 2010, as they

came in the country to provide disaster relief.

69

In addition to ensuring the facilitation of the entry of aid and relief personnel to the affected state, the IDRL Guidelines are concerned with guaranteeing that the assistance meets certain standards, in particular regarding the quality of the assistance provided. For example, the restrictions discussed in Chapter 3 regarding the recognition of professional qualifications and the entry of food and medicines into the EU are concerned with maintaining quality. These concerns should not be downgraded in favour of emphasising speed in a disaster context. Moreover, quality standards should not only be met by the assisting states, but by all actors providing assistance, including NGOs. Numerous international documents have addressed the issue of quality standards in disaster relief. These include documents such as the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) Guidelines, the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, and the Sphere Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. These documents, and the IDRL Guidelines, aim to ensure that a minimum standard of quality is met by any assistance offered to an affected state during a crisis. These standards are, however, non-binding in nature and are applied by participating states and organisations on a voluntary basis. Outside the context of the National Societies, which provide their own quality assurances for disaster relief,267 this issue has not received a lot of attention at the state level, except from the angle of liability which is discussed below. Recommendations:

Consider the issue of quality control and accountability standards regarding international assistance in applicable legislation or policy;

Consider whether internationally-accepted quality standards can be adopted at the national level.

4.b. Security Control and Insurance

IDRL Guidelines Part V Section 22 of the IDRL Guidelines states that “[A]ffected States should take appropriate measures to address the safety and security of disaster relief and initial recovery personnel of assisting States and eligible assisting humanitarian organizations and of the premises, facilities, means of transport, equipment and goods used in connection with the disaster relief or initial recovery assistance. Assisting States and assisting humanitarian organizations should also take appropriate steps in their own planning and operations to mitigate security risks.”268 EU Host Nation Support Guidelines

267 IFRC, ‘Analysis of Law in the EU and a Selection of Member States pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster

Relief: Synthesis Report and Recommendations’ (2010), p. 34. 268 IDRL Guidelines, Part V, Section 22.

70

Section 8 of the EU Guidelines suggests that the host nation should bear responsibility for the safety and security of personnel of the incoming teams, and that safety measures must be taken by deployed teams and modules in cooperation with the host nation.

In addition to the provisions of the IDRL Guidelines and the EU Host Nation Support Guidelines, the INSARAG Guidelines on security apply to rescue groups registered in the UN OCHA system.269 With regard to United Nations personnel, there is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which covers personnel working to provide emergency humanitarian assistance. This Convention obliges personnel to respect the laws and regulation of the host State or transit State and act in accordance with the principle of neutrality. In turn, state parties must take all appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of this personnel. The states examined do not appear to have adopted specific legislation or guidelines with regard to the security and safety of assisting personnel. In Ireland, while there is no specific institution established for this purpose, An Garda Síochána is likely the body responsible.270 The Irish Red Cross Society could also be considered to have this safety function. Furthermore, Ireland mentions that employers must abide by general health and safety obligations, which also apply to assistance providers.271 As a result, assisting actors must conduct risk assessments and prepare a Safety Statement, which must cover the health and safety management of the incoming relief organisations and their workers.272 However, when engaged in activities relating to civil emergencies or public order and security, there is no coverage under this Act. While Iceland had no laws or regulations in place on this issue when it hosted international relief personnel, the police may be of assistance as it must ensure the security of its citizens.273 At the regional level, police commissioners have to manage emergency situations, including the organisation of rescue, salvage or assistance operations, in cooperation with coordination and command centre.274 Thus the safety of relief personnel (and relevant premises, facilities, means of transport, equipment and goods) would likely be the responsibility of the regional police commissioner. In Poland, as foreign rescue teams are required to subordinate to the national command, that command is then responsible to ensure the security of the rescuers.275 The police and the armed forces can provide support.276 Finland also mentions the police and the armed forces. As the first responsible for ensuring security among the population, the police can assist rescue authorities in accordance with Section 49 of the Rescue Act.277 The Finnish Defence Forces can, in turn, assist the police in maintaining the

269 See the INSARAG Guidelines 2012, available at: http://www.insarag.org/en/methodology/guidelines.html 270 Irish Report, p. 60. 271 Ibid., citing the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. 272 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, Section 20. 273 Iceland Report, p, 53, citing Police Act No 90/1996, Article 1. 274 Civil Protection Act, Article 11. 275 Polish Report, p. 51. 276 Article 18 of the Act on police of 6.4.1990. 277 Finnish Report, p. 55.

http://www.insarag.org/en/methodology/guidelines.html

71

security.278 However, in Finland, there is no particular regulation or guidelines to ensure the safety of international assistance teams. The Latvian Report mentions that the obligation to ensure the security of assistance providers (and their resources) is included in its bilateral agreements on cooperation in prevention and remedy of emergency situations.279 However, it adds that the security of assistance providers falling outside of these agreements is not regulated under domestic law or regulation. Nevertheless, it is possible to use the Military Police to ensure the physical security of humanitarian assistance providers.280 Recommendations:

Affected states should o take into consideration whether their national frameworks adequately address

the issue of safety and security of foreign and domestic disaster relief and recovery personnel and organisations;

o address any deficiencies through specific legislation or policy, including in bilateral or multilateral agreements;

o This includes establishing clear rules or guidelines regarding which national actor bears responsibility for ensuring safety and security.

Assisting states should take any appropriate steps to mitigate security risk in their planning and in the implementation of their relief operations.

Insurance

Although not specifically referred to in the IDRL Guidelines, some of the states evaluated indicated that relief and other personnel should be insured. The EU Host Nation Support Guidelines suggest in the Annex that insurance should be taken care of by the sending nation, although the Annex does not specify what aspects of assistance should be covered. Some anecdotal evidence at the national level suggests these issues might be covered in the states through international agreements.281 In Finland, the State Treasury insures rescue services employees sent by the Crisis Management Centre with the most extensive coverage possible (known as ‘war coverage’).282 Poland also states that insuring rescue personnel is the responsibility of the dispatching state.283 Some states also require that authorities performing duties relating to disaster relief on their own territory be insured. In Iceland, all rescue teams are obliged to insure its rescue workers against accidents that take place in the exercise of their functions.284 They must also insure their rescue workers for the damage they may cause to third parties during rescue operations.

278 Ibid., citing the Act on the Provision of Assistance by the Defence Forces to the Police 5.12.1980/781. 279 Latvian Report, p. 49. 280 National Armed Forces Law, Article 6, para 2. 281 Finnish Report, p. 56. 282 Ibid., p. 57. 283 Polish Report, p. 51. 284 Icelandic Report, p. 55, citing the Act on Rescue Teams and Rescue Workers No. 43/2003.

