pprd east inception report

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG EuropeAid European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument

Contract EuropeAid/129397/C/SER/Multi

Programme for the Prevention, Preparedness

and Response to Man-Made and Natural Disasters

in the ENPI East Region

(PPRD-East)

Inception Report

Draft

Prepared by: EPTISA Servicios de Ingenieria S.A. (Spain);

Parsons Brinckerhoff (UK); ICET (Netherlands);

University of Twente (Netherlands); Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (Georgia); Mining and Chemical Industry Institute “Girhimprom” (Ukraine)

Consortium

June 2011

A programme funded by the European Union

Disclaimer: This report has been prepared with the financial assistance of the European Commission. The views expressed herein are those of the consultants and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the

Commission

REPORT COVER PAGE

Project Title: Programme for the Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Man-Made and

Natural Disasters in the ENPI East Region (PPRD-East) Project Number: 2010/247-628 Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine Local operator EC Consultant Name: ___________________ EPTISA Servicios de Ingenieria, S.L. Mr Daniel Aspleaf, Project Director Address : ___________________ C/Emilio-Munoz 35-37, 3rd floor 28037 Madrid, Spain Phone number: ___________________ +34 91 5595152; +380 44 5864084 Fax number: ___________________ +34 91 5473934; +380 44 5864083 Email address: ___________________ [email protected] Contact person: ___________________ Mr Daniel Aspleaf, Project Director Signature: ___________________ ___________________

Date of the report: June 2011 Reporting period: December 2010 – June 2011 Author of the report: Jevgeni Jutkevitš, Team Leader

EC M & E team _________________ _________________ _____________ [name] [signature] [date]

EU Delegation _________________ _________________ _____________ [name] [signature] [date]

EuropeAid Lena Nielsen _________________ _____________ Project Manager [signature] [date]

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................... 4

2 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT – START SITUATION ............................................................... 6

2.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6

2.2. RELEVANT PROJECT CONTEXT.............................................................................................. 6

2.3. RISK ASSESSMENT AND GIS SYSTEMS – AN OVERVIEW ........................................................... 14

2.4. PUBLIC AWARENESS – AN OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 19

2.5. MAIN COMMON ISSUES .................................................................................................. 20

2.6. OTHER EMERGENCY ISSUES NOTED BY PARTNER COUNTRIES .................................................. 24

3 PROJECT PLANNING ................................................................................................ 25

3.1. PROGRAMME OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSES ........................................................................... 25

3.2. PROJECT APPROACH ....................................................................................................... 25

3.3. PROJECT OUTPUTS ......................................................................................................... 25

3.4. PLANNING FOR THE WHOLE DURATION OF THE PROJECT ......................................................... 26

3.5. PROPOSALS FOR AMENDING PROJECT ACTIVITIES ................................................................. 32

3.6. INCEPTION PHASE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 40

3.7. CONSTRAINTS, RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................ 41

3.8. PLANNING FOR NEXT REPORTING PERIOD ........................................................................... 42

3.9. RELATIONS/COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS .............................................. 44

4 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY ................................................................................. 47

5 ANNEX 1. LIST OF KEY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ....................................................... 53

6 ANNEX 2. LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED IN PARTNER COUNTRIES .......................... 54

7 ANNEX 3. A SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED MANMADE EMERGENCIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT............................................................................................... 68

8 ANNEX 4. OVERALL PLAN OF OPERATIONS .............................................................. 74

9 ANNEX 5. DEVELOPMENT PHASE OUTPUT PERFORMANCE PLAN ............................. 75

10 ANNEX 6. PLAN OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD (WORK PROGRAMME) ................................................................................................................. 83

11 ANNEX 7. LOGFRAME ............................................................................................. 87

4

1 PROJECT SYNOPSIS

Project Title:

Programme for the Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Man-Made and Natural Disasters in the ENPI East Region (PPRD-East)

Project Number: 2010/247-628 Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine Overall project objective: Project purposes:

o To contribute to the peace, stability, security and prosperity of the Eastern Partner Countries and to protect the environment, the population, the cultural heritage, the resources and the infrastructures of the region by strengthening the countries’ resilience, preparedness and response to man-made and natural disasters.

o To contribute to the development of the Partner Countries' civil protection

capacities for disaster prevention, preparedness and response o To bring the Partner Countries progressively closer to the EU Civil

Protection Mechanism and improve cooperation among themselves. Planned results: Result 1: Better knowledge of risk exposure and available resources for

enhanced preparedness and response capacities in the region (through creation of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas) Result 2: Enhanced legislative, administrative and operational civil protection capacities of the Partner Countries in the field of prevention, preparedness and response Result 3: Improved information, awareness and participation of stakeholders regarding disaster prevention, prevention and response. Result 4: Partner Countries are well informed about the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and able to effectively collaborate with the Mechanism participating states in responding to disasters, including through close cooperation with the MIC via the established contact points. Result 5: Needs for a possible further development of cooperation with Eastern partners following the end of the Programme (Phase II) are identified.

Project activities:

Activity Area A: Development of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA) A1. Establishing the Policy Framework A2. Development of Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA) A3. Civil Protection Operational Manual Activity Area B: Civil Protection/Disaster Management Capacity Building Programme B1. Establishing the Capacity Building Programme B2. Strengthening Stakeholder Capacity B3. Assessing the Impact of the Capacity Building Programme Activity Area C: Institutional and Regulatory Strengthening C1. Strengthening the Regulatory Framework C2. Strengthening the Institutional Framework Activity Area D: Raising Awareness on Civil Protection, Disaster Management and Disaster Risk Reduction Issues D1. Establishing the Awareness Raising

5

D2. Development and Implementation of Public Awareness Raising Activities Activity Area E: Project Management E1. Project Mobilisation and Team Building E2. Administrative Project Reporting E3. Phase II Design

Target groups: Main beneficiaries: Armenia: Ministry of Emergency Situations Azerbaijan: Ministry of Emergency Situations Belarus: Ministry of Emergency Situations Georgia: Ministry of Internal Affairs, Emergency Services Department Moldova: Ministry of Internal Affairs, Civil Protection and Emergency Situations Service Ukraine: Ministry of Emergency Situations Other stakeholders: State institutions involved in civil protection and disaster management (e.g. environmental agencies, medical institutions, water management, customs etc) National and international NGOs working in the disaster management field Local populations

Project start date:

Date of the contract: 16 December 2010 Date of the kick-off meeting: 26 January 2011

Project duration: 48 months

6

2 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT – START SITUATION

2.1. Introduction

The Terms of Reference were quite comprehensive in detailing the type of work to be carried out, but rather less clear upon beneficiary needs and the feasibility of the Programme results and activities. Therefore, the Programme’s start situation was thoroughly reviewed during the Inception Period via extensive consultation between the Consultant and the main Programme beneficiaries and stakeholders in all Partner Countries taking into account the situation on the ground, the feasibility of the results outlined in the Terms of Reference (ToR), and beneficiaries’ needs and priorities. The views of the Contracting Authority and other relevant stakeholders, such national institutions and NGOs working in the field of civil protection and disaster management, were also sought. Following a review of the key documents and the stakeholder consultations process, the Programme’s long-term objective, main purposes, expected results and activities were clarified and have been presented in the Project Synopsis without any significant deviation from the ToR. The list of the key documents reviewed is given in Annex 1. The list of interviewed persons is attached as Annex 2.

2.2. Relevant project context

Socio – Economic Context Following dissolution of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, the economies of the Partner Countries experienced dramatic economic decline. However, the introduction of economic reforms and political stability in the second half of the 1990s has revived the economies of these countries and they are currently growing. In 2010, the Partner Countries showed following figures of the GDP growth (in per cent)1:

ARM Armenia 2.600

AZE Azerbaijan 5.000

BLR Belarus 7.600

GEO Georgia 6.377

MDA Moldova 6.900

UKR Ukraine 4.214

1 Source: International Monetary Fund,

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx (shaded cells indicate IMF estimates)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx

7

The Partner Countries are classified as low-middle-income countries by both the OECD/DAC (Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) list of official development assistance recipients (except for Belarus, which is classified as an upper-middle-income country2). One of the key findings of the 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction is that, in low and low-middle income countries with rapid economic growth “the exposure of people and assets to natural hazards is growing at a faster rate than risk-reducing capacities are being strengthened, leading to increasing disaster risk”. The same report identifies that “the land-locked developing countries (LLDCs), have the highest economic vulnerability to natural hazards”, as is the case for Moldova and Armenia. Governments of the Partner Countries pay significant political and financial attention to development of the countries’ resilience to the natural and man-made disasters. During the last decade the disaster management systems in most of the Partner Countries were reinforced and modernized in order to answer their main purpose – efficiently protect people, property and environment from hazards of different type. One of the social consequences of this process is increase of public trust to the emergency services – in most of the Partner Countries civil protection authorities have rather positive image and are often seen as competent and reliable authority. Disaster Types and Countries’ Vulnerability The Partner Countries are characterised by a highly complex disaster profile. Despite the large geographical coverage of the region, the Partner Countries show a considerably similar exposure to natural and man-made disaster risks. The following charts illustrate the countries’ relative exposure to the main types of disasters and show their variety.

Figure 1. Exposure of the Partner Countries to natural disasters3

Ukraine Belarus Moldova Georgia Azerbaijan Armenia

Levels: 1 - background (slightly affected); 2 - considerable occurrence; 3 - critical level Colours:

2 Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/40/43540882.pdf

3 Source: National Institute for Strategical Studies, Ukraine.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/40/43540882.pdf

8

1 – Regional land impoundment 2 – Natural meteorological processes, including global climate change (augmentation of rainfall, rise of flooding level, expansion of areas affected by flooding and impoundment) 3 – Activation of hazardous exogenous geological processes: landslides, karst, subsidence, coast abrasion 4 – Seismicity (natural or transitory) 5 – Regional dust storms – wind erosion of soils 6 – Raising of sea level accompanied by increase of coast abrasion and land impoundment 7 – Risk of activation of mud volcanoes

Figure 2. Exposure of the Partner Countries to man-made disasters4

Ukraine Belarus Moldova Georgia Azerbaijan Armenia

Levels: 1 - background (slightly affected); 2 - considerable occurrence; 3 - critical level Colours: 1 – Impoundment of cities and urban settlements (industrial and urban agglomerations – IUA) caused by water losses from water supply, sewage and heat and power systems with combination of accelerated depreciation of residential and industrial structures, underground structures and networks 2 – Anthropogenic (construction, car parks, etc.) activation of landslides, subsidence, karst and other hazardous exogenous geological processes 3 – Anthropogenic contamination of land with heavy metals, radionuclides of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, petrochemical products, pesticides 4 – Anthropogenic contamination of surface and groundwater sources used for household water supply (in Ukraine up to 80% of household and drinking water supply is provided from surface water sources) 5 – Environmentally hazardous flooding of numerous mines and quarries (Donbass, Krivbass, and Carpathian Region) resulted in impoundment of adjacent territories and water contamination 6 – Emergency state of landfills (storage facilities) for industrial toxic waste located in industrial and mining regions; emergency state of municipal solid waste landfills

4 Source: National Institute for Strategical Studies, Ukraine.

9

7 – Risk of accidents at chemical, energy (thermal and nuclear) facilities/plants, oil and gas pipelines, caused by high depreciation level and deterioration of basement rocks Most of the above illustrated disaster types have been correctly mentioned in the ToR as prevailing. However, at least two more types are missing from the above analysis and should be added to the Programme’s scope, namely fires and explosions of any kind. An analysis of incident statistics in all Partner Countries has revealed that fires alone is the emergency type, which annually accounts for the highest number of human lives. At the same time domestic and forest fires are emergencies, which can and should be prevented, first of all by changing human behaviour. As suggested by the ToR and confirmed in consultations with the stakeholders on their main priorities, the Programme’s activities in the area of Civil Protection capacity building will focus on 4 main types of disasters:

- floods (of any nature and reason); - earthquakes; - fires (both urban and forest fires); and - chemical accidents.

This choice is based on the frequency of their occurrence, exposure and vulnerability of the population, and the scope of their potential consequences. According to most stakeholders interviewed, the “chronic” environmental emergencies should only be addressed to the extent that they represent a risk of a sudden onset disaster, e.g. a mechanical breach of tailing dams, potential chemical accidents etc. There are other programmes and projects addressing long-term aspects of environmental issues. However, the main problematic issues raised by the Partner Countries are summarized in a separate chapter of the Inception Report (chapter 2.6), and are intended to draw attention of potential donors to support solution of these urgent problems within the Partner Countries. Financing implementation of concrete risk-reduction measures at identified emergency sites falls outside the scope of the PPRD East Programme. Legal, Institutional and Policy Context The civil protection/disaster preparedness and management systems in all Partner Countries are relatively young, because it was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the focus shifted from civil defence towards civil protection, and from highly militarized defence measures towards civil protection activities. This shift has been confirmed by the adoption of national laws, government decrees and ministerial instructions. There are some other similarities among the national legislative frameworks of the Partner Countries caused not only by the common Soviet legacy but also by the recent processes at the global level (following mainly the commitments towards

10

Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), and other international reference frameworks agreed upon by the targeted countries). With a certain degree of generalization it can be stated that civil protection systems of all Partner Countries are focused primarily on response activities. That being said, all Partner Countries recognize that not only emergency response, but also disaster prevention must be a priority function of the governments. It is evident that the expression of political commitment to disaster risk reduction does not necessarily result in its implementation. In many cases the lack of financial, human or technical resources and capacities have been cited as the most pressing obstacles. Being embedded in quite a diverse socio-economic context, the systems of civil protection/disaster management in the Partner Countries vary in their capacity to effectively and efficiently deal with natural and manmade disasters. Although there are disaster/emergency management plans in most of the Partner Countries, they appear not to be very comprehensive. They do not define clear roles for individual organizations and do not provide an adequate framework for mutual support amongst various organizations within the country or for external support from neighbouring countries. The operational plans and the accompanying management structures in most of the Partner Countries tend to be highly centralized and difficult to implement in practice. Some plan details are not accessible even for the involved parties because of the existing secrecy requirements and the absence of inter-institutional collaboration. In all Partner Countries there is relevant legislation in place covering protection of population and territories in emergencies. As a rule, there are separate laws for fire safety. However, some of these laws seem to be obsolete and do not fully reflect actual practice and the current situation. Most of the laws have a clearly visible orientation on response, either leaving prevention and preparedness issues out of own scope or just formally stating respective responsibilities without prescribing any law enforcement mechanisms. In all Partner Countries there are specialized institutions/agencies dealing with civil protection/disaster management issues – in four countries there are dedicated ministries, in two countries (Georgia and Moldova) – governmental bodies in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. These authorities can be generally characterized by their hierarchical structure and vertical command line. It results in a fact that down this command line (on regional and local levels) capacities become weaker and weaker. The institutional framework is mostly oriented towards emergency response, rather than towards prevention and preparedness. In drafting or reviewing national security policies, disaster preparedness and prevention are addressed at rudimentary level, with measures for their law enforcement usually missing.

11

One of the crucial issues of inter-institutional work is transparent data and information sharing. Strong cooperation with other stakeholder institutions and willingness for transparent data and information sharing are prerequisites for up-to-date databases for decision making process. Nevertheless, there is no legal or institutional mechanism that would require the state institutions to provide data and information to each other on a periodic basis. Following the requirements of the Hyogo Framework for Actions 2005-2015 (HFA) most of the Partner Countries with the support of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other international actors have started the process of establishing National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). Although the process goes at differing speeds, the situation may be considered as slowly improving. International Framework All Partner Countries are to a lesser or greater degree involved in international cooperation. Although the cross-border nature of many prevailing disaster types and the need for effective disaster management require efficiently functioning regional cooperation, especially between neighbouring countries, there are only a few established cooperation links in the field of civil protection, and predominantly on paper. The situation is a bit more advanced regarding environmental hazards and risks, especially in the countries sharing common river basins. However, even in this field cooperation between national authorities is weaker than that between neighbouring local municipalities or non-governmental organizations. In many cases this cooperation starts only when the emergency is imminent, or has already occurred, thus leaving very little time for preparation. Information sharing between similar organisations (such as emergency services, hydro-meteo services etc) tends to be more spontaneous than systematic. The following table illustrates the existence of bilateral agreements on cooperation in the emergency management field between Partner Countries:

Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Ukraine

Armenia Yes

Azerbaijan Yes5 Yes Yes

Belarus Yes6 Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes Yes

Moldova Yes Yes Yes

Ukraine Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

5 Agreement is signed on interministerial level

6 Agreement is signed on interministerial level

12

Additionally, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine enjoy cooperation in the framework of Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (GUAM). The Ministry of Emergency Situations (MoES) of Ukraine has signed an Administrative Arrangement with the Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission concerning the cooperation between the MoES Operational Centre and the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. The Partner Countries have different experience in practical work with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Three of them (Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine) have requested and received assistance of different types (expert teams, humanitarian relief items, medicines) a total of nine times through the Mechanism. The others (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Belarus) have not done so yet. The table below details the requests for assistance from the EU CP Mechanism by the Partner Countries.

Year Country Emergency Assistance received through the EU CP Mechanism

2007 Ukraine Oil spill in the Kerch Strait

EU CP Experts

2008 Ukraine Floods in Western Ukraine

EU CP Experts, humanitarian relief items

2008 Moldova Floods EU CP Experts, humanitarian relief items

2008 Georgia Post-conflict situation

EU CP Experts, humanitarian relief items, humanitarian situation assessment after the military conflict

2009 Moldova Gas supply shortage EU CP Experts, humanitarian relief items

2009 Georgia Earthquake An EU CP team has rapidly been mobilised, but the operation was cancelled, as the Georgian Government withdrew its request

2009 Ukraine H1N1 flu pandemic EU CP Experts, medicines

2010 Ukraine Situation on Kalush tailing dam and hexachlorbenzene storage site

EU CP Experts (together with UN OCHA/UNEP), assessment of the situation and recommendations

2010 Moldova Floods EU CP Experts, humanitarian relief items

The UNDP activities in the relevant field fall under its Crisis Prevention and Recovery portfolio and are being coordinated through its Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. The UNDP actively promotes the mainstreaming of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in development programmes and establishing National Platforms on DRR. The UNDP offices in Armenia and Georgia are heavily involved in civil protection/disaster preparedness through promoting the culture of prevention, raising national awareness and implementing local level, community-based risk management activities. In Moldova and Ukraine, UNDP activities were catalysed by the floods of 2008 and 2010 and resulted in the development and initiation of DRR strategies in these countries. In Belarus and Azerbaijan UNDP offices are generally not involved in the civil protection/disaster preparedness field.

