ISSN 2192-6921 Independent Review on European Security & Defence − Winner of the European Award 2011 for Citizenship,

itizenship, Security and Defence

SPECIAL EDITION
Civil Protection

The European Union gets

its crisis mechanism moving Photo: THW

The EU Emergency Transboundary risk

Response Centre (ERC) management – time for a
joint approach
Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Helena Lindberg, DG, Swedish Civil
European Commission, Brussels Contingencies Agency, Karlstadt

www.magazine-the-european.com
ProPress Publishing Group Special Edition 2013

Working in Unison for Europe’s Security
The opening of the European Commission’s Emergency Re-
sponse Centre in Brussels on 15 May 2013 by the President of
the Commission, José Manuel Barroso – not even three years
after the publication of Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva’s
Communication on the EU Civil Protection Mechanism – was
spectacular. But a no less important achievement in 2013 was
the agreement on EUROSUR, reinforcing the EU’s border
security as part of Commissioner Cecilia Malmström’s Commu-
nication on the EU’s Internal Security. Two examples of how
efficiently the European Institutions collaborate when the vital
interests of the European nations are at stake.
The story began in 2006. The new “thinking” on crisis preven-
tion started with Michel Barnier’s report on the EU’s security,
commonly deemed at the time to be a realistic approach giving
an up-to-date picture of European security, and presenting
optimistic proposals on how to implement it. Although it gave
rise to a lot of controversy, this report remained a reference
until the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.
The Lisbon Treaty then offered a broad spectrum of possibili-
ties for privileging internal security policy and paving the way
for the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.
Both Communications called for solidarity in the areas of
response, prevention and preparedness with an emphasis on
better risk assessment and risk management with regard to all
potential hazards.
The mega disasters of the decade (2004 tsunami, 2010 Haiti,
2011 Japan et al.) brought home the importance of a reinforced
EU Civil Protection Mechanism, enabling closer collaboration
between the European Institutions and the Member States.
The EU’s enhanced role in the field of disaster management
Impressum
The European − Security and Defence Union
ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin
Headquarters Berlin:
Kaskelstr. 41, D-10317 Berlin
Phone: +49/30/557 412-0, Fax: +49/30/557 412-33
Brussels Office:
Hartmut Bühl
Avenue des Celtes, 30, B-1040 Brussels
Phone/Fax: +32/2732 3135, GMS: 0049/1723 282 319
E-Mail: hartmut.buehl@orange.fr ; Hartmut.buehl@euro-defence.eu
Bonn Office:
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 57, D-53113 Bonn
Phone: +49/228/970 97-0, Fax: +49/228/970 97-75
Advertisement Office Bonn:
Karin Dornbusch
Phone: +49/228/970 97-40
E-Mail: Karin.dornbusch@euro-defence.eu
Editorial
since Lisbon is without any doubt of
significance, but it is only one of sup-
porting, coordinating and complement-
ing the Member States’ actions. Nations
retain their sovereign responsibility to
protect their citizens, while the Union
enables a better management of capa- Hartmut Bühl
bilities and actions of solidarity.
Will this task sharing be sufficient in the
future with a view to the EU’s global role as a security provider
in disasters? Should not the Union have its own capabilities to
call on if need be, rather than relying on the capabilities
(earmarked or not) of Member States? The answer – without
prejudice to the principle of subsidiarity – might be: on-call
EU-funded capabilities operated by the national authorities.
This could be a method for complementing critical national
assets and closing capability gaps while preserving the princi-
ple of subsidiarity.
Military assets might be part of the solution, because the
comprehensive approach is not just idle talk.
Lisbon is going to be implemented, but we have already now
to think one step ahead in order to make the EU’s internal
security, disaster response and crisis management even more
effective.
Hartmut Bühl, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief: Hartmut Bühl, Brussels
Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Nannette Cazaubon, Paris; E-Mail: nannette.b@gmx.net
Publishing House: ProPress Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
President ProPress Publishing Group: R. Uwe Proll
Layout: SpreeService- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin
Print: Heider Druck GmbH, Bergisch Gladbach
The European − Security and Defence Union Magazine is published by the ProPress
Publishing Group. The ProPress Publishing Group is the organizer of the congress on
European Security and Defence (Berlin Security Conference), the European Police Congress
and the European Congress on Disaster Management.
For further information about the magazine and the congresses please visit
www.magazine-the-european.com
Suscription: This magazine is published in Brussels and Berlin.
The copy price is 16 Euro: 3 copies for one year: 42 Euro (EU subscription)
3 copies for one year: 66 Euro (International subscription)
including postage and dispatch (3 issues)
© 2013 by ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin
ProPress Publishing Group is the holding of the trade mark BEHOERDEN SPIEGEL.
3
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION Content

Photo: Behörden Spiegel/Dombrosky

Photo: THW

Photo: BBK
18 21 14
“Solidarity calls for investment To generate means and coordination “A preventive approach to risks is an
and innovative planning” – through CATO – a project for the future of essential part of risk management” –
Albrecht Broemme in his interview CBRN protection Christoph Unger in his article

Civil protection – status and projects

3 Editorial 21 Christian Baumhauer, Paris
CATO – Chemical, Biological, Radiological
5 Kristalina Georgieva, Brussels or Nuclear crisis management
The EU Emergency Response Centre (ERC) Architecture, technologies and operational procedures
Progress in crisis-management organisation
23 Nannette Cazaubon, Paris
6 Interview with Dr Hans-Peter Friedrich, Berlin Modern training for the EU Crisis Mechanism
The EU’s civil protection policy versus A simulation competence centre for
national interests EU crisis-management training
Solidarity starts with the planning of resources
24 Dr Catherine Bertrand, Creteil
9 Helena Lindberg, Stockholm How to prepare against CBRN risks
Transboundary risk management Essential efforts on training
How to organise and prepare
26 Andreas Berding, Brussels
11 Interview with Claus Haugaard Sørensen, Brussels Preparedness for chemical risks
The European Union is a global player The EU needs higher prepareness
Tying together EU and national
requirements 27 Dr Philipp Fischer, Bonn
The DITAC Project – Development of a
14 Christoph Unger, Bonn EU Disaster-Management Curriculum
How Germany organises crisis prevention A EU-research project
Being prepared for the next event
28 Jean-Paul Monet, Marseille
18 Interview with Albrecht Broemme, Bonn Robotics in Emergency and Crisis Management
Germany’s Federal Agency for Technical Use in civil protection
Relief (THW)
Investing in human resources and technology 29 Wolfgang Röhrig, Brussels
Crisis protection and the cyber threat
20 Hartmut Bühl, Brussels Crisis management should consider attacks
Unidad Militar de Emergencia (UME)
Highest level of competence 30 Ralf Kaschow, Bonn
The German Cyber Academy
How to counter risks

“The European − Security and Defence Union” is the winner

of the 2011 European Award for Citizenship, Security and Defence
Creating a faster and more efficient disaster response
The European Emergency Response Centre
by Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the European Commission for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid
and Crisis Response, Brussels
On 15 May this year the EU Emergency Response Centre (ERC)
officially opened its doors. European citizens and all those
affected by disasters worldwide can now benefit from a better
coordinated, faster and more efficient response to disasters.
When a disaster strikes, late action can increase the loss of
lives. An immediate, coordinated and pre-planned response is
essential, even more so as natural and man-made disasters
are on the rise due to climate change, population growth,
urbanization and increased industrial activity. No country in
the world is immune to disasters, even if it is highly developed
and prepared for different scenarios. Overwhelming disasters
like the Tohoku earthquake that occurred in Japan two years
ago can hit any country at any time. Big emergencies can strike
simultaneously like in October 2011, when several countries
found themselves in trouble at the same time: a strong earth-
quake caused destruction in Turkey, while Thailand and El
Salvador suffered from devastating floods. More numerous
and complex disasters also affect more people than ever.
ERC – the proof of solidarity
A coherent and efficient response is therefore needed more
than ever, to protect our citizens in Europe and to show our
solidarity when other countries are overwhelmed by disasters.
The new ERC has been set up exactly for this reason: to enable
the European Union to facilitate the smooth real-time ex-
change of information and to respond to disasters in a timely
and efficient manner.
The Centre is staffed 24/7, and therefore able to deal with
several simultaneous emergencies in different time zones. It
receives and analyses appeals for assistance from affected
countries and serves as a hub at headquarters to support
coordination at various levels: Commission, Member States,
the affected country, humanitarian partners and civil protec-
tion teams deployed the field. This ensures that European
assistance meets the real needs on the disaster scene and that
there is no unnecessary and expensive duplication of efforts.
Until now the EU civil protection response has been based
purely on voluntary ad-hoc offers of Member States’ assis-
tance, be it in-kind assets such as shelter, water tanks and
blankets; or trained expert teams (e.g. medical staff, search
and rescue teams). In the past, the ad-hoc character of the
assistance sometimes made it difficult to predict and plan
relief operations and therefore led to avoidable delays. The
new ERC, on the other hand, will work with a pre-identified
European Emergency Response Centre (ERC) photo: EU/ECHO
pool of Member States’ response assets – “civil protection
intervention modules” – which can immediately be deployed
to any large-scale emergency. The countries participating in
the European Civil Protection Mechanism can put some of their
response capacities on standby in a voluntary pool – ready to
be set in motion as part of a coherent European response
when the need arises.
To build a safer and more resilient Europe ...
Chances of a life-saving response to disasters would be very
slim without an investment in prior training, test of procedures
and swift exchange of knowledge and information. For this
reason, the European Commission has been supporting and
co-financing a wide range of prevention and preparedness
activities, from awareness-raising to field exercises simulating
emergency response. From prevention and preparedness to
fast and cost-efficient response, the Commission addresses
the whole disaster cycle, with the ambition to build a safer and
more resilient Europe and world.
... and to prove global solidarity
Europe’s ever-improving capacities in disaster response and
the ERC as its new coordination hub are the result of over a
decade of experiences we have accumulated jointly through
our close cooperation with European countries, international
organisations and other partners. We keep improving our
capacities. The ERC is at the service of all of us, providing
better protection for Europe’s 500 million citizens and sup-
porting a more effective response to humanitarian catastro-
phes in third countries.
5
THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

European debate on civil protection

The EU’s civil protection policy versus

national interests
Interview with Dr Hans-Peter Friedrich, Federal Minister of the Interior, Berlin

The European: Minister Friedrich, at the Behörden Spiegel’s

European Congress on Civil Protection in Bonn last September,
you gave a remarkable speech in which you pointed out the
balancing act between European solidarity and national obliga-
tions in civil protection and crisis prevention.
What are the essentials for the Member States with regard to the
EU’s Community Civil Protection Mechanism? Doesn’t the
Lisbon solidarity clause, with its politically and ethically binding
effect, have a major influence on the Member States’ crisis
mechanisms for civil protection?
Hans-Peter Friedrich: First of all, in Germany’s view the sub-
sidiarity principle is essential. In Germany, civil protection is
built from the bottom up. Locating responsibility for civil
protection as close to stakeholders as possible, that is, prima-
rily at local level, has proved effective, as these authorities are
most familiar with local conditions and able to respond quickly
and directly. This should not be changed in Germany, nor
could we agree to European rules shifting the operational
responsibility for civil protection from the Member States to
the Community.
We value the EU Community Mechanism as an effective instru-
ment to help in coordinating joint assistance from the Member
photo: Behörden Spiegel-Group, J. Fieseler
States, both within the EU and in third countries. We intend to
take an active part in further improving this mechanism.

