analysis of law in the eu and a selection of member states...

Analysis of Law in the EU and a Selection of Member States pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster ReliefSynthesis Report and Recommendations

With support from

2010 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Box 372CH-1211 Geneva 19SwitzerlandTelephone: +41 22 730 4222Telefax: +41 22 733 0395E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ifrc.org/idrl

strategy2020

Strategy 2020 voices the collective determination of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to move forward in tackling the major challenges that confront humanity in the next decade. Informed by the needs and vulnerabilities of the diverse communities with whom we work, as well as the basic rights and freedoms to which all are entitled, this strategy seeks to benefit all who look to Red Cross Red Crescent to help to build a more humane, dignified, and peaceful world.

Over the next ten years, the collective focus of the IFRC will be on achieving the following strategic aims:

1. Save lives, protect livelihoods, and strengthen recovery from disasters and crises

2. Enable healthy and safe living

3. Promote social inclusion and a culture of non-violence and peace

About this report

This report was commissioned by the IFRC and prepared by Justine Stefanelli and Sarah Williams of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

It is one element of a broader project being undertaken by the IFRC and the National Red Cross Societies of Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to study EU and Member States’ regulations for cross-border disaster assistance within Europe.

This project is supported by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument of the European Community. However, sole responsibility for its contents resides with the authors. The European Commission is not responible for any use that may be made of the information herein.

About the IDRL Programme

The IFRC “International Disaster Response Laws, Rules and Principles” (IDRL) Programme seeks to reduce human vulnerability by promoting legal preparedness for disasters. It works in three areas: (1) collaborating with National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and other partners to offer technical assistance to governments on disaster law issues; (2) building the capacity of National Societies and other stakeholders on disaster law; and (3) dissemination, advocacy and research.

© International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2010.

Cover photo courtesy of the IFRC.

For more information about the British Institute of International and Comparative law, please visit http://www.biicl.org.

1

Analysis of Law in the European Union pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief: Synthesis Report

Table of Contents

Table of Abbreviations 3

Table of Associated Reports 3

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

Chapter 2: Context of the Study 8

2.a Past Disaster Experience and Likely Disaster Scenarios 9

2.b Arrangements for Assistance 10

2.c Overview of Disaster Management within National Legal Systems 12

2.d Role of the National Societies and Other Voluntary Organisations 12

2.e Current Initiatives at the EU Level 14

Chapter 3: Regulation of the Entry and Operation of International Assistance 16

3.a Past Disaster Experience and Likely Disaster Scenarios 17

3.b Form and Content of Requests 18

3.c Entry into EU Territory 19

3.d Recognition of Professional Qualifications 21

3.e Customs and Taxation 22

3.f Food and Medicines 25

3.g Rescue Animals 26

3.h Transporting Relief 27

3.i Extended Hours 30

3.j Telecommunications 30

Chapter 4: Quality Control and Accountability 32

4.a Quality Control 33

4.b Diversion, Misappropriation and Fraud 35

4.c Responsibility for Costs 36

4.d Liability for Sub-Standard Aid, Negligence, etc. 37

2

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Chapter 5: Other Considerations 40

5.a Public Procurement 41

5.b Data Protection and Privacy 41

5.c Language, Dissemination and Coordination 42

Chapter 6: General Conclusions and Recommendations 44

6.a General Conclusions 45

6.b Recommendations 46

3


Table of AbbreviationsCPM CivilProtectionMechanism

EADRCC Euro-AtlanticDisasterResponseCoordinationCentre

EU EuropeanUnion

IDRL InternationalDisasterResponseLaws,RulesandPrinciples

IFRC InternationalFederationofRedCrossandRedCrescentSocieties

InSARAg InternationalSearchandRescueAdvisorygroup

MIC MonitoringandInformationCentre

nATO northAtlanticTreatyOrganisation

ngO non-governmentalOrganisation

OCHA OfficefortheCoordinationofHumanitarianAffairs

PROCIv CouncilWorkinggrouponCivilProtection

vAT value-AddedTax

Table of Associated ReportsBritishInstituteofInternationalandComparativeLaw,AnalysisofLawintheEuropeanUnionpertainingtoCross-BorderDisasterRelief(IFRC,2010)

AustrianRedCross,AnalysisofLawintheEuropeanUnionpertainingtoCross-BorderDisasterRelief,CountryReport:Austria(2010)

BritishRedCross,AnalysisofLawintheUnitedKingdompertainingtoCross-BorderDisasterRelief(2010)

BulgarianRedCross,normativeRequirementsforReceipt,OriginationandTransitofDisasterReliefthoughtheTerritoryoftheRepublicofBulgaria(2010)

FrenchRedCross,AnalysisofLawintheEUpertainingtoCross-BorderDisasterRelief,CountryReportbytheFrenchRedCross(2010)

germanRedCross,AnalysisoflawintheEUpertainingtoCross-BorderDisasterRelief,CountryReportbythegermanRedCross(2010)

ThenetherlandsRedCross,LegalAspectsofInternationalDisasterResponseinDutchEmergenciesandCrisisSituations(2010)

Note: Allassociatedreportsareavailableatwww.ifrc.org/idrl.


Chapter 1: Introduction

5


01

Chapter 1

Introduction

In2001,theInternationalFederationofRedCrossandRedCrescentSocieties(IFRC)initiateditsInternationalDisasterResponseLaws,RulesandPrinciples(IDRL)Programmetostudygloballegalframeworkswithinwhichdisasterassistanceisprovidedandused.TheProgrammeanditspartnersreviewedtheinternational,regionalandnationalframeworksregardingtheinternationalresponsetonaturalandtechnologicaldisastersaswellastheoperationalex-perienceswithregulatoryproblemsinrecentdisasters.

Afterseveralyearsofresearchandglobalconsultationswithgovernmentsandotherstakeholderstoevaluatecommonproblemareasandbestpractice,theIFRClednegotiationsforthedevelopmentofthe“guidelinesfortheDomesticFacilitationandRegulationofInternationalDisasterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssistance”(IDRLguidelines).1TheIDRLguidelinesaddresssomeoftheprob-lemsmostcommonlyencounteredinthecontextofcross-borderdisasterreliefglobally,suchascustomsandimmigrationrulesthatdelayorpreventreliefequipment,goodsandpersonnelfromenteringtheaffectedstate.

Innovember2007,thestatepartiestothe1949genevaConventionsunani-mouslyadoptedtheIDRLguidelinesatthe30thInternationalConferenceoftheRedCrossandRedCrescent.InadditiontojoiningtheconsensusontheIDRLguidelines,theEUMemberstates2andtheirnationalRedCrossSocieties3signedspecificpledgesinsupportoftheIDRLguidelines.SupportfortheIDRLguidelineswasalsoincludedintheEUConsensusonHumanitarianAidin2007.ArecentreportbytheIFRCnotesthattheprogressinimplementingtheIDRLguidelinessince2007hasbeenencouraging,butstillrequiresworkbeforetheguidelinescanachievetheirintendedimpact.4

ThisstudywascoordinatedbytheIFRCandisfundedinsubstantialpartbytheEuropeanCommissionthroughtheCivilProtectionFinancialInstrument.ThestudybuildsupontheIDRLguidelines,examiningthedegreetowhichnationalandEuropeanlegalframeworksaddressproblemsrelatedtothefacili-tationofinternationalassistancewithinEurope.ItsscopeislimitedstrictlytotheprovisionofdisasterassistancewithintheEU.Itdoesnotaddresssecurity-relatedassistance,suchascooperationinthesuppressionofterroristactsorothercrime.

ThecurrentstateoflawandpolicyinboththeEUandtheMemberstateshasbeendiscernedthroughastudyofEUlegislation,nationallaws,codes,

1. IFRC, “Introduction to theGuidelines for theDo-mesticFacilitationandRegulationofInternationalDis-asterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssistance” (2008),availableat:http://www.ifrc.org/idrl. 2. PledgesonIDRL: Section 3.1 – Strengthening the legal frame-workforinternationalresponsetodisasters,Govern-ment,EUJointPledge,Pledge#95. 3. ibid,National

Societies, Pledge #56. 4. IFRC, “The Right Aid attheRightTime : ProgressReport on theGuidelinesfortheDomesticFacilitationandRegulationofInter-nationalDisasterReliefandInitialRecoveryAssist-ance” (November 2009), available at: http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/idrl/IDRL-Progress-Report_en.pdf.

6

IntroductionInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

policiesandpractice,andobligationsarisingunderbilateralandmultilateralagreements.Thissynthesisreportsummarizestheresultsofacomprehen-sivedeskstudyoftheEU-levelframeworkpreparedbytheBritishInstituteofInternationalandComparativeLaw,commissionedbytheIFRCandindividualcasestudiespreparedbythenationalRedCrossSocietiesofAustria,Bulgaria,

France,germany,thenetherlandsandtheUnitedKingdom.Thisreportalsodrawsonthefindingsofaregionalworkshopheldon5October2010whichbroughttogether70representatives from16CommunityCivilProtectionMechanismparticipatingstatesand21nationalRedCrossSocietiestoassesspreliminaryrecommendations.

Thisreport:

1 . Identifiesareasoflawthatstatesandassistingorganisationsshouldcon-sider,bothbeforeandduringtheprovisionofcross-borderdisasterrelief.

2 . HighlightspotentialbarrierstotheeffectivedeliveryofinternationalassistanceintheEU;

3 . SuggestspossiblestepsthatEuropeanandnationalauthoritiescouldtakesoastoaddresstheproblemareasidentified.

7


1


Chapter 2: Context of the Study

9


Chapter 2Context of the Study

2.a Past Disaster Experience and Likely Disaster Scenarios

As noted in the recently adopted Communication from the EuropeanCommissionon“aCommunityapproachonthepreventionofnaturalandman-madedisasters,”

[b]etween1990and2007,theEuropeanUnionwitnessedamarkedincreaseinthenumberandseverityofbothnaturalandman-madedisasters,withaparticularlysignificantincreaseintheformer.Thelossofhumanlife,thedestructionofeconomicandsocialinfrastructureandthedegradationofalreadyfragileecosystemsisexpectedtoworsenasclimatechangeincreasesthefrequencyandmagnitudeofextrememeteorologicalevents,suchasheatwaves,stormsandheavyrains.5

AcrosstheEUasawhole,floods,droughtsandstormscomprisethemostfrequentlyoccurringnaturaldisasters.Amongthese,floodingwasthemostcommondisastereventamongmemberstatesaswellasthemostdamaginginfinancialterms.Therehasalsorecentlybeenaparticularlystarkincreaseintheoccurrenceofstorms.Halfofallweather-relateddamagewasattributabletostorms,withwinterstormsbeingthemostcommonandthemostdestructive.TheKyrillstorm,inJanuary2007,isjustoneexample.Thenumberofwildfireshasalsoincreasedsignificantlyoverthepastdecade,particularlyinSouthernEurope.Anestimated18,085peopleinEuropeareaffectedbywildfireseveryyear.ThewildfiresingreeceinAugust2007lastedfor6daysandwerepar-ticularlysevere.

Asnotedabove,theincreasedfrequencyandmagnitudeofextremeweathereventshavesbeenattributedtotheimpactofclimatechange,andtheyareconsideredlikelytocontinuetorise.

Whiletheabove-mentionedhazardsarefairlywidespreadinEurope,othersaremorelocalised.Forexample,withinEuropetheglobalSeismicHazardAssessmentProgramidentifiedonlySoutheastEuropeashavingarelativelyhighearthquakerisk.ElsewhereinEurope,thelikelihoodofageophysicaldis-asterismuchlower,althoughtheoccurrenceofsucheventsremainsextremelydifficulttopredictaccurately.

2

5. Communication(2009)82,23February2009.

10

Context of the StudyInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Context of the Study

Thenationalreportssummarizedherefollowthesesametrends.Ineachoftheexaminedmemberstates,themostcommondisastersareweather-related,specificallyflooding,forestfires,extremewinterweather,windstorms,heatwavesand,insomecases,earthquakes.TheAustriannationalreportindicatedthatAustriahasbeenrepeatedlyaffectedbystormsandthatthelikelihoodofflooding,storms,landslidesandavalanchesishigh.ThesituationissimilarinFranceandgermany.Bulgariahasrepeatedlysufferedfromdroughtsresultinginforestfiresthathavedevelopedquicklyandspreadoverasignificantarea.ThenetherlandsandtheUKhavebeenaffectedbyemergenciestoalesserextentthantheotherstatesevaluated,however,theUKhasrecentlyexperi-encedfloodingandextremewinterweather.