13

All Partner Countries are involved in the activities of the NATO Civil Emergency Planning, the aim of which consists of civil support for the military under crisis response operations, support for national authorities in civil emergencies and the protection of civilian populations. All Partner Countries take an active part in events (seminars, exercises, training courses) in the framework of Partnership for Peace (PfP) – a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between individual Partner Countries and NATO. Regarding persistent organic pollutants (POP) and other dangerous chemicals, all Partner Countries have ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants7, and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal8. Several Partner Countries have ratified the UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA)9.

Stockholm Convention Basel Convention TEIA

Armenia Ratified Accession Ratified

Azerbaijan Ratified Accession Ratified

Belarus Ratified Accession Ratified

Georgia Ratified Accession Not ratified

Moldova Ratified Accession Ratified

Ukraine Ratified Accession Not ratified

The provisions of abovementioned conventions have to some degree been implemented into national environmental legislation.

7 http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT.En.pdf

8 http://www.basel.int/text/17Jun2010-conv-e.pdf

9 http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2006/teia/Convention%20E%20no%20annex%20I.pdf

http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT.En.pdf

http://www.basel.int/text/17Jun2010-conv-e.pdf

http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2006/teia/Convention%20E%20no%20annex%20I.pdf

14

2.3. Risk assessment and GIS systems – an overview

During inception missions, a lot of information was obtained about all components related to disaster risk reduction processes. These processes include early warning systems (with “real-time” monitoring data), databases, public awareness systems, crises management systems, special systems used by stakeholders, and risk assessment methodology. Every one of these components has its unique position in the complex environment of computer based information systems used in disaster management. Earthquakes The level of risk assessment of the earthquakes depends on the actual risk and probability of the earthquake occurring in a country. The level of risk depends on a degree of a country’s predisposition to earthquake. In Armenia, Moldova and Georgia, there is an automatic monitoring network in place, from which the information about earthquakes is obtained. The information is automatically stored in central databases. Only in Armenia the system automatically sends warnings to the civil protection authorities and, through the Emergency Channel10, to the public. In the other countries the information is transferred by phone, which involves the ”human factor” and can incur unnecessary delays. As earthquakes are one of the most widespread disaster types in the Partner Countries (only Belarus is not prone to earthquakes), the countries have a good evidence of historical events and have done numerous risk assessments in this field. In particular, there are hazard maps for big cities; in some countries vulnerability maps have been done. The selection of risk assessment methods is based on Russian methodology limited by data availability. Only Moldova is using a system in line with European guidance. The following table is a summary of the earthquake monitoring situation in Partner Countries:

Prone

1- low

5- high

Monitoring

1 – full

automatic

2 – partly

automatized

3 – manual

Early

warning

system

1 – very

good

5 – non

existent

Data

storage

1 – file

based

2 –

database11

Crises

management

system

1 – integrated

2 – dedicated

(only for this

type of

hazard)

Data

exchange

1 – sufficient

2 – needs

improvement

Risk

assessment

1 – only

hazard maps

2 – hazard

and risk maps

for main cities

3 – hazard

and risk maps

for whole

country

10

http://www.emergency.am/en/index

11 File based data – all data is stored in separate files in a certain computer so that it is only accessible

to the owner of that computer; database – all data is stored in a centralized way and is available for users over the network.

http://www.emergency.am/en/index

15

Armenia 5 1 1 1 none 2 2

Azerbaijan 3 1 3 2 1 2 1

Belarus 1 none none none none none none

Georgia 3 1 3 1 none 2 1

Moldova 3 1 4 2 2 2 2

Ukraine 2 none none none none none none

In order to create and implement the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas it is necessary to strengthen weaknesses of national systems. From the above summary it is clear that there is a need to improve the data storing by creating the central databases based on the commonly agreed standards. Creating a central database is a basic prerequisite for direct data exchange between national DRR systems. The hazard and risk maps will be created for the whole region using common methodology based on EU Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management

12. This

process includes collecting the existing data, evaluation of vulnerability maps and risk maps which will be presented on ERRA.

Floods Floods are the most frequently occurring natural disasters causing economic damages in the Partner Countries. Along with droughts they are the risks most related to climate changes, which mean that the frequency of events will probably (rapidly) increase in the future. In every Partner Country the importance of flood risk assessment was highlighted. The basic element for any kind of flood warning system is real time monitoring, which is almost missing in the Partner Countries, with Belarus and Transcarpathian part of Ukraine being successful exceptions. The actual hydrology monitoring systems are mainly based on two observations per day (at 8am and 8pm), while the data are collected in a central hydro-meteorological organization (in some countries under the Ministry of Emergency Situations, in others under the Ministry of Environment). The information is stored in local files and used for forecasting. The Doppler13 radars are missing, and the monitoring with meteorological “radio-sounders” is decreasing. Without vertical monitoring of atmosphere the forecast of rain duration is inaccurate. The early warning systems (EWS) are the weakest part of disaster management systems in the Partner Countries. Without early warning systems it is not possible to create systems for a fast response to a disaster, because information about disaster happening comes too late. It is especially important when countries share common river basins and the one upstream can and must warn its neighbour downstream on coming high levels of water (e.g. Ukraine and Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan).

12

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/pdfdocs/prevention/COMM_PDF_SEC_2010_1626_F_staff_working_document_en.pdf

13 Doppler radar – one of the most commonly used hydrometeorological tools – uses electromagnetic

radio waves to detect weather, particularly precipitation. These reflected waves are evaluated and plotted by a computer on a map.



16

Without the improvement of monitoring systems (hydrological and meteorological) any kind of preparedness for floods will be inefficient. Flash floods are most dangerous for people, because they occur with virtually no warnings at all and mostly in the mountainous area with destructive impact on settlements. The floods on the large rivers arise slower and allow people more time to take action – measures to reinforce banks, evacuate people and decrease the damages. In all countries there is good evidence of historical floods disasters, mostly in paper form. This information can be used for hazard mapping, but needs to be digitalized and analysed. Like in case of emergencies, the selection of risk assessment methods is based on Russian methodology limited by data availability. The existing hydrologic modelling (e.g. in Kiev, part of Carpathian region in Ukraine) is mostly founded by international projects. There are mainly hazard maps, while the maps of vulnerability or risk maps are not done. The following table is a summary of the flood monitoring situation in Partner Countries:

Prone

1- low

5- high

Monitoring

1 – full

automatic

2 – partly

automatized

3 – manual

Early

warning

system

1 – very

good

5 – non

existent

Data

storage

1 – file

based

2 –

database

Crises

management

system

1 – integrated

2 – dedicated

(only for this

type of

hazard)

Data

exchange

1 – sufficient

2 – needs

improvement

Risk

assessment

1 – only

hazard maps

2 – hazard

and risk maps

for main cities

3 – hazard

and risk maps

for whole

country

Armenia 5 3 None 1 none 2 1

Azerbaijan 5 3 None 1 none 2 1

Belarus 3 2 2 2 none 2 1

Georgia 5 3 None 1 none 2 1

Moldova 4 3 None 1 none 2 1

Ukraine 5 2 None 2 none 2 1

The main problem is an insufficient monitoring system. The entire problem can’t be solved within the first phase of the Programme, because the main needs are inadequate equipment and financial support of operation of the monitoring network. Once the ERRA is launched, it will be easy to connect future updates of monitoring network with the ERRA applications. All file based data storage will be transformed to standard databases and connected to central system used by main beneficiaries and stakeholders. New data flow infrastructure will be established and partly put into operation. The existing maps will be transformed into standard, new national, subregional and regional maps of flood hazards. Risks will be assessed using EU Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management and integrated into ERRA.

17

Fires Given the fact that fires kill hundreds of people every year in the Partner Countries, their disaster management systems strongly focus on the response to fires. Risk assessment and risk reduction processes differ between forests fires and urban fires – because of their reasons and nature. The forest fire hazard mostly depends on natural conditions and can be calculated and presented in hazard and/or risk maps. The urban fires risk mapping depends on more detailed and significantly varying information (building maps, details of their construction, proximity etc). For fire spreading forecast different fuel models14 can be used. However, at present time these kinds of models are not used in the region. Every Partner Country has different fire monitoring approach. For example, forest fires are very closely monitored in Belarus – after obtaining the information about fire emergency and its risk level from Hydro-meteorological institute, the response starts immediately and its scale depends on the emergency level. In Caucasus countries forest fires frequently start in hardly accessible mountainous areas, therefore response to them might be delayed. The evidence of past events is the database for hazard mapping for forest fires. The databases are done on quite good level in every Partner Country. This evidence and information is necessary to create the fire hazard maps. The following table is a summary of fires monitoring situation in Partner Countries:

Prone

1- low

5- high

Monitoring

1 – full

automatic

2 – partly

automatized

3 – manual

Early

warning

system

1 – very

good

5 – non

existent

Data

storage

1 – file

based

2 –

database

Crises

management

system

1 – integrated

2 – dedicated

(only for this

type of

hazard)

Data

exchange

1 – sufficient

2 – needs

improvement

Risk

assessment

1 – only

hazard maps

2 – hazard

and risk maps

for main cities

3 – hazard

and risk maps

for whole

country

Armenia 5 3 None 2 none 2 none

Azerbaijan 5 3 None 2 none 2 none

Belarus 5 2 2 2 1 2 1

Georgia 5 3 None 1 none 2 none

Moldova 5 3 None 1 none 2 none

Ukraine 5 3 None 1 none 2 none

Assessing fire risks, the responders use knowledge and experience from the past, but cities and towns grow rapidly and new problems appear (e.g. traffic jams). These new circumstances and problems can have a huge impact especially if the number of fire brigades and prevention measures do not increase adequately with the expansion of urban areas. This can only be solved by using a new approach and implementation of disaster risk reduction system. The monitoring network needs to be improved,

14

A fuel model is a preliminary representation of vegetation characteristics used in analyzing fire behavior and planning.

18

however in the framework of PPRD East Programme only a link to satellite monitoring system can be established – with a connection to crises management system. New hazard and risk maps will be created based on all available data using the abovementioned EU Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management.

Chemical accidents Risk assessment for chemical disasters is accomplished only for certain small areas of the Partner Countries. There is no legal obligation for industrial companies in any Partner Country to do risk assessment. The existing inventories of dangerous chemical enterprises and storages are either out-dated or cover only certain type of hazards (such as POP storage inventories in Moldova and Belarus). Even if existing, they are stored as files and not connected to general monitoring and early warning systems (with a few exceptions). In some countries hazard maps reflect chemical hazards, but there are no complex solutions enabling main actors (emergency responders, environmental specialists, owners of property, local population) to understand and reduce associated risks. The following table is a summary of chemical accidents monitoring situation in Partner Countries:

Prone

1- low

5- high

Monitoring

1 – full

automatic

2 – partly

automatized

3 – manual

Early

warning

system

1 – very

good

5 – non

existent

Data

storage

1 – file

based

2 –

database

Crises

management

system

1 – integrated

2 – dedicated

(only for this

type of

hazard)

Data

exchange

1 – sufficient

2 – needs

improvement

Risk

assessment

1 – only

hazard maps

2 – hazard

and risk maps

for main cities

3 – hazard

and risk maps

for whole

country

Armenia 5 3 None 2 none 2 none

Azerbaijan 5 3 None 2 none 2 none

Belarus 5 2 2 2 1 2 1

Georgia 5 3 None 1 none 2 none

Moldova 5 3 None 1 none 2 none

Ukraine 5 3 None 1 none 2 none

In the next phases of the Programme data collection and its insertion into the central database are envisaged. The hazard and basic risk mapping will be done by types of chemicals. A part of the ERRA will be dedicated to serve as national registers of dangerous chemical substances facilitating prevention, preparedness and response measures. Along with emergency responders these registers can be used by stakeholders that generate hazardous waste as well as state cadastres on hazardous waste “legacies” and contaminated sites.

19

2.4. Public awareness – an overview

Absence or deficiency of a comprehensive national policy for increasing public awareness in the field of the prevention of disasters has been observed in most Partner Countries. With certain exceptions, it can be generally stated that preparation of citizens for emergency situations and teaching them rules of safe behaviour and survival skills are not given sufficient attention to in the Partner Countries. While Government institutions often state the importance of public information, in reality public outreach is often overlooked or disregarded on central administration level. The main reasons for such attitude are lacking or insufficient budget for these types of activities; deficient skills or knowledge of staff; work overload of staff; underestimated value of information sharing and communications. In most countries public awareness raising requires a more strategic and sustainable approach. Possibilities and experience of the organisation of public awareness campaigns on disaster prevention differ from country to country. Traditional posters, booklets and newspaper publications are used in most cases, less frequently television and radio broadcasts are used. Modern media technology, such as Internet opportunities, Youtube, Facebook etc, has not yet found its use for public awareness. Sporadic attempts to raise public awareness regarding certain types of emergencies (floods, landslides and earthquakes) have been made on local level in the framework of internationally financed projects (e.g. DIPECHO, UNICEF etc). However, this work should be systematized on national and local levels. Problems of fire prevention and fire safety, especially in urban areas (large business centres, schools, medical institutions), are not properly addressed and notified to the public. Owners or operators of the institutions lacking legislatively strong spelt requirements tend to avoid carrying out of necessary training actions for employees and clients working in these buildings. Mechanisms of interaction of the main beneficiaries’ and stakeholders’ press-services with mass media are, as a rule, well established. The main beneficiaries usually inform governmental and non-governmental mass-media, both electronic and printed, on the emergency situations occurred. However, the Project Team observed lack or deficiency of the coordinated national strategy of the crisis communications focused on certain target groups (the population should know what to do in the crisis moment and what for), based on modern knowledge and technologies. As a rule, mass media is not regularly used to raise prevention related issues. The role of NGOs and civil society as a whole in the sphere of prevention of natural and manmade disasters can’t be overestimated. However, these resources are not

20

actively used in some Partner Countries, while in others cooperation between public and third sector shows signs of success.

2.5. Main Common Issues

Legal and Institutional Framework

National institutional settings and systems for disaster management are mostly oriented towards disaster response, rather than prevention and preparedness.

In drafting or reviewing national security policy, disaster preparedness and prevention issues have to be addressed, and measures for their law enforcement have to be developed.

Misbalance between the attention paid to developing preparedness and response capacities, training and material base at national level when compared to regional and local levels.

One of the crucial issues for inter-institutional work is transparent data sharing. Strong cooperation with other stakeholder institutions and a willingness to share data are prerequisites for creating of up-to-date databases for facilitation the decision making process- Nevertheless, in most Partner Countries there are no legal or institutional mechanisms that would require state institutions to provide data/information to each other on periodic basis.

In most of the Partner Countries National Emergency Response Plans (which prescribe obligations and responsibilities of the state, regional and local authorities, i.e. on functional and territorial principle in case of emergency), are not really functioning. The existence of such plans, their replication on regional and local levels and the regular drilling of procedures prescribed therein have crucial importance in developing modern civil protection/disaster management systems.

The process of establishing National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) proceeds at a different rate in the different countries. It should be accelerated in order to provide an efficient nation-wide coordination panel for all stakeholders involved in the disaster management process.

There is little knowledge about the relevant EU legislation in the Partner Countries – the most important directives, such as Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks15 (“Flood Directive”) and the Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances16 (Seveso II Directive) have to be introduced. The possibilities and ways of their (partial) implementation into national legislation have to be discussed with the main beneficiaries in Partner Countries.

15

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007L0060:EN:NOT

16 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0082:EN:NOT



21

Risk assessment

Different organizations use different methods for disaster risk assessment, there is no commonly agreed and applicable methodology for risk assessment, even within same Partner Countries. The data and formats are therefore incomparable.

Multiplicity in existing data sources, the ownership and primary source of data are not clear. There is a number of maps created in Partner Countries in the framework of different projects, however, it is difficult to identify the sources and accuracy of data therein; time of their creation, formats and resolution are often unknown. The data can’t be used without verification.

Hazard maps, if existent, are based mainly on historical evidence of disasters (for example, floods) followed by cartographic zoning. The annual evidence of events is mostly in paper form, in best case in MS Word tables, which are useless for database creating.

Data created in the framework of other projects have limited availability, even governmental institutions tend to hide their data or ask for a fee for its release. The data and maps produced by a national governmental organization must be available for other governmental organizations for the DRR purposes. The governments don’t have detailed register of the risk assessment and mapping projects accomplished by different actors, therefore verification process is almost impossible.

The system of hydro-meteorological monitoring is insufficient for early warning systems. The information flows are mainly phone based instead of being automatized.

Necessary systems for information exchange between stakeholders within the same country and also between neighbour countries are missing. The data are mainly stored as files on local hard drives in respective office computers. In such form the data can’t be used as a source for mapping systems. Mainly the Partner Countries use proprietary systems without any standards or description. It is not possible to integrate such systems into more complex solutions without contractor’s consent.

Insufficient use of information technology in national institutions. The systems are mainly desktop oriented only for limited use. The web technology is not used. There is no system for automatic notifications, warnings to the stakeholders.

Due to lack of relevant sub-legislative acts there is no unified system for collection and use of risk management information.

Lack of a national register of state and private enterprises that generate hazardous waste as well as a state cadastre on hazardous waste “legacies” and contaminated sites.

The methods for complex collecting information about hazard events and their impacts differ in every country, none of them may be characterized as systematic. As a result, there is a lack of meaningful analysis to understand the trends, spatial and temporal impact and hence poor understanding of potential

22

risks and their impact. To reduce this situation it is necessary to establish National Disaster Observatory according to recommendations of the Hyogo Framework for Action. The purpose of a National Disaster Observatory is to systematically collect and analyse information on disasters and their associated losses and create an evidence base to support the formulation or revision of national disaster risk reduction strategies, action plans or programmes, and contingency plans. The first steps in creating the National Disaster Observatory have already been made in Armenia and Moldova.

Public awareness

Main beneficiaries of the Partner Countries should be supported in taking up leading position in development and implementation of prevention-oriented public awareness strategy.

Creation of a wide platform of information sharing actors working in the public awareness sphere should be facilitated (governmental and non-governmental, national and local mass media, Red Cross and NGOs on national and local levels).

Population of areas of high vulnerability (living in the flood catchment areas, downstream the lake cascade, in landslide and forest fires prone zones, in the POPs contaminated areas, in the vicinity of potentially dangerous enterprises) has to be specially addressed in public awareness campaigns.

Special awareness raising campaigns for tourists going to disaster-prone areas (landslide and avalanche areas, fire or flood prone areas) of the Partner Countries can be envisaged.

Methods of public awareness activity used by UNDP, Red Cross, REC Caucasus and best international practices have to be examined and adapted to the needs of the Programme.

Public awareness strategy has to be in line with the process of establishment and launching of the Emergency Command Centres.

Civil Protection Capacity Building

• Issues of prevention and preparedness, including early warning systems, to incidents have to be addressed at lowest (local or regional) level possible.

• Special attention shall be paid to training the first responders to chemical accidents, including accidental industrial pollutions, because of the prevalence of manmade hazards.