The European: How do you see solidarity? “The subsidiarity principle

Hans-Peter Friedrich: As part of the upcoming amendment to
the legislation, we are working in Brussels to maintain a
suitable balance between solidarity with countries hit by
disasters and the national responsibility every nation has to
protect its civil population.
Solidarity does not mean providing assistance at all times free
of charge. In case of disaster, the Member States affected
should be able to rely on the support of other Member States,
but should as a rule reimburse the expense incurred. Such a
division of labour, in which Member States do not need to
acquire and maintain own resources for every possible risk,
enables cost-effective cooperation and creates real European
added value.
Wherever nations are overwhelmed by extraordinary events
that go beyond the appropriate framework for readiness
planning, reimbursement of expenses may be waived. And we
have waived reimbursement in many cases. However, guaran-
teeing assistance at all times and at no charge via the future
is essential”
Dr Hans-Peter Friedrich
EU Civil Protection Mechanism would send the wrong signal. It
could lead to a reduction in national efforts, which would
certainly not help raise the level of security in the EU.
The solidarity clause that Member States may invoke in case of
extreme emergencies with especially serious impacts does not
invalidate the principles I have mentioned.
The European: But it does create an obligation to provide
assistance.
Hans-Peter Friedrich: The choice of most appropriate means is
left up to the Member States asked to provide assistance. So
the solidarity clause neither creates an independent opera-
tional instrument, nor does it specify concrete rules for apply-
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
ing existing legal instruments such as the EU’s Community
Civil Protection Mechanism. In truly extreme situations, how-
ever, the Member States will neither want to nor be able to
shirk their political and ethical obligation to help that is
postulated in the clause. The future EU civil protection mecha-
nism will provide an appropriate framework for mutual sup-
port.
The European: How much power over the Member States should
the EU be allowed to wield through the civil protection mecha-
nism? After all, the EU has no systems of its own and must rely
on Member States’ solidarity.
Hans-Peter Friedrich: Article 196 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the
Commission the competence to support and complement
Member States’ action on civil protection. This does not mean
having the power to tell the Member States what to do. Mem-
ber States’ participation in the future EU civil protection
mechanism will continue to be voluntary, as it has been up to
now. The Commission wants to improve its ability to plan joint
assistance in advance – a concern we share – and to do so, it is
planning to set up a voluntary resource pool: On a voluntary
basis, Member States will report mission capacities available
to this pool and agree to make these capacities available
immediately at the Commission’s request in case of disaster.
We support the Commission’s desire to be better able to plan
joint assistance missions, and we will contribute German
teams to the voluntary resource pool.
The European: But that would mean that the EU should actually
have its own resources in certain specific areas so that it could
take action quickly and without complicated transfer and
release procedures.
Hans-Peter Friedrich: I don’t see it that way.
The European: I am talking about a relatively simple but still
politically controversial undertaking: The EU and the Member
States jointly decide what resources will be needed immediately
in which emergencies. These resources are acquired by the EU
(EU-owned) and handed over to one or two Member States,
which operate them and provide the necessary staff and mis-
sion training (Member States-operated). The necessary funding
is provided by the EU; in return, mission readiness is guaran-
teed.
Hans-Peter Friedrich: The EU Member States have a large
number of rapidly deployable modules, which in our view offer
a solid basis for mutual assistance and aid to third countries.
The rapid response units of the Federal Agency for Technical
Relief (THW), for example, are ready to deploy in six hours,
whether under the terms of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism
or in the framework of a bilateral mission. EU-owned resources
could not be mobilised any faster.
In my view, acquiring EU-owned response capacities would
Dr Hans-Peter Friedrich
has been Federal Minister of the Interior since March 2011. He was born in
1957 in Naila, Bavaria. He studied law and economics and received his
PhD in law 1988. He was seconded to the German Embassy in Washington
D.C. in 1990. Dr Friedrich has been a Member of the German Bundestag
since 1998, where he was Deputy Chair of the Committee of Inquiry into
Party Donations from 2002–2005, Deputy Chairman of the CDU/CSU
parliamentary group responsible for transport, building, urban develop-
ment, tourism and local politics (2005–2009), and Chairman of the CSU
parliamentary group in the German Bundestag (2009-March 2013).
shift the responsibility for paying for civil protection from the
national budgets to the Community budget, which would
ultimately not lead to a higher level of security, as I have
already indicated.
Further, introducing EU-owned response capacities would
constitute a major change from the current system of coopera-
tion among the Member States to a civil protection system
largely managed by the EU, which would not be compatible
with the competence to support and complement the Member
States’ activities in the field of civil protection.
The European: At the European Congress on Civil Protection in
Bonn, the Commission’s director-general responsible for civil
protection and humanitarian aid, Claus Sørensen, described
Germany’s system of civil protection as highly cooperative,
innovative and rigorous. He said that, in Germany, cooperation
on civil protection is excellent. How would you respond to this
recognition from the EU?
Hans-Peter Friedrich: We are naturally delighted with such
praise, which also shows that, for Germany, solidarity in civil
protection is not an empty phrase but rather an obligation
that we are meeting in the European context and also in joint
missions in third countries.
With our EU modules, such as the THW’s rapid response units
for search and rescue and for water purification as well as
high-capacity pumps to deal with flooding, to mention only a
few, Germany is well prepared for missions abroad.
Germany’s more strategically oriented Federal Office of Civil
Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) has the necessary
expertise to provide advising on immediate assistance in case
of disaster, including support for longer-term structural
projects and psychological counselling. The BBK can also
provide advising in special areas such as dealing with chemi-
cal, biological, radiological and nuclear risks.
The European: You mentioned the strategic-operational capaci-
ties offered by the BBK and how the THW is well-equipped and
highly operational. Shouldn’t these capacities be the standard
for the EU? How could Germany help other Member States that
can’t even afford the capacities e.g. for risk analysis?
Hans-Peter Friedrich: In addition to direct disaster assistance,
one of the major strengths of the EU civil protection mecha-
7
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
nism is the opportunity to learn from each other. Germany
contributes its experience and knowledge, e.g. in defining
function and quality requirements for EU civil protection
modules, which also helps improve national capacities.
In mentioning risk analysis, you bring up the areas of preven-
tion and readiness, which we believe are especially impor-
tant. In the new EU civil protection mechanism, the Commis-
sion provides for greater cooperation in these areas. This
cooperation will enable the Member States to benefit more
from the efforts of others who are further along in terms of
risk analysis, risk assessment and risk management planning.
This is exactly what we want to see. We of course also offer
bilateral advising, for example within the framework of the
expert exchange programme supported by the EU.
The European: I would like to close by asking you about Schen-
gen. Under what circumstances do you believe that temporary
border checks are justified?
Hans-Peter Friedrich: According to the Schengen Borders
Code, a binding EU regulation, Member States may reinstate
checks at their internal Schengen borders in case of serious
threats to public security. Because being able to travel within
the Schengen area without having to undergo border checks
is such a significant achievement, the decision to reinstate
border checks always requires careful consideration in the
individual case. It might be considered for example in the
case of major sport or political events, such as a football
World Cup or an international summit meeting, as has hap-
pened in the past. Terrorist threats are another possible
reason. So it largely depends on the assessment of the threat
8
Flood in Germany 2013. A comprehensive
action of the German Civil Rapid Reaction Unit
for Search and Rescue (THW) and the German
Armed Forces (Bundeswehr).
photo: Wir.Dienen.Deutschland, CC BY-ND 2.0, Flickr
situation. Additions to the Schengen Borders Code are cur-
rently being negotiated at European level. These are intended
to counter any major deficits in the protection of the external
borders. The temporary reintroduction of border checks could
then be considered as a last resort.
The European: Minister, I thank you for this conversation.
Original version published in: The European N˚ 15, February 2013, page 24 e.s.
Documentation
Syria crisis – More than 2 million refugees
Current UNHCR estimates foresee the number of Syrian refugees
rising to 3.45 million by the end of 2013. The majority of refugees
have fled to the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon,
Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa where humanitarian aid
organisations are addressing the needs of the people by provid-
ing medical care, shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene assis-
tance amongst many other services. Actions to help the 4.25
million internally displaced people in Syria are also ongoing.
Being the largest donor to the international response to the crisis
in and around Syria, the European Union, including its member
states in joint coordination, has currently contributed over 1.3
billion Euro to support aid agencies in their work.
> More information can be found on the website
http://tinyurl.com/9yo3vmv
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
Time for a joint approach
Transboundary risk management
by Helena Lindberg, Director General, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), Karlstadt
At the end of January world leaders gathered once again at the
World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, in Davos, to discuss
the state of global affairs. One of the items on the agenda was
the Global Risks Report 2013, outlining some of the most
pressing risk challenges ahead.1
Fostering awareness of global risks
The report paints a worrying and complex picture of how
different constellations of risks may interact and cause havoc
to populations around the world. Pinpointed in the overall
global risk matrix we find a range of daunting risk scenarios
such as “water supply crises”, “critical systems failure”, “the
spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria”, “massive digital
misinformation” and “vulnerability to geomagnetic storms”.
The analysis presented in the Global Risks Report deserves a
close reading, although the messages conveyed are not new.
What we have seen over the past decade is a steady growth of
fora and publications focused on complex risks and risk
governance at different levels. Organisations like the OECD,
the G20, the World Bank, the International Risk Governance
Council (IRGC) and large reinsurance companies like Swiss Re
or Munich Re, regularly produce studies exploring the rapidly
evolving, globalised risk landscape and the methods needed
to cope with it.
National approaches to risk management
One of the effects of this global surge in attention to complex
risks has been an increased focus on the development of
national approaches to risk management. Within the EU, the
UK and the Netherlands were pioneers and published their
first national risk inventories in 2007/2008. Since then other
countries have followed suit. Norway presented its first risk
report in 2011 and in Sweden we will have our first national
assessment ready this year.
Establishing a process for assessing and managing risks at the
national level is a challenging task, particularly for countries
with a federal structure or countries where there is a lack of
tradition and incentives for cooperation across levels or
sectors. One of the main difficulties is to find ways of engaging
all relevant stakeholders in the process. In recent years there
has also been a growing emphasis on the need to move
beyond a more narrowly defined “whole-of-government”
approach (a challenge in itself) and apply a “whole-of-society”
perspective on issues of national safety and security.
In Sweden we have been rather successful at developing the
multi-level and multi-sectoral aspects of our national risk
work. In fact, one of the core missions of the agency that I
Helena Lindberg
Director General for the Swedish Civil Contin-
gency Agency (MSB) in Karlstadt since 2009.
Helena Lindberg has a Master’s Degree in Law
and worked as an Associate Judge of Appeals,
before joining the Swedish Ministry of Justice as
a Deputy Director. She served also as the
Director General for Legal and Administrative
Affairs at the Ministry of Defence in Stockholm.
When the Agency for Swedish Civil Contingency started its work in 2009,
Helena Lindberg became the first Director General.
lead, the MSB, is to support and facilitate coordination across
levels and sectors in preventing, planning for, responding to
and learning from various risk events. But even if our coopera-
tion on risks includes many of the relevant stakeholders, we
still have some ground to cover in the private sector and
among volunteer associations before we have a “whole-of-
society” approach in place. 2
Transboundary cooperation and the role of the EU
Another challenge we face in Sweden – a challenge that I
believe we share with a majority of Member States (MS) in the
EU – is the need to widen our approach to risks across national
borders. This is particularly urgent for coping with the kind of
“systemic risks” we find, e. g., in the Global Risks Report.
Systemic risks (often defined as risks which may affect the
functionality of the systems upon which society depends) are
“transboundary” in many dimensions, with impacts way