72

However, it is unclear whether this requirement would apply to foreign relief assistance.285 In Finland, such authorities are covered either by the State Treasury or by municipal insurance. Parties conducting duties assigned to them by authorities are covered by the insurance of the relevant authority.286 Latvia notes that, as insurance is exclusively provided by independent insurers, those providers have discretion in granting (or not) an insurance policy.287 While states dispatching rescue teams abroad are normally insured by the state in question, there may be an issue when rescue personnel is sent abroad by an NGO. Those rescue workers should also be insured. With regard to property, the Icelandic Report notes that rescue teams must purchase property insurance for any loss of items belonging to its rescues workers.288 It also indicates that, although all vehicles in circulation in Iceland must be insured for damage claims, the Minister of Interior can provide exemptions for vehicles owned by foreign states or international organisations. 289 In such case, the state treasury is responsible for the damage it may cause. In Ireland, the approach is similar as the Minister may adopt regulations for facilitating compliance with the obligation to insure a foreign vehicle circulating on Irish soil.290 In any case, there is an obligation at the EU level on compulsory insurance for all motor vehicles within its territory.291 Thus when assisting vehicles come from another EU member state, there should not be any insurance issue. Recommendations:

States should consider adopting the suggestion in the Annex to the HNS Guidelines which requires that assisting state should take care to ensure that any assistance and personnel it sends to an affected state is insured.

In any event, states should determine who bears responsibility for insurance during the negotiation phase (i.e., prior to the acceptance of assistance).

4.c Diversion, Misappropriation and Fraud

IDRL Guidelines Part I of the IDRL Guidelines discusses issues of accountability in terms of the affected state and the assisting state. In particular, the Guidelines suggest in Section 6 that states and assisting humanitarian organizations should cooperate to prevent unlawful diversion, misappropriation, or fraud concerning disaster relief or initial recovery goods, equipment or

285 Ibid.. 286 Finnish Report, p. 57. 287 Latvian Report, p. 49. 288 Icelandic report, p. 55, citing the Act on Rescue Teams and Rescue Workers, Article 5. 289 Ibid., pp. 54-55, citing Road Traffic Act, Article 92 and 93. 290 Irish Report, p. 61, citing the Road Traffic Act, Section 80. 291 Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to

insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to

insure against such liability [2009] OJ L263/11, Article 3.

73

resources. They add that the affected nation should use funds and relief goods donated to it in a manner consistent with the intent with which they were given.

The disorder following a major disaster can unfortunately increase the risk of the unlawful diversion, misappropriation or fraud concerning disaster relief. This was demonstrated clearly in a study by the Overseas Development Institute and Transparency International.292 Cooperation between states is therefore vital to ensure that the goods, equipment, and resources are used for their intended purposes. Only two of the reports evaluated in this Report specifically referred to national regulation of this issue, but such regulation is not necessarily specific to the disaster context. The Irish Report states that the release of foreign funds donated to the state for disaster relief would be subject to authorisation by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.293 In addition, the Office of the Ombudsman is another accountability mechanism. In general, in accordance with Section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, every organ of the Irish State must perform its functions in a manner compatible with its obligations. However, it also notes that there is no legal authority for assigning a Government Department for receiving and disbursing international donations made to it.294 In Latvia, there is no specific legislation or procedure regulating the use, accounting and control of goods, equipment or funds. With regard to funds, the procedure governing public expenses in general is thus the one applicable.295 While the ministry receiving relief is responsible to open an account at the Treasury, it is the Cabinet of Ministers which takes decisions regarding the use of financial aid.296 Its use is monitored by the State Audit Office.297 When aid is received by a local government, it is the municipal council which regulates how to accept and manage it.298 If the central government provides funds to its ministries or another public body in order to remedy the consequences of disasters, a Cabinet of Ministers regulation on contingency funds is applicable.299With regard to goods and equipment delivered to the VUGD, the chief of the VUGD is responsible for their appropriate use.300 In the absence of specific rules, it is likely that the most relevant legal framework is that which governs the intended purpose of funds in connection with charities. Aside from that, assisting actors and states will be subject to normal rules of criminal and civil liability, for example laws on corruption, fraud and bribery, or breach of statutory or public duty.301 This may be further demonstrated by provisions in the law discussed above in Part 3.e on customs on taxation requiring that relief only be granted to organisations that apply certain accounting standards and are adequately supervised. The Irish report mentions its general mechanisms, which are

292 Transparency International, ‘Corruption in Humanitarian Aid’ (2006), available at:

http://www.transparencia.org.es/TI-%20Ayuda%20Humanitaria%20y%20Corrupci%C3%B3n.pdf. 293 Irish Report, p. 58. 294 Ibid. 295 Latvian Report, p. 46. 296 Ibid. 297 Latvian Law on State Audit Office, Article 2, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2. 298 Latvian Law on Local Governments, Article 31, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 19. 299 Latvia Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 1644 of 22 December 2009 on Procedure for Applying for and

Using Budget Program ‘Contingency Funds’. 300 Latvian Report, p. 47. 301 See, for example, Finnish Report, p. 53.

http://www.transparencia.org.es/TI-%20Ayuda%20Humanitaria%20y%20Corrupci%C3%B3n.pdf

74

applicable to this type of diversion, misappropriation or fraud.302 In particular, the Standards in Public Office Act (2001) provides for codes of conduct for a range of public servants. Ireland also notes the possible role of transparency with the Freedom of Information Act 1997 (as amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003), which requires public bodies to make available certain records and procedures to the public.303 In Ireland theft, fraud and (both active and passive) corruption are all criminalised whether committed by public or private assisting actors.304 In Finland, general regulations are also in place, including the Act on State Civil Servants, the Criminal Code, which criminalises offences perpetrated while in office, as well as fraud.305 These regulations apply to the authorities and the assisting agencies, which also bear responsibilities. Authorities are not only responsible for actions falling under their mandates, but also for the actions of those they have delegated their public functions.306 With regard to diversion, misappropriation and fraud, there are a number of relevant instruments at the EU level, including the Convention on Protection of European Communities’ Financial Interests and its protocols, and the Convention on Corruption of officials of the European Communities and officials of the EU Member States. These instruments would help to ensure the correct use of any assistance provided by the EU to a state in distress. Each of the EU member states is bound by their terms. For example, the Irish Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2010 gives effect to the latter EU Convention. Recommendations:

States should evaluate whether current domestic arrangements to protect against fraud, diversion or misappropriation of assistance can adequately apply in the context of assistance from foreign actors and/or states.

States should consider whether it is necessary to develop a specific regulatory framework on diversion, misappropriation or fraud in relation to foreign assistance.