• Introducing a single emergency number is on the agenda of every Partner Country, albeit at different stages of implementation due to political, economic, financial, technological and other factors. The Partner Countries should benefit from each other and EU Member States’ experience and best practices in this field. The work on introducing a single emergency number (preferably “112” as required in the European Union) and its promotion should be continued and assisted in the framework of the Programme.

23

• In most of the Partner Countries the issue of establishing or updating their Crisis Management Centres – the main national hubs for collecting, analysis, processing and dissemination of information before and during emergencies – is at the top of their agenda. The Partner Countries should benefit from each other and EU Member States’ experience and best practices in this field.

• In some countries there is a gap between monitoring and early warning activities – the monitoring data are, in the best case, communicated to the operative level of emergency service. However no further action on public notification is triggered thereafter.

International Framework and Relations with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism

• The degree of awareness about the EU CP Mechanism differs from country to country, ranging from rather high to almost non-existent. Due to the high vulnerability to different type of disasters and the potential use of EU assets to mitigate their consequences the procedures for requesting assistance through the Mechanism should be introduced at all levels of the disaster management system and trained accordingly.

• As a rule, a system for requesting and receiving international assistance is not developed and fixed in the national legislation. It is envisaged that respective decisions are made at the highest level (Government, Cabinet of Ministers), even with the existence of bilateral agreements. In certain cases such decision making can be simplified and assigned, for example, to the competence of the MoES.

• Procedures of Host Nation Support need special attention as they are not prescribed by laws and may hamper efficient receiving of international assistance. These procedures should be introduced to a wide range of officials in order to ensure a common understanding and concerted action by all relevant institutions. Host Nation Support guidelines, which have to be elaborated and adopted by the end of 2011, will be taken as a basis.

• Despite the existence of many international and bilateral agreements, a system of requesting and receiving of international assistance has been rarely tested in reality and sometimes at the exercises. It may happen that a number of potential actors in the process of receiving international assistance are not well aware of the procedures agreed in the international documents, which may hamper timely arrival of assistance. The same is also true of the situation when a Partner Country may become a transit country for provided assistance.

• The transboundary "emerging issues" (floods, pollutions, forest fires) need a better and more systematic exchange of information between national governments – therefore establishment and training of certain protocols is a vital issue.

• In some countries there is little coordination between international activities in disaster management. Establishment and proper functioning of National Platforms for DRR can help in providing transparent and substantial information sharing between all actors.

24

2.6. Other Emergency Issues Noted by Partner Countries

Issues Pertaining to Potential Environmental Disasters At the kick-off meeting in Brussels, on 26 January 2011, the EU Commission requested the PPRD East team to listen carefully to the problems and requests of the countries, also in case these would not be in compliance with the scope of the Programme. In these cases other support possibilities, e.g. via other EU or international funding channels, should be identified. The PPRD East team recognised it as an important task and has therefore taken it into consideration during the inception missions to the Partner Countries. Hence, the Annex 3 gives an overview of the main issues brought forward by the beneficiaries and stakeholders. On further phases the PPRD East Programme will try to contribute as much as possible to mitigate imminent risks of the identified issues (see proposed way-ahead on p. 24), however, search of their complex and ultimate solutions clearly falls outside the scope of the 1st phase of the Programme. A summary of the identified cases brought in the Annex 3 follows the types identified in the ToR of the Programme:

Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries)

Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs

Other orphan contaminated sites Emergency Ordnance Disposal Explosive ordnance remain one of the most fatal incident types in all Partner Countries. Several Partner Countries noted explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), including spontaneously found ammunition and self-made explosives, as an area of special concern. In some countries EOD is the function of the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MoES) or its subordinate service, in others it is not. However, addressing this issue may lead to population awareness raising in order to ensure proper and safe behaviour. Therefore activities aimed at raising awareness about explosive ordnance and safe behaviour related to it may be envisaged in the framework of relevant EU mechanisms. Best national practices and experience of explosive ordnance awareness raising in the EU countries should be analysed and possibly used.

25

3 PROJECT PLANNING

3.1. Programme Objective and Purposes

Following re-affirmation of the key needs of the Programme beneficiaries and other stakeholders, and of the problems to be addressed, a review of the Programme objectives has been conducted. In the Project Synopsis we clearly define Programme objective and purposes, the delivery of which will address the ToR and will result in tangible outputs from the project activities, these are repeated here.

Overall project objective:

To contribute to the peace, stability, security and prosperity of the Eastern Partner Countries and to protect the environment, the population, the cultural heritage, the resources and the infrastructures of the region by strengthening the countries’ resilience, preparedness and response to man-made and natural disasters

Programme Purposes:

To contribute to the development of the Partner Countries' civil protection capacities for disaster prevention, preparedness and response

To bring the Partner Countries progressively closer to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and improve cooperation among themselves

3.2. Project Approach

No major changes are proposed in the project approach foreseen in the contract. There is no change in the Activity Areas identified within the proposed approach. The five Activity Areas remain as follows:

Activity Area A: Development of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA)

Activity Area B: Civil Protection Capacity Building Programme

Activity Area C: Institutional and Regulatory Strengthening

Activity Area D: Raising Awareness on Civil Protection, Disaster Management and Disaster Risk Reduction Issues

Activity Area E: Project Management

3.3. Project Outputs

The outputs from this project will come from the combined efforts of the involved experts and the beneficiaries. The Terms of Reference are comprehensive in defining what work is to be carried out. The intended outputs have been discussed and agreed with the Partner Countries and remain as follows:

The regional electronic Risk Atlas has been created and is accessible to the Partner Countries.

26

National statistics, cartography and other databases, land registries, GIS, existing satellite imagery and aerial photography as well as other resources are used in a systematic and integrated way in civil protection/disaster preparedness information sharing and management.

Improved legislative framework in the field of civil protection/disaster preparedness in the Partner Countries taking into account EU legislation in disaster prevention.

Training and capacity building activities are implemented and result in strengthening the capacities of civil protection systems.

The information campaigns have been carried out, the target public has been reached, and awareness raising has improved.

The principles of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism are well known to the Partner Countries.

Contact points for effective communication with the MIC are established.

Gaps in the ability to provide and receive external assistance during disasters are identified and addressed.

Basis for elaborating the ToR for the Phase II of the programme is established.

3.4. Planning for the whole duration of the project

Project Activities As foreseen in the contract, the detailed project activities are to be defined during the Inception Period on the basis of fact finding missions and understanding gained through consultation with the beneficiaries and stakeholders. The project activities defined in the Project Synopsis and the activity schedule have been discussed and agreed with the Partner Countries. The schedule of activities for the whole duration of the Programme is presented in Annex 4. Activity Area A: Development of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA)

A1.1 Formation of Working Groups A1.2 Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies

A1.3 Development of the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy A2.1 Review of Existing Management Information/GIS Systems A2.2 Needs Analysis for the Regional Electronic Risk Atlas A2.2.1 Analysis of Existing maps and data A2.2.2 Analysis of technological possibilities in countries A2.3 Conceptual Design for the ERRA System A2.4 Stakeholder Consultation A2.5 Detailed Design and Development of the ERRA A2.6 Database creation for ERRA A2.7 Vulnerability and Risk Analysis Map Production A3.1 Development of Draft Civil Protection Operational Manual A3.2 Stakeholder Consultation and Finalisation of the Operational Manual

Activity Area B: Civil Protection Capacity Building Programme B1.1 Stakeholder Analysis

B1.2 Training Needs Analysis

27

B1.3 Development of Training Programme B2.1 Implementation of Training Programme B2.2 Planning and Implementation of Regional Exercises B2.3 Planning & Implementation of "Table Top" Exercises B3.1 Survey of Impact on National Legislations

Activity Area C: Institutional and Regulatory Strengthening C1.1 Preliminary Review of the Institutional & Regulatory Baseline

C1.2 Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework C1.3 Recommendations for Strengthening Regulatory Framework

C2.1 Detailed Analysis of Existing Institutional Framework C2.2 Recommendations for Strengthening the Institutional Framework


D1.1 Review of Existing Awareness Raising Activities D2.1 Awareness Raising Survey D2.2 Develop Communication/Awareness Raising Strategy D2.3 Implementation of Communications Strategy D2.4 Dissemination of Key Project Results

Activity Area E: Project Management E1.1 Project Mobilisation

E1.2 Project "Kick Off" Meeting E1.3 Establish Steering Committee & Nominate National Focal Points E1.4 Initial Selection of Non-Key Experts E2.1 Project Workplan and Inception Report E2.2 Progress Reporting E2.3 Final Report E3.1 External Review

Tentative Plan of Main Training and Awareness Raising Activities for the whole duration of the Programme The following table contains a tentative summary of main activities and events envisaged by the Programme with indication of their periods, tentative venue, number of participants and general objectives of each event. Activity Area

Type of Activity Period Tentative Venue

Number of participants

General objectives

A Two subregional workshops on risk assessment policy

Development Phase

Partner Countries

30 + 30 Introduction of the risk assessment policy to “trainers”

A Presentation of ERRA

17

Implementation Phase

Member State

6*2 = 12 To present ERRA as a “disaster responder’s

17

Back-to-back with a Steering Committee meeting in 2013.

28

tool” to the main beneficiaries

B “Train the trainers” GIS capacity building


Member State

6*2 = 12 Introduction of GIS use in the risk assessment

B On job GIS training (4 courses in each country)


Partner Countries

6*20 = 120 Practical use of GIS methods for risk assessment in disaster management

B EU CP Mechanism Infodays

Development Phase

Partner Countries

6*30 = 180 Introduction of the EU CP Mechanism and possibilities of cooperation with it

B Exchange of experts programme

18

Development and Implementation Phases

Partner Countries and Member States

60 Introduction of best practice and experience on needs-driven topics

B Seveso II study tour and workshop

Development Phase

Member State

6*2 = 12 Familiarization with Seveso sites and requirements to them; introduction of Seveso directive, obligations of national authorities and enterprises

B “112” study tour and workshop


Member State

6*2 = 12 Familiarization with best practices of use of single emergency number; exchange of experience of functional role of the single emergency number in the civil protection system

B Crisis Management Centre study tour and workshop


Member State

6*2 = 12 Familiarization with best practices of use of Crisis Management Centre; exchange of experience of functional role of the Crisis Management Centre in the civil protection system; development of recommendations for national authorities

B Seminar on the exercise

Development Phase

Member State

6*3 = 18 Development a common approach

18

The Exchange of Experts programme will allow the Partner Countries’ civil protection experts to get familiar with and pass their knowledge to civil protection authorities of another Partner Country or the EU country. This form of cooperation is demand-driven, meaning that the Partner Countries are encouraged to request an expert visit or to invite an expert on the issue of their interest. The exchange will be provided by the EU Member States or the other Partner Countries and facilitated by the PPRD East Programme. The guidance and request forms will be available on the Programme webportal since 3 quarter 2011.

29

methodology and concept to the series of table-top exercises and field exercise

B Training Workshop on Earthquakes

Development Phase

Partner Country

6*3 = 18 Introduction of methodology and scientific approach to earthquake preparedness; earthquake risk assessment methods and tools; familiarization with internationally recognized response principles (INSARAG

19

guidelines); cross border coordination in earthquake consequences management

B Training Workshop on Fires


Partner Country

6*3 = 18 (Forest) fires prevention, preparedness and response methodology; fire risk assessment methods and tools; forest fires management in EU; cross border coordination in forest fires management

B Training Workshop on Floods


Partner Country

6*3 = 18 Introduction of flood prevention, preparedness and response methodology; EU “Flood Directive”; flood risk assessment methods and tools; flood management in EU; cross border coordination in flood management

B Training Workshop on Chemical Accidents


Partner Country

6*3 = 18 Prevention, preparedness and response methodology; chemical accidents assessment methods and tools; management of chemical accidents in EU; cross border

19

International Search and Rescue Advisory Group

30

coordination in chemical accident management

B 3 Basic training courses for international responders


Member State

3 participants per country at each course (altogether 54)

To prepare experts from the Partner Countries to work with the EU CP Mechanism/MIC when requesting and providing assistance

B 2 Operational Management courses for international responders


Member State

3 participants per country at each course (altogether 36)

To preparing experts from the Partner Countries to work with the EU CP Mechanism/MIC when requesting and providing assistance; to prepare experts for the role of national liaison officers

B 4 Table Top Exercises – see separate table in the section 3.5

Development and Implementation Phase

Partner Country

10-12 responders per participating country + 3 observers from other Partner Countries

To test national and make use of international disaster management schemes and procedures; information sharing and cooperation during transboundary emergency; to test information sharing with and request of assistance through MIC

B Field Exercise – see separate table in the section 3.5


Partner Country

6 teams from Partner Countries (225 persons) + EU experts + observers

To test national and make use of international disaster management schemes and procedures; to test information sharing, request of assistance (also through MIC), rendering and receiving of international assistance; to test conduction and coordination of relief activities in field conditions, logistics of an international relief operation, host nation support procedures etc.

C Regional workshop to present and

Development Phase

Partner Country

6*2 = 12 Introduction of results of national assessments and

31

discuss the results of the detailed assessment of the regulatory frameworks

development of recommendations to amendment of the legislation

C Participation in the Civil Protection Forum

Development Phase

Brussels 6*2 = 12 Giving the Partner Countries an opportunity to learn new approaches, strategies, means of Civil Protection in Europe, and to broaden their cooperation networks; presentation and promotion of the PPRD East Programme progress and seeking for new ways for cooperation with the Partner Countries in the civil protection field

C Conference “Strategy and Tactics of Disaster Risk Reduction – from National to Regional approach”


Member State

6*3 = 18 To share best experiences of Disaster Risk Reduction activities in the Partner Countries and EU Member States; to give an impulse for development of cross border, subregional and regional approaches

C Two subregional workshops on Host Nation Support


Partner Countries

6 * 3 = 18 Introduction of the EU Host Nation Support guidelines; sharing national experiences; development of recommendations for relevant amendment of national legislations

D Regional workshop on consolidation of national awareness review results

Development Phase

Partner Country

6*2 = 12 Development of the common approach to awareness raising strategy

D Regional intermediate workshop on Awareness Raising Strategy & Action Plan

Development Phase

Partner Country

6*3 = 18 Preparation of the Action Plan in the field of prevention-aimed awareness raising

D Study tour and workshop on best practices on

Development Phase

Member State

6*2 = 12 Obtaining of relevant MS experience and exchange of

32

prevention work experience of prevention work in the Partner Countries

D Follow-up regional workshop on results and impact of implementation of the Action Plan


Partner Country

6*3 = 18 Presentation and evaluation of results of implementation of the Action Plan; development of further prevention aimed strategy and activities

Altogether training and events’ programme (excluding exercises) includes participation of more than 700 specialists from Partner Countries. Realisation of components of this tentative plan will be subject to priorities set by the Partner Countries and the Contracting Authority and to budgetary means of the Programme. Working plans for the next reporting periods have to be endorsed by the Steering Committee at its regular meetings. Project Inputs and Budgets At this stage no changes are proposed to the basic structure of the key and non-key expert inputs and their budget allocations.

3.5. Proposals For Amending Project Activities

In order to more efficiently achieve the Programme’s overall objective, purposes and expected results as stated in the ToR, the Project Team proposes certain amendments to the planned activities. These proposals are based upon the findings of the inception missions, priorities set by the beneficiaries and stakeholders, and the feasibility of the proposed and desired activities. It is stressed that none of these proposed amendments will substantially amend the overall objective, purposes and expected Programme’s results as stipulated in the ToR – rather they should only be regarded as slight corrections of the activities, which could not be foreseen by the authors of the ToR and the Consortium proposal at the time of drafting these documents. Concept of Crisis Management Centre In most of the Partner Countries the issue of establishing or updating their Crisis Management Centres is at the top of their agenda. In some countries such Centres already exist, whereas, in others, they are in the process of being established. The project team proposes to hold a number of events (seminar, study tours to the EU Members States for obtaining good practice – more specific forms, dates and venues of these activities have to be specified later) dedicated to elaborating a more or less homogenous concept (with certain national features) of a Crisis Management Centre – this will be fully in line with activities on institutional and regulatory strengthening as well as civil protection capacity building. A well-equipped and fully functional Crisis Management Centre, with substantial analytical and information management

33

capability should be at the core of a country’s disaster management system and also act as a primary contact for other countries and international organizations in emergencies. At the same time, the risk assessment methodology and solutions proposed by the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA) will serve as an essential working tool of such a Centre. Exercise Programme Regarding exercises as a part of civil protection capacity building programme, the ToR requires organization of two full scale regional exercises with active participation of at least four beneficiaries, two table top exercises with full involvement of the established Partner Countries' focal points, and two table top sub-regional exercises with the full involvement of established focal points. With respect to ensuring the maximum efficiency of the exercise programme – not least through the optimal involvement of all resources (time, human and technical resources of the Partner Countries, and time, human and budgetary resources of the Project) necessary for their planning, preparation, conduction and evaluation – and having in mind that four Partner Countries have hosted or will host big international field exercises (Armenia 2010, Moldova 2011, Belarus 2012, Georgia 2014; all – within the NATO PfP framework), where teams from other Partner Countries have participated or intend to participate, the Project Team proposes the following structure for the exercise programme:

Time Event/process Goal Remarks

4 qtr 2011 Seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology; Initial planning conference (IPC) for the all Table Top Exercises (TTX)

To share experience in exercise planning and create common understanding within disaster managers from Partner Countries about goals, methods, ways and means of planning, conduction and evaluation of table-top and field exercises in accordance with EU procedures and guidelines; as an output a concept of further table-top exercises within the project shall be developed

Participants: disaster managers from Partner Countries, EU experts Venue: partner country

1 qtr 2012 Preparation to the main planning conference (MPC) to TTX-1; MPC to TTX-1

Planning of the TTX-1 Tentative participants: Armenia – Georgia; EU experts

2 qtr 2012 TTX-1 To test national and make use of international disaster management schemes and procedures; information sharing and cooperation during transboundary emergency; to test information sharing with and request of assistance through MIC

Tentative participants: Armenia – Georgia; MIC; EU experts Observers: Partner Countries, EU MS; international organisations

3 qtr 2012 Preparation to the main planning conference (MPC) to

Lessons learnt from TTX-1; planning of the TTX-2

Tentative participants: Belarus – Ukraine; EU experts

34

TTX-2; MPC to TTX-2


Tentative participants: Belarus - Ukraine; MIC; EU experts Observers: Partner Countries, EU MS; international organisations


Lessons learnt from TTX-1-2; planning of the TTX-3

Tentative participants: Azerbaijan – Georgia; EU experts


Tentative participants: Azerbaijan – Georgia; MIC; EU experts Observers: Partner Countries, EU MS; international organisations


Lessons learnt from TTX-1-3; planning of the TTX-4

Tentative participants: Moldova - Ukraine; EU experts


Tentative participants: Moldova - Ukraine; MIC; EU experts Observers: Partner Countries, EU MS; international organisations

2 qtr 2013 IPC for Field Exercise (FEX)

To develop a concept of the FEX; to start FEX planning process, to establish working groups, to have initial agreement on venue, dates, scenario, participants

Participants: disaster managers from Partner Countries, EU experts; MIC representative Venue: Brussels (combined with visit to MIC)

3 qtr 2013 MPC for FEX To go through main details of exercise, scenario, logistics etc; to determine the scope of participation; to select and visit filed sites; to develop evaluation methodology

Participants: disaster managers from Partner Countries, EU experts; MIC representative; representatives from other potential participants (e.g. EU MS, EMERCOM Russia, UN OCHA) Venue: Exercise host (proposal – Ukraine)

1 qtr 2014 Final planning conference (FPC)

To finalise main details of the FEX; to agree upon and confirm evaluation methodology

Participants: disaster managers from Partner Countries, EU experts; MIC representative;

35

representatives from other potential participants (e.g. EU MS, EMERCOM Russia, UN OCHA) Venue: Exercise host (proposal – Ukraine)

2 qtr 2014 FEX To test national and make use of international disaster management schemes and procedures; to test information sharing, request of assistance (also through MIC), rendering and receiving of international assistance; to test conduction and coordination of relief activities in field conditions, logistics of an international relief operation, host nation support procedures etc.