beyond their geographic or sectoral origins.3 Examples of
transboundary risks with a European dimension would be a
massive power failure affecting a large number of member
states (possibly caused by a geomagnetic storm), a Fukushi-
ma-type event on Union territory or the spread of a new lethal
disease across the European continent.
The European Union has a unique role to play in promoting
member states’ capacity to cope with such risks. A lot has
already been achieved over the past years, largely in response
to occurred events. There are a dozen rapid alert and warning
systems (RAS), allowing member states to communicate early
signals of risk. There is also monitoring capacity across a
range of policy areas, including a few operational centres –
one of them being the Emergency Response Centre (ERC) in
the Commission (DG ECHO), which is now turning into a fully-
fledged 24/7 hub for responding to major risk events, inside
and outside Union territory.
9
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
Current policy developments
In addition to existing capacities, current policy developments
are offering new opportunities for enhanced cooperation on
transboundary risk management. In the area of civil protec-
tion, member states are currently negotiating a new legislative
proposal, which will hopefully provide a basis for a dynamic
development over the coming years. According to the propos-
al, member states will regularly report elements of their na-
tional risk assessments, including assessments of their capa-
bility to prevent and manage those risks. This will allow MS to
share best practices, develop methodologies and gradually
build a more joined-up capacity for tackling transboundary
risks. Based on the outcome from the Swedish EU Presidency
in 2009, the Commission (DG ECHO) has also been tasked with
providing an overview of the major risks the Union is facing,
partly drawing on risk information provided by MS.
Sweden has been an active proponent of these initiatives and
has also advocated the need for the EU to serve as a platform
for wider international cooperation on global risks. Enhanced
cooperation with organisations like the OECD and its High-Lev-
el Risk Forum, or the UNISDR (Hyogo Framework for Action) is
essential and should be further institutionalised.
Critical infrastructure
In parallel with the negotiations on the new legislative propos-
al for civil protection, member states are also reviewing the
European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection
(EPCIP). One of the suggested ways forward (according to a
recent food-for-thought paper from the Commission) is an
increased focus on risk management. As a first step, member
states will be asked to study risks in relation to critical interde-
pendencies across sectors and borders. The concept of “re-
silience” is also brought forth (rather than a more narrow focus
on “protection”) and the Commission (DG HOME) suggests a
“systems-level” approach to risk assessment (rather than an
approach focused on individual assets). The main ideas for a
revised EPCIP are in line with the Swedish way of approaching
risk in vital societal functions and should provide a good basis
for developing further work. What seems important is to make
sure that the work delivers synergies in relation to initiatives
in other policy areas, such as civil protection.
Coordination of risk management
The need for a coordinated approach to EU risk management
is also stressed in the long-awaited proposal for the imple-
mentation of the Solidarity Clause.4 An important element in
this proposal is the establishment of a process for “integrated
threat and risk assessment” at Union level. Starting in 2015,
the Commission and the High Representative will be asked to
develop joint risk and threat reports as a basis for a regular
assessment by the European Council. The suggested approach
is ambitious – according to the proposal, the integrated report
shall “…build on assessments of threats, hazards and risks
10
currently compiled in various sectors (e.g. terrorism, organ-
ized crime, civil protection, health, environment, climate
change, etc.), based notably on monitoring, interpretation
and sharing of information provided by MS (through existing
sectorial networks or from crisis centers) and Union Agencies
as well as relevant international organizations”.
Next steps: enhanced cooperation
Recent developments in the EU hold a lot of promise. Trans-
boundary risk management is an area where the EU can
provide significant added value to the efforts of member
states. Thanks to the initiatives that are under way, member
states will be in a stronger position to develop cooperative
tools and methods adapted to future risk challenges.
And there is a lot at stake. Over the past few years Europe has
experienced a number of “unexpected” risk events, such as
the tragic terror attacks against Norway in July 2011 or the
widespread impact of the volcanic ash cloud in 2010. In an
age of social media, where risk management strategies are
communicated widely from a variety of sources, a failure to
cooperate across borders may not only entail a cost in terms
of the lives and health of our citizens, but also a political cost.
Europe may be whole and free…. but our globalised risk
society is here to stay. It is time to face up to this reality.
1
See http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/
2
See Helena Lindberg and Bengt Sundelius, “Whole-of-society disaster
resilience: the Swedish way” in the McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook,
by David Kamien (ed.), pp.1295-1317.
3
See Boin, A. et al (2010), “Managing Trans-boundary Crises: Identifying the
Building Blocks of an Effective Response System”, Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management, Vol. 18, N.4, Blackwell Publishing. See also the report from
the International Risk Governance Council (2011), “Risk Governance Deficits”
http://irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_rgd_web_final.pdf
4
See “Joint Proposal for a Council Decision on the arrangements for the
implementation by the Union of the Solidarity Clause”, JOIN(2012) 39 final,
Brussels 21.12.2012
Original version published in: The European N˚ 15, February 2013, page 30 e.s.
Documentation
Solidarity in Portugal to fight forest fires
On 3 September, Portugal registered 276 wildfires, involving 4
141 firefighters and 1122 vehicles. 83 aerial missions were
executed. The two Croatian Canadairs deployed within the
European CP Mechanism framework were mainly engaged in
extinguishing the fire in Caminha/Cristelo/Viana do Castelo,
together with the French aerial assets provided under bilateral
agreement. The Croatian Canadairs performed 54 water drops
and 9 hours 32 minutes of flight. The French aerial assets have
been operating in Portugal for 13 days and performed a total of
1118 water drops.
> Source: ECHO Daily Flash of 4 September 2013
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
Focus on cooperation with the nations
The European Union is a global player
Interview with Claus Haugaard Sørensen, Director General, Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO),
European Commission, Brussels
“The Union’s role is one of supporting,
coordinating, and complementing Member
States’ actions at national, regional and
local level.”
Haugaard Sørensen and the Editor in Chief, Hartmut Bühl.
The European: The Lisbon Treaty called for more efficient crisis
management and improved civil protection. It urged the EU to
assume a degree of leadership in an environment fragmented
among the nations, if may say so?
Haugaard Sørensen: The Treaty has given a new mandate to
the EU to encourage cooperation between Member States
(MS) in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for
preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disas-
ters. Civil protection has now become an ordinary policy of the
EU and the European Parliament is now involved. With our
legislative proposal updating the Civil Protection Mechanism,
the Commission fully acknowledges this more important role
for the EU in the field of disaster management, in particular
where the Treaty now explicitly mentions disaster prevention.
However, the Union’s role is one of supporting, coordinating,
and complementing MS actions at national, regional and local
level. So the Commission’s proposal does not replace the MS
in any of their responsibilities to protect their citizens, but
merely reinforces cooperation in Europe and improves joint
planning and coordination.
The European: That means that the Commission is shifting from
ad hoc coordination to a system in which joint planning with the
photo: EU, ECHO
nations allows core assets to be made available rapidly.
Haugaard Sørensen: In the past, the Commission’s Monitoring
and Information Centre (MIC) would dispatch the official
request for assistance from a disaster-stricken country to all
national contact points and then wait until offers were made
by Member State authorities. This system has already proven
to offer huge advantages over a system where a country in
need, inside or outside the EU, would need to establish all of
these contacts itself.
The European: But experience has shown that you can do more.
Haugaard Sørensen: Imagine a system where one Member State
has already a good knowledge of what particular modules or
assets the others can likely offer and can therefore focus its
decision-making on the most urgent outstanding needs. The
Commission proposal goes even further and proposes that
Member States communicate to each other beforehand which
assets would be available in the immediate future in case of a
disaster. We call this the Voluntary Pool of response assets. It
will be managed at EU level. In such a system the Member States
and the Commission can come together and engage in a mean-
ingful joint forward planning of the best ways to respond, during
the event ... and already in the preparedness phase before.
11
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
The European: May I come back to what you just said about the
new legislation? There are to be concrete proposals to enable the
tools that you are currently lacking to be added to the system of
capabilities. But they will always be made available on a volun-
tary basis, which means that the EU must again depend on the
nations. Will this be sufficient?
Haugaard Sørensen: Civil protection cooperation in Europe
will continue to be entirely based on voluntary contributions
of national authorities. The EU will not have its own response
assets. It is a matter of subsidiarity, i.e. to handle the emer-
gency at the level of the least centralised authority capable of
addressing that matter effectively...
The European: I see your point and understand that you have to
rely on the text of the Lisbon Treaty. But…
Haugaard Sørensen: … of course each level of organisation,
local, regional, national, and also EU has to play its role. The
EU can add value where the planning and coordination of
disaster management resources reach cross-border dimen-
sions or cause European-wide effects. It would be inexcusable
to have ignored a possibly serious pan-European risk just
because it happens very rarely or requires a high degree of
coordination.
The European: Did this system work in the past?
Haugaard Sørensen: Yes indeed. I would like to highlight that
the – in practice – voluntary system has worked very well in
the past. National civil protection authorities have been very
forthcoming in helping each other. The common preparedness
work of training personal, engaging in multinational large
emergency exercises, and the exchange of experts
programmes are all excellent examples of the European spirit.
The future cooperation in the field of disaster risk manage-
ment and prevention planning will add another strong compo-
nent of information exchange and European cooperation.
The European: The lowest common denominator. The concept
of subsidiarity is fine, but not always sufficient when it becomes
urgent to deploy capabilities. What are needed are some EU-
funded assets that could be managed by nations, but which
Claus Haugaard Sørensen
has been the Director General of the DG ECHO in the European Commis-
sion since 2011. He was born in 1951 and holds a Master of Economic
Science from the University of Aarhus.
In 1977, Mr. Sørensen joined the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From
1981 to 1984 he was First Secretary at the Danish Delegation to OECD in
Paris as well as Chairman of the Working Party of the Trade Committee.
In 1988 Mr. Sørensen came to Brussels working as Counselor at the
Danish Permanent Representation. He then was amongst other posi-
tions, Head of Commissioner Nielson’s Cabinet engaged in Development
and ECHO, and prior to his current position he was the Director General
of DG Communication.
12
would be earmarked for the EU and be on call for the ERC.
Haugaard Sørensen: Actually, we have considered the ques-
tion of high EU co-financing of response assets rather carefully
and even tested concepts of shared resources over the years.
Our so-called preparatory action and pilot projects were pre-
dominantly financed by the EU budget, for a limited duration.
The European: What was the outcome?
Haugaard Sørensen: First, if quality is assured, full EU trans-
port funding of response assets can decisively speed up the
deployment process. If applied to the planned voluntary pool
of response assets, such a high EU contribution would repre-
sent a fair compensation for the extra commitment and effort
that MS make for the common European use. Secondly, we
believe there are areas of risks, where the risk profile and
sudden peak risks are so difficult to predict, that a pooling of
response assets actually offers important economic advan-
tages for everybody affected. The problem is that for the
known risks, such as forest fires, they are not evenly distrib-
uted over the whole of the EU, and a solution may be more
appropriate at regional level.
The European: But what about the risks as yet unaccounted for?
Haugaard Sørensen: Have we not been surprised again and
again by the sheer forces of nature and the effects created by
increasing interdependencies in our societies? I am thinking of
a “simple” event like the ash cloud from Iceland or a possible
nuclear incident with mass effects in Europe. With these
unknown risks in mind, the Commission proposal also in-
cludes the idea of providing limited additional funding for
European solution to problems of European dimensions. Is it
indeed too early for this?
The European: Well-prepared planning for an EU engagement is
based on a continuously updated risk analysis. This means
using computer-based simulation to simulate the different
scenarios in order to learn lessons for a case that may never
arise. Are you satisfied with the means available to the ERC for
crisis analyses and simulation, and what about the nations’?
Haugaard Sørensen: Any planning should be based on evi-