4.d Responsibility for Costs

IDRL Guidelines Part V Section 24 of the IDRL Guidelines recommends that the costs of providing international disaster relief or initial recovery assistance should normally be borne by the assisting state or organisation. However, where the affected state is going to be asked to reimburse certain costs, this should be on the basis of prior agreement. EU Host Nation Support Guidelines

302 Irish Report, p. 57. 303 Ibid., p. 58. 304 Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Act 2001, Sections 43-44. Corruption is further prohibited under the

Corruption Acts. 305 Chapter 40 and 36 Finnish Criminal Code, and Finnish Report, p. 53. Note that Finland has implemented EU

law with its Act on Preventing and Clearing Money Laundering, see Finnish Report, p. 52. 306 Finnish Report, p. 54.

75

Section 9.4.1 of the EU Guidelines suggests that appropriate financial channels and procedures should be put in place to ensure expedited and facilitated receipt of payments and reimbursement of costs where required, or to better enable waivers of such costs.

Responsibility for costs incurred in relation to receipt of international disaster assistance concerns two main issues. First, an international aspect. This entails determining whether the assisting state or organisation, or the affected state is to meet the costs of the aid provided. Second, an internal aspect. This aspect consists of determining which actor in the affected state is responsible for the costs of disaster relief. For example, where a disaster is localised to a specific area, there may be differing views as to whether the central government or the authorities in the affected region(s) should bear the costs of international assistance. In order to avoid any confusion regarding the international aspect, the IDRL Guidelines recommend that the costs of providing international relief should normally be borne by the assisting state unless there has been a prior agreement otherwise.307 Affected states should consider providing services at reduced or no cost to assisting states and humanitarian organisations, when feasible. The HNS Guidelines take the same approach as there is a presumption of offer of assistance, if not stated otherwise.308 In addition, the Latvian report indicates that compensation of expenses (or exemptions of fees) may be included in bilateral agreements on cooperation in the prevention and remedy of emergency situations.309 In some agreements, fee exemptions may concern the fees in relation to aircraft navigation services and airport use, as well as the provision of other services such as translation, means of communication, physical security and medical services.310 The Irish ‘Framework for Major Emergency Management’ considers the issue of reimbursement but that there are no formal procedures in place for such reimbursement of costs associated with international assistance received.311 Therefore, such reimbursement would likely be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Lisbon Treaty includes a “solidarity clause” (art. 222) which commits EU member states to help each other in case of disasters. It is not immediately clear from its text whether it should be considered to have an impact on the question of whether the assisting or the affected state should pay for such assistance. Arrangements regarding the internal allocation of costs in a disaster should also be in place, if possible in advance of the occurrence of a disaster. This will help to ensure that regional authorities and federal states feel confident in accepting offers of assistance and not have to concern themselves with their capacity to pay the associated costs. In the states evaluated here, varied arrangements apply. In Latvia, the Civil Protection Law states that relevant work and accommodation conditions must be provided by the respective local government to all

307 IDRL Guidelines, Part V, Section 24. 308 HNS Guidelines, Annex 3 (8) and Annex 5 (8). 309 Latvian Report, p. 48, which cites that this is prescribed by the agreement with the Republic of Azerbaijan,

Estonia, Russian Federation, Sweden, and Uzbekistan. 310 Ibid.. 311 Irish Report, p. 69.

76

personnel coming in to prevent and/or remedy disasters, whether they come from another region, the national level or abroad.312 In addition, Latvian legislation also provides that when legal entities or individuals participate in rescue work (or fire extinguishment), these persons have the right to be compensated for the cost they incurred.313 Recommendations:

States should ensure that the issue of cost responsibility is settled at the negotiation stage to avoid any difficulties after assistance is provided;

In particular, states should consider adopting the standard suggested in the IDRL Guidelines—that is, that the assisting state or organisation should bear the costs of assistance.

Any arrangements for compensation or reimbursement of the assisting state or organisation should likewise be made at the outset of negotiations for assistance.

Internal cost allocation determinants should also be put in place so that it is clear which part of the government (whether it be local, regional or national) or which department thereof, bears the responsibility of meeting the costs of relief operations.

4.e Liability, Damages and Reparations

Liability

It is important for affected states and assisting organisations to consider the potential for liability resulting from the provision of sub-standard assistance. The EU HNS Guidelines provide that amicable settlements between the host nation and the sending nation should be sought in case issues of liability arise as a result of the assistance provided.314 The issue of liability corresponds to the need for the state and assisting organisations to ensure the quality and suitability of assistance when determining whether and what assistance to offer and accept. The risk of liability generally decreases where safeguards are in place to ensure that minimum standards of quality are satisfied. Failure to comply with these obligations may expose the state, government officials, the assisting organisation or individual relief personnel to legal action for breach of civil tort law (e.g. negligence), product liability law (e.g. provision of food not meeting health standards), human rights obligations (e.g. discrimination in the distribution of aid) or employment law (e.g. failure to comply with occupational health and safety regulations). National rules regulating volunteers in an emergency situation, often referred to as ‘Good Samaritan’ laws, may also result in the incurrence of liability. Note that, the Finnish report underlines that everyone is obliged to help with rescue operations in accordance with their ability.315

312 Latvian Report, p. 49, citing Civil Protection Law Article 9, para 2 (4). 313 Ibid., p. 48, referring to Civil Protection Law, Article 19, para 3, and Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 842

of 11 December 2007, Sections 3 and 5. 314 See Commission Decision 2004/277 and Council Decision 2001/792/EC; see also below under ‘Damages and

Reparations’. 315 Finnish Report, p. 27 which refers to the Rescue Act, Chapter 2, and the Police Act, Section 45.

77

The Irish report specifically addresses the issue of liability. For example, under the law of negligence, an organisation may have a duty of care to a person in some circumstances and may be held liable if it failed to act with reasonable care and caused ham to the person.316 However, courts have been reluctant to impose such positive obligation as there is no general obligation to assist someone who is in danger, even when doing so would not place the rescuer in a perilous situation.317 In addition, when assistance is provided carelessly or negligently by professional rescuers, their organisations will not be held liable.318 Similarly, the rescuer (whether professional or not) may not be held liable in negligence when providing assistance to someone in an emergency situation, except if the act in question was conducted in bad faith or with gross negligence.319 In some circumstances, individual criminal responsibility under the laws of the affected state may also be a possibility, for example as a result of fraud, corruption or assault. The Finnish Criminal Code penalises neglect in relation to rescue operations.320 The Polish Report indicates that the criminal responsibility of a foreign rescue crew member may be engaged before the authorities of his or her country of origin in the event of improper provision of assistance.321 However, there is a risk of impunity if the alleged perpetrator of a crime has left the territory on which it was committed or if he or she is a foreign national. Some individuals may be entitled to privileges and immunities either under international law or national law (or both), in particular state officials of assisting states and certain staff of international organisations. This issue was addressed to some extent above in Chapter 3 regarding taxation, customs charges and visa requirements. The IDRL Guidelines do not intend to affect any existing international law or agreements, including international law related to privileges and immunities.322 However, it is important to note that, as a general rule, privileges and immunities do not extend to civil protection officers and the staff of assisting organisations, or to the organisation itself. Although specific bilateral or multilateral agreements may provide otherwise, civil protection personnel may be liable under the national law of the affected state for the provision of substandard assistance. Affected and assisting states and organisations must therefore be aware of any relevant legal frameworks for liability, and take steps to ensure that incoming assistance meets required standards. In addition to liability under civil tort law and criminal law, the Latvian Report adds that administrative liability may also arise. The bilateral agreements concluded by Latvia stipulate that members of assisting teams or experts have to comply with the legislation of the affected