Venue: proposal – Ukraine

3 qtr 2014 Lessons learnt from the exercise programme

To draw main lessons learnt, to adjust exercise methodology; to make proposals for respective adjustment of national procedures

Participants: disaster managers from Partner Countries, EU experts; MIC representative

This exercise programme shall in the best and most efficient way pursue the goals and objectives of the Programme in a progressively educating and rehearsing manner. At the same time it will allow for the optimal use of all necessary resources having enough time for theoretical and practical planning. The exercise programme takes into consideration the mid- and long-term plans of the Partner Countries (e.g. their plans of conducting national and participation in international exercises, preparation for INSARAG20 classification, e.g. of the Armenian Urban Search and Rescue Team etc). At this stage the exercise programme does not include participation of the Partner Countries’ teams in the EU Civil Protection Mechanism exercises as required by the ToR. Such participation will be arranged when the EU Civil Protection Mechanism plans for exercises in 2012-2013 are revealed. It should be also stressed that planning, conduction and evaluation of a field exercise is a very cost-requiring undertaking. According to preliminary calculations the whole process (3 planning conferences, field exercise and its evaluation workshop) will cost more than 500 000 EUR, which constitutes nearly 20% of the incidental expenditures of the Programme.

20


36

The following table gives an overview of costs related to the field exercise:

Item

Tentative number of participants

Cost (EUR)21

Initial Planning Conference 25 25 420

Main Planning Conference 35 27 500

Final Planning Conference 35 27 500

Exercise (incl. Exercise Evaluation Workshop on site after the exercise)

Accommodation (participants and observers) 265 101 227

Ground Transportation of teams 15 750

VIP, observer and media programme 5 036

Air transportation of teams and observers 87 500

Work of Exercise directing staff (field staff) 26 000

Meals (teams, VIP; observers) 265 55 900

Exercise preparation and management 14 000

Use of special equipment (aviation, chemical equipment etc)

50 000

Terrain rent 30 000

Environment clearing after the exercise 10 000

Customs procedures 10 000

Exercise movie 10 000

Liability insurance

Contingency 5% 20 771

Total 516 604

The Project Team is at the opinion that reducing the number of field exercises from 2 to 1 will contribute to the best cost efficiency and will concentrate Partner Countries’ resources instead of dispersing them. In order to combine the acquisition of theoretical knowledge with practical experience, the Project Team will link training workshops on specific types of disasters (earthquakes, floods, fires, chemical accidents) with the Table Top Exercises dealing mainly with the same type of disaster (e.g. workshop on earthquakes will be followed by cross border TTX with earthquake scenario). This enables participants not only to obtain the necessary theoretical information, but also to participate in solving certain types of scenarios either as responders or as observers/evaluators. A field exercise will combine in the best feasible manner all types of disasters addressed in the Programme. All Partner Countries, as well as EU Members States, EU Civil Protection experts, other countries and organisations, will be invited to participate in the FEX, the main goal of which will be testing of theoretical knowledge, use of information and procedures obtained at numerous Programme events during previous 3 years.

21

The costs are based on the assumption that the exercise will take part in 2014 in Ukraine; they are based on the current level of prices in Ukraine and current UAH/EUR rate.

37

The field exercise will encompass participation of at least 6 intervention teams (at least 1 from each Partner Country) of at least 25 persons in each team. The exercise shall last at least three full days including at least one night, excluding travelling time. Before the exercise the Civil Protection Mechanism will be activated. The request for assistance to the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) will be sent through the official channel of the affected State (National Authority) and coordinated through the MIC and the official channels of the other beneficiary countries. The participation of EU CP Team including assessment and/or coordination experts will be foreseen, possibly for the role of establishing and operating an OSOCC. At least 10 evaluators from the Partner Countries and the Participating States of the Mechanism will follow the exercise, they will be provided with the schedule, as well as with a detailed evaluation programme and sheet. The evaluators will be selected by the Commission. Involvement of the National Civil Protection Authorities of the Partner Countries in the exercise will be ensured. The Project Team will present to the Task Manager no later than ten weeks before the exercise is carried out the following among others:

• Detailed Scenario Episodes Catalogue (DSEC) – to be approved by the Commission;

• Implementation process of the exercise (including security and safety standards);

• Rules of coordination, rules of communication, plan of actions and of the participants’ role, and

• Programme for evaluators and observers. The field exercise will be prepared and conducted by a working group consisting of experts from the Partner Countries and participating States of the Mechanism, involving such positions as safety and security expert, evaluation expert, logistics expert, scenario planning and management expert, exercise controllers, communication expert. Introduction of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism The inception missions showed that knowledge of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism in Partner Countries is rather fragmentary and needs to be improved. At the same time one of the Programme purposes explicitly requires “to bring the Partner Countries progressively closer to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism”. Moreover, a large number of further activities involving all beneficiaries and most stakeholders will, in one way or another, tackle the Mechanism-related issues. Therefore, in order to introduce the EU Civil Protection Mechanism to a substantial number of officials in each Partner Country and to clearly show the link between the Programme and the Mechanism, the Project Team proposes to arrange a “Mechanism information day” in each Partner Country. This will allow for the dissemination of knowledge and for raising awareness about the Mechanism to a

38

considerable number of disaster managers, including decision makers and first responders, and officials working in adjacent fields, e.g. border guard, customs, environmental and health agencies etc. Moreover, there is an intention – subject to approval by every Partner Country – to hold the “Information days” in Russian, a language common to most people in the Partner Countries – that helps to address them, convey messages and carry out discussions more immediately. The team plans to involve Russian-speaking trained EU Civil Protection experts in the planning and conducting of these events. Six “Mechanism information days” are planned for the Development Phase, i.e. from September 2011 until February 2012. At the same time these “days” will be used as formally “kicking-off” the Programme activities in five out of the six Partner Countries – the Programme formally kicked-off in Ukraine at the “Project information day” on 5 April 2011. Participation in the Civil Protection Forum Since 2002, the European Union has already organised three Civil Protection Forums. These forums are the highest level meetings for international civil protection and disaster managers organised at EU level. The Forums discuss vital disaster management related issues and serve as a wide panel for the exchange of experience, opinions and best and innovative practices for the prevention, preparedness and response to disasters.

The 3rd

Civil Protection Forum “Towards a more resilient society” convened in 2009 and brought together over 800 participants to consider how to enhance Europe's resilience together. Participants discussed topics from prevention via the future of the European Civil Protection Mechanism to the governance of European disaster management. An exhibition of training centres, international partners and innovative technologies enabled stakeholders to become familiar with different projects and organisations involved in civil protection. Outside, specialist civil protection modules and an earthquake simulator offered a hands-on experience of civil protection equipment and what teams are up against. The seminars and debates offered a wealth of ideas for further work and European Civil Protection will benefit from this in the coming years. The 4

th Civil Protection Forum will take place in spring 2012, participation of the

PPRD East Partner Countries in the Forum is of utmost importance by way of including them into the European disaster management processes and strategies. The potential benefit for the PPRD East Programme is twofold: i) it will give an opportunity for the Partner Countries to learn new approaches, strategies, means of Civil Protection in Europe, and to broaden their cooperation networks; ii) at the same time, it will allow to present and promote the PPRD East Programme progress and open new ways for cooperation with the Partner Countries in the civil protection field.

39

Activities in support of requests for assistance to Government Environmental Emergency Projects (GEEP) During the inception missions four Partner Countries clearly indicated the need for concrete support in solving environmental emergency issues. One of the most prominent examples is the situation in Kalush tailing dam and hexachlorbenzene storage site, which threatens to have transboundary effect, if not addressed immediately. There are other cases in Ukraine where emergency situations may evolve very soon. Also Armenia was confronted with an emergency situation at the over 40 years old obsolete pesticides landfill in April 2010. Dealing with environmental emergencies comprises temporary measure for reducing risk to acceptable levels in order to gain time until a permanent solution can be implemented. The anticipated number of potential environmentally dangerous sites in the Partner Countries is estimated to approx. 10-15 sites. Site categories eligible for consideration include:

- obsolete pesticides sites and sites with other POPs chemicals - other orphan contaminated sites

Partner Countries shall investigate and analyze the national situation and prioritize identified environmental emergencies. Based on this they may request PPRD East Programme to assist. PPRD East team will review and assess priority GEEPs, consult stakeholders and confirm/reject requests. When GEEPs are confirmed, they will enter into a PPRD East prioritized project preparation pipeline. Project preparation will include:

Site inspection and assessment and confirmation of priority

Design of temporary measures for necessary risk reducing

Preparation of scope of work, cost estimates, tender documents and attract funding

Assistance in tendering of works, if necessary

Assistance to the Partner Country in outline of permanent solutions

Dissemination of information and lessons learned within the PPRD East Public Awareness program.

Cooperation with other international organizations (e.g. UNEP/OCHA, UN ECE) and projects may be relevant.

40

The following table illustrates a logical framework for GEEP short term risk reduction measures.

The following activities are foreseen in this field (see also the table above):

Activity 1 Review submitted Partner Country priority list

Assist Partner Country in preparing and conducting stakeholder workshop on environmental emergencies and priorities

Activity 2 Acquire site history and available environmental data

Conduct site visit, prepare assessment and confirm/adjust/reject priority

Develop Project pipeline for priority projects

Activity 3 Prepare proposal for temporary risk reduction measures, including technical feasibility, cost estimations, environmental and social impacts during intervention, securing national (in-kind) contribution, international funding, assistance to tendering of works and follow-up (if required)

Outline long term measures for final solution at site

Transfer of lessons learned.

3.6. Inception Phase Activities

Main activities implemented during the Inception Period included:

Kick-off meeting in Brussels

Establishment of a fully operational Programme office in Kiev

Five inception missions to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, and Republic of Moldova

Meetings with the main Programme beneficiary and Programme stakeholders in Ukraine

41

Programme Information Day in Ukraine (for all relevant stakeholders)

Establishing the Programme Steering Committee

Establishing a network of National Programme Coordinators

Establishing regular two-ways communications with the Programme Partners and beneficiaries

Fact finding and review of relevant materials available (see Annex 1)

Data collection and preliminary reviews

Meetings and consultations with the Programme partners and beneficiaries (see Annex 2)

Meetings and consultations with the consortium partners

Development of the ERRA concept

Participation and presentation of the Programme at ENVSEC regional seminar in Lviv

Participation in the workshop “Communication of an EU-funded project” organised by the ENPI Infocentre

Participation in the meeting of ENPI East Regional Projects on Environment, Statistics, Civil Protection and Climate Change

Participation and presentation of the Programme activities at the 26th meeting of the Directors-General for civil protection in Budapest

Participation in the kick-off meeting of the UNECE Danube Delta Project

Development and launch of the Programme portal (www.euroeastcp.eu)

Identification, interviews, and preliminary selection of non-key experts

Development of the Project work plan (for the Development Phase June 2011- June 2012 and until the end of the Project)

Preparation of Inception Report

3.7. Constraints, Risks and Assumptions

Two main groups of potential constraints and risks have been broadly assessed during the Inception Period in relation to undertaking the Programme activities.

Lack of support from relevant agencies. Although the objectives of the Programme have been generally well received, there will inevitably be certain political or institutional resistance against implementing some of its activities. Such resistance might impact upon the amount of work that can be carried out. This will be monitored and commented upon in the regular progress reports. As far as the main Programme beneficiaries’ are concerned, this risk does not appear to be significant, given the strong commitment demonstrated during the Inception Period. It is anticipated that ongoing communication and further clarification of the Programme benefits for the main stakeholders will ensure that there is sustained support and reciprocity at the national level.

Limited information availability. Information is presently stored in various forms in a wide number of potentially competing organisations. Difficulties may be encountered in acquiring information, particularly with respect to

http://www.euroeastcp.eu/

42

hazards, risks and capacities. In such an event limitations will be placed upon the reliability of the conclusions reached.

Further risks and constraints are detailed in the LogFrame (Annex 7).

3.8. Planning for Next Reporting Period

A plan of operations for the next two reporting periods (July – December 2011 and January – June 2012), is given in Annex 6. These periods constitute the 2nd, Development Phase of the project. The focus of activity over the next reporting period is on data collection and analysis for the ERRA, public awareness strategy development, regulatory and institutional framework analysis, and on the development of the detailed training programmes. At the same time the first information sharing and training events are planned to be carried out, such as "EU CP Mechanism information days", Seveso II study tour and workshop, the seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology, the first of a series of training workshops, and the first Table Top Exercise. When combined with analysis of the regulatory and institutional framework and relevant recommendations, it is envisaged that they will enable a smooth transition to the Implementation Phase. More precise activities by Activity Areas are listed below. Activity Area A: Development of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA)

A1.2 Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies - Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and

submission of the Technical Working paper “Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies”

A1.3 Development of the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy - Preparing the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy based on the

EU Risk Assessment Guidelines - Subregional workshops on ways and means of implementation of the

Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy A2.1 Review of Existing Management Information/GIS Systems

- Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Information Systems”

A2.2 Needs Analysis for the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas - Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and

submission of the Technical Working paper “Needs Analysis for the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas”

A2.2.1 Analysis of existing maps and data - Collection and analysis of existing information, preparing a web

catalogue service – metainformation system for existing data in the Region; drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Maps and Related Data”

- Acquiring and basic transformation of the GIS layers for the Region A2.2.2 Analysis of technological possibilities in countries

43

- Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Technological Possibilities”

Activity Area B: Civil Protection Capacity Building Programme B1.2 Training Needs Analysis

- Assessment of existing civil protection capacities, submission of the Technical Working paper "Capacity Building Needs Assessment"

- "EU CP Mechanism information days" B1.3 Development of Training Programme

- Development of the Modular Capacity Building Programme - Preparation of Seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology and

Concept Development Initial Planning Conference - Compilation of study materials for GIS/ERRA training

B2.1 Implementation of Training Programme - Participation in the UNECE Danube Delta Project - Seveso II study tour and workshop - Training workshop 1 „Earthquakes“ (back-to-back with Table Top

Exercise 1) - Start of the Exchange of Experts programme

B2.3 Planning & Implementation of "Table Top" Exercises - Seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology - Concept Development Initial Planning Conference - Main Planning Conference, Table Top Exercise 1 - Table Top Exercise 1

Activity Area C: Institutional and Regulatory Strengthening C1.2 Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework

- Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework - Regional workshop organized on the regulatory frameworks - Finalization of the list of recommendations based on the results of the

regional workshop - Submission of the Technical Working Paper "Detailed Analysis of

Existing Legislative Frameworks"

C1.3 Recommendations for Strengthening Regulatory Framework - Development of the preliminary list of recommendations on the

improvement of the institutional frameworks of the Partner Countries - Submission of the Analysis and Recommendations for Strengthening

the Institutional Framework - Presentation of results and proposed recommendations to the

Steering Committee - Participation of Partner Countries’ representatives in the Civil

Protection Forum in Brussels


44

D2.1 Awareness Raising Survey - Review of existing awareness raising activities - Workshop on consolidation of review results and developing common

approach to the communication strategy - Developing of the massmedia data base catalogue

D2.2 Develop Communication/Awareness Raising Strategy - Participation at the NATO PfP exercise “Codrii 2011” - Intermediate workshop on implementation of the regional

communication strategy and action plan - Issuing of the first regular bilingual Programme newsletters - Study tour and workshop on best practices of prevention work - Participation at the NATO PfP exercise planning Belarus 2012

Activity Area E: Project Management E2.2 Progress Reporting

- Progress Report No 1 (Jul-Dec 2011) - Progress Report No 2 (Jan-Jun 2012) - Steering Committee meeting No 2 - National Programme Coordinators meeting No 2

The main bulk of the Development Phase activities are planned to be carried out on regional level, i. e. with participation of all six Partner Countries. If the format of the activity does not envisage participation on regional level, its results will be shared to all Partner Countries, in particular, by means of the Programme’s webportal.

3.9. Relations/Coordination with other activities/projects

UNDP

In some countries (Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine) UNDP has either started, or is continuing, or planning to launch Disaster Risk Reduction projects aimed at promoting the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 and a proactive and preventive approach to risk management at the national level.

On meetings with UNDP representatives both parties expressed their wish to seek synergy and cooperation in the field of their mandates and to pursue common general objectives of improving the disaster management capacities of the Partner Countries.

Forms and ways of such cooperation will be agreed separately, but generally they will include cooperation in:

- developing and introduction of risk assessment methodology; - risk mapping and use of GIS systems; - preparation and conduction of public awareness campaigns; - joint trainings; - joint public events; - participation in establishing and promoting the National Platform for

Disaster Risk Reduction; and - participation in establishing of National Disaster Observatories.

45

The PPRD East Project Team regards UNDP as one of their main international partners during the implementation of the Programme and will try to develop cooperation with UNDP to the largest extent possible.

UNECE Danube Delta Project In May 2011 the Secretariat of the UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents launched a project on hazard and crisis management in the Danube Delta- The main goal of this project is to improve the cooperation between the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Romania in the Danube Delta region through enhancing and where possible harmonizing the mechanisms and approaches for efficient and effective hazard and crisis management. Furthermore, the building of understanding between authorities and industrial operators and the strengthening of their cooperation should improve. As two of the three target countries belong to the Eastern Partnership, the Project Team contacted the Secretariat with a proposal to open certain relevant events of their project to Belarusian specialists. Together with the UNECE Secretariat the Project Team agreed that five Belarusian specialists (from Ministry of Emergencies and Ministry of Environment) may participate in technical workshops, trainings for inspectors and exercises in the framework of the UNECE project. If this experience of cooperation with UNECE brings positive results, a joint organisation of similar project in the Caucasus for the three countries of this subregion will also be discussed.