dence and assessments of risks and capabilities. MS are
making great efforts to refine their risk assessment processes
and share them with the other Member States. Modern early-
warning and decision-support systems all use computerised
simulation models handling massive amounts of data to
predict river or coastal flooding, forest-fire risks, earthquake
effects on populations, or the propagation of tsunami waves in
the Mediterranean. The European Commission has focused on
the most significant of these hazards in Europe and provides
complementary analysis and prediction tools through its
cooperation with the Member States’ authorities, the Joint
Research Centre, the UN, and others. Early warning systems
are continuously becoming better and more reliable.
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
The European: Is the European Forest Fire Information System
(EFFIS) reliable?
Haugaard Sørensen: EFFIS has allowed better coordination of
affected nations during the summer season. EFAS, the Euro-
pean Flood Awareness System, has accurately predicted cross-
border effects of river floods. GDACS, the Global Disaster Alerts
and Coordination System, developed in collaboration with
UN-OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Human-
itarian Affairs) has become a worldwide reference as a useful
tool. NEAMTWS, the North-Eastern Atlantic, the Mediterranean
and connected seas tsunami warning system, requires close
collaboration among all relevant alert centres.
The European: If some nations are unable to guarantee their
preparedness through risk analysis, could you not assist them by
creating regionally centralised risk analysis centres?
Haugaard Sørensen: You make an interesting suggestion. I can
see a strong willingness among Member States to support each
other in the evolving area of risk assessment and disaster risk
management planning. From the EU vantage point we will
encourage and support these initiatives and bring the different
actors together in the interest of a safer Europe. The new
legislation will task the Commission with a number of support-
ing actions, including an EU overview of risks. We are still at the
beginning of a longer process that will lead to a multitude of
cooperation measures among MS and at the EU level. The EU-
supported exchange of experts programme is a case in point.
The European: Cooperation between the EU and the nations is
one side of the coin. The other side is the production of assets by
industry. Each nation’s industry produces according to its own
standards because the EU has not yet been able to put forward a
set of agreed standards. Does this not constitute a real obstacle
to future cooperation, particularly when the time comes for the
EU to procure assets such as water treatment plants, medical
supplies or first responders’ equipment?
Haugaard Sørensen: Higher interoperability of the first respon-
ders is of course one of our priorities. In fact there are certain
standards used in the MS for equipment (e.g. Stortz standards
used by high-capacity pumping modules) and the work will be
continued together with international standardisation bodies.
But equipment standardisation is not the only dimension.
Equally important for an effective response are common or
similar procedures. For example, common standard operating
procedures should be used for assistance teams and modules
(such as INSARAG for search and rescue teams). Actually, our
minimum requirements for modules will be used to define
quality requirements for the future voluntary pool.
The European: You mentioned training. Do you use computer-
based simulation within the ERC and during exercises with the
nations in order to promote innovation and effectiveness?
Haugaard Sørensen: Yes, computerised learning and simula-
A provisional ECHO command post in the disaster area– analysing first
information photo: EU , CC BY-NC-ND2.0, Flickr
tion tools are becoming a regular feature in our programmes,
but I see still a lot of future potential.
One good example is the global tsunami informal monitoring
service, which is using a scenario database (computer-based
simulations) and a tsunami analysis tool. The service is being
used in exercises, thus helping the tsunami warning centres to
use the various tools, such as sensor systems, geo-information
repositories, simulation and data-fusion tools, geographical
management systems, etc., and to be prepared when they need
to use them in the event of a real tsunami in the Mediterranean
Sea or North Atlantic Ocean.
The European: Some days ago you received your budget alloca-
tion for 2013 to the tune of €661 million, plus a reserve for
emergencies. Is that a satisfactory level of resources?
Haugaard Sørensen: The amount that you mention would
certainly not be sufficient. However, that sum (€661 million)
only represents the amount of the World-Wide Decision 2013,
which pre-allocates funds to regions and countries on the basis
of the needs assessment. Every year we keep an “operational
reserve”, amounting to €146 million in 2013, to cater for
relatively small crises occurring during the year. The decision to
mobilise this reserve, which is usually depleted at the end of
the year, is internal to DG ECHO only. On top of that, the EU
budget includes an Emergency Aid Reserve, amounting to
€ 264 million in 2013, which is used, following the agreement
of the Budget Authority (the European Parliament and the
Council), to tackle major crises (new crisis, or deterioration of
existing situations).
The European: Mr Sørensen, thank you for this conversation.
Original version published in: The European N˚ 15, February 2013, page 21 e.s.
13
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
Crisis prevention in a federal system
How Germany organises crisis prevention
by Christoph Unger, President of the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK)
One can do either too little or too much to counter an alleged
hazard, or one can invest in the wrong kind of prevention.
However, it is abundantly clear from today’s crises and disas-
ters that a preventive approach to risks is an essential part of
risk management and that forward planning is indispensable
in crisis management in order to manage and, where possible,
avert disasters.
Prevention pays
Germany has effective civilian structures for the protection of
the population against exceptional risks and incidents occur-
ring within its borders. These structures, which include an
efficient system for the delivery of assistance by the civil
protection services of the Länder in particular, function accord-
ing to the principle of subsidiarity and have proven their
worth. In the event of incidents on a supra-regional or national
scale the Länder receive support from the Federal Government
in the form of resources, information, coordination and advice.
An ongoing process of risk and crisis management within the
civil protection system provides essential added value for all
administrative levels in their respective spheres of compe-
tence.
Risk and crisis management in the field of civil protection are
not just two sides of the same coin. The two processes are in
constant interaction with each other and include both the
capacity to prepare for crises or disasters and their manage-
The risk and crisis-management processes Source: BBK, Bonn
14
BBK, Risk analysis
as a central
component of risk
management
(based on ISO
31000)
Source: BBK, Bonn
ment. The civil protection system must always be in a state of
readiness; hence the phase preceding the next disaster –
which can be long – may be the most important one. Capabili-
ties must be used in a structured and focused fashion in order
to detect and evaluate risks, so as to be able to respond
swiftly and effectively in the event of a crisis.
The process of risk management
Effective risk management can attenuate the effects of an
incident or even, under ideal circumstances, totally avert any
negative impact on protected assets. This process can there-
fore also lighten the burden for crisis-management forces.
The process of risk management is complex and time-consum-
ing; it calls for common instruments and a coordinated ap-
proach.
In Germany, risk analysis is a vital component of risk manage-
ment, conducted in close cooperation between the Federal
Government and the Länder. It provides the basis for reliable
information on hazards, risks and available capabilities. It is a
tool for political decision-making and administrative planning
that can be systematically applied at all (federal, state and
local) administrative levels, thus ensuring that the planning of
risk prevention and civil protection measures is geared to real
risks and requirements. Moreover, risk analysis is closely
related to other current initiatives in the area of security
policy, such as the National Strategy for the Protection of
Critical Infrastructure and the Strategy for Adaptation to
Climate Change, as well as the respective measures for their
implementation.
The findings from the risk analysis can also be used to support
the decision-making process on measures to protect the
population against the extreme effects of climate change or
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
from the consequences of a disruption of critical infrastructure.
The operators of critical infrastructure use risk analyses to
reduce the vulnerability of vital services and production
processes.
Risk analysis and civil protection
The method developed by the BBK – “Risk Analysis for Civil
Protection Germany” – is a cross-level risk-management
system that is currently being implemented at all administra-
tive levels in Germany – in the Länder and the lower levels
according to a similar principle and under their own responsi-
bility. Since 2009 its implementation has been enshrined in
federal law and the Federal Ministry of the Interior must report
annually to Parliament on the results.
This method provides Germany with a major decision-making
and planning tool in order to optimise the national emergency
prevention and civil protection systems.
Moreover, the use of this common system could considerably
reduce the costs of procuring information for individual stake-
holders.
In addition to the method itself a clear cooperation structure
also needed to be defined for its implementation. This has
been done on the basis of an inter-ministerial consensus.
Implementation
Implementation of the method of Risk Analysis for Civil Protec-
tion at federal level requires a formally agreed procedure for
coordination between the ministries and their department
authorities; where necessary, expertise from the scientific,
economic or other communities may be called upon for specif-
ic topics. An inter-ministerial steering committee selects and
prioritises the risks to be considered. This also entails setting
up a working group among the departments concerned and
agreements on technical cooperation.
The federal administration places the emphasis in the risk
analysis for civil protection on types of hazards that have
potential national relevance. These could be incidents on such
a scale that they affect several Länder at the same time and
require the deployment of extensive federal resources. Or,
they could be events on a smaller geographic scale but of a
politically explosive nature that could trigger a national crisis.
Events originating abroad but with repercussions within
Germany may also be considered as being of national rele-
vance.
An all-hazards approach requires a systematic classification of
hazards according to the possible forms they may take, and,
following on from this, the probability of their occurrence and
the likely extent of the damage.
In 2012, risk analyses for civil protection purposes were
carried out at federal level on the scenarios: “Unusual epidem-
ic outbreak” and “Extreme snow-melt floods from low moun-
tain areas”. The corresponding report was presented to the
German Parliament at the end of 2012.
Risk management in the international context
Germany and its neighbours have concluded bilateral agree-
ments on the provision of mutual assistance in the event of
accidents and disasters. A core element of those agreements is
the exchange of information about preventive measures.
Germany also attaches great importance to the drawing up and
implementation of risk analyses at European level. The bi- and
multilateral activities of the European Commission in the field
of civil protection constitute the right approach with a view to
guaranteeing the aims of civil protection throughout the
territory of the European Union whilst upholding the principle
of subsidiarity and promoting the idea of prevention within
Europe as a whole. Those activities include the exchange of
information, methods and good practices. The German Gov-
ernment cooperates closely for that purpose both with the
other member states and with the European Commission.
Germany advocates the establishment of appropriate Europe-
wide protection standards and is offering its concept for the
implementation of risk analyses, which can make an important
contribution to prevention. Important aspects of prevention
are common training and exercises in the framework of the EU
community mechanism.
Conclusion
Germany’s civil protection system as a whole benefits from the
broad application of the new procedures. However, these
require intensive communications between policy-makers and
the authorities, and between the latter and citizens. However,
state provisions alone cannot guarantee the total protection of
the population: there is also a need for close cooperation with
the operators of critical infrastructure, and for an “event-ori-
ented” preparation of citizens themselves (creation and
development of self-help capabilities). Comprehensive and
sustainable risk and crisis management calls, then, for cross-
sector cooperation, a close link between risk analysis and
planning, a strengthening of the role of risk and crisis commu-
nications and networking between the scientific community
and those responsible for practical implementation.
Original version published in: The European N˚ 15, February 2013, page 28 e.s.
Christoph Unger
has been President of the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster
Assistance (BBK) since its creation in 2004. He was born in 1958 in
Braunschweig, Germany. After his law studies at the Free University of
Berlin and at the University of Hanover, he worked for the Interior
Ministry of the Land of Lower Saxony, where he was placed in charge of
police law and association law in 1994, before being appointed head of
staff of Lower Saxony’s Interior Minister, Heiner Bartling, and overall
head of the Department for Sport, Budget, Cabinet and Gambling in
1998. Before taking up his position as President of the BBK he was head
of Lower Saxony’s Civil Protection Department and of its Competence
Centre for Large-Scale Incidents.
15
 26 / 27 November 2013,
Post-Afghanistan – new requirements and
Partner of the BSC 2013: the United