2.b Arrangements for Assistance

Severalofthememberstatesstudiedhavenotyetneededtoseekexternalassistance, as national resources have been sufficient to cope with thedemands.OthershavefoundthatitisnotlogisticallyoreconomicallyfeasibletoseekassistancefromoutsidetheEU.Shouldamemberstatedeterminethatitrequiresinternationalassistance,ithasseveraloptionsatitsdisposal,includingthefollowing:

Informal Arrangements

Somememberstates,inparticularFranceandgermany,makeextensiveuseofinformalmeansofcooperation.Forexample,Francehasenteredintoanumberofinformalcross-bordercooperationagreements,whicharerestrictedgeo-graphicallytotheborderzone.6Theseareseentoworkwellforlocalizedemer-gencies.germanyalsohasinformallocalarrangementsforassistanceinplacebetweengermanmunicipalitiesandtheirdirectneighboursacrosstheborder.7

Bilateral or Multilateral Arrangements

ManyEUmemberstateshaveenteredintobilateralandmultilateralagreementswithneighbouringcountriesspecificallyforcooperationindisasterresponse.WiththeexceptionoftheUK,thenationalreportsindicatedthatassistancesoughtfromotherstateshasgenerallybeenrequestedthroughsucharrange-ments.Existingbilateralagreementsamongtheexaminedstatesincludednotonlystate-to-stateagreementsbutalsolocalizedagreementsbetweenindividualregionswithinthemandthoseofanotherstate,asisthecaseingermany,wheretheLänderarepermittedtoconcludeagreementswithforeigncountrieswiththeconsentofthefederalgovernment.8

Someoftheseagreementsrelatetogeneralcooperation,forexample,theagreementbetweenFranceandPortugalregardingthepreventionandfight

6. France, p. 42. 7. Germany, pp. 7, 26. 8. Ger-many,p. 7.

11


2

againstforestfires,9whereasothersmorespecificallyaddressthetypesofconcernsraisedbytheIDRLguidelines.Forexample,theagreementbetweenBulgariaandgermanyinthefieldoftransportaimstofacilitatevitalciviliancross-bordertransportduringaperiodofcrisis.10Bulgariaisalsopartytosev-eralagreementswithnon-EUstatesthatfacilitateproceduresforobtainingavisafortheescortofhumanitariangoods.11ThenetherlandshasagreementsfordisasterassistancewithBelgium,germanyandLuxembourg.TherearealsoasignificantnumberofagreementsbetweenbordertownsontheDutch-germanandDutch-BelgianbordersandbetweenDutchprovincesandadjacentforeignprovinces.12

TheexistenceofbilateralagreementsrepresentsapositivestepinaddressingtheissuesconsideredintheIDRLguidelines.However,thereispotentialforconfusionandinconsistenciesamongtheprovisionsoftheseagreements,bothintermsofagreementsenteredintowithineachstate(i.e.itmayhavedif-ferentobligationsorarrangementswithdifferentneighboursundereachtreaty)andalsoastovaryingarrangementsacrossstates(i.e.thereisnotauniformapproachtonegotiationofsuchtreatiesbyEUmemberstates).Amorestand-ardisedapproachmaybeofbenefittomemberstates.

EU Civil Protection Mechanism

Member states may request assistance through the EU Civil ProtectionMechanism(CPM),managedfromthenewDirectorate-generalforInternationalCooperation,HumanitarianAidandCrisisResponse.TheCPMcurrentlyincludes31countries(theEU27plusLiechtenstein, Iceland,norwayandCroatia).Itisbasedontwoprimarypiecesoflegislationcoveringdisasterpre-vention,preparednessandresponse13andprovidesforvariousmethodsofcooperationandaction,includingthecreationofa24-hourMonitoringandInformationCentre(MIC),trainingprogrammes,workshops,seminarsandprac-ticalexercises.ThemainfunctionoftheCPMistoactasaframeworkforco-operationwhichthememberstatescanutiliseintimesofdisaster.EUactivityitselfismodest,mainlyduetolimitsonthecompetenceoftheEUanditsinsti-tutions.InanearlystageofthedevelopmentoftheCPM,aCouncilResolution(hereinafter“theCouncilResolutionof8July1991”)wasadoptedthatlaidoutanumberofrulesrelatedtotheregulationofstate-to-stateassistancewithintheEU.14However,theresolutionwasnonbindinganditsprovisionswerenotincorporatedinlaterbindinglegislationontheCPM.

NATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre

MemberstatesmayparticipateinnATO’sframeworkfordisasterresponse,theEuro-AtlanticDisasterResponseCoordinationCentre(EADRCC).TheEADRCCoperatesasacoordinatingbodyandisintendedtocomplementanyongoing

9. France, p. 22. 10. Bulgaria, p. 14. 11. Bul-garia, p. 15. 12. Netherlands, p. 18. 13. CouncilDecision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing aCommunity Civil Protection Mechanism (recast)and Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom

establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instru-ment. 14. Council Resolution on improving themutualaidbetweenmember states in the event ofa natural or technological disaster of 8 July 1991.

12


Unitednationsreliefoperations.ThemainresponsibilitiesoftheEADRCCare:tocoordinatedisasterresponseintheterritoryoftheEuro-AtlanticPartnershipCouncil;toactasaninformation-sharingclearancehouse;andtoliaisecloselywiththeUnOfficefortheCoordinationofHumanitarianAffairs(OCHA),theEUandanyotherorganisationsinvolvedininternationaldisasterresponse.

2.c Overview of Disaster Management within National Legal Systems

Ineachofthememberstatesexamined,authorityisdistributedbetweenvariousentities.Infiveofthesixmemberstates,civilprotectionfallsundertheresponsibilityoftheMinistryoftheInterior.TheexceptionistheUK,wherecivilprotectionistheresponsibilityofadepartmentreportingdirectlytothePrimeMinister.Inadditiontocentralgovernment,federalstates,devolvedadministrations,regionsandmunicipalitieseachhaveavaryingdegreeofresponsibilityfordisasterresponse.Somememberstatesarealsoresponsiblefordirectingorassistingtheresponsetodisastersoccurringintheiroverseasterritories.Thevaryinglevelofgovernancegreatlyaffectsthewayinwhichdis-asterresponseisarranged.Ineachofthememberstatesassessed,thefocusisontheideaofsubsidiarity:disasterisbestmanagedatthelocallevel.Therefore,localauthoritiessuchasmunicipalitiesorprovinceshavetheirowndisasterresponseplansinplacethatcanbesupportedbyhigherauthority,i.e.,central-isedgovernment,ifneeded.

Thisarrangementaffectsthenationallegalframeworksaswell.Thememberstatesemployaframeworkreflectingthefocusonlocalresponse.generally,oneortwomainpiecesoflegislationgoverntheissuenationallyandthenrules,regulationsandplansaredevelopedatthelocalorregionallevel.TheexceptionsareAustriaandgermany,whereseparatedisasterrelieflegis-lationappliesineachfederalstate,and,toacertainextent,theUK,wherecertainresponsibilitieshavebeendevolved.IntheUK,thereisalsothepotentialtoaddresslegalissuesarisinginthecontextofadisasterthroughtheuseofemergencyregulationsundertherelevantcivilprotectionlegis-lation.Legalframeworksareoftensupplementedbypolicyandoperationalguidance.Forexample,thenetherlandshasrecentlygivenahighlevelofattentiontoIDRLissuesinitsnewManualforIncomingForeignAssistance,whichoutlinesindetailtheoperationalproceduresincaseofincomingassistanceinthenetherlands.

2.d Role of the National Societies and Other Voluntary Organisations

National Societies

Pursuanttobothnationalandinternationallaw,nationalRedCrossSocietieshaveauniquestatusas“auxiliariestothepublicauthoritiesinthehumani-tarianfield.”15AttheoriginsoftheInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentMovementinthe19thcentury,this“auxiliarystatus”waslinkedtonationalSocieties’assistancewithemergencymedicalservicesfortheirnationalmili-taries.Overtime,however,thestatushasevolvedtoamoregeneralroleof

13


2

assistingtheauthoritieswithhumanitarianassistanceinsituationsofcrisis,includingnaturalandman-madedisasters.Atthesametime,asrecognizedbynational“RedCrosslaws”andinternationalinstruments,nationalSocietiesareexpectedtoabidebytheFundamentalPrinciplesoftheMovement,includingthePrincipleofIndependence.16

Thenationalreportsindicatethat,inpractice,thenationalSocietiesinvolvedhaveavarietyofrolesinnationaldisasterresponsearrangements.generally,theroleofthenationalSocietyinrespondingtodisastersisspecificallyrecognisedbythestateconcerned.ThenationalSocietyperformsasupportingroletothecentralgovernmentandisoftenamemberofministerialcommitteesrespon-sibleformakingdecisionsandcoordinationduringdisasters.Thereare,how-ever,severalvariations.Forexample,inAustria,eachfederalstaterecognisestheroleofthenationalSocietyindifferentways.17Forexample,theinvolve-mentofthenationalSocietyinthestateofStyriaisgovernedonthebasisofindividualregulationsbythestategovernment,whereasinBurgenlandandUpperAustria,theRedCrossisrecognisedinlawasacivilprotectionorgani-sationbythestategovernments.ThismaybecontrastedwiththesituationinCarinthia,wheretheroleofthenationalSocietyisunregulated.Inothercases,forexample,vienna,thestatelawwillmakereferencetotheinvolvementofvoluntaryrelieforganisations,whichincludesthenationalSociety.

TheBulgarianRedCrossplaysasubstantialroleincivilprotection.Since2007,ithasassumedthefunctionsofthecountry’sforeignaidagencyandisaddi-tionallyresponsibleforthereceipt,storage,distributionandcontrolofhumani-tarianaidgiventoBulgariaasexternalassistance.18AccordingtotheBulgarianRedCrossAct,thenationalSocietyistodevelopthenationalProgrammeforProtectioninCaseofDisastersandannualplansforitsimplementation.

ThegermanRedCrossisalsorecognizedasanassistingpartnerinthedis-asterrelieflegislationofalmostallLänder.19AsinAustria,therearesimilar,thoughdiffering,legalarrangementsforparticipationandcooperationofthenationalSocietyinthedisasterrelieflegislationoftheLänder.InsomeLänder,thenationalSocietyisobligatedtoassistindisasterrelief,butitisusuallythecasethatitwillhavetonotifytheLänderofitswillingnesstoassistinaformalletterofintentthatmustbeconfirmedbeforecooperationbegins.

Inadditiontotheirroleinsupportnationaldisasterresponse,nationalSocietiesalsoformpartoftheInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentMovement.TheyarethereforeentitledtocallonassistancefromothercomponentsoftheMovementinresponseoperations(andarealsocommittedtooffertheirhelpincaseofdisastersinothercountries,wherefeasible).Theseinternationaloperationsareregulatedbyspecificinternationalinstruments(includingthePrinciplesandRulesofRedCrossandRedCrescentDisasterRelief,whichhasbeenendorsedbythestatepartiestothegenevaConventionsatthe

15. SeeResolution2,30th InternationalConferenceoftheRedCrossandRedCrescent(2007). 16. Stat-utes of the International Red Cross and Red

CrescentMovement(asamended2006). 17. Austria,pp. 18-9. 18. Bulgaria,p. 24. 19. Germany,p. 20-2.

14


Context of the Study

InternationalConferenceoftheRedCrossandRedCrescent).PursuanttotheMovement’srules,nationalSocietiesinaffectedstatesareentitledtoseekandacceptoffersofsupportfromtheothercomponentsoftheMovement.Theyalsoplayakeyrole,inconjunctionwiththeIFRC,incoordinatingthatassistance.Thisroleshouldbeborneinmindbyauthoritieswhenapproachingtheissueofinternationalassistance.

Other Voluntary Organisations

ManyothervoluntaryorganisationsmaybeinvolvedinprovidingdisasterreliefbesidesthenationalRedCrossSociety.Civilsocietyorganizations(suchaschurchgroupsandnon-governmentalorganizations(ngOs))mayplayasig-nificantroleintheprovisionanddistributionofassistanceinanemergency.However,thereisnoframeworklegislationattheEUleveldealingwiththeroleofothervoluntaryorganisationsinthecontextofinternationalassistance.Moreover,theroleofforeignvoluntaryorganizationsindisasterresponseisalsolargelyunaddressedintheexistinglawsandpoliciesofthememberstates.