NATO PfP exercises

Every year the NATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC) conducts a full-scale international exercise in order to test coordination procedures at staff level and in the field, as well as the ability of the NATO PfP countries to render and receive international assistance- The next such exercise will take place in late August – early September 2011 in Moldova. Although planning for the exercise “Codrii 2011” had begun prior to the Programme start-up, it was agreed with Moldavian colleagues that the PPRD East communication expert will participate in the exercise programme with the aim of becoming more familiar with work with the media during full-scale exercises and in particular working with PR issues of the teams from Partner Countries participating in the exercise.

In 2012, a NATO PfP full-scale exercise will be organised in Belarus. Pending NATO EADRCC and EU approval, there is a preliminary agreement with the Belarusian authorities (Ministry of Emergency Situations) that the PPRD East Programme will be invited into the planning and conducting process. More concrete forms of participation (e.g., use of risk assessment methodology, use of public awareness strategy elements, facilitation of participation of some Partner Countries, pre-exercise training workshop) will be agreed upon separately.

46

OSCE explosive ordnance awareness project in Ukraine

Explosive ordnance (remnants of World Wars and latter conflicts, self-made explosive devices) remains one of the most fatal types of incidents in all Partner Countries accounting for numerous fatalities and injuries. These fatalities can and should be avoided by comprehensive and focused prevention campaigns.

OSCE office in Ukraine together with the Ministry of Emergency Situations are starting the project, which output will be a video material (film or series of clips) aimed at teaching principles of save behaviour while finding the explosive ordnance to the most vulnerable target groups (children, farmers, foresters, tourists). This video material has to be issued by the end of 2011.

As, according to the interviewed persons, the problem is relevant to all Partner Countries, the Project Team has contacted OSCE with a proposal to participate in the film or clips production with a purpose of making them suitable and applicable for all Partner Countries. The end product can be more generalised (i. e. not specifically linked to Ukraine), hence might be used for prevention work in all Partner Countries (e.g. can be shown at schools, on national or local TV, used as a social media or a part of other prevention campaigns).

The OSCE office in Ukraine welcomed the idea of such cooperation and was of the opinion that such synergy can contribute to increasing public awareness and population safety in all Partner Countries.

Details of such cooperation and inputs from both parties will be agreed upon later.

Twinning project “Support the Emergency Management Department in development of emergency services in Georgia”

The EU has initiated a twinning project in Georgia with an overall objective to improve the safety of the population and environment in emergency situations in Georgia and the purpose of improving civil protection management services of the Emergency Management Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Having studied the Twinning Fiche, the Project Team has concluded that aims of the twinning project more or less match those of the PPRD East Programme. Although the Fiche states that “The EaP PPRD initiative and the proposed Twinning project will supplement each other: the Twinning project will mainly concentrate on building EMD capacities and coordination role in Georgia, while the activities under the initiative are expected to emphasize the regional cooperation dimension”, the Project Team sees a big and unfavourable chance of duplication of very similar activities, which can only lead to confusing the Georgian authorities, because both projects will be implemented under EU umbrella.

Duplication of the two projects should be avoided by all means. If revision of the Twinning Fiche is not possible, then the experts involved in its implementation should mandatorily consult the Project Team prior to commencing their work in order to elaborate a harmonized way of addressing the same issues.

47

4 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

Overall communication objectives The main objective of the regional communication strategy is to raise public awareness and to promote the exchange of information among the PPRD East Programme stakeholders in the Partner Countries. The problems revealed in this domain during the Inception Phase require for systematic approach. First of all, during the Development Phase (July 2011 to June 2012), a Review of the problems and of the public awareness level on prevention, preparedness and response to emergency situations in the Partner Countries will be carried out. Taking into account its results as well as the activities already in progress, and the Partner Countries’ own priorities, after consulting the beneficiaries, common strategic approaches to the awareness raising of the target groups will be formulated. At the Regional Workshop, that will take place in October 2011 in one of the Partner Countries to consolidate the results of the Review (presumably, in Georgia; at least 12 participants: 2 representatives of each Partner Country), press officers of the beneficiaries, experts in public relations, including also journalists of the national mass media, will unite into a working group for information and communications. At the next Regional Workshop in February 2012 (presumably, in Ukraine; 12 participants: 2 representatives of each Partner Country), the Working Group for Information and Communications will develop the Regional Communication Strategy and the Action Plan of activities that will enable dissemination among the most large audience of current information about the PPRD East Programme activities with the stress put on the prevention and risk reduction of the man-made and natural disasters. Special emphasis will be put on the fire safety and on acquirement of safety skills since the young age. The Regional Communication Strategy and the Action Plan for 2012 – 2014 are to be approved by the Steering Committee. The Action Plan for 2012 – 2014 will include:

Communication seminars/trainings for PR specialists of the beneficiaries and journalists (at least 2 subregional events, possibly involving young authors from national schools of journalism);

Helping in preparation and regional dissemination of educational materials (a booklet, approximately by 6 000 copies, and a brochure, approximately by 12 000 copies);

Materials input and regular updating at the web portal www.euroeastcp.eu

Participation of the 6 press-agents of the main PPRD East Programme beneficiaries at the NATO PfP exercise “Partnership for Peace”, Belarus 2012,


48

with the aim of acquiring the practice in cooperation with mass media under emergency situations;

Press conferences, press clubs and round tables involving nongovernmental organizations and journalists (at least 6 events regionally) and aiming at the dissemination of PPRD East Programme achievements as well as of information concerning prevention, preparedness and response to natural and man-made disasters in EU Countries, and emergency communications, including the EU Civil Protection Mechanism;

Educational and informational production including video and multimedia focusing at the prevention of emergency situations, at public awareness raising, and training, especially for children. For example, a series of short, 2 min, animation clips about fire safety, showing life-saving techniques, for noncommercial distribution through local TV stations in every Partner Country and through Internet placement.

The awareness raising campaigns for target groups will be carried out in the context of the Action Plan, in particular, for territorial communities in the disaster-prone zones that are to be defined as of priority attention in the subregion including Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan and in the subregion including Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine. Cooperation will be established with the local mass media including local TV- and radio-stations, that typically enjoy public confidence as source of reliable information. The PPRD East Programme web portal www.euroeastcp.eu developed and launched by the end of the Inception Phase of the Programme will promote modern knowledge exchange and dissemination of current information, concerning activities of the Programme PPRD East and their results application, among all the interested parties at both national and local levels in Partner Countries. For familiarization with EU Countries’ experience in the field of public awareness raising on the Civil Protection issues, and for offering an opportunity to adapt such experience in the Partner Countries, a study tour will be organized in March-April 2012 in one of the EU Countries, where a workshop on studying the best practices of emergency situations prevention will take place (12 participants: 2 from each country.) For the maximum effect of Programme achievements, its activities will be coordinated with the EU Delegations to Partner Countries to use the EU informational materials to the benefit of raising the target groups awareness in the issues of the Civil Protection. During the Implementation Phase a regional workshop (18 participants) will take place assessing the results of implementation of the Regional Communication Strategy and the Action Plan at regional and national levels.


49

Target groups and specific objectives of communication for each target group Target audiences of the Regional Communication Strategy have been previously defined at the Inception Phase by the results of consultations made by the Programme team with the beneficiaries’ and stakeholders’ representatives, during the visits to the Partner Countries.

Target groups Specific objectives of communication

Results

National Civil Protection authorities, Governmental agencies and organizations involved in Civil Protection issues

Supporting beneficiaries in their activities for preparing and carrying out the information strategy directed to the prevention issues. Exchange of knowledge and experience of advanced communication technologies implementation in the field of Civil Protection in particular for the Crisis Management Centers.

The information exchange in the issues of prevention, preparedness and response to emergency situations, including modern communication technologies application, has been improved as well as awareness and commitment of press-services of national Civil Protection authorities

Large strata of population

Raising public awareness in the issues of prevention and civil preparedness for emergency situations and disasters. Training large public in safe behavior rules and survival techniques.

The level of public awareness and interest to the issues of emergency situations prevention and response. Public knowledge of safe life behavior has been improved.

Local authorities Improving communicative coordination with Civil Protection authorities and other parts involved at the local level.

The level of awareness and knowledge has raised, coordination with authorities of Civil Protection has been improved in the issues of prevention, preparedness, and response to emergency situations and disasters

Mass media and new media (social networks)

Promoting better information policy of governmental and independent mass media in the issues of prevention and public preparedness as well as education level and awareness in the domain of civil protection, establishing emergency communication under emergency situations. Attracting bloggers attention to the topics of civil

The achievements of the Programme PPRD East have been regularly covered by the national and local mass media. Press-conferences, round tables, and other events for press have taken place, including as well popular bloggers

50

protection in the Partner Countries

Nongovernmental organizations

Adapting the best work methods of nongovernmental organizations of Partner Countries to inform public for the Programme PPRD East objectives and involvement of nongovernmental organizations in the development of national strategies for disaster risk reduction.

The public awareness has been raised at local and national levels, the coordination has been improved between nongovernmental organizations, main beneficiaries and other stakeholders including mass media

Educational institutions

Promoting development and implementation of special safe behavior education courses and classes for children, using the experience of international organizations

More safe behavior classes and trainings for children have been included in programs of Partner Countries educational institutions

Insurance companies and Private Business

Raising awareness and commitment of Insurance companies and Private Business at the national and local level in the issues of prevention and response to disasters and emergency situations

The role of Insurance companies and Private Business as important players in the domain of Civil Protection has significantly increased in the Partner Countries of the PPRD East Programme

All above mentioned key target groups are related to the issues of Civil Protection and need more information for better awareness, in particular, about prevention. At the regional workshop in February 2012, the work group for information and communications will consider and specify in the context of the regional communication strategy the target groups and corresponding key messages to them as well as methods, communication tools, and informational products (in the Action Plan for 2012 - 2014) for the most effective target group informing and feedback. Communication Activities Main activities that will take place during the period of Development Phase July 2011 – June 2012 Events:

Regional workshop on consolidation of the analytic results on target groups awareness level. October 2012, 12 participants (2 from each country: press-officers of the main beneficiaries, public relations experts, journalists). Common approach to the Regional Communication Strategy for target groups awareness in the Partner Countries will be agreed, and regional information and communications work group will be created

51

Regional workshop on the Regional Communication Strategy and Action Plan for 2012 – 2014. February 2012, 12 participants (2 from each country: press-officers of the main beneficiaries, public relations experts, journalists). Regional work group will consider the Regional Communication Strategy and prepare an Action Plan for 2012 – 2014 for better awareness in the field of Civil Protection with the emphasis on problems of disaster and emergency situations prevention

Study tour and workshop on the best practices of emergency situations prevention. March-April 2012, 12 participants (2 from each country.) The successful experience of one of the EU Countries will be discussed

A Programme expert in communications and public information will participate at the NATO PfP exercise “Codrii 2011”, Moldova, 27 August – 2 September 2011 with the purpose of acquiring the practice of covering in mass media full-scale PfP exercises and establishing contact with public relation experts of the Partner Countries

In the first quarter of 2012, an expert of the Programme PPRD East will contribute to the development of the concept of cooperation with mass media at the initial planning conference of the full-scale NATO PfP exercise, Belarus, 2012.

Media relations:

Development of the mass-media-and-journalists data base catalogue, through which the communicational strategy would be carried out.

Materials placement and updating at the PPRD East Programme web portal www.euroeastcp.eu. The portal is to become an informational tool for the participants of the Programme and the source of information for all the stakeholders.

Publishing and distribution of quarterly bilingual informational newsletters in English and Russian languages about the PPRD East Programme achievements.

Use of EU logo:

EU logo on quarterly newsletters

EU logo on all Programme publications

EU logo on press releases Communication tools There is a large choice of means for information diffusion. However, we are looking for the least expensive, but willingly employed means of information dissemination and exchange, taking into account particular character of every target audience. Internet Although access to the Internet isn’t yet generalized communication facility in all the Partner Countries, it is the optimal instrument for information diffusion among the target groups and also a tool of public’s access to realization of its participation and social control functions.


52

The Programme will employ a web-agency for development and service of the web portal www.euroeastcp.eu. There will be also the page of the Programme PPRD at the Facebook. Printed and electronic mass media A data base will be compiled, including the list of contacts of printed and electronic media, and the separate date base for journalists. In addition to distribution of the Programme informational materials these data bases will be used for mass media monitoring and actualized regularly. Publication of bilingual press-releases in English, Russian, and national languages is anticipated. Reviewing the most important events and Programme achievements, press-conferences, press clubs and round tables for nongovernmental organizations and journalists will be organized. Also press-conferences are intended at the end of both stages of development and implementation as well as for final report presentation. Informational bulletins, educational materials, and video Beginning from November 2011 and up to the final realization of the PPRD East Programme, regular (each three-four months) informational bulletins in English and Russian languages will be published and distributed digitally with the purpose of informing all the stakeholders of the Programme achievements. The Programme also will prepare educational materials (booklets, pamphlets) and the series of short videos on prevention of disasters and emergency situations. These materials will target in the first place children and youth and should be distributed non-commercially through local mass media in each Partner Country and through the social networks in the Internet. Said activities will be carried out in close cooperation with international organizations, national and international nongovernmental organizations, acting in the Partner Countries (such as UNDP, UNICEF, Red Cross, Red Crescent, REC Caucasus, CENN, OSCE etc.)


53

5 ANNEX 1. LIST OF KEY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Terms of Reference

Relevant national laws of the Partner Countries

Relevant national strategies

Relevant international (bilateral) agreements

Relevant EU legislation in the field of Civil Protection and Disaster Management

Relevant previous mission reports (UNDAC, EU-UN and others)

Relevant reports produced by UNDP, World Bank and other organisations

ENPI Action plans for Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

Relevant materials provided by REC Caucasus

Relevant materials provided by Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)

Relevant materials provided during meetings with the stakeholders

54

6 ANNEX 2. LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED IN PARTNER COUNTRIES

Armenia

Armen Yeritsyan Minister MoES Davitashen 4 massiv, 0054, Yerevan, Armenia +374 10 362015 [email protected]

Aram Tananyan Head of Department of Implementation of National Security Strategy

National Security Council

24 M. Bagramyan ave., 0019, Yerevan, Armenia +374 91402894 [email protected]

Sergey Azaryan Head of Service ARS 25 Pushkin str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 91209498 [email protected]

Hovhannes Yemishyan

Head of Department for Protection of Population and Territories

ARS 25 Pushkin str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 91201966 [email protected]

Nikolay Grigoryan Head of Information and Public Relations Department, Head of “Emergency Channel” Information Center

Ministry of Emergencies RA, Information and Public Relations Department

25 Pushkin str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +37491 43 92 93 [email protected]

Hamlet Matevosyan

Rector CMSA 1 Acharyan St, 375040, Yerevan, RA +374 91 204 084 [email protected]

Haykandukht Gharibyan

Pro-rector CMSA 1 Acharyan St, 375040, Yerevan, RA +374 1 611 921

Vasil Avetisyan Science section CMSA 1 Acharyan St, 375040, Yerevan, RA +374 1 611 924

Artavazd Davtyan Professor CMSA 1 Acharyan St, 375040, Yerevan, RA +374 1 611 924 [email protected]

Edgar Pirumyan Head of Staff Ministry of Nature Protection

Government Building No 3, Republic Square, 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 10585419 [email protected]

Anahit Aleksandryan

Head of Hazardous Substances and Waste Policy Division

Ministry of Nature Protection

Government Building No 3, Republic Square, 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 10 538838 [email protected]

Margarita Korkhmazyan

Head of International Relations Department


Government Building No 3, Republic Square, 0010, Yerevan, Armenia

mailto:[email protected]







mailto:edgar_pirumyan@



55

+374 10 585469 [email protected]

Ashot Harutyunyan Head of Division of Strategic Environment Programmes and Monitoring


Government Building No 3, Republic Square, 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 10 567535 [email protected]

Vladimir Narimanyan

Deputy Head Water Resources Management Agency (WRMA) of the Ministry of Nature Protection of RA

Governmental Building №3, Republic Square, 0010, Yerevan, Armenia [email protected]

Dirk Boberg Deputy Resident Representative

UNDP Armenia 14 Petros Adamyan, str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 91403754 [email protected]

Armen Chilingaryan

Programme Associate UNDP Armenia 14 Petros Adamyan, str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 91011353 [email protected]

Aram Gevorgyan GIS expert Apt 26, 8 Tpagrichneri St. Yerevan, Armenia +374 77 497266 [email protected]

Hasmik Manandyan

Geologist, specialized in geochemistry and GIS

Geocom +374 93 556427 [email protected]

Hayk Yeritsian GIS Analyst Geocom +374 91 336652 [email protected]

David Vardanyan Hydrogeologist, GIS specialist


Alexander Arakelyan

Hydrologist, GIS specialist


Artak Piloyan Geographer, Geomorphologist


Anna Elbakyan Ecologist Geocom +374 93 7120 53 [email protected]

Arshavir Avagyan Director Geocom +374 91560177 [email protected]

Levon Vardanyan General Director State Hydrometeo Service

54 Leo Str. Yerevan 0002, Armenia +374 10 531331

Benyamin Zakaryan

Head of department of hydrography

State Hydrometeo Service

54 Leo Str. Yerevan 0002, Armenia +374 10 531331 [email protected]

Lilit Aghajanyan Chief specialist of department of hydrography

State Hydrometeo Service

+374 10 53 13 31 [email protected]

Hrachia Petrosyan Head Armenian National Survey for seismic protection

Davidashen 4 massiv 0054, Yerevan, Armenia +37493 576040 [email protected]

David Avakian Project Manager EU Delegation to 21 Frik St., 0002, Yerevan,

















56

Armenia Armenia [email protected]

Fumio Kaneko Chief Engineer OYO International Corporation

25 Pushkin str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 98792897 [email protected]

Jun Matsuo Coordinator of JICA Study Team

OYO International Corporation

25 Pushkin str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 99561435 [email protected]

Nune G. Harutyunyan

Branch Office Director

REC Caucasus Armenian Branch Office

1 Charents St, 2nd

floor, room 210, 212, 0025 Yerevan, Armenia +374 10 574 74, 575148 [email protected]

Shuhi Sahakyan REC Caucasus Armenian Branch Office

1 Charents St, 2nd

floor, room 210, 212, 0025 Yerevan, Armenia +374 10 574 74, 575148

Naira Markare REC Caucasus Armenian Branch Office

1 Charents St, 2nd

floor, room 210, 212, 0025 Yerevan, Armenia +374 10 574 74, 575148

Sergey Hovhannisyan

Programme Manager SDC Armenia 2/1 Melik-Adamyan str., 0010, Yerevan, Armenia +374 93408673 [email protected]

William Hanlon Economic and Environmental Officer

OSCE Office in Yerevan

64/1 Sundukyan St. Yerevan 0012, Republic of Armenia +374 10 22 96 10/11/12 Ext. 5431 [email protected]

Armen Tiraturyan OSCE Office in Yerevan

64/1 Sundukyan St. Yerevan 0012, Republic of Armenia +374 10 22 96 10/11/12 Ext. 5431 [email protected]

Armen Gharibyan Chief Advisor to the President

Presidents’ Office in Yerevan

26 Baghramyan Ave. Yerevan 0077, Republic of Armenia +374 10 588 418 [email protected]

Karyne Yesayan Head of Horticulture Development Division of Plant Protection, Forestry and Plant Protection Department

Ministry of Agriculture

Government Building 3 Republic Square, Yerevan 0010 Republic of Armenia +374 10 22 96 10/11/12 Ext. 5431 [email protected]











57

Azerbaijan

Faig Taghi-zada

Deputy Minister MoES 501st

block, M. Müshvig str., AZ 1073 Baku +994 12 5120054 [email protected]

Ramiz Gusejnov Head of State Fire Control Service

MoES 501st

block, M. Müshvig str., AZ 1073 Baku +994 12 5120058

Adil Abdullaev Head of Crisis Management Centre

MoES 501st


Turana Mammadova

Specialist of International Relations Department

MoES 501st


Mutallim Abdulhasanov

Head of Division, Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Policy

MoENR B. Aqhayev Street 100A, AZ 1073 Baku +994 12 598 39 54 [email protected]

Ilgar Rustamov

Chief editor “Khalg gazeti” 18 Bulbul pr., Baku, Azerbaijan +994 50 3717795 [email protected]

Rza Mahmudov Director Hydrometeocenter

Parviz Yusifov

Programme Manager EU Delegation Landmark III, 11th

floor, 96 Nizami Street, AZ 1010 Baku +994 12 42 20 63/64 [email protected]

Chingiz Mammadov

Senior Programme Adviser

UNDP 3, UN 50th

Anniversary str. AZ 1001 Baku +994 50 5410371 [email protected]

Elshan Salimzadeh Deputy Secretary General

AzRC 112, S. Vurgun str. AZ 1022 Baku +994 553903919 [email protected]

Farid Seidzadeh

Head of Disaster Preparedness and Disaster Response Department

AzRC 112, S. Vurgun str. AZ 1022 Baku +994 552474855 [email protected]

Bayram Valiyev Adviser AzRC 112, S. Vurgun str. AZ 1022 Baku +994 703025440 [email protected]

Farda Imanov

Head of Hydrometeorology Department, Prof., Dr.Sc.