Opening
26 November 2013, 08:45
Keynote Speeches
Dr. Andrew Murrison MP, Minister for International Security Strategy, MOD UK
Juozas Olekas, Minister of National Defence, Republic of Lithuania (Presidency of the European Council 2/2013)
General Patrick de Rousiers, Chairman, EU Military Committee

High-Level Forum
26 November 2013, 12:15
Twelve years of involvement in Afghanistan
Chair: Prof. Ioan Mircea Pasçu MEP, Vice-Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Panelists: e.g. General Mieczyslaw Bieniek, former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, ACT, NATO
Igor Vladimirovich Morgulov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation
Ambassador Franz-Michael Skjold Mellbin, EU Special Representative for Afghanistan / Head of EU Delegation
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, Vice Chief of Defence, UK

Top Speakers, e.g.

Dr. Andrew Murrison Juozas Olekas General Patrick de Rousiers Anatoly Antonov
MP, Minister for International Security Minister of National Defence, Chairman, EU Military Deputy Minister of Defence,
Strategy, MOD UK Republic of Lithuania Committee Russian Federation

Further Information and Registration

 BSC 2013
meeting place for
MEPs / MPs, Politicians,
Armed Forces,
Security Organisations
and Industry

andel’s Hotel & Convention Center Berlin

opportunities for politics, military and industry

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

High-Level Debate
27 November 2013, 15:00
New Challenges for Europe beyond Afghanistan – Middle East and Africa
Chair: Prof. Dr. Hans-Gert Pöttering MEP, President, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2007–2009 President European Parliament
Introduction: Helga Maria Schmid, Deputy Secretary General, European External Action Service, European Commission
Panelists: e.g. Yaakov Hadas-Handelsman, Ambassador, Embassy of Israel in Germany
Air Marshal Sir Christopher Harper, Director General International Military Staff, NATO HQ
Dr. Hannes Swoboda MEP, Leader of the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament

Panels, including
> The Use of Space – for European security and defence
> Missile Defence – the role of Europe in NATO’s BMD
> C4ISR for joint and combined operations – Command and Control in future missions
> The Human Factor in Crisis Management – a comprehensive approach
> Cyber – a new Cold War – how to protect our information
> The Future of Multinational Operations – lessons learned

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach Helga Maria Schmid Elmar Brok Ji r̆i S̆edivý
Vice Chief of Defence, Deputy Secretary General of the MEP, Chairman of the Ambassador, Permanent Representative
United Kingdom European External Action Service, Committee on Foreign of the Czech Republic to the
European Commission Affairs, European Parliament North Atlantic Council

 www.euro-defence.eu organized by
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
Efficiency through innovation and investment in human resources and technology
Germany’s Federal Agency for
Technical Relief (THW)
Interview with Albrecht Broemme, THW President, Bonn
The European: Herr Broemme, since 2006 you have been head
of Germany’s Agency for Technical Relief, THW, which is interna-
tionally renowned for its work in the field of civil protection and
serves in many EU member states as a model for the creation or
further development of national capabilities. How has it built up
such an excellent reputation?
Albrecht Broemme: THW owes its reputation to the many
different services that its workers have been providing for
more than 60 years, to a large extent on a voluntary basis.
The European: So it has been successful in creating a symbiosis
between state employees and volunteers. But I imagine that
this could potentially create quite a bit of tension?
Albrecht Broemme: THW was successfully established during
the 1950s, although at the time many local branches had only
a few tools. Indeed the comradeship, common training and
above all the conviction of being better able to help other
people are important sources of motivation. The notion of
working on the ground close to citizens is taken to its highest
level. The full-time staff of THW perform organisational and
administrative tasks. This process is currently a source of
tension, because the volunteer management staff complain
about having too much paperwork.
The European: Let us examine this a little more closely. You say
that the nature of THW’s activities means working on the
ground close to citizens. What does this entail?
Albrecht Broemme: THW is founded on the principle of people
helping other people on a voluntary basis. Unlike the fire
brigade or the medical services, it focuses on technical and
Albrecht Broemme during the interview in Berlin. Source: Angela Götze
18
Albrecht Broemme
has been President of THW since 2006. He was born in 1953 in Darm-
stadt and graduated in 1977 with an MSc in electrical engineering from
Darmstadt Technical University. From 1992 to 2006 he was Head of the
Berlin Fire Department (Chief / CFO). Since 2003 he has, among other
duties, been President of the European Fire Academy (EFA), Brussels. He
chaired the INSARAG (Regional Group Africa-Europe-Middle East/ UN -
International Search and Rescue Advisory Board) and from 2006 to 2008
he was a Board Member of the Association for the Administration of
German Cities, Committee for Disaster Prevention, Fire Service and
Ambulance Service. From 2011 to 2012 he was Vice Chair of INSARAG.
logistical assistance. This ranges from building bridges to
setting up assembly areas for 500 emergency workers some-
where in Germany or Europe. THW is able to work on the
ground closely with citizens because we have 700 local
branches in Germany, which means that anyone interested can
find their “own” THW branch close by.
The European: Overlying organisational structures: What we
have, really, is a top-down approach closely combined with a
very strong bottom-up approach. Would you agree?
Albrecht Broemme: Yes, that is a good way of putting it. THW
is a federal agency under the responsibility of the Ministry of
the Interior, but at the same time an organisation of volun-
teers. On the one hand, the President of THW can and indeed
must issue binding instructions, but on the other hand any
volunteer is free to give up his or her activities at any time.
The European: When talking to the people involved in the EU’s
Emergency Response Centre (ERC), I was told that THW takes
part in all preparatory discussions in the event of a disaster, and
that this is due to a combination of THW’s extraordinary human
and material resources and the German Government’s strong
sense of solidarity. What is your take on this?
Albrecht Broemme:THW owes its good reputation among the
European institutions among other things to many years of
intensive cooperation on European projects, during missions
and operations. THW is a staunch supporter of the principles
of subsidiarity and solidarity laid down in the Lisbon Treaty.
THW is available at all times to the German Government for
missions. A prerequisite for solidarity is that all states – ac-
cording to their particular requirements – should have their
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
own planning system and units. It just isn’t on for one state to
rely solely on the help of others, not least of all vis-à-vis its
own citizens.
The European: Have we made any headway since Lisbon, with
the strengthening of the EU’s crisis-management structures,
and are we on the right track for enhancing our efficiency?
Albrecht Broemme: THW’s cooperation with EU’s ECHO is
outstanding. From THW’s point of view, even closer links
among certain Brussels institutions – is a major step in that
direction.
The European: I would like to come back to your experience
during THW’s latest missions, particularly as regards your
personnel. Do successful operations encourage more people to
volunteer?
Albrecht Broemme: Yes, after every operation that receives
extensive media coverage we have a lot of new volunteers.
The 2013 floods, for example, brought us several hundred new
recruits. However, some people imagine, mistakenly, that all
they need to do is to volunteer and that even without THW
training they can be deployed, for example, following an
earthquake abroad. In actual fact, before that can happen
they must have had several years of experience working for
THW and completed various training courses in addition to
having a working knowledge of English and a specific vaccina-
tion status.
The European: To come, finally, to THW’s equipment: what are
your staff particularly proud of?
Albrecht Broemme: Our big blue specialised vehicles continue
to be an attraction, as well as our multi-purpose boats (made
of aluminium, and with two outboard engines). There are
certain pieces of apparatus unique to THW that are as impor-
tant as they are popular, such as our mobile flood gauge and
our system for monitoring zones in danger of collapse using
reflected laser beams.
The European: Looking now to the future, what missions are in
store for THW and what challenges do they pose?
Albrecht Broemme: One doesn’t need a crystal ball to predict
that we will have to deal increasingly with the effects of cli-
mate change. The growing importance and interdependence of
critical infrastructure is another major issue. And last but not
least we will be confronted with “cyber” issues. Whatever is
expected of THW, it can only function if it has a sufficient
number of trained helpers and if it is allocated sufficient
budgetary resources for fulfilling its task.
The European: President Broemme, thank you.
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Proven capabilities in national and international disasters

Unidad Militar de Emergencia (UME)

a report by Hartmut Bühl, Brussels

I visited the Spanish Military Emergency Unit for the first time and welfare in the event of grave risks, catastrophes, calami-
one day in September 2012, when parts of the unit had just ties or other cases of public necessity. It is composed of some
returned from a successful fortnight of firefighting in the 4 000 women and men from the Army, Navy and Air Force and
Spanish Levante. No sooner had they laid down their equip- can be deployed all over Spanish territory for the purpose of
ment I spoke with them about their mission. Written in their providing a faster intervention capability.
faces was not only heavy fatigue, but also great pride at
returning without casualties from an intervention that had UME fits into the Civil Protection System
saved lives. In Spain, civil protection is divided into three levels of respon-
Looking through the visitors’ book towards the end of my visit, sibility, according to the seriousness of the emergency:
I saw some comments by Kristalina Georgieva, Commissioner • The most elemental level is the responsibility of the munici-
for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis pality.
Response in Brussels, during a visit to the UME in July 2012. • The second level is the responsibility of the Autonomous
She had written how impressed she was by this military civil Community.
protection unit that had earned worldwide recognition for the • The third level is the responsibility of the State through the
effectiveness of its capabilities, noting that this Spanish Ministry of the Interior.
“invention” could be of interest to other countries at a time In the event of an emergency that exceeds the capability of the
when everyone was seeking new, less costly solutions in the Autonomous Community, the Ministry of the Interior (Direc-
framework of a comprehensive approach. torate for Civil Protection and Emergencies) requests the
Ministry of Defence to authorise the intervention of the Military
What the UME is all about Emergency Unit. Once authorised, the UME is at the disposal
The UME was set up in 2007, building on the know-how of of the Autonomous Community. In the event of a level three
similar French and Swiss units. It improves upon certain emergency, the three star General Commander of the UME
aspects of the French and Swiss models and is also much assumes the sole operational command under the direct
larger, with more modern equipment and more powerful orders of the Ministry of the Interior.
communication systems. It is the tool provided by the State for
assistance in emergencies. Perspectives
The UME is an Armed Forces unit especially created, organ- During my second visit a year later, the new UME commander,
ised, trained and equipped in order to protect citizens’ safety Lt. General César Muro Benayas, confirmed the progress made
in the areas of national and international
cooperation. More and more nations, he
said, were becoming aware of this Span-
ish “invention” (Georgieva). The registra-
tion of the UME’s search and rescue unit
with the Humanitarian Office of the United
Nations for worldwide interventions was a
particular source of esteem.
My visit ended in the afternoon with a real
alert, when the unit was called in to fight a
big fire in the hills behind Toledo. It
accomplished its task during the night
after a 13-hour intervention: no casualties,
no losses.
I didn’t check whether the unit members
had the same pride in their eyes as in the
UME unit fights fire in the Toledo hills photo: MLuis Miguel Ortiz Baeza/OCP/UME
year before, but I am pretty sure that
they had.