2.f Current Initiatives at the EU Level

TheEuropeanCommissionhasrecentlyestablishedaworkinggrouponHostnationSupport(HnS).20Moreover,thisissuewasconsideredinaSeptember2010seminarhostedbytheBelgianPresidencyoftheCounciloftheEU,aimedatimprovingthecapacityofstatesparticipatingintheCPMtoreceiveandorganizeforeignassistanceintheirterritory.TheCouncil’sworkinggrouponcivilprotection(PROCIv)hasproposedasetofdraftconclusionsonHnSthatinvitethememberstatesto,interalia,identifyanylegalissuesthatmaycon-stituteobstaclestotheobjectiveoffacilitatinginternationalassistancewithaviewtowardmakinganymodificationsthatmaybeappropriateinordertoachievethatobjective.21

TheEuropeanCommissionhasproposed formingaEuropeanvoluntaryHumanitarianAidCorps.Theinitiativeiscurrentlyinitsearlystages,includingresearchintopossibleoptionsforsuchacorpsandapublicconsultation,withalegislativeproposalexpectedin2012.22

20. For more discussion on this, please consultthe Minutes from the IDRL Workshop in Brus-sels on 5 October 2010, available at: http://www.ifrc.org/idrl. 21. Council of the EuropeanUnion, Draft Council conclusions on Host Nation

Support,DS1684/1/10,14October2010(revisedver-sion). 22. Formore informationonEVHAC,pleasesee: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/georgieva/themes/voluntary_humanitarian_en.htm.

15


2


Chapter 3: Regulation of the

Entry and Operation of International Assistance

17


3

Chapter 3Regulation of the Entry and Operation of International Assistance

ThenationalandEUstudiesevaluatedawiderangeofissuesthatmaypreventorhindertheeffectivedeliveryofinternationaldisasterassistance,includingtechnicalrulesgenerallyapplicableoutsidethecontextofdisastersituations.PartvoftheIDRLguidelinesidentifiesthemostcommonamongtheseadmin-istrativeandlegalbarriersandencouragesaffectedstatestotakemeasurestoreduceoreliminatethem.Theseincludelegislationonentryintotheaffectedstate,customslaw,taxation,andtransportrules.

TheEUisbasedontheprincipleoffreemovement,whichshouldfacilitatetheentryofassistancebetweenmemberstates.However,whereassistanceoriginatesfromanon-EUmemberstate,someoftheapplicablerulesandpro-ceduresareunclearandbarrierstodeliveryofassistancemayarise.WhiletheEUframeworkmayprovidefordiscretionaryexemptionswithregardtothetreatmentofthirdcountries,forthemostpart,externalrelationsinthisareaarelefttothenationalauthoritiesofthememberstates.Severalofthememberstateshavealsoenteredintobilateralormultilateralagreementsregardingdisasterassistancewithneighbouringstates(Part2.babove).Manyoftheseagreementsconsidertheissuesdiscussedbelow,andanumberofthemhavebeenagreedwithnon-EUstates.

ThefollowingsectionsconsidersomeofthemainissuesraisedbytheIDRLguidelines,asreflectedintheEUandcountryreports.

3.a Past Disaster Experience and Likely Disaster Scenarios

IDRL Guidelines

PartIvoftheIDRLguidelinesrecommendsthataffectedstatesshouldbepreparedtograntspeciallegalfacilitiestoforeignhumanitarianorganizations,aswellastheirreliefpersonnel,goodsandequipmentwhentheirassistanceisneededtorespondtoadisaster.Thisshouldbebasedoneligibilitycriteriaconsistentwithinternationallyagreedqualitystandards.

PartvSection20oftheIDRLguidelinesprovidesthattheaffectedstatesshouldgrantassistingorganizationsandtheirpersonneltemporarydomesticlegalstatus,allowingthemtoenjoycertainprivaterightswhiletheyareintheaffectedstate.

TheEU’sexistingCPMlegislationdoesnotaddresshowthecross-borderassist-anceofhumanitarianorganizations(suchasnationalRedCrossSocietiesor ngOs) should be facilitated or regulated. It is exclusively focused on

18


Regulation of the Entry and Operation of International Assistance

state-to-stateassistance.Likewise,withtheexceptionofpartialexceptionsrelatedtocustomsandtaxasdescribedbelow,thisissueisgenerallyabsentfrommemberstatelaws.Moreover,fewofthememberstatesexaminedhaveaclearlyidentifiedfocalpointforhandlingissuesthatmightariserelatedtoforeignnon-governmentalassistanceproviders.

Ingeneral,thelawsofthememberstatesexaminedallowfortherecogni-tionofthelegalpersonalityofforeigncompaniesandnon-profitentitiesbasedontheirregistration/incorporationintheirhomecountries.Thiswouldallowthemlegallytoenterintocontracts,openbankaccounts,andtakeotherlegalstepsinthenameoftheirorganization.Ingermany,suchrecognitionwouldbeautomaticfororganizationsbasedinotherEUstates.23However,inAustriaandBulgaria,averificationprocesswouldberequired,eveninthecaseofEUorganizations,whichcouldleadtodelays.24ItisnoteworthythataconventionexistswithintheframeworkoftheCouncilofEuropeonthe“RecognitionoftheLegalPersonalityofInternationalnon-governmentalOrganisations,”whichhas11parties,includingseveralofthestatesexamined.

3.b Form and Content of Requests

IDRL Guidelines

PartIIISection10oftheIDRLguidelinessuggeststhataffectedstatesshoulddecideinatimelymannerwhethertorequestinternationalassistance.Whereastatedoesmakesucharequest,thecontentoftherequestshouldbeasspecificaspossible,andincludeanyrelevantinformationaboutdomesticlawsandregulationsrelevanttotheentryandoperationofdisasterrelief.

Inanydisastersituation,thereisthepotentialthatwell-meaningindivid-uals,organisationsandgovernmentsmaysendaidtoanaffectedstatethatisunsuitableorunnecessary.Forexample,thiswasthecaseduringtheUKfloodingin2007whenhovercraftweresenttotheaffectedareaattheinitiativeofanothermemberstatebeforetheUKCabinetOfficewasabletorespondtotheoffer,causingconfusionastotheirorigin.Thisisonegoodreasonforstatestodevelopproceduresforhandlinginternationaloffersofassistance,eveniftheyconsiderthattheywillbeunlikelytoneedit.

Onewaytoreducetheriskofunwantedassistanceisfortheaffectedstatetodraftanyrequestforinternationalassistanceitmakessoastoclearlyexplainthesituationandspecifytherequiredassistance.Astandardizedformatfor

23. Germany,pp. 34-35. 24. Austria,pp. 45-46,Bul-garia,p.40.

19


3

requestsisemployedwithinthecontextoftheCPM,whichincludesbasicinfor-mationrelatingtothecauseortypeofdisaster,therelevantcontactpersonintherequestingstate,andatableindicatingthetypeofassistanceneeded.Italsocontainsabriefsummaryoftheeventandanyadditionalrelevantinformation,suchasactivitiesalreadyundertakenbytherequestingstate.Theinclusionofthistypeofinformationallowstheaffectedstatetodetailthetypeofassistanceitrequiressothattheassistingstatecanascertainwhatshouldbesentasaid.

Thenationalstudiesdemonstratedthatastandardizedformisnotaddressedinthedomesticlegislationoftheexaminedcountries.TheFrenchreportindicatedthatthisissueisdealtwithinbilateralandmultilateralreciprocalassistanceagreements,whichgenerallyspecifythatrequestsshouldincludeinformationspecifictothedisasteritself,whatreliefisrequired,andwhichtaskswillbeassignedtoforeignassistingteams.25Inthenetherlands,theformatispre-scribedinthenationalHandbookonIncomingAssistance.26TheUKdealswiththisissueonacasebycasebasis,althoughguidanceonthismatterhasrecentlybeenissued.27Incontrast,germanbilateralagreementsgovernthedecisionofwhetherornottorequestassistance,ratherthandealingwiththeformatoftherequest.28

ThisapparentlackofconsistencymaybeduetothefactthatseveralofthestatesstudiedhavenothadtorequestassistanceoutsidetheirownnationalframeworksorbeyondtheEUornATOsystems.

Where they do not already exist, member states should consider developing specific procedures or policies for requesting and responding to offers of assistance from abroad. Such a policy could, for example, specify clearly which public authorities are responsible for determining the need for foreign response, and which are responsible for making requests and responding to offers.

3.c Entry into EU Territory

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection16oftheIDRLguidelinesprovidesthataffectedstatesshouldprovideforexpeditedandfree-of-chargevisaandworkpermitproceduresforreliefandrecoverypersonnel.

TheSchengenAreahasbeenestablishedunderacommonframeworkofcondi-tionsforentryintotheEUatitsexternalborders.Onceanon-EUnationalhasbeengrantedentrybyonememberstate,heorshewillbeallowedaccessinto

25. France,p. 26. 26. Netherlands,p. 33. 27. UnitedKingdom,p. 48. 28. Germany,p. 28.

20



theterritoryoftheotherparticipatingSchengenstates.Bulgariaisnotyetafully-fledgedmemberoftheSchengenarea.29BordercontrolsbetweenBulgariaandtheSchengenareaaretobemaintaineduntiltheEUCouncildecidesthattheconditionsforabolishinginternalbordercontrolshavebeenmet.However,fromthedateoftheiraccessiontotheEUin2007,theSchengenframeworkinrelationtotheareaofpoliceandjudicialcooperationandofexternalbordercontrolapplies.TheUKhaschosentomaintainbordercontrolswithotherEUcountriesandisthereforeoutsidetheSchengenarea.

CommonarrangementsforvisasintotheSchengenAreahavebeendevelopedatEUlevelandaremandatoryforthosememberstatesthatparticipateintheSchengenarrangements.30Thesearrangementsincludeadiscretionaryexemp-tionfromthevisarequirementforhelpersintheeventofadisaster.Inotherwords,memberstatesareallowedtowaivevisasregulationsinthesecircum-stances,butarenotrequiredtodoso.

However,notallofthememberstatesstudiedhavechosentoimplementthediscretionaryexemption.Severalofthenationalreportsindicatedthatarrangementsforentryhavebeenestablishedonlythroughthebilateralagree-mentsthatprovideforformalitiesthatvaryaccordingtothepartnercountry.Forexample,germanyhasenteredintobilateralarrangementsthatexemptassistingpersonnelfromtheobligationtohaveapassport.31

Whereneitherthediscretionaryexemptionnorbilateralormultilateralarrange-mentsapply,itappearsthatspecialproceduresinnationallawareemployedonanadhocbasis.Forexample,reliefworkersmaybeadmittedwithoutavisaatthediscretionofthenetherlandsImmigrationDepartmentandMilitaryPolice,butthisisnotguaranteed.32IntheUK,thesituationhasnotformallybeenconsidered,anditislikelythatitwouldbedealtwithonacasebycasebasis.33

WhiletheEUprovidesamechanismforfacilitatingentryforreliefpersonnelcomingfromoutsidetheEU,itisclearthatpracticeinthememberstatesisbynomeansuniformorcertain.Adoptingcriteriathatvaryaccordingtowheretherelieforiginatescanposeadministrativebarriersthatmayinterferewiththedeliveryofassistance.Ofpotentialgreatersignificanceisthesituationwherethesecircumstancesarenotconsideredbynationalauthoritiestoanyextentoratall.

Member states should apply the discretionary exemptions relating to visas for non-EU disaster relief providers in Council Regulation 539/2001/EC. The EU and its institutions should support member states in applying such discretionary exemptions.

29. This is also currently the case for Cyprus andRomania. 30. Council Regulation 539/2001/EClisting the third countrieswhosenationalsmustbein possession of visas when crossing the externalborders and those whose nationals are exempt

from that requirement. This Regulation replacesRegulation 574/1999/EC which covers similarsubject matter. 31. Germany, p. 36. 32. Neth-erlands, p. 36. 33. United Kingdom, p. 52.

21


3

3.d Recognition of Professional Qualifications

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection16oftheIDRLguidelinessuggeststhataffectedstatesshouldestablishproceduresforthetemporaryrecognitionofprofessionalqualificationsofforeignmedicalpersonnel,architectsandengineersfromapprovedhumanitarianorganisationsandforeignstates.

Personnelsenttoassistmemberstatesintheaftermathofadisastermaypos-sessspecificskillsandqualificationsthatareregulatedintheaffectedstate.Regulatedprofessionsincludedoctors,nurses,paramedicsandengineers.Forprofessionalswithforeignqualifications,permissiontopracticeisdependentonaprocessofrecognition.

ForqualificationsobtainedwithintheEU,existingEUlaw34callsforaso-called“automatic”systemofrecognitionwhenservicesareprovidedonatemporarybasis.However,statesarestillallowedtotakeuptoonemonthforprocessingtherequest.EUlawallowsmemberstatestorecognizedegreesfromnon-EUstatesbutimposesnomaximumtimeforprocessingrequests.

Thememberstates’implementationofthisEUlegislationisinconsistent,despiteitsmandatorynature.Itseemsthatallofthememberstatesstudiedhaveimple-mentedthemainprovisionsonrecognition,butnotallofthemhaveincludedtheprocedureforthetemporaryprovisionofservices.Asanexample,theAustrianstudyindicatedthattheprocedurefortherecognitionofparamedics’qualifica-tionsnormallytakesuptofourmonthsonceallofthenecessarydocumentshavebeenprovidedbytheapplicantandtherequisitefeeshavebeenpaid.