Baku State University;

NGO International Hydrological Programme

23, Z. Khalilov str., AZ1148, Baku + 994 50 3462686 [email protected]

Issa Aliyev

Director of Branch Office of Azerbaijan

REC Caucasus 100a B.Agayev 10/73 Baku, +994 50 2100766 [email protected]














58

Pasha Kesamanski

Director Trend NEWS company

14, Firudin Agayev str., Baku AZ 1141, Azerbaijan +994 12 4973172 [email protected] www.trendaz.com

Belarus

Gennadi Lasuta Deputy Minister MoES 5, Revolutsionnaya str., Minsk 220050 +375 17 328 5424

Alexandr Dokuchaev

Head of International Relations

MoES 5, Revolutsionnaya str., Minsk 220050 +375 296851628 [email protected]

Svetlana Moshchinskaya

Head of International Projects Sector

MoES 5, Revolutsionnaya str., Minsk 220050 +375 173285181 [email protected]

Aleksandr Suhovarov

Officer for International Cooperation

Institute for Command Engineers, MoES

25 Mashinostroiteley str. 220118, Minsk +375 296319173 [email protected]

Dzmitry Yashenia First Deputy Head Institute for Retraining and Professional Development, MoES

Svetlaya Rostcha, Borisov district, Minsk region 222131 +375 447155834 [email protected]

Nickolay Zakhvitsevich

Head of International Training Sector

Institute for Retraining and Professional Development, MoES

Svetlaya Rostcha, Borisov district, Minsk region 222131 +375 293617986 [email protected]

Vitaly Novitsky

Press Secretary – Assistant of the Minister

MoES

5, Revolutsionnaya str., Minsk 220050 +375 17 328 51 88 [email protected]

Vasily Matveev

Editor of the department of social problems

“Respublika”, a daily newspaper of the Government of Belarus

10a, Khmelnitsky str., 220013 Minsk Belarus [email protected]

Oleh Panchuk

Chief of Department on Medical Protection in Emergency Situations

MoH 39 Myasnikova str., Minsk 220048 +375296080255 [email protected]

Uladzimir Klimau Head of Foreign Relations Sector

MoH 39 Myasnikova str., Minsk 220048 +375291378166 [email protected]

Alexander Rachevsky

Head of International Cooperation and information Department

MoNREP Kollektornaya str. 10, Minsk, 220048 +375 17 200 4328 [email protected]

Sergey Kuzmenkov Head of Waste MoNREP Kollektornaya str. 10, Minsk,


http://www.trendaz.com/











59

Management Department

220048 +375 17 200 47 76

Pavel Dementey Main specialist for forest protection and emergency situations in forestry

MoF 39 Myasnikova str., Minsk 220048 +375 29 316 46 16 [email protected]

Anatoly Polishuk Head of Centre NHMC Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 267 22 31 [email protected]

Grigoriy Chekan Deputy Head NHMC Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 267 23 13

Dmitriy Ryabov Head of department of hydrometeorological forecast

NHMC Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 267 34 33

Olga Fedotova Main synoptic NHMC Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 267 03 15 [email protected]

Ludmila Parashuk Head of department of meteorological forecast


Marina Nagibina Head of department of hydrological forecast

NHMC Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 267 00 22 [email protected]

Andrey Taberko Main engineer telecommunication service


Viktor Melnik Head of hydrometeorological monitoring and database


Olga Gribova Deputy head of centre

RCRCEM Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 266 31 45 [email protected]

Bogdana Kozeruk Head of department of analytical measurement of air pollution

RCRCEM Nezalezhnosti av. 110, Minsk +375 17 267 64 34

Victor Kalbanov

Secretary General

BRCS

35, Karl Marx Street 220030 Minsk + 375 29 677 67 03 [email protected]

Inna Lemeshevskaya

Deputy Secretary General on youth

BRCS 35, Karl Marx Street 220030 Minsk +375 29 228 3938 [email protected]

Vladislav Mikhnevich

Project Officer EU Delegation 34a/2, Engels str., Minsk 220030 +375173286613 [email protected]

Elinor Bajraktari

Assistant Resident Representative

UNDP 17 Kirova str., 6th

floor, Minsk 220050 +375296114214 [email protected]

Yuri Solovyov Head NGO “Ecological Initiative”

+375 296456554 [email protected]











60

Georgia

Irakli Kadagidze Head EMD 10 G.Gulua st. 0114, Tbilisi +995 32 41 19 99 [email protected]

Pridon Sadunishvili Deputy Head EMD 10 G.Gulua st. 0114, Tbilisi +995 32411967 [email protected]

Jemal Kolashvili Head of Civil Protection Division

EMD 10 G.Gulua st. 0114, Tbilisi +995 77554453

Vakhtang Gloveli Head of Programming Section

EMD 10 G.Gulua st. 0114, Tbilisi +995 32411851 [email protected]

Sophia Revia

Specialist of the Division

Information and Public Relations Division of the MIA

38 Kakheti Highway, Tbilisi, 0190 + 995 32 41 83 71 [email protected]

Mikheil Kekenadze Advisor National Security Council

Government Building, 7th

floor +995 99 954626 [email protected]

Shalva Javakhadze

Head of the Agency

Ministry of Environment Protection National Environmental Agency (NEA)

150 D. Agmashenebeli Ave. 0112 Tbilisi +995 32 760439500 [email protected]

Ramaz Chitanava

Head of the Department of Hydrometeorology

NEA +995 32 760535 [email protected]

Emil Tsereteli

Head of the Department of Geological Hazards and Geological Environment Management

NEA

Marina Kordzakhia Deputy Head of the Department of Hydrometeorology

NEA [email protected]

Marine Arabidze Dept. of Environmental Pollution Monitoring


Irakli Megrelidze

Head of Avalanche Service Group, Specialist of Natural Disasters


Georgi Geladze GIS Specialist


Georgi Gaprindashvili

Geological Hazards and Geological Environmental Management


Irma Gurguliani

Chief Specialist, National Focal Point for HFA; NFP for the UNECE Convention on

Department of Environmental Policy and International Relations,

6 Gulua st. 0114 Tbilisi +995 32727243 [email protected]














61

"Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents"

MoEP

Tornike Phulariani Head of Environmental Policy Division

Department of Environmental Policy and International Relations, MoEP

6 Gulua st. 0114 Tbilisi +995 32727243 [email protected]

Sophiko Akhobadze

Executive Director REC Caucasus 23, Chavchavadze Ave., 2nd

floor, 0179 Tbilisi +995 77 797759 [email protected]

Georgi Arzumanyan

Director REC Caucasus 23, Chavchavadze Ave., 2nd


Malak Shukyurova Director REC Caucasus 23, Chavchavadze Ave., 2nd


Zurab Vasadze Information Officer REC Caucasus 23, Chavchavadze Ave., 2nd

floor, 0179 Tbilisi [email protected]

Rezo Getiashvili Public Outreach Specialist

CENN 27, Betlemi Str. 0105, Tbilisi +995 93 788755

Juan-Jose Echanove

Project Officer EU Delegation to Georgia

38 N. Chkheidze str., Tbilisi [email protected]

George Datusani Programme Officer OXFAM +995 32 252881

Ketevan Lomsadze Programme Officer

ECHO – Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

6 Khetagurovi str., 0102 Tbilisi +995 77 44 11 92 [email protected]

Nino Gvetadze Project officer, Disaster Preparedness and Risk Reduction

UNICEF 9 Eristavi str., Vake UN House, 4 Floor 0179 Tbilisi +995 91 225293 [email protected]

Eva Jordung Nicolson

Disaster Programme Manager Georgia & Armenia

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Georgia Representation

15, J.Kakhidze str., 0102 Tbilisi +995 91 601 148 [email protected]

Keti Gujaraidze Policy Analyst Green Alternative (NGO)

27/29 Palishvili II fl 0179 Tbilisi +995 32 292773 [email protected]

Thomas N. Barrett Army Attaché US Embassy 11, G. Balanchini Str 0131, Tbilisi +995 899539912
















62

[email protected]

David Tchitchinadze

National Programme Officer

SDC 12 Radiani str., 0179 Tbilisi +995 322 53682 [email protected]

Nils Christensen Team Leader, Crisis Prevention & Recovery

UNDP Georgia 9 Eristavi str., Vake UN House 0179 Tbilisi +995 95333934 [email protected]

Vano Grigolashvili Head RDFG Gabriel Isakadze str 17 Tbilisi +995 99192455 [email protected]

Petri Nevalainen Head CIMS Gabriel Isakadze str 17 Tbilisi [email protected]

Moldova

Alexandru Oprea Deputy Head of CPESS, Head of Civil Protection Directorate

CPESS 69 G. Asaghi str., MD 2028, Chisinau +373 79604105 [email protected]

Vitali Mutaf Deputy Head of Civil Protection Directorate


Svetlana Drobot Head of International Relations Department

CPESS 69 G. Asaghi str., MD 2028, Chisinau +373 22 738506 [email protected]

Andrei Cojocharenko

Chief Specialist of International Relations Department


Victor Mirza

Deputy Director

Republican CP Training Center

Cuza Voda Boulevard 8 / 1, Chisinau

Mihail Penkov Deputy Head State Water Management Agency “Apele Moldovei”

Gh. Tudor str. 5, of. 504, MD-2009, Chisinau [email protected]

Boian Ilie General director SHS Republica Moldova, 2072 Chisinau str.Grenoble 134, +373 22 773633 [email protected]

Lidia Treşcilo Chief of the Meteorology Department

SHS +373 22 773644 [email protected]

Ludmila Serenco Chief of the Hydrology Department


Gavril Gilcă Chief of the Environmental Quality Monitoring
















63

Department

Valentin Plesca Project manager Sustainable POPs Management Office (Ministry of Environment and Natural resources)

9 Cosmonautilor str., room 614a Chisinau, MD2005 +373 69120381 [email protected]

Viorel Gutu

Deputy Minister Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry

Of. 316, 162, Stefan cel Mare ave, 2004 Chisinau [email protected]

Tamara Rozmerita Head of Department for Ecological Agriculture

MAFI Of. 316, 162, Stefan cel Mare ave, 2004 Chisinau

Veronica Tertea Consultant in the Department for Ecological Agriculture

MAFI Of. 316, 162, Stefan cel Mare ave, 2004 Chisinau

Vitalie Marinuta

Minister Ministry of Defence

84 Hincesti str., 2021 Chisinau [email protected]

Colonel Anatolie Nosatii

Head of Strategic Planning Directorate

Ministry of Defence

84 Hincesti str., 2021 Chisinau

LTC Vlad Ababii Head of the Defence Policy and Planning Directorate

Ministry of Defence

84 Hincesti str., 2021 Chisinau

LTC Mariana Grama

Head of the Ecology and Environmental Protection Section, Logistic Command Project Partner Director of the NATO SfP Project 981186 Clean-up chemicals - Moldova

Ministry of Defence

84 Hincesti str., 2021 Chisinau +373 22 25 24 07 +373 794 30 748 [email protected]

Grigore Prisacaru Head of State Environmental Inspectorate of Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources

9 Cosmonautilor str., MD2005 Chisinau +373 693 13156 [email protected]

Vasile Alcaz General director IGS Academiei 3 str. Chisinau, MD-2028 +373 22 72-36-08 [email protected]

Oleg Bogdevici Chief of the Laboratory of Geochimistry

IGS +373 22 73-90-81 [email protected]

Ion Ilieş Chief of the Center of Experimental Seismology

IGS +373 22 73-96-69 [email protected]

Igor Nicoara Scientific Assistant IGS +373 22 73-97-29 [email protected]

Eugen Isichko GIS specialist IGS [email protected]

Vasile Grama General director ALRC Puşkin str., 47 Chişinău, MD-2005 + 37322 881255 [email protected]












64

Andrei Iacovlev Deputy General Director

ALRC + 373 79 479975 [email protected]

Alexandru Cebanu Head of State Inspectorate for Technic supervision and Regime

ALRC [email protected]

Tamara Rudenco Head of National Geospatial Data Fund

ALRC [email protected]

Larisa Bîrca President MRCS Gh. Asachi str. 67A, MD-2028, Chisinau +373 69101710 [email protected]

Vasil Chernenchi Executive Director MRCS Gh. Asachi str. 67A, MD-2028, Chisinau +373 22 729700 [email protected]

Wolfgang Behrendt Head of Political and Economic Section

EU Delegation to Moldova

Kogalniceanu str., nr. 12 Chisinau, MD-2001 +373 68718430 [email protected]

Dagmar Behrendt-Kaljarikova

Project Manager EU Delegation to Moldova

Kogalniceanu str., nr. 12 Chisinau, MD-2001 +373 22505210 [email protected]

Doina Munteanu Programme Analyst UNDP Moldova 131, 31 August 1989 str., MD2012, Chisinau +373 69 099 155 [email protected]

Victor Cotruta Executive Director REC Moldova str. A.Mateevici, 31 MD2009, Chişinău +373 22 238685 [email protected]

Iordanca - Rodica Iordanov

National project coordinator

Milieukontakt International, NGO

45, Banulescu Bodoni str., of.412, MD-2012, Chisinau +373 22 836755 [email protected]

Tatiana Sinyaeva

Projects Coordinator

Eco-Tiras, International Environmental Association of River Keepers

11a Teatrala str., Chisinau MD 2012 +373 692 94654 [email protected]

Elena Zubkova Independent expert Eco-Tiras +373 796 38311

Kenneth Pickles Politico-Military Adviser

OSCE Mission to Moldova

Mitropolit Dosoftei Str. 108 2012 Chisinau +373 22 22 34 95 [email protected]

Alexandr Kozelsky Head of Moldovan Representation on the Working Group on Agriculture and Ecology

OSCE Mission to Moldova

Mitropolit Dosoftei Str. 108 MD-2012 Chisinau +373 22 22 34 95 [email protected]

Ukraine
















65

Vitali But Deputy Minister MoES 55, O. Gonchara str., Kiev

Vadim Nekypilyy Head of International Relations

MoES 55, O. Gonchara str., Kiev [email protected]

Oleksandr Leshchenko

Deputy Head of Civil Protection Department

MoES 55, O. Gonchara str., Kiev +380506947088 [email protected]

Vasil Demchuk Deputy Head of Section of Duty Service


Oleg Venjik Leading Specialist of Section for Media Relations


Anatoli Prokopenko

Deputy Head Hydrometeo-centre

+380442791890 [email protected]

Victoria Boyko Head of Section for Hydrological Forecast

Hydrometeo-centre


Mykola Lysuk First Deputy Director State Service for Mines Oversight and Industrial Safety


Pavel Afanasyev Head of Section of State Department for Fire Safety

State Inspection for Fire Safety


Vjacheslav Kovalenko

Leading Specialist of Section for Inspections

State Inspection of Civil Protection and Technogenic safety


Galina Ustinova Head of Section for Engineering Geology and Ecology

State Service for Geology and Bowels


Nataliya Zaritovska Leading Specialist of Section for Hydrogeology

State Service for Geology and Bowels


Oksana Yarmolenko

Head of Section for Analysis, Planning, Inspectoral Activities and Communications

State Ecology Inspection


Olesya Tsimbal Leading Specialist of Section for Analysis, Planning, Inspectoral Activities and Communications

State Ecology Inspection


Andrii Bulychev Senior Inspector of Section for Operational Management of Main Headquarters

Ministry of Internal Affairs

+380677351477

Viktoria Kolesnik Senior Inspector of Section for Operational Management of Main Headquarters

Ministry of Internal Affairs


Antonina Kornaukhova

First Secretary of Department for

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

















66

External Economic Cooperation

Oleg Malyi Third Secretary of Department of EU

Ministry of Foreign Affairs


Igor Gatc Senior Officer of Section for Ecological Safety Department for Civil Protection and Ecological Safety

Ministry of Defence


Mikhaylo Strelnikov

Head of Section for Immediate Medical Assistance of Department for Medical Assistance Developments

Ministry of Health +380442532472 [email protected]

Mykola Bliznuk Deputy Director on Providing Immediate Medical Assistance of Ukrainian Scientific Centre Emergency Medical Assistance and Disaster Medicine

Ministry of Health +380445185708 [email protected]