20
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
Architecture, Technologies and Operational Procedures
CATO – Chemical, Biological, Radiological
or Nuclear crisis management
by Christian Baumhauer, Co-Director ARTTIC, Paris
Recent history shows that terrorists no longer hesitate to
launch attacks that can lead to hundreds or even thousands of
civilian casualties and that they are increasingly using uncon-
ventional – biological, chemical and radiological – weapons.
These CBRN incidents may lead to crises with heavy social and
economic consequences, affecting Europe’s growth and
competitiveness and threatening the citizens’ security. Be-
sides, the security expert community considers that the proba-
bility of terrorist attacks using CBRN material is increasing, as
this is recognised by the European CRBN Action Plan adopted
by the European Union in 2009 and the resolution of the
European Parliament following the “Gomes Report”1, 2.
Substantial research and innovation
A major issue hampering effective preparedness and response
to CBRN is the fragmentation across national and organisa-
tional boundaries, disconnects in the life cycle of prevention –
preparedness – response – recovery (including forensics), the
need to share information and knowledge between multi-pur-
pose legacy control and command systems, to coordinate
procedures and to establish sound doctrines, which are practi-
cal and compatible with restrained public finances. To address
this complex issue, substantial research and innovation are
needed to progress beyond the current state of the art.
The CATO project
CATO is an integrated project co-financed under the 7th Frame-
work Programme of the European Commission on Prepared-
ness and Resilience to a CBRN crisis. The three year €14M
research and development effort started in January 2012 and
CATO Laboratory being deployed on a state of the art command unit
demonstrator Photo: Mike Griffin, Rowlands Castle
Christian Baumhauer
is co-director and founding partner of ARTTIC,
leading European group providing consultancy
and management services to international
technology-related partnerships, and partner of
the CATO Consortium. With more than 25 years
of experience in the set-up of large collaborative
European R&D projects and in international
management, Christian is specialised in the field of multi-disciplinary
projects leading to new technology applications.
In the project, ARTTIC supports the consortium in the daily management
of the project, providing methods, tools and operational support for the
collaboration and leads the subproject focusing on impact and in
particular the dissemination activities.
includes 25 multi-disciplinary European companies and organi-
sations, with large practical experience in terror emergency
management, existing CBRN information systems, medical
response, a long track record in CBRN research as well as
advanced research capabilities in the area such as human
factors, ethics, data fusion and processing of fuzzy information.
CATO is developing a comprehensive Toolbox for dealing with
CBRN crises, which may be caused by terrorist attacks using
non-conventional weapons. CATO will address the key CBRN
incident management challenge: fragmentation - of doctrines,
of knowledge, of processes, of systems – as many different
organisations need to be involved and coordinated to deal
with crises. The current approaches and systems are indeed
fragmented due to the multiplicity of players and organisation-
al set-ups (often varying from one CBRN set-up to another
one) as well as the lack of effective shared operational pic-
tures and commonly shared information. CATO brings an
innovative answer to the diversity of organisational set-ups
and of legacy systems for emergency preparedness & manage-
ment. The purpose of the CATO Toolbox will not be the devel-
opment of a single Decision Support System (DSS) but to
provide the means to build dedicated customised DSS adapt-
ed to local and national organisational, political, ethical and
financial constraints as well as different levels of exposure to
CBRN threats.
The CATO Lab will integrate the decision support capabilities
both for demonstration purposes and to support the dialogue
21
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

between CBRN policy and decision makers. A “physical”

version of the CATO Lab will be set up in Brussels to engage
the dialogue with national and European stakeholders. The
Virtual CATO Lab allows users to discover CATO features
through a dedicated web portal.

How to proceed
The CATO project proceeds through a two-staged iteration
delivering two versions of the CATO Toolbox and the CATO Lab
and through a continuous dialogue with users and CBRN
experts. It thereby aims at developing a European community
dedicated to innovation in CBRN preparedness and response
and a platform for communication and coordination between
EU and national research and technological development
projects dealing with CBRN. Users, CBRN experts, researchers
and industrial players will discover latest developments and
technologists will be able to better understand future chal-
lenges. The Open CATO Toolbox and knowledge base will be
put in the public domain. Commercial exploitation by the
industrial CATO partners will focus on delivering CATO compat-
ible technologies (e.g. generic command & control systems)
and system integration contracts to customise and to integrate
CATO components with existing legacy systems.
More information can be found on the project website at
www.cato-project.eu or by contacting the CATO Project office
at cato-po@eurtd.com.
User dialogue and technology development
The CATO project works through an iterative approach of user
dialogue and technology development to develop the appro-
priate responses. Now, halfway through its lifetime, CATO is
about to deliver a first version of the CATO Toolbox and to
integrate it into the CATO Lab. Based on these first very en-
couraging results, the consortium will focus its efforts on
activities in view of leveraging these results to engage with
users and build an improved version.
The scheduled activities of CATO project are:
• opening the CATO Lab to start organising visits and meetings
of stakeholders for discussion CBRN policies and running
training sessions,
• running a proof-of-concept in form of a “field exercise”,
which will be prepared and evaluated using the CATO Lab,
• building a second version of the CATO Toolbox and the CATO
Lab by extending and improving the first version, integrating
CBRN Center, Winterbourne Gunnar Photo: Getty Images
crises to discuss emerging doctrines and procedures for CBRN
preparedness, detection, response and recovery and to en-
gage with latest research development in CBRN decision
support.
Challenges ahead for integration
The CATO Toolbox, the CATO Community and the CATO Confer-
ence mutually reinforce each other and are intended to be
sustainable results beyond the duration and the scope of the
project. This implies that their ownership will be transferred
from the CATO Consortium to the appropriate EU institutions
and the CATO Community. This will be a major challenge of the
next 18 months, which the project has started to address. For
instance in lieu of the second CATO Conference in 2014, the
CATO Consortium plans to partner with other research initia-
tives in the field of CBRN to organise a first edition of a Euro-
pean Conference on Innovation in CBRN response and pre-
paredness (ECIC).
In summary, the CATO Project is both an important endeavour
as it develops a new multidisciplinary approach to deal with
the challenge of fragmented CBRN preparedness and
response, and as it develops new approaches to optimise the
societal impact of security related research and development.
1 www.anagomes.eu/PublicDocs/4ca8b5c4-8c8f-4282-a030-8328c237c457.pdf
2 Ana Gomes is a Member of the European Parliament since 2004 and was re-
elected in 2009. In the European Parliament, her main areas of activity are:
human rights, security and defence, international relations, gender issues and
development.

the results of engaging with the community,

• developing the CATO Community by raising awareness
through newsletters, engaging active dialogue through
meetings and events in conjunction with the CATO Lab.
A major step to enlarge the CATO community and raising
awareness will be the organisation of two first instances of a
dedicated conference on innovation in CBRN preparedness
and response addressing stakeholders concerned by CBRN
1st CATO Conference in Bonn
The first CATO Conference will be held on 9 and 10 October 2013 in
Bonn.
A month ahead of the event the conference is nearly fully booked;
however some places are still available.
For participation:
> Contact cato-conference@eurtd.com for further details.