SomememberstatesprovideforrecognitionthroughbilateralagreementsorthroughspecificnationalproceduresoutsidethecontextofEUlegislation.Forexample,inAustria,theremustbeaspecificlegalbasisforexemptingprofes-sionalsfromthenormalrequirements.35Ingermany,exemptionsaregrantedasthesituationdemands.36

TheprocedureforrecognitionofqualificationsobtainedoutsidetheEUisevenlessclear.TheEUlegislationdiscussedabovebrieflynotesthatmemberstatesarenotprohibitedfromrecognizingqualificationsobtainedoutsidetheEU.However,thisisamatterforeachmemberstatetodecideunderitsnationalrules.Thereportsindicatedthatinmostmemberstates,unlessaspecificbilat-eralormultilateralagreementapplies,theproceduresassociatedwithrecogni-tionmightsignificantlyimpedetheabilityofaqualifiedindividualtoenteramemberstateandrenderhisorherservicesduringadisaster.

34. Directive2005/36/EContherecognitionofprofes-sional qualifications. 35. Austria, p. 36. 36. Ger-many,p. 37.

22



Therewouldbeanunacceptablerisktopublichealthifmemberstatesexercisednocontrolsoverin-comingmedicalpersonnel,eveninemergencysettings.However,itshouldbepossibletoexercisesuchcontrolaccordingtoamuchmoreacceleratedtime-scale.

Member states should consider whether legislation or policy should be developed regarding the expedited recognition of qualifications for professionals from the EU and from third states in emergency situations.

They should consider also whether expedited procedures for the registration related to the recognition of foreign professional qualifications in emergencies – in particular for doctors, nurses and paramedics of both EU and non-EU member states – should be included in existing EU legislation on this topic.

3.e Customs and Taxation

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection17oftheIDRLguidelinesprovidesfortheexemptionfromcustomsduties,taxes,tariffs,importrestrictionsandfeesongoodsandequipmentimportedbyapprovedhumanitarianorganizationsandforeignstates.

PartvSection18oftheIDRLguidelinesdiscussesthereductionofbarrierstotheimportationofspecialgoodsandequipment.

BoththeEUcustomsandvATregulationsarebasedontherequirementthatanyreliefthatisimportedintoEUterritorymustbesentbystateorganisa-tionsorothercharitableorganisationsthatareapprovedbythecompetentauthoritiesinthereceivingmemberstate.Thisdemonstratestheimportanceofensuringnotonlythattheaiditselfbeofgoodquality,butalsothattheimportingorganisationsarereputable.Approvalislinkedtotheorganisationinquestioncomplyingwithrelevantaccountingstandardsandoffering‘guar-antees’astotheirsuitability.37Thisisonemethodofminimisingtheriskofmisappropriationofaid,andinensuringthatinternationalassistanceisappro-priateandofferedbyareputablesource.

37. See,Directive83/181/ECdeterminingthescopeofArticle14(1)(d)ofDirective77/388/EECasregardsex-emptionfromvalueaddedtaxonthefinalimportation

ofcertaingoods,andRegulation918/83/EECsettingupaCommunitysystemofreliefsfromcustomsduty.

23


3

i. Customs

EUcustomsruleshavebeenmoreinclusiveofprovisionsrelatingtodisasterassistancethananyotherpolicyarea.38Mandatorylegislationregardingboththetemporaryadmissionprocedureandnormaladmissionprocedureincludesexemptionsfordisastermaterialsundervaryingconditions.Insomecircum-stances,thisincludesspecialequipmentsuchasmedical,surgicalandlabora-toryequipment.Forexample,goodsthatareintendedfordistributionfreeofchargetovictimsofadisasterinthememberstatesaretobeadmittedfreeofimportduties.Theseexemptionsaremandatoryandhavebeengiveneffectinnationallawbythecountriesstudied.

Itshouldbenoted,however,thatinordertoapplyaspecificexemptionstatustogoodsbroughtintotheEU,approvalfromtheEuropeanCommissionisrequiredpriortoentry.AlthoughsuchgoodsmaybegrantedentrypendingapprovalbytheCommission,theCommissionprefersthatmemberstatesobtainapprovalfirst.Thisprocesshasbeenknowntotakeuptosixmonths.Moreover,existingcustomsdutyexemptionsdonotapplytoanymaterialsimportedforrebuildingafteradisaster.

InadditiontoEUcustomsrules,somememberstatesprovideforexemptionsinbilateralormultilateralagreements.Forexample,thegermanreportnotedthatsomebilateralagreementswaivetherequirementofimportdocumentsandentryorexportfeesfordisastermaterials.39Otherprovisionsmayapplyundernationallaw,suchasthatinthenetherlands,whichprovidesthatreliefgoodsandmaterialsmaybetransportedimmediatelytotherelevantcoord-inationcentre,priortodealingwithanyapplicableformalities.40

ii. Value-Added and Other Related Taxes

ThesystemforCommunity-harmonisedvalue-addedtax(vAT)issimilartothecustomsregime,andisalsomandatoryforthememberstates.41goodsimportedforthebenefitofdisastervictimsareexemptfromimportvATiftheyareintendedfordistributionfreeofcharge.ThereisnoequivalentlybroadexemptionfromvATinEUlawforin-countrypurchasesofgoodsorservicesbydisasterresponders.However,certaintransactions,suchashospitalandmedicalcare,thesupplyofhumanorgans,bloodandmilkandthesupplyoftransportservicesforsickorinjuredpeople,areexempted.Althoughitisnotspecified,itseemslikelythattheseexemptionswouldapplyinthecontextofadisaster.Theserulesapplyinallofthememberstatesexamined.

InadditiontoenactingEUrules,somememberstatesapplyadditionalexemp-tions.Forexample,AustriannationallawprovidesforreciprocityintermsofvATreliefondeliveriesofreliefitemsto22foreigncountries,17ofwhicharenon-EUmemberstates.42Thedeliveriesmaybemadenotonlytothestate,but

38. Commission Regulation 2454/93/EEC layingdown provisions for the implementation of CouncilRegulation(EEC)2913/92establishingtheCommu-nityCustomsCode;CouncilRegulation918/83/EECsettingupaCommunitysystemofreliefsfromcus-tomsduty. 39. Germany,p. 38. 40. Netherlands,

p. 38. 41. Council Directive 2006/112/EC on thecommonsystemofvalueaddedtax;CouncilDirective83/181/ECdeterminingthescopeofArticle14(1)(d)ofDirective77/388/EECasregardsexemptionfromvalueadded taxon thefinal importationof certaingoods. 42. Austria,p. 51.

24



toAustriancharitableorganisations.Bulgariannationallawappliesanexemp-tionforthesupplyofgoodsandserviceswithintheframeworkofhumanitarianactivitycarriedoutbytheBulgarianRedCrossandothernon-profitlegalen-titiespursuingpublichealthbenefitactivities.However,suchorganisationsmustberegisteredinBulgariaandthereforeforeignnon-profitorganisationscannotbenefitfromthisexemption.43Ingermany,althoughanorganisationmustberecognisedasbeingnon-profit,germanlawdoesnotdifferentiatebetweengermanandforeignorganizations.Moreover,aforeignorganisationmayapplyinadvanceforrecognitionasanon-profitorganisationinordertobenefitfromtaxrelief.44IntheUK,certainorganisationsandgroupsareentitledtovATexemptionsongoodsiftheyfallunderaspecifiedcategoryinthelegis-lation,suchasacharityregisteredbyUKlaworanorganisationconcernedwiththereliefofdistressgenerally,suchastheBritishRedCrossortheSalvationArmy.45Inthesecircumstances,reliefwillonlybegrantedforgoodsthathavebeendonated.

InadditiontotaxationappliedongoodsthatareimportedintotheEU,taxesmayalsoapplytoin-countrypurchases.TheIDRLguidelinesconsidertheneedtoprovideexemptionsfromin-countrytaxationforassistingstatesandhuman-itarianorganisations.Internaltaxationisamatterforthenationalauthorities,ratherthantheEU.Thegermanreportindicatesthatrecognisednon-profitor-ganisationsareexemptfromcorporateandtradetax,andareprivilegedwithregardtovAT.46Thispresumablyincludestaxationonin-countrypurchases.TheDutchreport,however,notesthatvATandtaxesareowedonconsumergoodsbyinternationalreliefactors/reliefworkers.47

Member states should consider amending existing EU-level legislation to provide for:

■■ Removal of the requirement in Regulation 918/83/EEC for prior Commission approval for any VAT exemption provided by a Member state for disaster relief shipments;

■■ Removal of the carve-out from customs duties exemptions under Regulation 918/83/EEC related to goods and equipment imported for rebuilding after a disaster;

■■ Extension of the VAT exemptions for certain transactions in Council Directive 2006/112/EC to include in-country purchases of goods and services by international disaster relief providers when necessary for disaster relief operations.

43. Bulgaria,p. 46. 44. Germany,p. 38. 45. UnitedKingdom,p. 55. 46. Germany,p. 39.Ifcertainaddi-

tionalcriteriaisfulfilled,norealestatetaxhastobepaid. 47. Netherlands,p. 43.

25


3

3.f Food and Medicines

Inadditiontocustomsrulesrelatingtoimport,itshouldbenotedthattheEUregulatesthequalityandsafetyoffoodandmedicinethatisproducedandimportedintotheEU.Asisthecaseregardingregulatedprofessionals,itisimportanttoensurethataidintheformoffoodandmedicineisofaqualityacceptabletotheaffectedstate.Beforeitcanbeimportedintothememberstates,itmustsatisfyseveralgeneralandspecificpiecesoflegislationattheEUlevel.

Food

BeforefoodcanbeimportedintotheEUfordistribution,itmustsatisfyseveralgeneralandspecificpiecesoflegislationregardingfoodhygiene,planthealth,animalhealthandanimalwelfare.48RelieforganisationspurchasingfoodanddistributingitasaidfreeofchargearethuslikelytoberesponsibleforensuringthatanyfoodtheypurchaseanddistributesatisfiestherequirementsofEUfoodlaw.ThereisavastbodyofEUfoodlawaimedmainlyattheproductionanddistributionoffoodoutsidethecontextofanemergency.Thislegislationdoesnotincludeanyexceptionsthatwouldallowforflexibilityregardingstandardsduringacrisissituation.Thislegislationismandatoryandmustbeimple-mentedbythememberstates.

Medicine

EUregulationofpharmaceuticalsisextensive.49Itismainlyrestrictedtogoodmanufacturingpracticeandproceduresfortheauthorisationofcertainmedicalproductsforhumanandveterinaryuse,withtheultimateaimofsafemar-ketingoftheproduct.However,relieforganisationswillbeexpectedtoensurethatanymedicinestheypurchaseanddistributesatisfytherequirementsofEUlaw.Asisthecasewithfoodlaw,therearenoexceptionsapplicableinthecontextofadisasterthatwouldallowforarelaxationofstandardstofacilitateentry.Thislegislationismandatoryandmustbeimplementedbythememberstates.

Narcotics

Inadditiontopharmaceuticalmedicinesdiscussedabove,itmaybethecasethatrelieforganisationsmaywishtoimportcontrolledsubstancesformedicalpurposes,suchasmethadone,morphine,opium,codeineandtranquilisers.Theywouldtherebyruntheriskofbeingconstruedasdrugtraffickersifthey

48. ThemainfoodlegislationisRegulation178/2002/EC layingdown thegeneralprinciplesand require-ments of food law, establishing the European FoodSafety Authority and laying down procedures inmatters of food safety; however, several otherpiecesoflegislationmayalsoapply.See,EUReport,pp. 29-32. 49. EUlegislationonmedicinalproductsranges from general to very specific requirements.There are two main texts relating to products for

humanuse:(1)Directive2001/83/EContheCommu-nitycoderelatingtomedicinalproductsforhumanuse(asamendedbyDirective2004/24/ECandDirective2004/27/EC)andDirective2003/94/EClayingdowntheprinciplesandguidelinesofgoodmanufacturingpractice inrespectofmedicinalproducts forhumanuseandinvestigationalmedicinalproductsforhumanuse.Forotherapplicablelegislation,pleaseseetheEUReport,pp. 32-5.