Mykhaylo Yunko Director General Institute of Mining and Chemical Industry PGSC “GIRHIMPROM”


Anatolii Gaidin Leading Specialist Institute of Mining and Chemical Industry PGSC “GIRHIMPROM”

+380322971377

Olena Razdolska Leading Specialist State Agency on Water Recourses of Ukraine


Ruslan Nikolayenko

Leading Inspector of Section for Custom Infrastructure

State Customs Service


Mykola Pereboychuk

State Forest Resources Agency

+380955355855

Konstantin Volokh Head of Section for Special Project Management

State Space Agency


Vasyl Gukov Head of Section for Special Project Management

State Space Agency


Oleksii Vaskovskii Head of Service for CRN Protection and Ecological Safety

State Border Guard Service


Ulia Lanetska Leading Specialist of Section for International Technical Assistance of International law Department

State Border Guard Service


Uriy Skaletskii Head of Section for National Institute +380442458859











67

Technogenic and Ecological Safety

for Strategic Studies

[email protected]

Yevgen Yakovlev Senior Research Scientist of Section for Technogenic and Ecological Safety

National Institute for Strategic Studies


Nataliia Karina Head of Section for Humanitarian Affairs

Ukrainian Red Cross Society

+380442350157

Jean-Francois Moret

Sector Manager Nuclear Safety, Civil Protection

EU Delegation +380443908010 [email protected]

Sergei Volkov Senior Programme Manager

UNDP Ukraine +380442539363 [email protected]

Alla Tynkevich Programme Associate UNDP Ukraine +380442539363 [email protected]

Oksana Kovalenko Forest Low Enforcement and Governance

World Bank in Ukraine


Vladimir Tikhii Consultant World Bank in Ukraine


Lubomir Kopaj Ambassador, OSCE Project Coordinator in Ukraine

OSCE in Ukraine 16 Striletska str., Kyiv 01034 +38044 4920382 [email protected]

Rene Bebeau Senior Project Manager


Aleksandr Savelyev National Project Officer













68

7 ANNEX 3. A SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED MANMADE EMERGENCIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Armenia

Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries) Armenia is a Party to the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA). Among priority areas mentioned during the inception mission there are potential hazards related to ore mining (dam stability at tailing ponds with hazardous waste) and hazardous enterprises. The Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Ministry of Nature Protection, respectively, are maintaining a list of designated industries, but a detailed situation report on the sites is not available at present. A generally very old industrial infrastructure and lack of resources within the industrial sector are deemed as the main impediment for compliance with TEIA requirements. The regional environmental security programs (such as ENVSEC and CASE) have produced a first list of mining tailing sites in Lori region. Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs chemicals

Armenia has ratified the Stockholm Convention on POPs. In 2003 the Ministry of Nature Protection prepared a National Implementation Plan in order to – in a stepwise process – reduce hazards from these persistent chemicals, including pesticides. No detailed list of obsolete pesticides and other POPs is available in the country, but the issue is recognised as a problem for the overall public health and nature. Not least because of the emergency situation at the Nubarashen Obsolete Pesticides Landfill, where the cover was removed and obsolete pesticides have been spread into the environment. In June 2010, a number of emergency actions have been taken by installing a new temporary cover in order to minimise the further spreading and to reduce the risks. Nubarashen has been an eye-opener in Armenia, as has generated attention on some new other possible emergencies. Recently, a second dangerous but smaller case has been reported. A former pesticides storage facility is situated next to a commercial fish farm, and there is a high risk that the fish products already are/will be contaminated from the storage facility. A need for a detailed inventory has consequently also been expressed by the Ministry of Agriculture, confirming that one of the most important topics is the quality and the safety of Armenian agricultural products. Not least as presently Armenia is in the process of fulfilling EU requirements on food safety, including analytical control of all food products exported to EU and other markets.

Other orphan contaminated sites

69

Among other contaminated sites the regional ENVSEC and CASE Programs have reported a former mining site with pollution from highly toxic arsenic that needs urgent attention. This arsenic graveyard is situated in Alaverdi city (Lori region), where the arsenic effluents have been released by former Alaverdi Mining and Metallurgical Plant. The establishment and improvement of the sustainable emergency policy and organisation in the region is considered as one of the priorities within implementation frame of the above programs.

Azerbaijan Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries) Azerbaijan is a Party to the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA). Azerbaijan has historically well-developed oil and gas industry, and operators are confronted with the legacy of the past. Industrial pollution of rivers and the Caspian Sea has been mentioned by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources as an important issue. No inventory of hazardous industrial sites has been provided, but information on 11 main dangerous industries has been submitted to the Secretariat of the TEIA. All industrial sites have “ecological passports” as part of their license to operate. Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs chemicals Azerbaijan is a Party to the Stockholm Convention on POPs, and a National Implementation Plan is available.

In this context the Sumgayit chemical complex (obsolete pesticides and other chemicals) has been highlighted by the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, but no detailed information has been made available. The Sumgayit site has been reported by various organizations and has been announced as one of the most polluted areas in the world. Other orphan contaminated sites Regarding other contaminated sites, the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources refers to Former Soviet industry locations, as e.g.:

- Iodine factory of Baku with radioactive oil sludge - Ganja bauxite factory with 3 mill tons of bauxite sludge (which can cause

similar effect as the red sludge emergency in Hungary in October 2010) - Dahskesan mining site.

Belarus Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries) Belarus is a Party to the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA).

70

Meetings have revealed a number of hazardous industry sites, which should be paid more attention in the national emergency plans, such as, e.g. Grodnoazot, Novopolotsk Refinery Complex JSC Polymir, Mogilev Khimvolokno.

Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs chemicals Belarus is a Party to the Stockholm Convention on POPs and has prepared a National Implementation Plan. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection puts very high priority to obsolete pesticides (OPs). In the National Implementation Plan finalized in 2006, a short-, medium- and long-term plans for the elimination of OPs have been established. A special Action Plan for sound management of OPs in the Vitebsk Region was made. Next to 25 OP storages, there are 3 “hot spots” - landfills Postavy, Godorak, Verkhnedvinsk (near the Zapadnaya Dvina River) situated close to borders to Russia, Lithuania and Latvia, respectively. The total extent of problem amounts to more than 6500 tons of OPs, including 718 tons of DDT and 750 tons of OP mixtures in the country. A World Bank project will in 2011 and 2012 commence removal of 1500 tons of OPs and 800 tons of PCBs and export the waste to EU hazardous waste treatment plants.

Other orphan contaminated sites No cases were reported.

Georgia Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries) Georgia is not a Party to the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA), but is in regular contact with its Secretariat and is involved in workshops and exercises.

No risk industries have been highlighted at the inception mission. Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs chemicals Georgia is a Party to the Stockholm Convention on POPs, and the work on drafting a National Implementation Plan is ongoing. No cases related to obsolete pesticides have been reported.

Other orphan contaminated sites No cases were reported.

Moldova Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries) The Republic of Moldova is a Party to the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA).

71

No cases were reported.

Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs chemicals Moldova is a Party to the Stockholm Convention on POPs and a National Implementation Plan has been developed in 2005. Removal of obsolete pesticides is a national priority that shall be addressed as soon as possible. In June 2010 the President of the Republic of Moldova in his official letter to the President of the EU Commission Mr Barroso addressed the commitments of the Republic of Moldova and expressed that removal of obsolete pesticides is the highest priority in the coming negotiations on the new bilateral agreement. For nearly a decade the country has taken initiatives to generate national funds and to engage international donors to support works on reduction of the OP waste threats. Following main cases were mention by various stakeholders:

- 2700 tons of repacked obsolete pesticides in storages are partly leaking, due to the fact that some of them have been repacked in materials non-compliant to the UN standards, and due to too long waiting times for final destruction after repackaging;

- Urgency is increasing as a long-planned destruction project (funded by NATO) has not started, however new hopes are introduced after ENVSEC meeting in February 2011 (with participation of the PPRD East team), and discussions that have led to new initiative of NATO/ENVSEC to try to start up originally planned project;

- 1500 contaminated sites, where the obsolete pesticides waste has been removed, need clean-up of buildings and soil ;

- 40 newly discovered smaller burial sites, which extent still has to be assessed;

- Large landfill at Cimislia with estimated 4000 tons, near the Ukrainian border has to be addressed, as Ukrainian government has expressed concern of possible transfer of the pollution on Ukrainian territory because of observed pesticides contamination.

As regards to the Transnistria region, OSCE and the ENVSEC initiative have a leading part of the assistance. Due to proximity of main potential sources of pollution to the Dniester river contamination cases may have immediate impact not only in Moldova, but also in Ukraine. Specifically the situation of obsolete pesticides needs attention as an estimated amount of 100 tons of obsolete and dangerous pesticides are currently stored at 47 sites. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) have been listed in the National Implementation Plan. The exact situation is not known, but a National Inventory will be ready during 2011. An Action Plan will hereafter be developed.

Other orphan contaminated sites

72

In the north of the country at a former military airbase – Marculesti – there is a big problem with kerosene pollutions. For more than 70 years, the inhabitants of the village Lunga, the district Floresti, have limited access to drinking water, because ground water has been polluted by kerosene.

Three cases of direct discharge of waste water into the Dniester River in the cities of Soroca, Ognita and Otaci, and a fourth case in the city of Balti with non-functioning water treatment system have been reported.

Ukraine Industries in operation with risk (Seveso II-industries) Ukraine is not a Party to the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (TEIA). The national Hazardous Waste Centre has highlighted the following sites of priority:

- Lviv Oil Refinery, which has been pouring out its waste into local water reservoirs located within its territory over thirty years;

- Armyansk plant (producing titanium dioxide); - Mining tailings on Crimean peninsula

Obsolete Pesticides and other POPs chemicals Ukraine is a Party to the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the National Implementation Plan is in preparation. Obsolete pesticides have been highlighted as of highest priority and comprise the largest legacy of the six Partner Countries. A special concern is focused on four oblasts (Kiev, Lviv, Kharkov and Donetsk), where the EURO 2012 games will take place. Kalush area representing the highest environmental hazard in the country has been officially declared as an environmental emergency zone by presidential decree. Since the joint EU-UN mission to Kalush in March 2010, 8500 tons of hexachlorbenzene (HCB) were excavated and transported to the UK for treatment. Officially now 22 800 tons are left, however estimates are even higher. Additional HCBs – disposed in an open pit mine – are not included into overall figure. Failure of dams at tailing ponds has already caused an emergency in 2010. PCBs destruction is regarded as important, but the Government has not yet allocated any funding for it. Other orphan contaminated sites

Ukraine is known to have a large number of orphaned sites. The following sites have been mentioned by stakeholders as main priority:

73

- Solotvyno abandoned salt mines, which may cause collapse of the settled areas and intrusion of the ultrasalted water in the surface and underground flows of Tisza River;

- The Gorlovka Chemical Plant (GCP) – a highly polluted abandoned plant, a former munitions production facility, which has thousands of tons of inadequately stored toxic chemicals leaking into groundwater and 30 tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT) in pipes and storage;

- Shostka storage of old chemical weapons; - Hrybovychi municipal landfill in Lviv oblast, containing acid sludges/tars and

leachates.

The PPRD East Programme Team has at its disposal a large inventory of the materials related to the abovementioned environmental emergency issues.

74

8 ANNEX 4. OVERALL PLAN OF OPERATIONS Project title: Prevention, Preparedness and Response to natural and man-made disasters in the ENPI East Region (PPRD East) Project number: 2010/247628

Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine

Activity

area Acitvities Project period: 2010-2014

2011 2012 2013 2014

Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec

1 Inception Phase

A1.1 Formation of Working Groups

B1.1 Stakeholder Analysis

C1.1 Preliminary Review of the Institutional & Regulatory Baseline

D1.1 Review Existing Awareness Raising Activities

E1.1 Project Mobilisation

E1.2 Project "Kick Off" Meeting

E1.3 Establish Steering Committee & Nominate National

Programme Coordinators

E1.4 Initial Selection of Non-Key Experts

E2.1 Project Workplan and Inception Report

2 Development Phase

A1.2 Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies

A1.3 Develop a Regional Hazard & Risk Assessment Policy

A2.1 Review of Existing Management Information/GIS Systems

A2.2 Needs Analysis for the Regional Electronic Risk Atlas

A2.2.1 Analysis of Existing maps and data

A2.2.2 Analysis of technological possibilities in countries

B1.2 Training Needs Analysis

B1.3 Develop Training Programme

C1.2 Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework

C2.1 Detailed Analysis of Existing Institutional Framework

D2.1 Awareness Raising Survey

D2.2 Develop Prevention-aimed Awareness Raising Strategy

E2.2 Progress Reporting

3 Implementation Phase

A2.3 Conceptual Design for the ERRA System

A2.4 Stakeholder Consultations

A2.5 Detailed Design and Development of the ERRA

A2.6 Database creation for ERRA

A2.7 Vulnerability and Risk Analysis Map Production

A3.1 Development of Draft Civil Protection Operations Manual

B2.1 Implementation of Training Programme

B2.2 Planning and Implementation of Regional Exercises

B2.3 Planning & Implementation of "Table Top" Exercises

C1.3 Recommendations for Strengthening Regulatory Framework

C2.2

Recommendations for Strengthening the Institutional

Framework

D2.3

Implementation of Prevention-aimed Awareness Raising

Strategy

E2.2 Progress Reporting

4 Consolidation and Reporting Phase

A3.2 Stakeholder Consultation & Manual Finalisation

B3.1

Survey of Impact on Programme Activities on National

Legislations and Institutional Capacity

D2.4 Dissemination of Key Project Results

E2.3 Final Report

75

9 ANNEX 5. DEVELOPMENT PHASE OUTPUT PERFORMANCE PLAN

Project title: Prevention, Preparedness and Response to natural and man-made in the ENPI East Region (PPRD East)

Project number: 2010/247628 Project period: 2010-2014

Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine Development Phase June 2011 – June 2012

Activity areas

Activities Outputs Time Frame Verifiable Indicators Expected participation22

and/or inputs from the Partner Countries

A1.2 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies”

Technical Working paper “Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies”

4 qtr 2011 Web catalogue with metainformation on existing projects, studies, formats

National Programme Coordinators (NPCs) – to ensure filling a questionnaire by the stakeholders in respective countries

A1.3 Preparing the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy

based on the EU Risk Assessment Guidelines

Technical Working paper “Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy in the ENPI region”

1 qtr 2012 The regional policy is commented and validated by the Partner Countries

Comments on the Policy Draft; validation by the NPCs

Subregional workshops on ways and means of implementation of the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy

Common understanding of implementation steps of the Policy

2 qtr 2012 The Policy is presented and discussed at the workshops with representation of all relevant stakeholders from the Partner Countries

Up to 10 risk management specialists per Partner Country representing whole range of the stakeholders; active participation in discussions

22

Recommendations of participants’ functions are purely indicative; more precise requirements for functions of the specialists to be invited to specific events will be described in the invitation letters.

76

A2.1 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Information Systems”

Technical Working paper “Review

of Existing Information Systems”

3 qtr 2011 The Project Team has receiving one of the base inputs for elaboration of the ERRA

Filling the questionnaire, providing of the required information, comments on the Technical Working paper

A2.2 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Needs Analysis for the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas”

Technical Working paper “Needs Analysis for the Electronic Regional

Risk Atlas”

4 qtr 2011 Needs of the Partner Countries in terms of hazards/risks/information to be reflected in the ERRA are collected, analysed and sorted; basic tasks for development of the ERRA are formulated


A2.2.1 Collection and analysis of existing information, preparing a web catalogue service – metainformation system for existing data in the Region; drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Maps and Related Data”

Web catalogue with metainformation system for existing data in the Region; Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Maps and Related Data”

3 qtr 2011 – 1 qtr 2012

Basic information and formats for start of development of the ERRA are received


Acquiring and basic transformation of the GIS layers for the Region

Necessary data acquired and processed into the format compatible with future risk assessment processes

3 qtr 2011 – 1 qtr 2012

Volumes and formats of the acquired data are sufficient to start developing the ERRA

Assistance in data acquisition

77

A2.2.2 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Technological Possibilities”

Technical Working paper “Review

of Existing Technological

Possibilities”

3 qtr 2011 Technological possibilities of the Partner Country necessary for development of the ERRA are identified


B 1.2 Assessment of existing civil protection capacities

Technical Working paper "Capacity Building Needs Assessment"

2 qtr 2012 The document gives an adequate picture of the current civil protection capacities and their needs

National Programme Coordinators (NPC) - active providing of relevant valid information

"EU CP Mechanism information days"

EU CP Mechanism days performed in each Partner Country, initial knowledge about the EU CP Mechanism transferred

4 qtr 2011-1 qtr 2012

Representatives of the main beneficiaries and stakeholders are aware of the EU CP Mechanism activities and opportunities; 24/7 contact points for the Mechanism are appointed in each country

Representatives of the main beneficiaries and stakeholders in each country – ca 30 persons per country

B 1.3 Development of Training Programme

Programme of Training Workshops, Exercises and Study Tours developed and validated by the Partner Countries

3 qtr 2011 Programme agreed by the Partner Countries

NPC and relevant experts – to agree upon the contents and schedule of the training programme and to include its events into the national training plans

Preparation of Seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology and Concept Development Initial Planning Conference

3 qtr 2011 Materials for the seminar and conference prepared

NPC – to identify 3 specialists from each Partner Country for participation at the seminar

Compilation of study materials for GIS/ERRA training

GIS/ERRA training materials 1 – 2 qtr 2012

GIS/ERRA training materials developed, translated and ready for use

78

B 2.1 Participation in the UNECE Danube Delta Project

Selected participants attended the Project events

2 qtr 2011- 2 qtr 2012

Participants acquired knowledge and information about preparedness and response to chemical accidents

Belarus – 5 mid-range specialists on chemical safety (Ministry of Emergency Situations, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment)

Seveso II study tour and workshop

Selected participants attended the events

1 qtr 2012 Participants acquired relevant knowledge and information and became familiar with Seveso II requirements

2 mid-/high-range specialists on chemical safety from each Partner Country

Training workshop 1 “Earthquakes” (back-to-back with Table Top Exercise 1)

Relevant issues concerning preparedness and response to the earthquakes are discussed, proposals for amendment of national and cross-border procedures listed

2 qtr 2012 Proposals for amendment of national and cross-border procedures listed INSARAG

23 methodology and

procedure made aware to first responders

Up to 4 mid-/high-range operative specialists (managers of first responders’ units, operative departments, logisticians) from each Partner Country

Start of the Needs-Driven Exchange of Experts programme

Partner Countries have an opportunity to obtain each other’s and Member States’ experience regarding their specific needs and problems through the Exchange of Experts programme

4 qtr 2011 The programme is introduced to the Partner Countries, procedures for application are clear and well understood, the first applications are received and processed