22
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
A simulation competence centre for EU crisis-management training
Modern training for the EU Crisis Mechanism
by Nannette Cazaubon, Journalist, Paris
With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union has been given an
important role in supplementing and coordinating the EU Mem-
ber States’ responsibilities in the area of civil protection. The
Commission’s 2011 legislative proposal for a new Civil Protection
Mechanism for the Union (for the period 2014-2020) to replace
the current reactive and ad hoc arrangements is expected to be
adopted by the EU-Parliament in December 2013. The idea is to
take an integrated approach to European disaster management.
Increased prevention and preparedness
This Commission proposal for a new Civil Protection Mechanism
is a response to the EU’s new role after Lisbon in supporting,
coordinating and supplementing action taken by the Member
States in the field of civil protection in order to enhance the
effectiveness of the systems for preventing, preparing for and
responding to all types of natural and man-made disasters within
and outside the Union. It makes provision for enlarging the
scope of the current EU preparedness actions in the field of
training, including through the establishment of a training
network and diversification of training programme.
Bridging the gap between civilian and military
In this field, given the complexity of possible crisis-management
scenarios, computer-based simulation technologies appear to be
an interesting and effective new tool for preparation, training
and coordination.
Natural and man-made disasters are increasing in number and in
scope on a global scale. Crisis and disaster-management mis-
sions have become a complex task with a wide range of scenar-
ios and a large variety of civilian and military actors involved on
the ground. Up to now training has for the large part remained
very conservative and expensive, although new training proce-
dures such as simulation exist and have proven their efficiency.
To be effective, a common engagement by EU Member States
affected by cross-border disasters requires intensive early
training on virtual scenarios. Simulation makes it possible to
identify and understand key factors and to detect the interaction
and interdependencies between processes in the real world, and
then to create the corresponding models in a virtual world.
While simulation has a long history in the military sector, within
the civil protection domain computer-based simulation is still an
emerging technology.
The German Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster
Assistance (BBK) is using, with great success, the SIRA system
that the armed forces of six European countries have been using
for command and staff training simulation for the last 15 years.
SIRA is based on the GESI simulation software developed by CAE
Nannette Cazaubon
is Deputy-Editor-in-Chief of the Magazine “The
European – Security and Defence Union”. She
was born in 1968 in Germany, studied literature
at the University of Bonn, and political sciences
at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (IEP) in Paris.
She has been living in Paris since 1998 where
she is working as independent journalist
specialised in European Security and Defence.
Elektronik GmbH, a subsidiary of the Canada-based company
CAE Inc., a worldwide leader in the fields of modelling and
simulation and technologies. This cooperation between military
and civil forces in Germany even extends to coordination on the
further development of simulation technology with a view to
exploiting all possible synergies.
Simulation technology allows the complexity of the real world to
be replicated in a digitised one. Using simulation technology
crisis managers would thus be better able to understand interde-
pendencies, test the different response plans and identify the
possible consequences of their actions and decisions. Simulation
technology could also be an enabling factor for bringing Euro-
pean crisis managers together in order to train them using
realistic cross-border scenarios to cooperate with maximum
efficiency for the coordinated management of all kinds of crisis
situations.
Towards an EU simulation capacity?
One of the key elements of the European Commission’s proposal
is the creation of a European Emergency Response Centre (ERC).
This centre will serve as a platform for a more efficient EU re-
sponse by collecting information on disasters, monitoring
hazards, preparing scenarios and coordinating the EU’s disaster-
response efforts. But why not go a step further and imagine the
EU developing its own simulation capacity by creating a kind of
“European Crisis-Management Planning & Training Network”
that would technically and conceptually link up all European
crisis-management competencies with a view to joint planning
and training? The core element could be an “EU Simulation
Competence Centre” which would coordinate EU-wide simulation
activities. The EU would then be able to conduct its own simula-
tion-assisted training courses. Moreover, in crisis situations the
Centre could provide simulation-based forecasts on the course of
disasters and evaluate the possible countermeasures at EU level.
Original version published in: The European N˚ 15, February 2013, page 35 e.s.
23
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
Essential efforts on training
How to prepare against CBRN risks
by Dr Catherine Bertrand, Head of Teaching Center SAMU94/UPEC, Créteil
Over the last decade, security against various risks including
terrorism, natural disasters and crime has gained relevance
within the European Community, so that numerous Security
Research and Development Projects have been funded by the
European Commission within the Seventh Framework Pro-
gramme for Research and Technological Development. One of
these projects with an impact on the preparedness of first
responders for CBRN risks is IFREACT. Improved First Respon-
der Ensembles Against CBRN Terrorism which is coordinated by
the French emergency medical service, SAMU. The main goals
of the project result from experience gained within the well-es-
tablished and intensively practiced French CBRN interoperable
training and exercise programme which will be described in this
article and which could serve as a basis for similar CBRN securi-
ty infrastructures in other European nations.
The medical pre-hospital emergency service: SAMU
The French concept of pre-hospital emergency services derives
from military experience in advanced care. SAMU sends med-
ical teams outside the hospital to take care of the patient
before his admission to the appropriate hospital. SAMU is
based on a telephone triage of all emergency calls. At the
dispatch centre, a practitioner answers the phone 24/7. SAMU
handles individual cases as well as disaster events and con-
ducts teaching and clinical research.
SAMU 94 has 30 years’ experience in sending medical teams
abroad at the request of the Foreign Ministry. SAMU 94 is
Every day SAMU teams all over France
take care of the sick and injured in
these ambulances
Source: Ch. Bertrand, Créteil
24
Dr Catherine Bertrand
is head of the SAMU94/UPEC teaching centre in
Creteil, France. She is the scientific coordinator
of the FP7 project IFREACT. Specialised in
emergency medicine and disaster medicine, Dr
Bertrand is in charge of the operational training
of the French Health Reserve was under the
umbrella of Upec. She is the author of two White
Papers: “Crisis management in hospitals” (Health Ministry) and “Against
terrorism, chemical attacks and accidents” (publ. Elsevier). In addition,
she is a French civilian expert for NATO.
responsible for deploying a national logistical platform for
disaster events inside and outside France (air transportable
modules caring for 500 victims during 48 hours). Based on
lessons learned from previous SAMU disaster missions, our
University (UPEC) has created a training program for humani-
tarian players and healthcare providers. This diploma is
unique and includes practical CBRN learning. Expertise from
Institute Bioforce, GIACM (Civilo-Military Inter Army Group) and
civilian security is called upon for specific topics.
The French civilian health reserve (EPRUS)
A new law from 2007 makes it possible for healthcare profes-
sionals enrolled on a voluntary basis to integrate a special
civilian health reserve unit. Its aim is to set up a voluntary
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
CBRN-response training organised in 2012 by UPEC / SAMU 94
resource pool to respond to national or international disas-
ters. Delivery of assistance has already proven its worth
abroad and during the H1N1 pandemic crisis. The Health
Ministry department EPRUS operates the reserve and provides
the necessary funding and mission training. UPEC fulfils these
training needs by developing capacities in the event of natural
or man-made CBRN risks.
CBRN risks
9/11 convinced policy-makers in France and the rest of the
world to imagine new threat scenarios and promote CBRN
management. Heightening the perception of real national
preparation implies the involvement of politicians and the
Prime Minister’s services (SGDSN) which provides disaster
response plans and specific “pirate plans” for terrorism. Main
hospitals in each of the seven defence areas have received
CBRN suits, masks and decontamination equipment.
The first step – crucial in harnessing the implication of health-
care providers – is trust in the governing bodies involved in
CBRN management. Also key is the need for shared proce-
dures between all those involved: army, police, fire and health
services. Our national centre is devoted to this interoperability
training objective, which complies with the Lisbon treaty’s
stipulations regarding the comprehensive approach for disas-
ter management.
Pedagogical CBRN board and training
A national strategy was drawn up under the supervision of the
Ministry of Health. The first stage was to team up with the
army using their expertise. The CBRN decontamination proce-
dures were tested with national decision-makers then de-
ployed in each defence zone by relay instructors who have
trained to date more than 20,000
health professionals.
Teaching must combat mistaken ideas
whilst rebuilding confidence with
proper training. The pandemic situa-
tion showed that health providers
react firstly as individuals. To train
health personnel to protect others,
they must be sure that they are
capable of protecting themselves and
their families. In addition they must
trust their own response capabilities.
The large-scale, 3-day and night
exercises we organise for the civilian
reserve simulates environmental
factors (sleep deprivation, unsafe
conditions, fatigue and stress) in
order to identify and develop the
Source: IFREACT, Brussels capacity to adapt to hostile condi-
tions. Behaviour is monitored during
mock CBRN scenarios. Emotional
stability, self-discipline and adaptability are strong predictors
of a person’s ability to assume such missions.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
These exercises shed light on the main shortfalls in existing
training and operational PPE and on the specific needs of
civilian responders compared with soldiers (more varied body
sizes, wearing of glasses, beards, long hair etc.). Our survey
showed the importance of convincing civilians that their PPE
provides sufficient protection. Knowing that their PPE are
designed for military use inspires confidence. However, exer-
cises demonstrate the need to improve PPE in order to de-
crease the heavy burden air impermeable suits and tight facial
masks inflicts on civilian wearers.
Conclusion
This is a key focus of the FP7 European research project,
IFREACT, which is charged with developing new improved PPE
for civilian responders. It is necessary to strike a balance
between the PPE’s protective properties and operational
burden and the capacity to give rapid care to victims. In order
to achieve this goal, the IFREACT consortium was set up to
enable close cooperation between the PPE industry (NBC-Sys
and Blücher), first responder groups (SAMU, DUSZ, Hotzone
Solutions) and further partners for additional electronic equip-
ment, testing and evaluation, project management, and
dissemination of the development results.
IFREACT has received EU funding and Consortium members are: Astrium S.A.S.;
Bertin Technologies; Blücher GmbH: Business Editing: CBRNe World magazine;
DUSZ; Hotzone Solutions Group; NBC-Sys; Prometech; UPEC/SAMU; SUJCHBO
25
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
Close partnership among all players is vital
Preparedness for chemical risks
by Andreas Berding, Director Event Coordination, ESRT, Brussels
In the context of the EU’s 2009 CBRN Action Plan, currently
undergoing revision, the European Security Round Table
(ESRT) organised its 2013 CBRN workshop on preparedness in
the area of chemical risks. This workshop brought together
Member State (MS) and EU stakeholders and industry represen-
tatives from various countries, as well as members of NATO`s
Emergency Division and the Red Cross.
Positioning with regard to CBRN risks
The session was presided over by Ms Ana Gomes MEP, Rappor-
teur on the Commission’s CBRN Action Plan (http://tinyurl.com/
mhyul4p). After her presentation of the essentials of the Euro-
pean Parliament (EP) report, Olivier Luyckx Head of Unit – Crisis
Management and Fight Against Terrorism, European Commis-
sion commented on the current review process, while Prof.
David Russell (British Health Protection Agency) shared some
scientific findings on chemical risks and public health.
Moderated by Hartmut Bühl, the discussion turned directly to
the issue of the capability of the EU and its MS to respond to
CBRN incidents. The debate shed light on the risks and capabil-
ities and brought home the need for a close partnership be-
tween the European Commission and the MS. Members of the
EP and the Commission emphasised the need, in the Lisbon
framework, for the EU to play an enhanced role in the area of
CBRN. There was a common understanding that CBRN issues
should figure prominently in the EU’s Security Strategy and
terrorism and counter-terrorism framework.
A number of areas in which the EU could play a stronger role
were enumerated, including:
• Providing CBRN threat assessments;
26
• Supporting CBRN research;
• Supporting Europe-wide Computer-Based Training
(Simulation) for CBRN specialists;
• Defining common standards and monitoring MS’ compliance
with those standards;
• Promoting the stockpiling of such materials as antidotes.
Helena Lindberg, General Director of the Swedish MSB, called
for more rapid action and for closer coordination between
national and EU institutions, including intelligence sharing
among MS. The representatives of other national CBRN pre-
paredness bodies, including, for France, Nicole Pelletier Dep.
Director EPRUS, Paris, for Germany, Christoph Unger, President
of BBK, Bonn and for Italy, Dr Carlo Locatelli, NCTI, Milan,
described their national efforts in the area of CBRN prepared-
ness and pinpointed various possibilities for cooperation. The
discussion then focused essentially on the procurement of
medication and the management of national strategic and
tactical stockpiles.
National stakeholders emphasised the need for stockpiling to
be dealt with primarily at the national level. However, it was
emphasised that the Commission should be more closely
involved in the management and coordination of stockpiles,
paving the way for better coordination within the EU.
Conclusion
Closer coordination and a clearer definition of the respective
responsibilities of the various national and European institu-
tional stakeholders in the area of CBRN are the immediate
priority for effectively tackling potential CBRN incidents. Partici-
pants had high hopes that the new European Emergency
Response Centre would provide a focal point for more efficient
cooperation on CBRN issues.
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection
Medical care must be adequate to every disaster situation
The DITAC Project – Development of an
EU Disaster-Management Curriculum
by Dr Philipp Fischer, Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital, Bonn
Many disaster situations are characterised by inadequate
medical care, poor communication, chaotic management and
bad quality control for example in patient flow. Managing a
disaster is an interdisciplinary task and involves different
organisations with various backgrounds, education and
expertise. A course and a curriculum involving different organi-
sations should present the necessary fundamental working
conditions for every disaster.
To provide adequate training programmes
A survey showed that there are currently 140 Educational
Training Initiative (ETI) programmes regarding disaster man-
agement in the EU member states, mainly residing in just a few
countries. Characteristics of current ETI’s were analysed, which
are used to develop standardised training programmes, based
on core competencies, for different professionals in disaster
management.
Therefore, DITAC will deliver, after a field test of the course
and an improvement phase, a generic usable module for
competency based education and training for the European
humanitarian aid and civil protection worker. While the EU
training modules focus on “invited national experts and
mainly team leads”, the DITAC Concept addresses all people
working in the humanitarian domain and disaster response in
Europe - from the first responder in the field to the high level
crisis manager in headquarters.
In this regard, this process fulfills the initial phase in a broader
professionalisation process in which the EU becomes both a
partner and stakeholder, to other regional initiatives under the
Patients receive health attention at a mobile clinic in Haiti
Source: Paul Hahn
Dr Philipp Fischer
is an Emergency Physician, Trauma and Or-
thopaedic Surgeon and Researcher for national
and international Disaster Management and Civil
Protection in Bonn. He was born in 1975. State
examination in 2007 and Resident Orthopaedics
at the University Clinics, Bonn. Several Disaster
Missions.
Enhanced Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance
(ELRHA) global network.
Results and feedback requested
In order to develop an appropriate Disaster Training Curricu-
lum the DITAC project strives to get feedback of experts from
all disciplines of disaster management. Therefore we publish
our preliminary results of our work within the section “Results
and Feedback” of the website (www.ditac.info) with the
possibility for readers to give their feedback on our work
progress and results.
The DITAC Curriculum
The DITAC Curriculum will address the key challenges for the
management of disaster incidents. It will be a standardised strong,
comprehensive and efficient EU-wide approach to crises and
disasters to feature the added value by European Union (EU)
coordinated actions in the field of crisis response.
While DITAC aims at ensuring that all EU countries have access to a
harmonised training curriculum for disaster managers within the
EU, a further, as yet unstated, obligation is to work towards the
aim of guaranteeing that EU-sponsored responding foreign
medical teams provide best quality performance in global humani-
tarian crisis situations
KEY AREAS
• Academic exchange and hands-on training activities
• Strengthen and focus on Eastern Europe (Slovenia, Croatia,
Romania and Turkey) next steps include: inc. Bosnia, Serbia and
Macedonia
• Creating a competency based profession “The Humanitarian Aid
Worker”
• Train the whole chain of humanitarian responders (from the field
worker to the manager)
• Preparing future “Rapid Response Capacity” for the EU
• Train and evaluate competence-based skills
27
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Real challenge for security and safety actors

Robotics in Emergency and Crisis Management

by Jean-Paul Monet, Lt. Colonel, Head of Fire District in Bouches-du-Rhone (BDRFD), Marseille

The increased occurrence of natural hazards, growing CBRNe

risks arising from industrial infrastructures, and potential non-
conventional threats posed by both governmental and non-
governmental actors are creating asymmetric threat situations.
This state of affairs, which knows no boundaries, is currently
accentuated by the vulnerability of our increasingly complex,
highly connected, and fully open modern societies. The chal-
lenge for national policymakers is to take on board these new
rules, while still complying with the fundamental and perma-
Jean-Paul Monet, Lt. Colonel
is Head of a fire district in the Bouches-du-Rhône
Fire (BDRFD) department Sdis13 (www.sdis13.fr).
As the assistant chief officer, Monet is departmen-
tal and regional CBRNe advisor and in 2002 he
launched his first CBRNe robotic project. Holder of
a masters degree in pharmacy, Monet has been
working in the industrial hazard, risk assessment,
CBRNe and emergency planning fields for 27 years.

nent principles of crisis management.