316 Irish Report, p. 59. 317 This follows the general approach of common law jurisdictions, in opposition to civil law jurisdictions. Under

common law, a duty to rescue generally only arises in case a person has created the hazardous situation or in the

presence of a special relationship. 318 This is different from the patient-doctor relationship which is subject to civil liability, see Irish Report p. 59. 319 Irish Report, p. 59, citing the Civil Liability Act 1961 (as amended by Section 4 of the Civil Law

(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, Section 51 D. To qualify for this immunity from liability, the person

providing assistance must not expect payment or reward. 320 Finnish Report, p. 27 (fn 135). 321 Polish Report, p. 51. 322 Including the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) and the Convention

on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialised Agencies (1947).

78

state in which they operate.323 In addition, all those acting in disaster response within Latvia have to follow the instructions of the VUGD.324 Thus failure to abide by the local laws or regulations, or failure to follow instructions emanating from the VUGD, engage administrative liability.325 Damages and Reparations

Damages caused by the affected or assisting state, or an assisting organisation, may engage the responsibility of the relevant state or organisation. As a result, reparations may be sought by the victims, such as through claims for compensation against the affected state (for allowing the aid to be delivered) or the assisting state or organisation, or even against relief personnel individually. In relation to EURATOM, the EU has stated that the state which has requested assistance must refrain from bringing claims before the assisting state, in relation to damages caused to its property or harm to its assisting personnel as a result of the assistance provided by that state, unless it was caused by fraud or serious misconduct.326 In case damage was caused to a third party, the requesting state and the assisting state should cooperate to facilitate compensation. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, both states should decide whether they are willing or not to compensate third parties in such instances as early as possible (i.e. at the time the request for assistance is made). Most of the national reports indicated that liability for damages is regulated to some extent in national law or international or regional agreements. In Iceland, in accordance with the Civil Protection Act, the state compensates for the damage caused to any parties ordered to provide assistance by a government minister.327 However, it is unclear whether this principle would apply to the actions of foreign relief providers. In addition, the Civil Protection Act does not provide for compensation for damages caused to third parties. In Finland, international rescue services are governed by the Tort Liability Act. While this Act states that employers are responsible for the damage caused by an employee through an error or negligence at work, it adds that a party is also liable for the injury or damage caused by a party who acted on behalf of an authority.328 Although there is no general liability provision with regard to international assistance, international agreements often include separate regulations on damages.329 Furthermore, according to the NORDRED agreement, to which both Iceland and Finland are party, states requesting assistance are responsible for the damages caused through the assistance provided on their territory, including damages caused to third parties. This means that the requesting state must litigate, negotiate or settle tort claims brought by third parties before the assisting state or its personnel. The requesting state must also compensate the assisting state for any loss of life or damage to its equipment or goods that was caused by its personnel. However, the requesting state may then be reimbursed if the damage was caused

323 Latvian Report, p. 47. 324 Ibid. 325 Administrative Violations Code, Article 179 paras 2 and 3. 326 See the Commission Decision 2004/277/EC and Council Decision 2007/779/EC. 327 Icelandic Report, p. 54, citing Civil Protection Act, Article 18. 328 Finnish Report, p. 54 and Tort Liability Act 31.5.1974/412. 329 Ibid., p. 54.

79

intentionally or because of serious negligence.330 It is unclear if the principles similar to those contained in the NORDRED agreement could apply to non-NORDRED assisting states. Alternative means of resolution, through mediation for example, are thus envisaged. The Republic of Poland is liable for any damage caused by foreign rescue personnel. Thus Polish victims may address claims for reparations to their government.331 In accordance with its bilateral agreements on cooperation in prevention and remedy of emergency situations, Latvia states that it is the affected state which is liable to compensate for damages caused by a rescue service individual to a legal entity or an individual.332 Recommendations:

States should consider the extent to which domestic frameworks for liability will address any liability that might arise in the context of the provision of international assistance during a disaster.

States should consider whether and to what extent domestic law on liability should include exemptions for international relief providers.

Liability concerns should be taken into consideration when negotiating the terms of the provision of assistance, including when negotiating the provision of assistance under a bilateral or multilateral agreement.333

330 NORDRED Agreement, Article 5. 331 Polish Report, p. 51. 332 Latvian Report, p. 47. 333 If liability provisions are already included in a multilateral agreement, they cannot be modified in a

subsequent assistance agreement that does not include all the parties to the multilateral agreement in question.

80

CHAPTER 5: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

5.a Introduction and Update

The first synthesis report also considered the following issues:

coordination

public procurement

data protection and privacy

language and dissemination

Information on these issues in the states examined in the present report are summarised below.

Coordination

With regard to coordination, in Poland, the National Centre for Rescue Coordination and Civil Protection coordinates foreign rescue teams, which are then placed under Regional Rescue Coordination Posts.334 The national coordination centre assesses needs at the regional level and coordinates efforts accordingly. Poland also allocates liaison officers to international rescue teams, a practice defined by the international operating procedures of the State Fire Service but not regulated.335

In Ireland, no officer has been identified or trained for liaising with teams from assisting states. However, the Irish disaster management policy indicates who could serve as such liaison, i.e. the Lead Government Department, with the possible support of the Foreign Affairs Department.336 The Irish ‘Guidelines for Coordinating a National Level Emergency/Crisis Response’ do not provide any detail procedure for the Lead Government Department to follow, which would then act on an ad hoc basis. At the regional level, an On-site Coordinator, responsible for ensuring coordination on the ground, also has the responsibility for mobilising international resources to the emergency site and thus may play a key role in coordinating international and national relief efforts.337 Regional and Local Coordination Groups may also support the liaison between international assisting actors and statutory agencies in Ireland.338 Ireland has also adopted ‘Guidelines for Working with Voluntary Emergency Services’, which may provide indication as to how cooperation between the principal response agencies and those that are voluntary is conducted. There are also a number of specific recommendations regarding coordination in the ‘Framework for Major Emergency Management’, such as with regard to the assignment of tasks without pooling or sharing of equipment.