26



arenotawareofthetypesandamountsofcontrolledsubstancesthatcanbebroughtintothememberstates.TheEUhaslimitedcompetencetoactwithinthedrugfieldanddoesnothaveitsownsystemfortheclassificationofnarcotics.Rather,itusesthesystemadoptedintheUnSingleConventiononnarcoticDrugs(1961)andtheUnConventiononPsychotropicSubstances(1971).TheUnSingleConventiononnarcoticDrugscontainsanexceptionformedicalpurposesinArticle4tothegeneralobligationnottoexport,importordistributeillicitdrugs.WhiletheEUisnotitselfapartytotherelevantinter-nationalagreementsoncontrolledsubstances,all27memberstatesareparties.ThegermanreporthasindicatedthatanyimportorexportofnarcoticsmustbespeciallypermittedbytheFederalInstituteforMedicinalProductsunlessgermanorforeignmedicsaretransportingdrugsinthescopeofcross-borderassistanceservices.Thisappliestotransportofmedicinalproductsinvehiclesaswell.50

Member states should consider whether to amend certain existing EU legislation to create optional exceptions in EU regulation concerning standards for food and medi-cation, so as to allow member states sufficient flexibility in emergency situations to apply different procedures (e.g. for prior approvals and or labelling) to emergency food and medical assistance from trusted providers, provided that this can be done in a manner consistent with public safety.

3.g Rescue Animals

IDRL Guidelines

Section18oftheIDRLguidelinesdiscussestheexemptionofspecialgoodsandequipmentfromlegalandadministrativebarrierstoexportation,transitimportationandre-exportationorprovisionsprovidingforthereductionofsuchbarriers.Whilenotsingledout,rescueanimalsmaybeconsideredwithinthescopeofthisprovision.

Foreignrescueanimalsaresubjectedtovariousdocumentaryrequirementsandveterinarytests,dependingonwhetherornottheanimaloriginatesfromanotherEUmemberstate.EUlegislationprovidesthatthenon-commercialfreemovementofpetanimalsbetweenmemberstatescanbeachievediftheanimalisinpossessionofapassportthatcertifiesthatithasreceivedtherequisitevaccinations.51AnimalsfromoutsidetheEUmustsatisfyadditionalcriteriadependingontheircountryoforigin.Typically,theyarerequiredtohaveanofficialveterinariancertificateissuedbytherelevantauthorityintheirhomestate.TheEUlegislationdoesnotincludeanyexceptionorsimplifiedformoftheproceduresapplicabletothirdcountryanimalsthatwouldexpediteassist-anceincaseofdisaster.

50. Germany, p. 44. 51. Regulation 998/2003/EC on the animal health requirements appli-

cable to the non-commercial movement of pet ani-mals. 52. Netherlands,p. 39.

27


3

ThenationalreportsindicatedthattheEUrulesaregiveneffectinnationallaw.However,somereportsnotedthatotherrulesmayapplytorescueanimals.Forexample,thenetherlandsstudystatedthatthedecisionwhethertoimportarescuedoginanemergencywillbemadeonanadhocbasisbytheFoodandConsumerProductSafetyAuthority.52TheFrenchreportindicatedthatitisatypicalforFrenchauthoritiestorequestrescueanimalsfromoutsidethestateduetoitsstrictmeasuresforqualitycontrol.53TheUnitedKingdomparticipatesinatransitionalregimethatallowstheUKtoretainextraprecautionsfordogsandcatsfromcertaincountriesandinrelationtospecifieddiseases.54

Member states should consider whether amendment to existing EU-level legislation or policy is necessary to allow for expedited procedures for the entry of non-EU rescue animals in a disaster context.

3.h Transporting Relief

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection19presentsseveralrecommendationsrelatingtotransport,includingspeedypassageofland,marineandairvehiclesoperatedbyapprovedhumanitarianorganisationsandforeignstates.

PartvSection16(c)oftheIDRLguidelinesrecommendsexpeditedproceduresfortherecognitionofdrivinglicensesofforeignreliefworkersfromapprovedhumanitarianorganisationsandforeignstates.

Itisimportantthatthevehiclesbywhichassistanceandpersonnelaretrans-portedbepermittedtoreachquicklyandefficientlytheirintendeddestina-tionduringandintheimmediateaftermathofadisaster.Rulesrelatingtothelicensingofdriversortheregistrationofvehiclesmaypreventassistancefromreachingitstargetdestinationinsufficienttimetohaveapositiveimpact.Itisthereforeessentialthatvehiclesbegrantedspeedytransittotheaffectedareasordistributionhubs.

WithintheEUframework,transportisanareaofsharedcompetence.ThereareseveralrulesatEUlevelgoverningtransportbyroadandair.Rulesalsoexistinrelationtotransportbyrail,seaandinlandwaterways,detailsofwhichmaybefoundinthenationalandEUreports.EUtransportpolicyisaimedattheeliminationofbordersbetweenmemberstatesandthefreemovementofgoodsandpeople.Therefore,vehiclescarryinggoodsandcomingfromothermemberstatescanfreelyenterandtravelinothermemberstates,usuallyprovidingthattheyhaveaCommunityauthorisationandtheappropriatelicense.Onceanauthorisationisgranted,itisvalidintheEUforfiveyears.nosuchbenefit

53. France,p. 30. 54. UnitedKingdom,p. 65.

28



isenjoyedbythirdcountrycarriers.Lawapplicableinthosecircumstancesandanyspecialproceduresrelatedtothetransportofrelieffromnon-EUmemberstatesaredevelopedbytheindividualmemberstates,typicallythroughbilat-eralormultilateralagreements.

Road Transport

TheEUlegislationconcerningtheinternationalcarriageofgoodsbyroadincludesamandatoryexemptiontotheauthorisationrequirementforcarriageofmedicinalproducts,appliances,equipmentandotherarticlesrequiredformedicalcareinemergencyrelief,inparticularfornaturaldisasters.55However,asstatedabove,thislegislationisonlyapplicabletojourneyscarriedoutwithintheterritoryoftheEU.

Ingermany,thegermanFederationisentitledtorequestthattherelevantdepartment takeanymeasuresnecessary to transport reliefgoods.TheFederationdetermineswhoistobenefitfromthemeasures,whetheritisagermanorganisationoraforeignassistingorganisation.56IntheUK,legislationregardingthetemporaryuseofvehiclesprovidesforanexemptionfromthelicensingrequirementforreliefvehicles,aswellvehiclescarryinggoodsformedicalorsurgicalcareinemergencyrelief,andinparticularfornaturaldis-asters.57Wherethetransportedgoodsarepharmaceuticalsornarcotics,specialconditionsapply.58

Thelawinseveralofthememberstatesstudiedexemptsemergencyvehi-clesfromtollsorotherlocalroadrules.Austria,forexample,exemptsemer-gencyvehiclesandvehiclesused inpeacekeepingunder the frameworkofinternationallawfromtheobligationtopaytolls.59Austriaalsodoesnotapplynormalrulesregardingtraveltimeforheavygoodsvehiclestojourneysmadesolelyforthepurposesofreliefindisastersituations.60TheUKsimilarlyexemptsemergencyvehiclesfromtollsandtheLondoncongestioncharge.61

Air

Asidefromthelegislationconcerningoperatorslicensingdiscussedbelow,thereisnospecificEUregulationofflightsapplicableinthecontextofadisaster.Thereisconsequentlynosystemforprioritizingapproveddisasteraidflightsintermsofflightpathsandlandingrights.Amongthestatesexaminedforthisstudy,onlytheAustrianreportindicatedthatithasagreementsinplacethatprovideforflightinandoutofAustrianterritorywithouttheneedforpermis-sion,aswellaslandinganddeparture,inadisastercontext.62

55. Regulation881/92/EEConaccesstothemarketin the carriage of goods by road within the Com-munitytoorfromtheterritoryofamemberstateorpassingacrosstheterritoryofoneormorememberstates. 56. Germany, p. 42. 57. United Kingdom,p. 64. 58. See, e.g., Austria, p. 48 and Ger-many, p. 44. 59. Austria, pp. 48-9. 60. Austria,

p. 43. 61. United Kingdom, p. 61. 62. Austria,p. 48.TheAustrianreportalsoindicatedthat“human-itarianflights”maybeexemptedfromtheobligationtopaysafetyfees.Inaddition,so-called“emergencyflights” can be dispatched preferentially by f lightsafetyauthorities.

29


3

The member states studied are all state parties to the Convention onInternationalCivilAviation(1947),alsoknownastheChicagoConvention.TheConventionprovidesinArticle5thatallcivilaircraftnotengagedinscheduledinternationalairtravelhavetheright,subjecttotheobservanceofthetermsoftheConvention,tomakeflightsintoorintransitnon-stopacrossastateparty’sterritoryandtomakestopsfornon-trafficpurposeswithouttheneces-sityofobtainingpriorpermission,andsubjecttotherightofthestateflownovertorequirelanding.Suchaircraftalsohavetheprivilegetotakeonordis-embarkpassengersorcargo,subjecttoanyregulationsorconditionsimposedbytheterritorialstate.Annex9oftheConventionprovidesStandardsandRecommendedPracticesrelatingtothefacilitationofformalitiesforclearanceofaircraftandcommercialtrafficthroughcustoms,immigration,publichealthandagricultureauthoritiesinthecontextofreliefoperations.

Operators’ Licensing

AttheEUlevel,thereisalsoaregimefortherecognitionofoperators’licensesforroad,airandrailvehiclesthathavebeenissuedinothermemberstates.Onceissued,alicensewillbevalidacrosstheEU.Therearenotanyspecialpro-ceduresforrecognitioninanemergencysituation.Thissystemdoesnotapplytonon-EUoperatorswhowillhavetodealwiththeindividualmemberstates,ratherthantheEU.Thereisalsoasystemfortherecognitionofdiplomas,certificatesorotherevidenceofformalqualificationinrelationtohaulagebyroadandbyinlandwaterway.63ThislegislationonlyappliestoqualificationsobtainedintheEUandincludessimilarprocedurestothatdiscussedaboveinPart3.daboveinrelationtoregulatedprofessions.Thislegislationappliesdir-ectlyinallmemberstates.

Member states should ensure that they have fully implemented existing manda-tory EU legislation regarding the carriage by road of certain disaster relief items in order to give effect to provisions that might contribute to the effective delivery of international assistance.

In particular, member states should consider whether there is a need to develop specific instruments or policies regarding simplified procedures for the entry of dis-aster relief-bearing vehicles from non-EU member states.

Member states should also assess whether specific rules are required in their national laws related to permissions for overflight and landing of relief flights and exemptions for such flights from applicable taxes and charges.

63. Directive96/26/EConthemutualrecognitionofdiplomas, certificates and other evidence of formalqualificationsofroadhaulageandroadpassengerop-erators;CouncilDirective87/540/EEConaccesstothe

occupationofcarrierofgoodsbywaterwayinnationalandinternationaltransportandonthemutualrecog-nitionofdiplomas,certificatesandotherevidenceofformalqualificationsforthisoccupation.

30



3.i Extended Hours

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection23oftheIDRLguidelinesprovidesthataffectedstatesshouldensurethatstate-operatedofficesandservicesessentialtothetimelydeliveryofinternationaldisasterreliefoperateoutsidenormalbusinesshoursintheeventofadisaster.

EUlegislationontheworkingweektimeprovidesfordiscretionaryoptionsformemberstatesregardingderogationsfromthemaximumworkingweekof48 hoursformanagingexecutivesorindividualswithdecision-makingpowers.64Asthelegislationismainlyconcernedwithgeneralhealthandsafetyissues,nothinginthelegislationspecifiesexemptionsintimeofdisasterorrequiresgovernmentofficestoremainopeninsuchcircumstances.

nevertheless,nearlyallofthememberstatesevaluatedhavelaworpolicythatwillallowgovernmentandotherofficestoremainopenbeyondnormaloper-atinghoursintheeventofadisaster.Forexample,inFrance,asystemcalledAstreintesgoesintoeffectwhichessentiallymeansthatadministrationper-sonnelareoncallduringadisaster.65Bulgarianlegislationallowsforextendedworkinghoursduringdisasters,whichappliestostateinstitutionsandotherorganisations,inordertofacilitatethereceiptandprocessingofinternationalrelief.66

3.j Telecommunications

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection18statesthataffectedstatesshouldwaiveorexpeditelicensingproceduresregardingtheuseoftelecommunicationsandinformationtechnologyequipment.

TheEUprovidesaregulatoryframeworkforelectroniccommunicationsmainlyaimedatstrengtheningcompetitionthroughfacilitatedmarketaccess.Itdoesnot,however,regulatethespecificissueofwaiverorexpeditionoflicensingproceduresforuseoftelecommunicationsandinformationtechnologyequip-mentinthecontextofadisaster.Thememberstatesthereforehavethecom-petencetoregulatethesemattersatthenationallevel.InadditiontotheEU

64. Directive2003/88/ECconcerningcertainaspectsoftheorganisationofworkingtime. 65. Thisinfor-mationwasprovidedtotheauthorsofthereportasa

followuptotheFrenchnationalstudy. 66. Bulgaria,p. 53.