The use of new tools – ICT, social media, and cybernetics – is a organised at the fire academy training facility for selected
progressive and pervasive “change in continuity”. Victims still manufacturers.
suffer the same pain, and responders have not changed, yet
everything is progressively changing in the environment. The conference, held in English, is taking place at the BDRFD
School, which is responsible for the organisation, manage-
Many events and projects are focused on the use of Unmanned ment and training. The event is being co-organised by the
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), but Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) Ecole des mines of Alès, the University of Aix Marseille, and
are also playing an important role in security and safety the French Competitiveness Cluster for Innovation in Major &
issues. The use of cybernetics and new technologies is a real Environmental Risk Management, all key players in innovation
challenge for security and safety actors. They improve their and research & development in the security and safety areas.
efficiency, but experiences and lessons learned have to be
exchanged constantly in order to drive innovation close to the
field of operations. In order to enrich the debate, the Bouches-
du-Rhône Fire Department will be hosting from 1 to 4 October,
in the Marseilles Region, an international conference on
“Robotics in Emergency and Crisis Management: Use of UGVs,
from Military and EOD to Civil Protection”.

This conference will provide the opportunity to launch a

constructive dialogue between crisis managers, manufactur-
ers, providers and end users. The aim is to help European
Robotics will find their place in CBRN
innovation and R&D in order to improve our international
incidents. Here tests with chlorine.
competitiveness. But why not also build alliances or establish Photo: BDRFD, Marseilles
industrial cooperation projects? Real trials and tests are also

EUROPEAN GROUND ROBOTICS CONFERENCE: Marseille, 1/4 Oct 2013

“Robotics in Emergency and Crisis Manage-
ment Use of UGVs, from Military and EOD to
Civil Protection”
Sessions topics: Cybernetics and Crisis
management – UGVs Needs, constraints and
capabilities – Lessons learned and ongoing
UGVs projects – Operational Data Sharing-
Security and Safety Technologies -Prepared-
ness, ICT and new Crisis Management
Keynotes speakers:
Dr-Ing Catherine FARGEON, Paris; Dr Dirk
SCHULZ, Berlin; Mr. Gilles HELSCHGER, Le
Havre; Pr. Roberto SETOLA, Rome eta.
Confirmed manufacturers: ECA Robotics-
Telerob Cobham-Nexter-iRobot-DOK-Ing eta.
http://tiems.info/
Strategic topics, lessons learned, and R&D
features will be discussed in the plenum.
Technical and tactical issues will be present-
ed in the experts’ showroom and during the
training facility demonstration, but main
topics, which will be addressed at the
conference, are related to UGVs.

28
 Special edition on the occasion of the 9th European Congress on Civil Protection

How to achieve effective crisis management

Crisis protection and the cyber threat

by Wolfgang Röhrig, Project Officer Cyber Defence, European Defence Agency, Brussels

For a long time, crises affecting national security or citizens’

well-being have had in common that both their roots and
impact were exclusively linked to the physical domains of
land, air, sea or space. Since two decades a new domain has
evolved – “Cyber Space”, which may still rely on and consist
of physical assets (server, router, etc.), but which more
importantly contains a new virtual dimension. The online
world has pervaded the entire society; the increasing number
of online services and connectivity (e.g. Internet of Things)
has enabled tremendous economic, social and political
developments. But this strength is now also becoming a
vulnerability.
Wolfgang Röhrig
has been the Project Officer Cyber Defence of the
European Defence Agency (EDA) since 2012. He
was born in 1966 and entered the German Navy
in 1985 and bears the rank of a Commander. He
earned the degree of MBA from the Helmut-
Schmidt-University, Hamburg. Since 1990 he has
served in national Navy positions and the
German Joint Services including several operational deployments and
service in NATO. Wolfgang Röhrig has been working on communications
and information systems since the mid-1990s.

What is the cyber threat?
The cyber threat is wide in range; it covers vandalism of
websites at the lower end, up to intentional wide scale
disruption of services or physical damage, and crime paired
with economical or state-supported espionage somewhere in
between. The cyber threat is:
• Versatile, permanently changing its shape and hiding its
origin and motivation;
• Worldwide, ignoring physical boundaries – the territorial
ones but also those of protected areas (e.g. critical infra-
structures);
• Ubiquitous, anybody can buy anonymously almost every-
thing – attack kits or services – on the online black market;
• Extremely rapid, the reaction time counts in seconds.
But what has this virtual world to do with crisis management
and civil protection?
Relevance of cyber space for crisis management
1. Crisis can be initiated through cyber space. The three week
long cyber-attack campaign on Estonia in 2007 almost turned
into a national crisis, as governmental and vital services for
the functioning of society were affected by a – technically
quite simple – Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack. It
became obvious that cyber-attacks can paralyse societies
one year later during the conflict in Georgia. Today’s crisis
management plans, especially for critical infrastructures,
have to consider cyber-attack scenarios.
2. Crisis or disasters in the physical domains (e.g. power
outage) can regionally affect the availability of cyber space. A
regional or even widespread unavailability of cyber space
can cause tremendous negative economical and societal
effects, which might exacerbate a crisis or a disaster. There-
fore effects of physical disasters on cyber space have to be
considered in crisis management plans.
3. Effective crisis management assets can be effected be-
cause they rely on modern information and communication
systems or services, which often use cyber space. In order to
improve the resilience of these systems a dynamic risk
management approach should be established for minimising
their vulnerabilities against attacks.

Damage Potential of Cyber Activities
Photo: European Defence Agency
Conclusion
There are thus good reasons that modern crisis management
and civil protection take cyber threats into account. The EU
Cyber Security Strategy, released in February 2013, (see The
European-Security and Defence Union, 1-2013, Nr 13) is an
example of a comprehensive approach to benefit from the
new cyber dimension while protecting the core values of our
society. The European Defence Agency contributed to the
defence aspects of this strategy and works together with
member states, experts and EU institutions on developing
cyber defence capabilities as well as technologies.

29
 THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION

Training to manage the threats of cyber space

The German Cyber Academy

by Ralf Kaschow Director Cyber Akademie, Berlin

By whom is the bell tolled? – The report about the ethical
hackers who managed to get into the IT system of a church via
the internet and could have sounded the bells might at first
glance seem amusing.
But closer scrutiny reveals this to be the perfect illustration of
the extent to which our world has become digitised and
networked. Our daily life depends to a high degree on the
permanent availability of information and communication
technologies (ICT). Moreover, access to and control of critical
infrastructure - for example in the energy, water or banking
sectors - are extensively based on these technologies.
Cyber attacks can be fatal
Cyber attacks can cause the failure of important functions in
such critical infrastructure or, in some cases more fatally, they
can produce malfunctions that may go undetected for some
time: everything looks fine on the surface, but all the while the
situation is escalating and developments become irreversible.
It is not difficult to imagine the potential consequences of an
attacker succeeding, for example, in penetrating the control
system of a nuclear power plant.
Cyber space is therefore a crucial factor for civil protection,
since it extends the range of crisis scenarios. Firstly, ICT is
itself a critical component that can be affected by crisis scenar-
ios and can cause further chain reactions. But secondly, cyber
space is also a trigger element that can initiate crisis scenarios
from the outset. Here the risks lie hidden at the level of bits
and bytes in a complex virtual world. Attacks can originate
from any location in the world and attackers can strike global-
ly, rapidly and without advance warning.
The Cyber Academy – a German Training Institution
Cyber security is the special field of expertise of the Cyber
Academy (CAk), a German training institution with offices in
Berlin and Bonn.
1. The CAk’s seminars deal with the risks of cyber space and
enable people to make best possible but secure use of the
possibilities offered by cyber space.
2. The training programme focuses in particular on the
requirements of public administration and covers all
aspects of cyber security, such as mobile device security,
cloud computing, social media, big data, crisis manage-
ment, etc.
3. Since cyber security demands efforts on the part of an
organisation as a whole, CAk provides training at all levels,
from individuals and teams up to management level.
4. Specific seminars for data protection and IT security officers
conclude with certifications in accordance with international
standards.
Renowned experts from the public authorities, academia and
industry contribute their know-how as lecturers and members
of the programme board.
Conclusion
There is no such thing as 100% security. The aim must there-
fore be to minimise risks and, in the event of a crisis, to limit
the damage and regain control of the situation in a timely
fashion. Qualified personnel - aware of the risks, able to take
appropriate security measures and capable of confident action
in crisis situations - are the cornerstone of efficient cyber
security and civil protection. CAk’s mission is to provide the
requisite comprehensive cyber security training.
> More information: www.cyber-akademie.de

The independent magazine

for European Security and Defence
Published in English (February, June and October) Edition 3/2013
The EU summit on
Three editions per year, price € 42,- Security and Defence
Deadline for advertisem
including postage and delivery within the EU ents:
10th October 2013
For further information or orders please consult
www.magazine-the-european.com or order the current issue for € 16,-
Behörden Spiegel-Gruppe, Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 57, 53113 Bonn

30
EUROPE’S EVENTS
SECURITY and DEFENCE

DISASTER MANAGEMENT
SECURITY:
9th EUROPEAN CONGRESS
ON CIVIL PROTECTION
Bonn, 18/19 Sept 2013
www.civil-protection.com
Klaus-Dieter Fritsche, Ralf Jäger, Dr. Florika Fink-Hooijer,
State Secretary, Minister of the DG Humanitarian Aid
Federal Ministry of Interior of the Federal and Civil Protection
the Interior State of North Rhine- (ECHO), European
Westphalia Commission

BSC
SECURITY AND DEFENCE:
BERLIN SECURITY CONFERENCE 2013 –
12th CONGRESS ON EUROPEAN
SECURITY AND DEFENCE
Berlin, 26/27 Nov 2013 Air Chief Marshal Dirk Niebel, Juozas Olekas,

www.euro-defence.eu
Sir Stuart Peach, Federal Minister for Minister of National
Vice Chief of Defence, Economic Cooperation Defence, Republic
United Kingdom and Development, of Lithuania,
Germany EU-Presidency

SECURITY:POLICE
17th EUROPEAN POLICE CONGRESS
Berlin, 18/19 Feb 2014
www.european-police.eu Michèle Coninsx, Noburo Nakatani, Troels Oerting,
President, Eurojust- Executive Director Assistant Director,
Collegium IGCI, INTERPOL Head of European
Cybercrime Centre
(EC3), Europol

Impressum: The European − Security and Defence Union

ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin

Information and participation contact:

Hartmut Bühl, Helga Woll
Behörden Spiegel Office Brussels Behörden Spiegel Office Bonn
Avenue des Celtes, 30, B 1040 Bruxelles Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 57, D 53113 Bonn
Tel/Fax: +32 2 732 31 35, GSM: +49 172 32 82 319 Tel/Fax: +49 228 97 09 70
E-Mail: hartmut.buehl@orange.fr E-Mail: helga.woll@behoerdenspiegel.de

www.behoerdenspiegel.de
© 2013 by ProPress Publishing Group Bonn/Berlin
ProPress Publishing Group is the holding of the trade mark BEHOERDEN SPIEGEL.