334 Polish Report, p. 37. 335 Ibid. 336 Irish Report, p. 29. 337 Ibid.. 338 Ibid., citing the ‘Framework for Major Emergency Management’.

81

In Finland, an On-Site Operations Coordination Centre (OSOCC) can be established to coordinate with international units.339 At the national level, rescue operations are regulated by specific legislation,340 with the Government Situation Centre being the national contact point and coordinating authority.341 However, other agreements on regional cooperation are not necessarily consistent.342 Nevertheless, all rescue operations (including international ones, are led by the officer in charge in the relevant region, with the participation of the rescue authorities of the Ministry of the Interior.343 Finland has also signed bilateral agreements on search rescue cooperation and the prevention of accidents with other states.344

In Latvia, in accordance with the Humanitarian Aid Regulations, ministries are responsible for coordinating humanitarian aid, unless the Cabinet of Ministers has decided otherwise.345 The VUGD is responsible for early response management. Bilateral agreements also indicate the competent authority to coordinate the receipt of assistance, leaving room for amending the appointed authority.346

In Iceland, although there is no law, regulation or procedure that address coordination with foreign aid, the Coordination and Command Centre is likely to be the responsible body for coordination with international relief assistance.347 ‘It appears that Iceland has not yet made use of existing coordination systems established at the EU or international levels.

No further relevant information regarding the above-mentioned issues were found in the present reports. Other matters that states may wish to consider are presented below.

Recommendations:

States should consider whether they have adequate facilities in place to enhance communication between assisting teams and affected state actors, e.g., on-site interpretation or translation.

States should engage all relevant actors in training and courses to disseminate best practice in relation to incoming assistance.

Clear procedures regarding responsibility for the coordination of incoming assistance should be developed by the states for local, regional or national application.

Data Protection

With regard to data protection, Ireland has a specific measure which ensures patient anonymity when notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) and the EU Early Warning

339 Finnish Report, p. 36. 340 Ibid, citing the Rescue Act. 341 Finnish Report, p. 25 and 35. 342 Ibid., p. 20. 343 Ibid., p. 36. 344 Ibid., p. 22-23, citing agreements with Russia, Sweden, Norway, and Estonia. 345 Latvian Report, p. 25. 346 Ibid, p. 25-26. 347 Icelandic Report, p. 22.

82

Response System of infectious diseases.348 In Finland, the Rescue Act legislates the non-disclosure obligation of anyone participating in rescue operations.349 Domestic rescue teams are often given access to confidential data, such as information regarding personal health. Foreign authorities may be provided with confidential information if such disclosure is regulated by an international agreement.

States should evaluate how law on data protection can be adapted for disaster situations while still maintaining privacy considerations.

Language

Communication barriers may present themselves during an international assistance operation, due to linguistic differences. It is important for states to have adequate facilities in place, such as on-site interpretation, to enhance communication between foreign assistance teams and the affected state actors. The Finnish Report indicated that English is the language used in international rescue services and that the state requesting assistance must make all possible efforts to provide appropriate interpretation.350 The Latvian Report indicated that some bilateral arrangements include provisions on translation.351

Dissemination

The EU HNS Guidelines suggest in section 9.3 that states use the templates provided in the Annexes to the Guidelines as part of their national contingency planning, courses, trainings and exercises.

In relation to disaster preparedness, the Polish Report mentions the role of civic awareness, through educational programmes in schools, training at the workplace, and meetings of local communities and social organisations.352

5.b Early Warning, Notification and Information Exchange

IDRL Guidelines

The IDRL Guidelines Part II Section 7 recommend States to “have procedures in place to facilitate the expeditious sharing of information about disasters, including emerging hazards that are likely to cause disasters, with other States and assisting humanitarian organizations as appropriate, including the United Nations’ Emergency Relief Coordinator.


348 Irish Report, p. 31. 349 Finnish Report, p. 51, referring to the Finnish Rescue Act, Section 86. 350 Finnish Report, p. 51. 351 Latvian Report, p. 48. 352 Polish Report, p. 34.

83

Section 9.1 of the EU Guidelines recommend that teams from assisting states be provided with the relevant information about the emergency through a briefing or a factsheet.

With regard to information sharing platform at the international level, UN OCHA has established the Virtual On-Site Operations Coordination Centre (OSOCC), through its Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System. For the 31 states participating in the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) collects and analyses information on disasters and prepares mobilisation plans to ensure a rapid and coordinated response in case of emergency.353

According to EU law, EU member states are required to inform one another in the event of a disaster with transnational effects (or threat thereof).354 With regard to potential public health emergencies, the EU has established an Early Warning and Response System (EWRS),355 which is a computer system allowing member states to send alerts, share information, and coordinate their response to outbreaks of communicable diseases.356 It has already been used in relation to outbreaks of SARS and Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1), for example. The EU has also established various Rapid Alert Systems, which supports the exchange of information to prevent threats to public health. For example, there is a Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), which seeks to ensure rapid reaction when there is a risk to public health detected in the food chain. There is a similar system for risks linked to the release of chemical, biological and radio-nuclear agents, called RAS BICHAT.357 For the early notification and exchange of information in the event of a radiological or nuclear emergency, the EU has established the European Community Urgent Radiological Information Exchange (ECURIE) system.358 With regard to nuclear accidents, RAPEX is the EU Rapid Alert System for non-food products, which present serious health and safety risks for consumers.359

For NATO members, specific mechanisms are also in place, including its Warning and Alert System and the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre.

International regulations may also be applicable, such as the International Health Regulations (2005), which obliges it state parties to notify the WHO of “all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory […], as well as any health measure implemented in response to those events.”360 Following a notification, relevant

353 See the European Commission webpage on Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, at:

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/en/what/civil-protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc

The Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS) is the platform developed for

engaging with the ERCC. 354 Decision 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection

Mechanism; Commission Implementing Decision laying down rules for the implementation of Decision No

1313/2013/EU and repealing Commission Decisions 2004/277/EC, Euratom and 2007/606/EC, Euratom,

C(2014) 7489 final, 16/10/2014, Art. 14. 355 See the European Commission webpage on public health at:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/communicable_diseases/early_warning/index_en.htm 356 See also the European Epidemiological Surveillance System (TESSy). 357 With regard to chemical accidents, see also the 2012 Seveso III Directive of the European Council. 358 It is the technical implementation of Council Decision 87/600/Euratom on Community arrangements for the

early notification and exchange of information in the event of a radiological or nuclear emergency. 359 See the European Commission webpage on health and consumers at:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/safety/rapex/index_en.htm 360 International health Regulations (2005), Article 6(1).