31


3

regime,theseissuesareregulatedbyinternationalagreements,suchastheTampereConventionontheProvisionofTelecommunicationResourcesforDisasterMitigationandReliefOperations.TheTampereConventionestablishesaframeworkforfacilitatingtheuseoftelecommunicationsresourcesintheeventofadisasterbyrequiringstatespartytoreduceorremoveanybarrierstobringingtelecommunicationsequipmentacrossbordersduringandafteradisaster.Itrequiresstates,non-stateentitiesandintergovernmentalorgan-isationstoco-operatetofacilitatetheuseoftelecommunicationresourcesfordisastermitigationandrelief.OnlythreeofthememberstatesevaluatedhaveratifiedtheConvention.

The member states should consider whether and how to establish clearer proto-cols for the express granting of usage rights for frequencies, bandwidth etc., for approved foreign disaster responders. Member states may wish to consider whether to become a party to the Tampere Convention or to give effect to some or all of its provisions in national law.


Chapter 4: Quality Control and

Accountability

33


4

Chapter 4Quality Control and Accountability

InadditiontotheconsiderationsdiscussedinChapter3ofthisReport,theIDRLguidelineshighlightotherimportantissuesthatcanimpactupontheeffect-ivenessoftheprovisionofinternationalrelief.Inparticular,theyrefertotheneedtoenforcequalitystandardsinordertoensurethatinternationalreliefisinfacthelpingratherthancreatingmoreproblems.Itisessentialthatanyinternationalassistanceofferedtoamemberstateaffectedbyanemergencyisofsuitablequality,appropriatetotheneedsofthesituation,andfromareli-ablesource.Thereceivingstatemustbeconfidentthattheassistancecanbeusedwithoutgeneratingfurtherproblemsorhinderingassistanceefforts.Suchconcernsmaybepartlyaddressedbyrequiringthattheaidbeprovidedbyanotherstateorbyapprovedhumanitarianorganisations.Itisalsoaddressedbyrequiringqualitystandardstobesatisfied.Forexample,theprovisionsrelatingtocustomsandvATnotedaboveinPart3.erequirethatgoodsintendedforreliefmustbesentbyapprovedstateorcharitableorganisations.

ManyofthetypesofregulationoftechnicalissuesdiscussedinChapter3areintendedtoprecludeunsuitablegoodsandunqualifiedpersonnelenteringadisasterarea.Thuswhenconsideringanyamendmentorexemptiontosuchprovisions,itisalsoessentialtoconsideranypotentialimpactonthequalityofthegoodsreceivedandthesuitabilityofthepersonnelrenderingassist-ance.ExemptionsdesignedtofacilitatetheefficientdeliveryofaidshouldnotbeintroducediftodosomayunderminegenuineconcernsregardingsecurityandhealthandsafetywithintheEUanditsmemberstates.

4.a Quality Control

IDRL Guidelines

PartI,Section4oftheIDRLguidelinessetsoutminimumstandardsofcoordination,qualityandaccountabilitythatinternationalassistanceprovidersshouldbeexpectedtomeet.

TheIDRLguidelinesareconcernednotonlywithfacilitatingentryofaidandreliefpersonneltotheaffectedstate,butalsowithensuringthattheassistancemeetsacertainstandardofquality.Forexample,therestrictionsdiscussedinChapter3regardingtherecognitionofprofessionalqualificationsandtheentryoffoodandmedicinesintotheEUareconcernedwithmaintainingquality.Suchconcernsshouldcertainlynotbeabandonedaltogetherintheinterestofspeedyaccessinadisastercontext.

Quality issues indisasterreliefhavebeenaddressed innumerous inter-nationaldocuments,suchastheInternationalSearchandRescueAdvisory

34


Quality Control and Accountability

group(InSARAg)guidelines,theCodeofConductfortheInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentMovementandngOsinDisasterReliefandtheSphereCharterandMinimumStandardsinDisasterResponse,whichprovideformin-imumstandardsinavarietyofareasapplicabletohumanitarianaction,suchasinternalgovernance,foodsecurityorhealthservices.67Thesedocuments,andtheIDRLguidelines,aimtoensurethataminimumstandardofqualityismetbyanyassistanceofferedtoanaffectedstateduringacrisis.Thesestandardsare,however,non-bindinginnatureandareappliedbyparticipatingstatesandorganisationsonavoluntarybasis.

TheEUdoesnotregulatethequalityofassistanceandaidprovisionsspecificallyinthecontextofemergencies.CPMmodulesareessentiallyready-madepacksofpersonnelandsupplies,whicharecomposedbasedonanagreedqualitystandard,butmostlyconcerncertaintypesofmachineryorequipmentusedfordisasterresponse.EU-levelregulationrelatingtoqualitystandardsisfoundonlyinthecontextoflegislationthatisgenerallyapplicable,suchasthatconsideredaboveregardingfoodproductionanddistributionstandards.Moreover,thereisnoexceptiontotheserulesthatwouldallowforsomeflexibilityinemergencysituations.Becausethisisanissuelikelytobewithintheresponsibilityoftheaffectedmemberstate,theEUanditsinstitutionsmaywishtoconsiderafuturecommunicationhighlightingtherelevanceofthesestandardsatthedomesticlevelsoastoencouragetheiruseinnationalframeworks.TheEUhasrecentlyamendedtherulesimplementingtheCPMtoincludefournewtypesofcivilprotectionmodules68andisconductinganongoingreviewofthemodulestoimproveinteroperabilityofthemodules.

OutsidethecontextofthenationalSocieties,whichprovidetheirownqualityassurancesfordisasterrelief,69thisissuehasreceivedmixedattentionatthestatelevel.TheAustrianreportnotesthatwhilethereisnospecificnationallegislationonthesubjectofqualitycontrolsfordisasterassistance,itisnever-thelessimportanttoconsidertheissueinthelegislativeframeworkfordis-asterresponse.70Ingermany,qualitystandardsaresometimesincludedinbilateralagreements,specificallyinrelationtotheprovisionofadequatelytrainedpersonnel.71TheQualityPromotionEmergencyManagementActinthenetherlandsprescribesdisastermanagementplanningbygovernmentagenciesandensuresthequalityofemergencyresponsethroughsupervision,reportingandevaluation.72

Increased flexibility in accepting aid should not impact upon the need for aid to meet appropriate minimum quality standards. Member states should consider the issue of the quality and suitability of international assistance and the potential

67. Forexample,seetheSphereHandbook,availableat:http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/srilanka_hpsl/Files/Reference/Reference%20Papers/LKG0017_Sphere%20Handbook.pdf(currentlyunderrevision);PVOStandards,availableat:http://www.gdrc.org/ngo/pvo-stand.html;NGOFoodAidCode,availableat:http://www.dochas.ie/Pages/Resources/Viewer.aspx?id=324;andtheICRCCodeofConduct,avail-able at: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.

nsf/htmlall/code-of-conduct-290296. 68. Com-mission Decision 2010/481/EU amending Deci-sion 2004/277/EC, Euratom as regards rules forthe implementationofCouncilDecision2007/779/EC,EuratomestablishingaCommunitycivilprotec-tionmechanism. 69. See,e.g.,Bulgaria,p.40andFrance, p. 58. 70. Austria, pp. 5, 12. 71. Ger-many,p.50. 72. Netherlands,p.15.

35


4

application of internationally accepted quality standards. Member states may wish to incorporate such standards into their own legal or policy framework, while bearing in mind the voluntary nature of existing international documents (such as the Sphere Minimum Standards).

4.b Diversion, Misappropriation and Fraud

IDRL Guidelines

PartIoftheIDRLguidelinesdiscussesissuesofaccountabilityintermsoftheaffectedstateandtheassistingstate.Inparticular,theguidelinessuggestinSection6thatstatesandassistinghumanitarianorganizationsshouldcooperatetopreventunlawfuldiversion,misappropriation,orfraudconcerningdisasterrelieforinitialrecoverygoods,equipmentorresources.

Inthechaosfollowingamajordisaster,therisksofunlawfuldiversion,mis-appropriationorfraudconcerningdisasterreliefarefrequentlyhigh,asdem-onstratedbyrecentresearchbytheOverseasDevelopmentInstitute80andTransparency International.74This issue isnot regulatedat theEU level.Moreover,veryfewofthememberstatesexaminedprovideforanylawspe-cificallyrelatingtofraudormisappropriationoffundsorresourcesinconnec-tionwithdisasterassistance.Ingermany,specificprinciplesrequiretheLänderandmunicipalities,asresponsibleauthorities,toensurethecorrectdiversionofreliefgoodsandfunds.75ThelegalframeworkinthenetherlandsspecificallyprovidesthatthesupremecommandercarriesresponsibilityfortheactionsofDutchandinternationalreliefworkers.76

Wherenospecificrulesapply,themostrelevantlegalframeworkisthatgov-erningtheintendedpurposeoffundsinconnectionwithcharities.Asidefromthat,assistingactorsandstateswillbesubjecttonormalrulesofcriminalandcivilliability,forexamplelawsoncorruption,fraudandbribery,orbreachofstatutoryorpublicduty.ThismaybefurtherdemonstratedbyprovisionsinthelawdiscussedaboveinPart3.eoncustomsonvATrequiringthatreliefonlybegrantedtoorganisationsthatapplycertainaccountingstandardsandareadequatelysupervised.

Member states should consider whether there is a need for specific regulatory frameworks related to diversion, misappropriation or fraud in relation to foreign disaster relief and funds.

73. The Overseas Development Institute haspublished a number of studies relating to thisissue: http://www.odi.org.uk/work/projects/de tai l s .asp? id=36 4 &t it le= cor rupt ion- emer-ge nc y-re l i e f # resources . 74 . Tran spare nc y

International, ‘Corruption in HumanitarianAid’ (2006), available at: http://www.transpar-encia.org.es/TI-%20Ayuda%20Humanitaria%20y%20Corrupci%C3%B3n.pdf. 75. Germany, p.48-9. 76. Netherlands,p.30.

36



4.c Responsibility for Costs

IDRL Guidelines

PartvSection24oftheIDRLguidelinesrecommendsthatthecostsofprovidinginternationaldisasterrelieforinitialrecoveryassistanceshouldnormallybebornebytheassistingstateororganisation.However,wheretheaffectedstateisgoingtobeaskedtoreimbursecertaincosts,thisshouldbeonthebasisofprioragreement.

Theissueofresponsibilityforcostsincurredinrelationtoreceiptofinter-nationaldisasterassistanceistwo-fold.First,thereistheinternationalaspect,namelywhetherthesendingstateororganisationortheaffectedstateistomeetthecostsoftheaidprovided.Second,thereisaninternalaspect,wherethereisaneedtoidentifywhichactorwithintheaffectedstateisresponsibleforthecostsofdisasterrelief.Forexample,theremaybedifferingviewsastowhetherthecentralgovernmentortheauthoritiesintheaffectedregion(s)shouldbearthecostsofinternationalassistance.

Inordertoavoidanyconfusionregardingtheinternationalaspect,theIDRLguidelinesrecommendthatthecostsofprovidinginternationalreliefshouldnormallybebornebytheassistingstateunlesstherehasbeenaprioragreementotherwise.InthecontextoftheEUMIC,legislationprovidesthattheaffectedstateisresponsibleforthecostsofassistanceunlessotherwiseagreed.77TheLisbonTreatyincludesa“solidarityclause”(art.222)whichcommitsEUmemberstatestohelpeachotherincaseofdisasters.Itisnotimmediatelyclearfromitstextwhetheritshouldbeconsideredtohaveanimpactonthequestionofwhethertheassistingortheaffectedstateshouldpayforsuchassistance.

Inthememberstates,thisissueisdealtwithinavarietyofways.Francehaspreparedfortheseissuesquitespecificallyinbilateralagreementsandallocatescostaccordingtotype,althoughwhenitcallsonprivatemeansofassistance,Francewillbearthecost.78germanymakesarrangementsforcostinitsbilateralagreementstotheeffectthat,unlessotherwiseagreed,assistancewillnotberefundedtotheassistingactor.Thisalsoapplieswhenassistanceisrenderedbyaprivatehumanitarianorganisation.79Rulesforliabilityinthenetherlandsstemfromlegislationandcustom.80ThecentralgovernmentwillreimburseotherstatesunlessotherarrangementshavebeenmadeinatreatyorinthecontextoftheEUornATO.Allotherassistingorganisationsareexpectedtobeartheirowncosts,includinghumanitarianorganisations.Incontrast,theUK,AustriaandBulgariadonothaveanyformalarrangementsinplace.

77. Article 35, Commission Decision 2004/277/EC laying down rules for the implementation ofCouncil Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom estab-lishing a Community mechanism to facilitate

reinforcedcooperationincivilprotectionassistanceinterventions. 78. France,p.38. 79. Germany,p.46. 80. Netherlands,p.44.