The programme is needs driven and open to all countries

B 2.3 Seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology

Issues of exercise planning and conducting discussed and commonly agreed by the Partner Countries

4 qtr 2011 Manual for Exercise planning , conduction and evaluation is drafted

3 specialists from each Partner Country (operative and training departments, civil protection departments); suggestions for elaboration of the seminar topics

Concept Development Initial Planning Conference

Concept for all Table Top Exercises is developed and commonly understood by the Partner Countries

4 qtr 2011 Concept agreed as a working document

3 specialists from each Partner Country (operative and training departments, civil protection departments); suggestions for elaboration of the TTX concept

Main Planning Conference attended by the TTX-1 1 qtr 2012 Exercise scenario and details Up to 3 specialists from each

23


79

Conference, Table Top Exercise 1

planners developed and agreed upon Partner Country involved into exercise planning and conduction

Table Top Exercise 1 (ARM-GEO)

Exercise conducted and evaluated 2 qtr 2012 National disaster management schemes and procedures tested Information sharing and cooperation during transboundary emergency tested Information sharing with and request of assistance through MIC tested

Teams of disaster managers from TTX-1 countries, including decision makers, responders, response coordination centres and auxiliaries; up to 2 observers from each other Partner Country

C 1.2 Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework

Information collected and analysed with the assistance of local legal experts

4 qtr 2011 Document gives baseline information about existing regulatory framework

1 person from each Partner Country (legal adviser to the main beneficiary); providing relevant background information to the Programme expert

Regional workshop on regulatory framework

Results of the detailed assessment of the regulatory frameworks presented and discussed

1 qtr 2012 Draft Technical Working Paper "Detailed Analysis of Existing Legislative Frameworks"

1 person from each Partner Country (legal adviser to the main beneficiary); active discussion and proposals for recommendations

Finalization of the list of recommendations based on the results of the regional workshop

Recommendations presented to the Partner Countries

2 qtr 2012 Technical Working Paper "Detailed Analysis of Existing Legislative Frameworks" submitted

1 person from each Partner Country (legal adviser to the main beneficiary); feedback

C 1.3 Development of the preliminary list of recommendations on the improvement of the institutional frameworks of the Partner Countries

Recommendations presented to the Partner Countries, their feedback is received

2 qtr 2012 Results and proposed recommendations presented to the Steering Committee

1 person from each Partner Country (legal adviser to the main beneficiary), NPCs; feedback on recommendations

80

Participation of Partner Countries’ representatives in the Civil Protection Forum in Brussels

High representatives of the Partner Countries attended the Civil Protection Forum

2 qtr 2012 PPRD East Programme presented at the Forum

1 high-range official (preferably Member of the Steering Committee) from each Partner Country; information materials of the civil protection system in a Partner Country and about its participation in the PPRD East Programme

D 2.1 Review of existing awareness raising activities

Initial document of the status-quo of awareness raising activities

3 qtr 2011 The documents provides general review of the awareness raising activities and serves as a starting point for further actions

Network of specialists working with awareness raising issues – at least 2 specialists per Partner Country; active providing of the relevant information to the Project Team

Workshop on consolidation of review results and developing common approach to the communication strategy

An approach to the communication strategy is discussed and generally agreed by all Partner Countries; the aims, objectives and main ways and means of realisation of the strategy are set

4 qtr 2011 The final document of the workshop states common understanding of the future activities of this Activity Area; all Partner Countries are ready to contribute to realisation of the strategy

2 specialists working with awareness raising issues from each Partner Country; active participation in the workshop and in drafting of the communication strategy

Developing of the mass media data base catalogue

Mass media database developed and stored

3 qtr 2011 The catalogue includes all potential PR partners, through whom the communication strategy will be realised

PR-specialists of the Partner Countries; inputs into the mass media database

Inputs and updates of the webportal

Webportal is fully functional work tool for the Programme participants and information source for others

3 qtr 2011 – 2 qtr 2012

Information on the webportal www.euroeastcp.eu duly updated

Network of specialists working with awareness raising issues; up-to-date information about activities in the field of civil protection and disaster management in each Partner Country


81

D 2.2 NATO PfP exercise “Codrii 2011”

Participation of the communication expert at the NATO PfP exercise “Codrii 2011”

3 qtr 2011 Experience of the media coverage of a full scale exercise obtained, networking with the PR officers from the Partner Countries

Intermediate workshop on implementation of the regional communication strategy and action plan

Means and ways of implementation of the communication strategy agreed upon and action plan until the end of the 1

st phase of the

Programme drafted

1 qtr 2012 Agreed action plan enables planning of national awareness raising strategies on the basis of the common one; milestones and benchmarks of the action plan are set up until the end of the 1st phase of the Programme

2 specialists working with awareness raising issues from each Partner Country; active participation in the workshop and in drafting of the action plan

Issuing of the bilingual Programme newsletters

Bilingual quarterly newsletters informing about the Programme achievements

4 qtr 2011 – 2 qtr 2012

Adequate and updated information about the Programme progress

Network of specialists working with awareness raising issues; up-to-date information about activities in the field of civil protection and disaster management in each Partner Country

Study tour and workshop on best practices of prevention work

Familiarisation with best practices of EU prevention activities; concept of communication materials aimed at prevention

2 qtr 2012 Development of the concept of the communication materials aimed at prevention to be issued in the framework of the Programme

2 specialists working with awareness raising and/or prevention issues from each Partner Country; active participation in the development of the concept of the communication materials aimed at prevention

Participation at the NATO PfP exercise planning in Belarus 2012

Elaboration of a concept of work with media during the full scale exercise

1 qtr 2012 The Programme experts (key and local) are prepared for participation at the exercise

1 PR-specialist from each Partner Country; participation in the planning and conducting of the exercise with a view of elaboration of inputs for the TTX and FEX within the PPRD East Programme

82

E 2.2 Progress reporting Progress Report No 1 4 qtr 2011 Progress Report approved by the Task Manager

NPC – validation of the information in the Progress report

Progress reporting Progress Report No 2 2 qtr 2012 Progress Report approved by the Task Manager

NPC – validation of the information in the Progress report

Steering Committee-2 Development phase reports and Implementation Phase plan approved by the Steering Committee

2 qtr 2012 Steering Committee approved progress of the Programme and set up further aims of the Implementation Phase

1 member of the Steering Committee from each Partner Country

National Programme Coordinators’ meeting-2

Further improvement of the work of NPCs

2 qtr 2012 NPCs agreed on concrete steps and activities of the Implementation Phase

NPC from each Partner Country

83

10 ANNEX 6. PLAN OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD (WORK PROGRAMME)

Project title: Prevention, Preparedness and Response to natural and man-made disasters in the ENPI East Region (PPRD East)

Project number: 2010/247628 Project period: 2010-2014

Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine Development Phase June 2011 – June 2012

Activity areas

Activities 2011 2012

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

A1.2 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies”

A1.3 Preparing the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy based on the EU Risk Assessment Guidelines

Subregional workshops on ways and means of implementation of the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy

A2.1 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Information Systems”

A2.2 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Needs Analysis for the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas”

84

A2.2.1 Collection and analysis of existing information, preparing a web catalogue service – metainformation system for existing data in the Region; drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Maps and Related Data”

Acquiring and basic transformation of the GIS layers for the Region

A2.2.2 Collection and analysis of existing information, drafting and submission of the Technical Working paper “Review of Existing Technological Possibilities”

B 1.2 Assessment of existing civil protection capacities

"EU CP Mechanism information days"

B 1.3 Development of Training Programme

Compilation of study materials for GIS/ERRA training

B 2.1 Participation in the UNECE Danube Delta Project

Seveso II study tour and workshop

Training workshop 1 “Earthquakes” (back-to-back with Table Top Exercise 1)

85

Start of Exchange of Experts Programme

B 2.3 Seminar on Exercises Planning and Methodology

Concept Development Initial Planning Conference

Main Planning Conference, Table Top Exercise 1

Table Top Exercise 1 (ARM-GEO)

C 1.2 Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework

Regional workshop on regulatory framework

Finalization of the list of recommendations based on the results of the regional workshop

C 1.3 Development of the preliminary list of recommendations on the improvement of the institutional frameworks of the Partner Countries

Participation of Partner Countries’ representatives in the Civil Protection Forum in Brussels

D 2.1 Review of existing awareness raising activities

86

Workshop on consolidation of review results and developing common approach to the communication strategy

Developing of the massmedia data base catalogue

Inputs and updates of the webportal

D 2.2 Participation at the NATO PfP exercise “Codrii 2011”

Intermediate workshop on implementation of the regional communication strategy and action plan

Communication - Issuing of the bilingual Programme newsletters

Study tour and workshop on best practices of prevention work

Participation at the NATO PfP exercise Belarus 2012

E 2.2 Progress reporting

Progress reporting

Steering Committee-2

NPC meeting-2

87

11 ANNEX 7. LOGFRAME

Project Component Objectively Verifiable Indicators Sources and Means of

Verification Assumptions

Overall Project Objective

To contribute to the peace, stability, security and prosperity of the Eastern Partner Countries and to protect the environment, the population, the cultural heritage, the resources and the infrastructures of the region by strengthening the countries’ resilience, preparedness and response to man-made and natural disasters.

o Strengthened civil protection capacities for disaster prevention, preparedness, and response within the Partner Countries.

o Improved regional co-operation between the Partner Countries, together with a closer alignment to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

o Improved safety and security situation in the Partner Countries

o Improved relations between Partner Countries and their institutions

o Active participation in the Programme activities

o Political events do not undermine commitment to strengthen cooperation and partnership in the field of civil protection/disaster preparedness in the region.

o Political and social stability in the region

o Partner Countries stand by their commitments and seek for active cooperation with the EU

Project Purposes

To contribute to the development of the Partner Countries' civil protection capacities for disaster prevention, preparedness and response To bring the Partner Countries progressively closer to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and improve cooperation among themselves.

o Strengthened knowledge of risk exposure and available resources for enhanced preparedness and response capacities in the region.

o Enhanced legislative, administrative, and operational civil protection capacities of the Partner Countries in the field of prevention, preparedness, and response.

o Improved information awareness and participation of stakeholders regarding disaster prevention, prevention and response.

o Partner Countries are well informed about the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and able to effectively collaborate with the Mechanism participating states in responding to disasters, including through close co-operation with the MIC via the established contact points.

o Needs for a possible further development of cooperation with Eastern Partners following the end of the Programme (Phase II) are identified

o Primary and secondary legislation approved. Administrative structures strengthened. Training records of workshop participants.

o Contact points established and facilitating effective cooperation with Mechanism participating states.

o Needs assessment for further co-operation with Eastern Partners.

o Partner Countries stand by their commitments and seek for active cooperation with the EU

o Partner Countries active cooperate between themselves

o International agencies undertaking supporting parallel projects and programmes are involved into active cooperation with the PPRD East Programme

88



Project Results

Result 1: Better knowledge of risk exposure and available resources for enhanced preparedness and response capacities in the region (through creation of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas)

o The regional electronic Risk Atlas has been created and is accessible to the Partner Countries.

o National statistics, cartography and other databases, land registries, GIS, existing satellite imagery and aerial photography as well as other resources are used in a systematic and integrated way in civil protection/disaster preparedness information sharing and management

o Functional ERRA web system on regional, sub-regional and national level

o Administrator’s and User’s Guides

o Hazard and Risk Maps for natural and man-made disaster

o National systems will be linked with ERRA

o ERRA reflects the actual needs and priorities of the key stakeholders and target groups within the project countries.

o Collaboration in ERRA development and testing

o Cooperation on risk mapping – active inputs from Partner Countries stakeholders

o Active inputs of the Partner Countries in database filling

o Willingness for data sharing o Willingness of Partner Countries

to implement the ERRA into disaster management processes

Result 2: Enhanced legislative, administrative and operational civil protection capacities of the Partner Countries in the field of prevention, preparedness and response

o Improved legislative framework in the field of civil protection/disaster preparedness in the partner countries taking into account EU legislation in disaster prevention.

o Training and capacity building activities implemented.

o Capacities in the Civil protections systems are strengthened.

o Partner institutions collaborate, commit resources and collect management data jointly

o Country monitoring and evaluation reports

o Guidelines and manuals drafted o Reports from workshops, study

tours, exercises o Changes in legislation and

institutional framework

o Timely and adequate human and material resources available to implement the capacity building programme. Project Countries are prepared to make available staff for training.

o Stakeholders willing to co-operate in planning, conducting and evaluation of “table top” and field exercises.

o Recommendations for legislative and institutional strengthening are credible, practical, and have the full support of all key stakeholders

o Collaborative procedures agreed between the Partner Countries

o Political will to harmonise procedures and work collectively

89



Result 3: Improved information, awareness and participation of stakeholders regarding disaster prevention, prevention and response

o The information campaign is implemented, the target public has been reached.

o Prevention-oriented awareness raising has improved

o Country monitoring and evaluation reports

o Active steps undertaken by the Partner Countries to improve situation with emergency prevention

o Improved crisis communication both within the Partner Countries and between them

o Improved information exchange with media, its increased participation in prevention activities

o Bilingual Programme portal is working and constantly updated

o Active inputs of the Partner Countries into development and implementation of the communication strategy aimed at prevention

o Active involvement of all types of media, representatives of public and private sector and civil society into development, production and dissemination of prevention-aimed information

Result 4: Partner Countries are well informed about the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and able to effectively collaborate with the Mechanism participating states in responding to disasters, including through close cooperation with the MIC via the established contact points

o The principles of the Civil Protection Mechanism are well known to the Partner Countries.

o Case studies of using the EU Civil Protection Mechanism options and resources by the programme countries are published and distributed.

o Contact points for effective communication with o the MIC are established. o Gaps in the ability to provide and receive external

assistance during disasters are identified and addressed.

o Technical guidelines and operation manuals are drafted and translated.

o Country and MIC reports o Reports and feedback from the

training activities, exercises, other events

o National legislation and established procedures

o Published materials o Reports on exchange of experts

programme.

o Willingness of Partner Countries to active collaborate with the EU CP Mechanism

o Willingness to participate in the EU CP Mechanism events

o Willingness of the EU CP Mechanism to make flexible decision ensuring Partner Countries’ participation

Result 5: Needs for a possible further development of cooperation with Eastern partners following the end of the Programme (Phase II) are identified

o The basis for the second phase of the PPRD East ia established and measures for the follow-up are defined.

o Final Project Report o Written requests from the

Partner Countries

o Willingness of the Partner Countries to further develop their relationships with the EU in this field

90

Project Activities Forms of Activity Means of Verification Assumptions

Activity Area A: Development of the Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA) A1. Establishing the Policy Framework A2. Development of Electronic Regional Risk Atlas (ERRA) A3. Civil Protection Operational Manual

o Analysis of Existing Hazard/Risk Assessment Policies

o Development of the Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment Policy

o Review of Existing Management Information/GIS Systems

o Needs Analysis for the Regional Electronic Risk Atlas

o Analysis of Existing maps and data o Analysis of technological possibilities in countries o Conceptual Design for the ERRA System o Stakeholder Consultation o Detailed Design and Development of the ERRA o Database creation for ERRA o Vulnerability and Risk Analysis Map Production o Development of Draft Civil Protection Operational

Manual o Stakeholder Consultation and Finalisation of the

Operational Manual

o Reports and feedback from the events

o Published materials o ERRA has been created and in

use in Partner Countries o Civil Protection Operational

Manual has been created

o Firm commitment of stakeholders to co-operate with the Project Team and achieve Programme goals.

o Stable and supportive political environment in all Partner Countries for facilitating project implementation.

o Official acceptance and approval of the Programme activities by the Partner Countries

o Partner Countries’ representatives are available for Programme activities

o Compatible data standards o Timely and adequate submission

of information and inputs

Activity Area B: Civil Protection/Disaster Management Capacity Building Programme B1. Establishing the Capacity Building Programme B2. Strengthening Stakeholder Capacity B3. Assessing the Impact of the Capacity Building Programme

o Stakeholder Analysis o Training Needs Analysis o Development of Training Programme o Implementation of Training Programme o Implementation of the Exchange of Experts o Planning and Implementation of Regional

Exercises o Planning & Implementation of "Table Top"

Exercises o Survey of Impact of the Programme on National

Legislations and Institutional Framework

o Training Programme developed and validated

o Procedures for exchange of experts developed


o Published materials

o Official acceptance and approval of the programme activities by the Partner Countries

o Institutions prepared to cooperate and work together within the same country and across borders

o Partner Countries willingness to actively participate in the Programme activities and share information

o Partner Countries willingness to develop their systems on the basis of the Programme outputs and achievements

91

Project Activities Forms of Activity Means of Verification Assumptions

Activity Area C: Institutional and Regulatory Strengthening

C1. Strengthening the Regulatory Framework C2. Strengthening the Institutional Framework

o Preliminary Review of the Institutional & Regulatory Baseline

o Detailed Analysis of Existing Regulatory Framework

o Recommendations for Strengthening Regulatory Framework

o Detailed Analysis of Existing Institutional Framework

o Recommendations for Strengthening the Institutional Framework

o Reports and feedback from the field trip and workshop

o Recommendations for amendment of the national legislations

o Recommendations for improvement of institutional framework


o Official acceptance and approval of the programme activities by the Partner Countries

o Institutions prepared to cooperate and work together within the same country and across borders

o Partner Countries willingness to actively participate in the Programme activities and share information

o Partner Countries willingness to amend their legislation and institutional framework on the basis of the Programme outputs and achievements

Activity Area D: Raising Awareness on Civil Protection, Disaster Management and Disaster Risk Reduction Issues D1. Establishing the Awareness Raising D2. Development and Implementation of Public Awareness Raising Activities

o Review of Existing Awareness Raising Activities o Awareness Raising Survey o Development of Prevention-aimed Awareness

Raising Strategy o Implementation of Prevention-aimed Awareness

Raising Strategy o Dissemination of Key Project Results


o Published materials o Bilingual Webportal is

functioning and regularly updated

o Partner Countries willingness to pay significant attention to the prevention issues

o Sufficient qualified staff available to develop public awareness strategy and to implement it

o Involvement of the civil society into awareness raising activities

Activity Area E: Project Management E1. Project Mobilisation and Team Building E2. Administrative Project Reporting E3. Phase II Design

o Project Mobilisation o Project "Kick Off" Meeting o Establish Steering Committee & Nominate

National Programme Coordinators o Initial Selection of Non-Key Experts o Project Work plan and Inception Report o Progress Reporting o Final Report o External Review

o Steering Committee is established

o Network of National Programme Coordinators is established and functioning

o Database of non-key experts established Reports and feedback from the events


o Firm commitment of stakeholders to participate in the Programme steering process and achieve its goals

o Efficient process of selection of the non-key experts

o Active and efficient inputs of the non-key experts

o Efficient use of the Programme Budget

pprd east inception report

Documents