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/en/what/civil-protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc

http://ec.europa.eu/health/communicable_diseases/early_warning/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/safety/rapex/index_en.htm

84

detailed information must continue to be provided to the WHO, including the assistance needed to respond to such a potential emergency.361 Other relevant international treaties which provide for early notification obligations include the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (1986), the Basel Convention on the Movement of Hazardous Waste (1989), the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (1992), and the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean (1976, amended in 1995). All of these treaties may fill gaps left at the national level with regard to early warning obligations but they do not cover all types of disasters in a comprehensive manner.

In Ireland, the National Liaison Point is responsible for engaging with the ERCC.362 Disaster management actors have not benefited from a lot of training with regard to the use of other platforms, such as the Virtual OSCOCC.. Furthermore, there is no general procedure for informing other governments, the EU or the UN about disasters or their likeliness, and there is no provision in place to make a country briefing or factsheet available in Ireland.363 In accordance with the ‘Guidelines for Coordinating a National Level Emergency/Crisis Response’, Lead Government Departments should establish an information management system, which includes an international dimension.364 The National Coordination Group, must also consider sharing information with the relevant international stakeholders. Despite its lack of general procedure for information-sharing, Ireland has a number of hazard-specific procedures.365

In Latvia, the Radiation Safety Centre of the State Environmental Service is responsible for notification of nuclear accidents.366 The Disease Prevention and Control Centre liaises with the WHO and the European Epidemiological Surveillance System, as well as coordinates with TESSy and EWRS. The Emergency Ambulatory Medical Service uses RAPEX and RAS BICHAT, as well as liaises with the WHO about public health hazards. This Service must also notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about serious health treats for the purpose of notifying foreign diplomat and consular missions.367 The Food and Veterinary Service is the national focal point for RASFF.

In Poland, specific guidelines were adopted in relation to this matter.368 Polish law regulates the monitoring, planning and forecasting of potential threats at all levels.369 While the Chief Commandant of the State Fire Service (PSP) is responsible for early warning at the national level, information on potential threats is sent from the local level to the regional and national level (the ministerial Crisis Management Centres which forwards it to the Government Centre for Security), on a daily basis.370 Poland also has a National Crisis Management Plan, which addresses early warning. In addition, Poland is currently implementing the Central Reporting Application for the collection of information regarding threats at all levels.371 It also has a 361 Ibid, Article 6(2). 362 Irish Report, p. 31. 363 Ibid., p. 27 and 31. 364 Ibid., p. 31, where it is stated that an Information Management Officer may also be appointed, if necessary. 365 Ibid., p. 27. 366 Latvian Report, p. 22. 367 Ibid. 368 Polish Report, p. 34, citing the Guidelines of the Head of the National Civil Defence of 17/12/2010

concerning general principles for the preparation and ensuring operation of the detection and alerting system

and the emergency early warning system in regions, counties and municipalities. 369 Polish Report, p. 34, citing the Crisis Management Act of 2007. 370 Ibid.. 371 Ibid.

85

National Contamination Detection and Alerting System.372 To alert the public, Poland has replaced its sirens system and is also working on improving its use of mass media for that purpose.373In Finland, the government situation centre is the national focal point not only to transmit all requests for international assistance but also to inform of any specific threat or disaster. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is responsible for responding to cross-border threats to health but no details were given as to how it operates.374 With regard to threats to the environment, the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), which operates under the Ministry of the Environment, is responsible for the prevention of oil and chemical spills. This matter has been regulated with the adoption of an Act on Oil Pollution Response.375 The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) is responsible for notification of nuclear accidents.376 An international notification is issued if the nuclear incident may have a direct or indirect effect on another country.377 As mentioned above, some of the bilateral agreements signed by Finland cover prevention of accidents and their consequences.378

Bilateral agreements concluded by Italy, Latvia, and Poland also include a warning and exchange of information duty in case of threats of emergency situations.379 The Italian Report also mentions that, while Italian law does not regulate early warning to entities abroad, the treaties it is a party to do so with regard to various types of disasters, such as nuclear and industrial accidents.380

As mentioned above, Iceland does not appear to have used the existing coordination systems established at the EU or international levels.

Of course, when developing information sharing systems, member states must also consider data protection issues.381

Recommendations:

States should ensure they have a coordinated system on early warning for all disasters and not only for specific types of disasters.

5.c Media and Communication

Media relations and other public issues are not addressed in detail by the IDRL Guidelines or the HNS Guidelines, as they are the responsibility of the affected state.382

372 Ibid, p. 35. 373 Ibid. 374 Finnish Report, p. 20. 375 Ibid., p. 32 376 Ibid. 377 Ibid. 378 Ibid., pp. 22-23. Note that some of Finland’s bilateral treaties contain outdated information about the national

focal point, which is the government situation centre for any incoming or outgoing request. 379 Italian Report, p. 34, Latvian Report, p. 23, and Polish Report, p. 33. 380 Ibid., p. 41. 381 See First Synthesis Report, p. 41. 382 HNS Guidelines, 6.

86

In Iceland, it appears that the government and the response bodies are encouraged to speak with one voice to the media.383 The Civil Protection Act provides that the National Commissioner of the Iceland Police may establish a temporary service centre, which may handle media relations regarding a particular disaster. Contingency plans on certain possible disasters provide further details on media relations.384

In Finland, the Emergency Warnings Act regulates emergency warnings on the television or radio.385 With regard to threat abroad, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs is responsible for communicating about them, including through its SMS service.386 The Polish report mentions the use of mass media for alerting purposes and the current work being carried work to improve the use of hybrid TV and text messages.387

Recommendations:

States should consider developing a coordinated plan on media relations in time of emergencies requiring international assistance.

States should consider developing a coordinated plan on the use of mass media for warning purposes.

5.d Currency Exchange and Cross-border Payments

Section 3.a of the present Report addresses the issue of bank accounts. In addition, financial matters, such as currency exchange and cross-border payments, should also be considered.

IDRL Guidelines

Part V Section 20 recommends that “[A]ssisting States and eligible assisting humanitarian organisation should […] be granted the right to freely bring the necessary funds and currencies in or out of the country through legal means and to obtain legal exchange rates in connection with their disaster relief or initial recovery assistance.”

One of the four freedoms of the European Community is free movement of capital under Title IV, Chapter 4 of the Treaty of Lisbon. Article 56 prohibits “all restrictions on the movement of capital between member states and between member states and third countries” that causes or threatens to cause serious difficulties for the operation of the economic and monetary union.