37


4

Itissuggestedthatarrangementsastointernalallocationofcostsinadisastershouldalsobeinplace,ifpossibleinadvanceoftheoccurrenceofadisaster.Otherwiseregionalauthoritiesandfederalstatesmaybereluctanttoacceptoffersofassistanceduetoconcernsregardingcapacitytopaytheassociatedcosts.Responsibilityforcostsmaybetiedtotheauthoritytorequestoracceptinternationalassistance.Theissueofinternalresponsibilityforcostshasbeenconsideredinsomeofthestatesstudied.Forexample,thegermanreportnotesthatasarule,theLänderandmunicipalitiesbearthecostsforallactivitieswithintheirresponsibility.81Inthenetherlands,thecentralgovernmentwillreimbursetheprovincesandmunicipalities.

It should be clarified whether the Lisbon Treaty implies any changes as to which state bears the costs of assistance. If it does not (and for any non-EU aid), member states should ensure that their procedures for offering and requesting outside assistance always include clear expectations about who will bear responsibility for the costs. They should also make clear in internal regulation which department or unit within the state might be responsible for meeting any costs from accepting foreign relief.

4.d Liability for Sub-Standard Aid, Negligence, etc.

Affectedstatesandassistingorganisationsshouldconsiderthepotentialforliabilityresultingfromtheprovisionofsub-standardassistance.Thisisthecor-ollaryoftheneedforthestateandassistingorganisationstoensurethequalityandsuitabilityofassistancewhendeterminingwhetherandwhatassistancetoofferandaccept.Theriskofliabilityisgenerallylowerwheresafeguardsareinplacetoensurethatminimumstandardsofqualityaresatisfied.Thefailureofthestateand/ortheassistingorganisationtocomplywithsuchobligationsmayexposethestate,governmentofficials,theassistingorganisationorindi-vidualreliefpersonneltolegalactionforbreachofciviltortlaw(e.g.negligence),criminallaw(e.g.fraud,corruption,assault),productliabilitylaw(e.g.provisionoffoodnotmeetinghealthstandards),humanrightsobligations(e.g.discrimin-ationinthedistributionofaid)oremploymentlaw(e.g.failuretocomplywithoccupationalhealthandsafetyregulations).Liabilitymayalsobeincurred(orprecluded)pursuanttonationalrulesonvolunteersinanemergencysituation,theso-called‘goodSamaritan’laws.

Potentialliabilitymayleadtoclaimsforcompensationagainsttheaffectedstate(forallowingtheaidtobedelivered)ortheassistingstateororganisation,oragainstreliefpersonnelindividually.Insomecircumstances,individualcrim-inalresponsibilityunderthelawsoftheaffectedstatemayalsobeapossibility.

Certainactorsareentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitieseitherunderinter-nationallawornationallaw(orboth),inparticularstateofficialsofassistingstatesandcertainstaffofinternationalorganisations.However,asageneralrule,privilegesandimmunitiesdonotextendtocivilprotectionofficersand

81. Germany,p.46.

38



thestaffofassistingorganisationsandtotheorganisationitself.Intheabsenceofspecificbilateralormultilateralagreements,civilprotectionpersonnelmaybeliableunderthenationallawoftheaffectedstatefortheprovisionofsub-standardassistance.Itisthereforeimportantthataffectedstatesandassistingstatesandorganisationsareawareofanyrelevantlegalframeworksforlia-bilityandensurethattheassistanceprovidedmeetstherequiredminimumstandards.

Member states should consider situations in which the provision of assistance, including the provision of assistance that does not comply with the relevant inter-national standards, could result in claims against the affected state or assisting states or organisations or their personnel.

Member states should consider whether there should be any exemptions in national law regarding liability for international relief providers and if so, the nature and scope of such exemptions.

Member states and organisations offering assistance should endeavour to comply with the applicable legal framework wherever possible, including meeting any requirements as to quality standards.

When negotiating the terms of the provision of assistance, whether on an ad hoc basis or in a bilateral or multilateral agreement, member states should consider potential liability and make appropriate arrangements (for example, agreeing not to make claims arising from the provision of aid).

39


4


Chapter 5: Other Considerations

41


5

Chapter 5Other Considerations

5.a Public Procurement

Whilethisissuewasnotdiscussedinmostofthenationallevelstudies,itshouldbepointedoutthattheEUregulatestheproceduresfortheawardofpublicworkscontracts,publicsuppliescontractsandpublicservicescontractsbystate,regionalorlocalauthorities,bodiesgovernedbypubliclaw,associ-ationsformedbyoneorseveralofsuchauthoritiesorbodiesgovernedbypubliclaw.82Thelawrequiresthatallpubliccontractsbepublicizedandnegotiatedaccordingtospecificproceduresaimedattransparency.

Inexceptionalcases,however,acontractingauthoritymaybeabletoutilizethenegotiationprocedure,whichallowsthemtoawardcontractswithoutthepublicationofatendernoticeanditsattendantproceduralrequirements.Thisispossibleforreasonsofextremeurgencyresultingfromunforeseeableevents.Thisexceptionisonlyapplicableintheimmediateaftermathofanemergency,whichisestimatedatonemonthonly.Moreover,accordingtoseveralopinionsissuedbytheAdvocategeneraloftheEuropeanCommunityCourtofJustice,theexceptiondoesnotapplytoongoingorrecurringemergencies,suchasannualforestfires.

The EU should consider affirming the existing exemption from public procurement rules in emergency situations also applies to recurring and ongoing emergencies, if necessary, through legislative amendment.

5.b Data Protection and Privacy

Duringanemergency,respondersmayneedtocollectandshareinformationofapersonalnature.Itisimportanttoconsiderwhetheraframeworkfortheprotectionofpersonaldataisinplaceintheaffectedstateandhowitistobeappliedinanemergency.TheEUDataProtectionDirective83appliestodataprocessedbyautomatedmeansanddatathatisintendedtobepartofanon-automatedfilingsystem,i.e.,paperfiles.Itisaimedatprotectingtherightsofpersonswithrespecttotheprocessingofpersonaldatabyestablishingguide-linesrelatingtoqualityofthedataandlegitimacyofthedataprocessing.ItdoesnotapplytodataprocessinginthecourseofanactivityfallingoutsidethescopeofEUlaw,suchaspublicsecurity,defenceorstatesecurity.TheDirectiveismandatoryandmustbeimplementedbythememberstates.Bywayofexample,UKlegislationprotectstherightsofpersonswithrespecttotheprocessingofpersonaldatabyestablishingguidelinesrelatingtoqualityof

82. Directive 2004/17/EC coordinating the pro-curementofproceduresofentitiesoperatinginthewater, energy, transport and postal services sec-tors; Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination ofproceduresfortheawardofpublicworkscontracts,

public supply contracts and public service con-tracts. 83. Directive95/46/EContheprotectionofindividualswithregardtotheprocessingofpersonaldataandonthefreemovementofsuchdata.

42


Other Considerations

thedataandlegitimacyofthedataprocessing.84TheUKhasinthepastencoun-tereddifficultiesinemergencysituationswiththeefficientandpromptsharingofrelevantinformationbetweentherelevantauthoritiesandthoseinvolvedindisasterresponse.Asaresult,theUKhasrecentlyintroducedspecificnon-statutoryguidanceforemergencyplannersandrespondersondataprotectionandinformation-sharingduringanemergency,designedtoinformresponders,includingthoseinthevoluntarysector,onrelevantkeyissues.85

Member states may wish to adopt specific policies or guidance regarding the use of personal data in an emergency.

The EU may wish to examine existing exclusions to Data Protection Directive and any other relevant instruments to determine whether such exclusions adequately address emergency situations or whether additional exclusions are required.

5.c Language, Dissemination and Coordination

TheFrenchandgermannationalreportsindicatedthattherehavebeensomeproblemsregardingcommunicationbarriersduetolinguisticdifferencesatthenationalborders.86Thisisparticularlyanissuewhereitisnecessarytoprovideinterpretersimmediatelyfollowingtheoccurrenceofadisaster.Arrangementsforinterpretationservicesmaybeincludedinabilateralagreement,asisthecasebetweenSaarlandingermanyandMoselleinFrance.However,theprocessoflocatingsuitablyqualifiedandexperiencedinterpretersmayleadtoadelayintheprovisionofrelief.Bothreportssuggestedthatasolutiontothisproblemmaylieinthestandardizationofmethodsandmutualknowledgeofreliefsys-temsthroughtrainingandexercises.Forexample,thenetherlandswasthehostoftherecentEUexerciseFloodex,whichfocusedonissuessurroundingincomingassistanceinthecontextofaflood.AstheFrenchreportasserts,effi-cientcooperationisbasedonasolidknowledgeoftheassistingactor’sworkingmethodsandmeans.Mutualknowledgeofeachother’sassistancesystems,oreffortstowardsstandardization,mayhelpreduceanyproblemscreatedbylanguagebarriers.

Moreover,coordinationwouldfurtherbenefitfromanuptodate,centralizedresourceforthedisasterlawsineachmemberstate,suchasthevade-MecumofCivilProtectionintheEuropeanUnion,draftedin1999.Sucharesourcewouldassistassistingstatesandorganizationsincomplyingwithanyrelevantlawandpolicyintheireffortstoprovideassistancetoanaffectedmemberstates.Creatingacentralizeddatabaseofthiskindrequirescontributionsofinforma-tionbymemberstates,aswellascentralizedmanagementofthedataanddis-seminationwhereappropriate.

Memberstatesmayalsoimprovetheprovisionofinternationalassistancebyensuringthatinformationconcerningrelevantnationallawsandprocesses

84. United Kingdom, p. 70. 85. The Guidanceis available at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/

media/132709/dataprotection.pdf. 86. France, 39;Germany,58-9.

43


5

thatwouldbeapplicableinanemergencycontextiscollatedandavailablefordistributiontopotentialassistingactorsintheeventofanemergency.Thismayincludepreparationofanemergencyresponsemanualmadeavailabletoallemergencyassisters(suchasthatpreparedbythenetherlands)87orbelinkedtotheresponsibilitiesofthenationalfocalpoint(seePart2.cabove).

InternationalassistancewouldfurtherbenefitfrommemberstatesupportoftheIDRLguidelinesthroughdisseminationattheinternationalandnationallevel.Forexample,memberstatesshouldensureallrelevantgovernmentau-thoritiesandvoluntaryorganisationsareinformedofIDRLguidelinesandrelatednationallegislationandprocedures,includingtheneedtocoordinatethereceiptofinternationalassistance.

The EU institutions and the member states should engage in practical exercises that highlight assistance coming not only from other EU member states but also assist-ance from third countries operating outside the context of existing bilateral and multilateral agreements. Such exercises may assist in ascertaining possible prob-lems and in identifying appropriate solutions in advance of a disaster occurring.

The Commission’s Civil Protection Unit and member states should update and disseminate the CPM’s compilation of member state disaster laws with a view to including information about rules and procedures relating to the issues raised in the IDRL Guidelines.

Member states should consider how best to facilitate the provision of informa-tion on the relevant national laws and procedures to foreign emergency responder and encourage support for the Guidelines through dissemination at both the inter-national and national levels.

87. Netherlands,14.


Chapter 6: General Conclusions

and Recommendations

45


6

Chapter 6General Conclusions and Recommendations

6.a General Conclusions1 . SomeEUmemberstatesarealreadyconsideredtobepronetodisas-

ters.Moreover,itispredictedthatclimatechangewillleadtoagreaterincidenceoflarge-scalenaturaldisastersintheregion.Thus,thereisnowanewpossibilityoflargedisasters,eveninstatesthathaverarelyexperiencedtheminthepast.

2 . WithintheEU,cross-borderdisasterassistancebenefitsfromtheregion’senhancedflexibilityofmovementofpeopleandgoodsacrossborders.Moreover,thereareanumberofEuropeanmechanismsthatseektoco-ordinateassistancetomemberstates,includingtheEUCivilProtectionMechanism,thenATOEuro-AtlanticDisasterResponseCoordinationCentre,andbilateralagreements.

3 . The creation and refinement of the Community Civil ProtectionMechanismhasplainlyimprovedcommunicationandcoordination;however,thelegislationunderpinningtheMechanismhasnotaddresseddirectly the regulatoryaspectofdisastercooperationat theEUornationallevel.

4 . OtherareasofexistingEUlawaddressanumberoftheissuesraisedintheIDRLguidelines(suchascustomsdutyexemptionsfordisasterreliefgoods).However,otherissuesarenotcomprehensivelyaddressed(e.g.recognitionofprofessionalqualificationsforthetemporaryprovisionofservices).Withsomeexceptions,thoseremainingquestionsarealsonotaddressedinthelawsofthememberstatestakenascasestudiesforthisreport.Inotherwords,therearesomeregulatorygaps.

5 . Severalofthememberstatesstudiedforthisreporthavenever(orhardlyever)soughtnon-EUinternationalassistanceandhavenotcon-sideredthepossibilitytoanygreatextent.Hence,receiptofcross-borderassistancefromoutsidetheEUisnot,asageneralrule,consideredinnationaldisasterresponselawsandpolicies.Thiscouldproveproblem-aticintheeventofanexceptionalcatastropheforwhichassistancefromwithinstateortheEUmaynotbesufficientorreadilyavailable.

6 . Disaster-affectedstatesoftenreceiveoffersofinternationalassistancefromavarietyofsources,includingbothpublicandprivatesources.Itisimportantthattherelevantauthoritieshavethecapacitytodealeffectivelyandefficientlywithallofferstoensuretheyreceiveonlytheassistancerequiredbythesituation.TheseissuesdonotappeartobefullycoveredbyexistingEUormemberstatelegislation.

7 . WiththeexceptionoftheUK,thememberstatesstudied,haveenteredintospecificbilateralorregionalagreementswithneighbouringstatesconcerningtheprovisionofcross-borderassistance.TheseagreementsaddresssomeoftheissuesraisedbytheIDRLguidelinesinsofarasassistancefromthosestatesisconcerned.However,theyarenotstand-ardizedandthepotentialofoverlappingandinconsistentrulesremains.

46


General Conclusions and Recommendations

8 . Thememberstateshavedifferentlegislativeandregulatoryframeworks,andhaveaddressedtheissuesraisedbytheIDRLguidelinestovaryingdegrees.Therefore,therecommendationssetoutinthenextsectionwillnotnecessarilyapplytoeachmemberstateequallyorinthesamemanner.

9 . Thememberstatesstudiedhavefew,ifany,provisionsintheirexistinglawandpolicyregardingoutsideassistancefromtheRedCrossandRedCrescentMovementandfromothervoluntaryorganizations.TheseissuesarealsonotaddressedintheirbilateralagreementsorattheEUlevel.Thisisalargegap,inlightofthesignificantvaluetheseorgan-izationscanadd.

1 0.While internationalassistancemustbecapableofbeingdeliveredquicklyandefficiently,itisalsoimportanttoensurethataidreceivedisofanacceptablequalityandappropriatetothesituation.ExemptionsorexpeditedproceduresshouldnotbeintroducedwheretodosowouldcreateunacceptableriskstothesecurityorhealthandsafetywithintheEUanditsmemberstates.

1 1.Anumberofstepscanbetakentoimprovepreparednessforthesekindsofissuesfairlyinformally,suchasthroughmanuals,plansandguidancedocuments.However,therearealsosomeissues–bothatthememberstateandtheEUlevel–thatmayrequireamendmentstoexistinglegislation.

6.b Recommendations

National level

1 . EUmemberstates,includingthosethathavenotyethadtorelyoninter-nationaldisasterassistance,shouldconsiderthepossibilityofrequiringsuchassistanceinthefuture(inlightofchangingdisasterpatterns).

2 . Member states should assess the degree to which their nationallegal,policyandinstitutionalframeworksarecurrentlypreparedtoaddresstheissuesraisedintheIDRLguidelines.TheyareencouragedtocallupontheirnationalRedCrossSocieties,astheirauxiliariesinthehumanitarianfield,forsupportinthisanalysis,consistentwithResolution4ofthe30thInternationalConferenceoftheRedCrossandRedCrescentof2007.

3 . Inparticular,memberstatesshouldconsiderwhetherthereisaneedtodeveloporamendexistinglegislationorpoliciesinordertoaddress:

a . Requestingandrespondingtooffersofassistancefromabroad,including:

i . Specifyingwhichdepartmentisresponsibleforassessingneedandmakingdecisionsonoutsideaid;

i i. Ensuringclarityastotheexpectationsofanyassistingstateastoreimbursementofcostsfortheprovisionofassistance(bearinginmindtherelevantprovisionsoftheexistingCPMlegislation);

47


6

i ii.Ensuringclarityastowhatinternaldepartmentorlevelofgov-ernmentmayberesponsibleforthecostsofforeignassistance,ifaccepted;

b . nominatinganappropriatefocalpointforfacilitatingtheworkofinternationalassistanceproviders;

c . FacilitatingassistancefromforeignnationalRedCrossSocietiesandothervoluntaryorganizationsinlinewiththeIDRLguidelines,including:

i . Aprocedureforpre-qualification,ifpossible,forlegalfacilitiesincaseofdisaster;

i i. RecognitionoftheroleofthenationalRedCrossSocietyasakeyactorintheinitiationofforeigndisasterassistancefromtheRedCrossandRedCrescentMovement.

d . visaexemptions(inlinewiththediscretionaryexceptionunderRegulation539/2001/EC)forforeignreliefpersonnelfromstatesororganizationsoutsidetheEUwhoseassistancehasbeenacceptedor,attheleast,expeditedproceduresforprocessingvisaapplications;

e . Expeditedsystemsfortherecognitionofforeignmedicalqualifica-tionsofpersonnelfromstatesororganizationswhoseassistancehasbeenaccepted,including:

i . AsystemforexpeditedrecognitionofmedicalqualificationsobtainedoutsidetheEU;

i i. ParticularlyswiftproceduresforqualificationsreceivedinEUcountries(consistentwithDirective2005/36/EC,butwithamuchshorterprocessingperiod);

i ii.Recognitionoffirstaidqualifications(ifnecessaryunderexistinglaw);

f . Simplifiedproceduresfortheentryofdisasterrelief-bearingvehiclesfromnon-EUmemberstates(asrequired,forexamplebyAnnexofRegulation881/92/EEC);

g . Clearproceduresforprovidingoverflightandlandingrightstoreliefflightsandwaivinganyassociatedtaxesorcharges;

h . Protocolsfortheexpressgrantingofusagerightsforfrequencies,bandwidth,etc.forthecommunicationsneedsofapprovedforeigndisasterresponders;

i . Safeguardsas to thequalityof foreignassistance, in linewithacceptedinternationalhumanitarianqualitystandards(suchastheSphereMinimumStandards);

j . Safeguardsagainstdiversionormisappropriationofrelieffundsandmaterialstobeappliedinasufficientlyflexiblemannersoastoavoidslowingtheentryanddeliveryofaid;

k . Limitedliabilityprotections(e.g.againstclaimsofsimplenegligence)forforeigndisasterassistanceproviderswhoareworkingcloselywithdomesticauthorities;

l . Exceptions,asappropriate,fromdataandprivacyprotectionregimeswithrespecttotheneedsofinternationalreliefoperations;

48


General Conclusions and Recommendations

m .Facilitatingtransitofreliefacrossitsterritoryorairspacetoanotherdisaster-affectedcountry.

4 . Member states (in particular those with federal systems) shouldendeavourtoestablishsomeuniformityacrossinternalregionsandprovinceswithrespecttohowinternationalassistanceisfacilitatedandregulated.

5 . MemberstatesmaywishtoassesstheirexistingbilateralagreementsinlightoftheIDRLguidelines,toensurethattheyarecoveringkeyissuesandtoreduceanycontradictionswithexistingEUlaw.

6 . Memberstatesshouldensuretheprovisionofkeyinformationontherelevantnationallawsandprocedurestoforeignemergencyresponders(forexample,throughasummarydocumentmadeavailableonline).

7 . MemberstatesandnationalRedCrossSocietiesshoulddisseminatetheIDRLguidelines,anyEUlevelguidelinesonHostnationSupport,andrelevantnationallawsandpoliciestoallrelevantnationalauthoritiesandvoluntaryorganisations.

EU level

1 . EUinstitutionsandmemberstatesshouldcapitalizeontherecentdis-cussionsabout“HostnationSupport”todevelopprocessesandshareinformationaboutbestpracticesrelativetotheregulationofinter-nationaldisasterassistance.

2 . Asaninitialstep,thisshouldincludethedevelopmentofnon-bindingguidelinesformemberstatesabouthowbesttoaddresscommonoper-ationalandlegalissuesinreceivinginternationaldisasterassistance.Theseguidelinesshould:

a . DrawontheIDRLguidelines,thefindingsandrecommendationsofthecurrentstudy,theCouncilResolutionof8July1991,andothersimilarinitiativesandguidance;

b . Addressnotonlyissuesrelatedtostate-to-stateassistance(bothfromwithinandfromoutsidetheEU)butalsothoserelevanttointer-nationalassistancebynationalRedCrossSocietiesandothercivilsocietyorganizations;

c . Addressnotonlyissuesrelatedtoreliefpersonnel,butalsothoserelatedtoreliefgoods,equipmentandoperations;

d . Addressnotonlypotentialentrybarriersbutalsoqualityandse-curityconcernsrelevanttointernationalassistance.

3 . Asasecondstep,andhavingdueregardtotheirrespectivecompeten-cies,theEUinstitutionsandthememberstatesshouldconsiderwhetherandhowtheexistingEUlegalframeworkrelevanttocross-borderdis-asterassistanceshouldbestrengthened.Inparticular,theyshouldcon-siderwhetherthereisaneedforamendmentstoexistinglegislation,forexample,toprovide:

a . ClarificationastowhetherthesolidarityclauseoftheLisbonTreaty(art.222)hasanyimpactontheprovisionsastowhobearsthecostsofstate-to-stateassistance,ascurrentlysetoutinCouncilDecision

49


6

2004/277/EC and/or any existing bilateral disaster cooperationagreements;

b . Clarificationoftheexistingemergencyexemptionfrompublicpro-curementrulescontainedinDirective2004/18/EC,sothatitisalsoconsideredtoapplyto“recurring”emergencies;

c . TheadditionofdiscretionaryexceptionsinEUregulationsconcerningstandardsforfoodandmedications,e.g.Regulation178/2002/EContherequirementsoffoodlaworDirective2001/83/EConmedicinalproductsforhumanuse,toallowmemberstatesasufficientdegreeofflexibilityinemergencysituationstoapplysomewhatdifferentprocedures(e.g.forpriorapprovalsandorlabelling)toemergencyassistancefromtrustedproviders,solongasthiscanbedoneinamannerconsistentwithpublicsafety;

d . Theadditionofadiscretionaryexemptionfromrequiredproceduresfortheentryofnon-EUrescueanimalsunderRegulation998/2003/ECtoallowincreasedflexibilitytomemberstates(subjecttoappropriateongoingsafeguardstoensurepublichealthandsafety);

e . Removalof the requirement inRegulation918/83/EEC forpriorCommissionapprovalforanyvATexemptionprovidedbyaMemberstatefordisasterreliefshipments;

f . Removalofthecarve-outfromcustomsdutiesexemptionsunderRegulation918/83/EECrelatedtogoodsandequipmentimportedforrebuildingafteradisaster;

g . ExtensionofthevATexemptionsforcertaintransactionsinCouncilDirective2006/112/ECtoincludein-countrypurchasesofgoodsandservicesbyinternationaldisasterreliefproviderswhennecessaryfordisasterreliefoperations;

h . IntroducingcertainexceptionsintoDirective95/46/ECondataprotec-tion,toensurethatinformationmaybequicklysharedasnecessaryinanemergencysituation;and

i . ExpresslyprovidingforanevenmoreexpeditedprocedurefortherecognitionofforeignmedicalqualificationsunderDirective2005/36/EC.

4 . TheEUInstitutionsandmemberstatesshouldengageinpracticalexer-cisesthattestandraiseawarenessofexistingproceduresforfacilitatingandregulatingforeignassistance–includingfromoutsidetheEU,asappropriate.

5 . Withthecooperationofmemberstates,ECHOshouldupdateitsvade-mecumofCivilProtectionintheEUwithaviewtoincludinginformationaboutmemberstates’rulesandproceduresrelatedtotheissuesraisedintheIDRLguidelines.

6 . TheEUinstitutionsshouldconsidersupportingadditionalresearchcon-cerningtopicsrelatedtotheIDRLguidelines.Thismayincludeexam-iningtheprotectionsprovidedtocivilprotectionofficersundernationalandinternationallaw,inparticularasregardsliability,andamorecom-prehensivereviewofrelevantbilateralagreements.

The Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent MovementHumanityThe International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the bat-tlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

ImpartialityIt makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

NeutralityIn order to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

IndependenceThe Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.

Voluntary serviceIt is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

UnityThere can be only one Red Cross or Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.

UniversalityThe International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.

2085

00 1

2/20

10 E

350

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies promotes the humanitarian activities of National Societies among vulnerable people.

By coordinating international disaster relief and encouraging development support it seeks to prevent and alleviate human suffering.

The International Federation, the National Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross together constitute the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.


A publication from the International Federationof Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

For more information, please contact:[email protected]

analysis of law in the eu and a selection of member states...

Documents