Title VIII of the Treaty of Lisbon establishes the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The EMU is based on close co-ordination of the Member States’ economic policy at EU level to promote stability and growth. The EMU led to the development of the single currency, the 383 Icelandic Report, p. 45. 384 For more details on this matter, see Ibid. 385 Finnish Report, p. 50. 386 Ibid. 387 Polish Report, p. 35.

87

euro, in 1999. Not all of the EU member states participate in the euro: currently 18 of 28 member states have introduced the currency; the United Kingdom and Denmark have opted out of the scheme under the Treaty on European Union (TEU); the rest are in the process of qualifying for the single currency framework. Iceland also has not adopted the euro.

Free movement of capital was first fully realized in Directive 88/361/EEC. Article 1 requires member states to abolish any restrictions on movements of capital taking place between natural or legal persons resident in member states and imposes a single exchange rate on foreign transactions. There are rules regarding how much cash can be brought into and out of the EU. Article 3 of Regulation 1889/2005/EC on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community states that a person carrying more than € 10,000 (or its equivalent in other currencies) into or out of the EU territory must declare it to the customs officials. In Ireland and Latvia, there is no specific provision or procedure for the bringing of large sums of money into the country for the purpose of disaster relief.388 However, in Latvia, there is a specific rule for cash payment, according to which only deals that do not exceed LVL 5000 may be made in cash, no matter if the payment is made in one or multiple transactions.389

With regard to cross-border payments, the EU ensures that any charges for such payments within the EU (up to EUR 50,000) are at the same rate as charges for domestic payments. With regard to the transfer of funds, the EU Wire Transfer Regulation, which seeks to ensure the traceability of funds transfers, requires payment service providers to check the bank account and identity of the payer before transferring or receiving funds.390 For example, Ireland does not provide an exemption from these requirements in relation to funds sent to Ireland to support disaster relief.391 Iceland is particular as it subjects foreign exchange transactions to capital controls since the collapse of its banking system in 2008.392 The key rule is that cross-border deposits to (and withdrawals from) accounts with credit institutions are prohibited. This may be an issue for the assisting state and assisting organisations wishing to take funds, which have been brought into Iceland, out of the country.393 Although there are at present no exemptions provided for funds transferred for the purpose of disaster relief, the Central Bank of Iceland is authorised to provide exemptions in certain circumstances, including general exemptions. However, in the current absence of general exemption applicable to them, assisting state and assisting organisations wishing to take funds out of the country have to go through a lengthy application procedure for exemption.394 Furthermore, in the case of Icelandic residents wishing to provide financial assistance to affected states, capital movements for donations are limited to ISK 3,000,000 per calendar year.395 This limitation is not applicable to the Central Bank of Iceland or the Treasury.

The Finnish Report notes that, in accordance with the Barents Treaty, “response teams shall have the requisite amount of resources sufficient for independent operation in the emergency

388 Irish Report, p. 54; Latvian Report, p. 45. 389 Latvian Report, p. 45. Deals concluded for higher amounts must be paid through non-cash settlements. 390 Regulation 1781/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on

information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds [2006] OJ L345/1. 391 Irish Report, p. 54. 392 Icelandic Report, p. 45. 393 Ibid, p. 46, citing the Foreign Exchange Act, Article 13(b). 394 Ibid, pp. 46-47. 395 Ibid, p. 47.

88

area for a minimum of 24 hours.” There is no mechanism in place for rescue agencies to open a bank account in Finland or carry out other financial transactions.396

Under international law, experts working for UN agencies which benefit from privileges and immunities by a particular state must be granted the same facilities as those given to foreign government officials with regard to currency and exchange restrictions.397

Despite possible exemptions to the regulation of cross-border payments and wire transfers, states must ensure that funds entering the requesting state for disaster relief purposes are not linked to money laundering or terrorism financing, for example. In Ireland, there are ‘Guidelines on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing’, which contains requirements that may be needed to comply with for the registration of non-governmental humanitarian organisations.398

Recommendations:

States should ensure that there are adequate facilities in place to enable the expedited arrival of large sums into the affected territory.

In doing so, states should also take into account existing national, regional and international legislation aimed at protecting against fraud and money laundering.

5.e Terminology and Definitions

IDRL Guidelines

The IDRL Guidelines define disaster as “a serious disruption of the functioning of society, which poses a significant, widespread threat to human life, health, property or the environment, whether arising from accident, nature or human activity, whether developing suddenly or as the result of long-term processes, but excluding armed conflict.”

Armed conflict is specifically excluded as a cause for disaster covered by the Guidelines. However, other situations of conflict, which do not reach the threshold of armed conflict, may be a cause for disaster which would then be covered by these Guidelines. Situations of terrorism are not excluded as a possible cause of disaster by the IDRL Guidelines.

In Latvia, the Civil Protection Law includes a definition of disaster which does not include the possible causes of disasters, making this a wide definition based on the capacity to eliminate its consequences.399 However, possible causes of disaster are listed in the Civil Protection Law.400 Polish law defines it in its Act on the state of calamity.401 Irish law does not define

396 Finnish Report, p. 52. 397 Fourth Schedule of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967, Annexes I-XIV. 398 Irish Report, p. 56. 399 Civil Protection Law, Art. 1 (2), Latvian Report, p. 20. 400 Civil Protection Law, Art. 3 (1), Latvian Report, p. 20. 401 Polish Report, p. 33, citing Act of 18/4/2002 on the state of calamity, Article 3(1).

89

disaster but ‘major emergency’ is defined under its ‘Framework for Major Emergency Management’.402 Finland does not define ‘disaster’ but ‘disturbance’ was defined by the Security Strategy of the Finnish Government.403 ‘Rescue operations’ are defined under the Rescue Act.404 The Finnish Emergency Powers Act cover disaster situations (as serious incidents or threats to the livelihood of the population or the functioning or society) but it also covers armed (‘military’) conflicts.405

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism has defined ‘disaster’ as “any situation which has or may have a severe impact on people, the environment, or property, including cultural heritage.

It may be borne in mind that inconsistencies in the definitions and terminology used by member states may be problematic. It may be helpful to include glossary of terms used in template assistance agreements to ensure a clear understanding of terms.

402 Irish Report, p. 28. 403 Finnish Report, p. 8. 404 Ibid., p. 9, citing the Rescue Act, Sections 2.2 and 32.2. 405 Ibid., p. 9.

90

CHAPTER 6: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations presented below are key recommendations on which the Member

States and the EU should build upon.

Member States and the EU should also consider the detailed recommendations which can be

found throughout the Report.

1. TRAINING MATERIAL AND DISSEMINATION

Develop manuals on cross-border disaster relief

Each Member State should consider developing its own manual on cross-border disaster relief,

in particular with regard to issues associated with incoming foreign assistance, akin to that

developed in Latvia and the Netherlands. Manuals should draw on both the EU HNS Guidelines

and the IDRL Guidelines. National Red Cross Societies and the IFRC could provide any support

needed for this process.

Develop training modules on cross-border disaster relief

In order to increase knowledge and awareness of the HNS Guidelines, they should be the

subject of educational and training activities in the member states. National and international

exercises or simulations, in particular, will promote and encourage understanding of HNS

procedures at the national level. The Red Cross national societies could support any such

exercises.

Education regarding the HNS Guidelines could also be effected through national manuals

based on the principles contained in the HNS Guidelines, as well as those found in the IDRL

Guidelines. This could be done by, for example, developing a model table of contents and

guidance on how best to develop such a manual, based on the experience of countries that

have already done so, such as Latvia and the Netherlands.

2. STRATEGIC COORDINATION

a. Domestic strategies on coordination

Issues pertaining to disaster relief are generally regulated by type of disasters or by type of

responses or prevention efforts (rescue operations, early warning, etc), with various

government departments developing their own guidelines or regulations. Member States

should consider adopting comprehensive domestic policy strategies and/or legislation, based

on the HNS Guidelines, to ensure full coordination between the relevant responsible

91

departments. Comprehensive strategies should be developed at the national, regional and

local levels and between those various levels as well. All sectors involved in disaster relief,

including non-governmental entities, should also strengthen their cooperation. A national

focal point for all types of disasters and response efforts could lead coordination at the

domestic level among the various actors.

The development of such strategies would avoid confusion as to what actor has authority to

act and make decisions regarding issues associated with incoming assistance.

b. EU strategies on coordination

All actors involved in disaster relief efforts at the EU level should also develop strategies to

strengthen coordination among themselves. The ERCC could play a role with regard to

strengthening coordination at the EU level among the various actors. Coordination strategies

should also be developed between the EU and the Member States.

The EU should also update its vade mecum on disaster coordination (as recommended in

2010).

3. POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

a. Domestic Policy and Legal Frameworks

Member States should conduct a compatibility review of relevant national law and policy with

a view toward implementation of the EU HNS Guidelines and IDRL Guidelines. They should

also adopt the templates provided in the EU HNS Guidelines to better standardize the system

for delivery and receipt of international assistance. In undertaking this analysis, Member

States are encouraged to call upon their National Red Cross Societies for support in this

analysis.406

Assessment of current frameworks should have regard to:

Include arrangements for non-governmental actors

There is a gap in disaster law and policy regarding assistance from non-governmental actors.

Most national procedures are restricted to situations of state-to-state assistance. Similarly,

the HNS Guidelines place focus on assistance from other states. Many organisations that are

equipped to provide assistance, such as Red Cross Societies, have no clear guidance regarding

coordination and oversight by the host state authorities.

406 In accordance with Resolution 4 of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent of

2007.

92

Legal facilities for foreign non-governmental actors

As described above, a common gap in the regulation of international disaster assistance is a

lack of procedures and rules for non-governmental actors. The member states should assess

the extent to which national law and policy could be extended to include foreign non-

governmental actors, for example, by allowing them to take advantage of the same legal

facilities that domestic NGOs enjoy.

Professional qualifications

EU law does not offer an expedited system of recognition of professional qualifications that

would be applicable in an emergency situation, or to third-country nationals. Member States

should consider whether they can introduce, within their national frameworks, procedures to

address these situations.

Transport

Where there are gaps in EU regulation of certain modes of transport, the Member States

should consider implementing relevant exemptions or procedures at the national level, such

as granting assistance vehicles exemptions from applicable tolls and/or fees, or extending

privileges given to domestic emergency vehicles to foreign assistance vehicles.

Telecommunications

Member states should develop clear protocols for the express granting of usage rights for

frequencies, bandwidth, etc., and eliminate or reduce any applicable fees linked to the

communications needs of approved foreign disaster responders. In particular, Member States

should ratify and implement the Tampere Convention.

Implement existing discretionary EU exemptions

Some areas of EU law, such as customs and visas, refer directly to disaster situations and

include discretionary measures which, if implemented at the domestic level, would facilitate

the provision of foreign disaster assistance. Insofar as possible, these exemptions should be

implemented by the Member States in their domestic frameworks where not already done.

b. European Union Policy and Legal Frameworks

The HNS Guidelines should be considered a living instrument and thus be regularly updated.

The EU should also integrate the HNS Guidelines into its legislation and update its rules where

necessary.

Revise the HNS Guidelines

The HNS Guidelines should be revised regularly to take into account lessons learned from past

civil protection operations, such as the recent response to Serbian flooding in May 2014, in

which more than ten states offered to provide assistance through the CPM.

93

The HNS Guidelines should also be amended to include principles governing assistance by non-

governmental actors.

Integrating the HNS Guidelines into EU-level Legislation

Issues pertaining to disaster relief are still regulated by type of disaster, or by type of

responses or prevention efforts (information sharing, early warning, rescue operations, etc).

The EU should consider adopting a process by which the HNS Guidelines are considered during

the adoption of EU-level legislation that might have an impact on the regulation of

international disaster assistance, such as future rules concerning visas, customs and

professional qualifications. Ensuring compatibility with the recommendations in the HNS

Guidelines will improve the quality of coordination at EU level and between the Member

States during times of disaster.

Modernize EU-level rules to better promote and enable HNS

Many pieces of EU legislation are related to the receipt of international disaster assistance but

were adopted with different aims, not considering the specific context of international

disaster assistance. The 2010 Synthesis Report made a number of recommendations

concerning reform at EU level that have not yet been acted upon, despite their continuing

relevance.

They include:

o Procedures for recognising foreign professional qualifications in disaster settings

The development in 2013 of the European Professional Card is a positive step forward

regarding expediting the arrival of healthcare and other disaster assistance-related personnel

in the host state. However, as this system is optional in nature, it will likely be the case that

some professionals with relevant expertise will not have a card at the time of a disaster.

Therefore, the applicable EU rules should allow for an expedited procedure to cover these

circumstances. Moreover, considering that the Card is only available to EU citizens, it is

advisable to consider whether a similar scheme could be applied in relation to relief personnel

from third countries.

o Expanding customs and VAT exemptions to disaster recovery

Regulation 1186/2009/EC and Directive 83/181/EC EU concerning customs and VAT include

relevant exemptions from fees for goods imported for the benefit of disaster victims.

However, neither of these laws contains an exemption for goods and equipment imported

for rebuilding after a disaster. Both pieces of legislation specifically exclude these types of

imports from their scope. Where possible, these rules should be amended to place such

goods on equal footing with goods imported in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Such

a scheme would acknowledge the ongoing nature of disaster assistance and recovery, and

better facilitate continued international assistance.

94