DRAFT PAPER (please do not quote) COOPERATION IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT A PATH TOWARDS DEEPENED EU-ASEAN RELATIONS?

Transcription

1 DRAFT PAPER (please do not quote) COOPERATION IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT A PATH TOWARDS DEEPENED EU-ASEAN RELATIONS? By Veronika Orbetsova ABSTRACT The number of emergencies has been reportedly on the rise, with Asia, and more particularly South-East Asia, being one of the worst affected regions. Indeed, the Asia-Disaster Report of 2012 stresses that 75 percent of all disaster fatalities globally occurred in the Asia-Pacific region. Nowadays states (responsible for the management of emergencies) are confronted with the large scale, often trans-boundary crises that go beyond their capacities which is why cooperation in crisis and emergency management is of crucial importance. Realising the latter, the member states of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed the Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response in July 2005 in Vientiane, establishing thus the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre). The European Union (EU) has more than ten years of institutional experience in coordinated disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) and has developed a number of tools and mechanisms. Both ASEAN and the EU have recognised that enhanced emergency response cooperation through capacity building and experience-sharing is mutually beneficial (EU-ASEAN Plan of Action ; 19 th ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting in April 2012). This paper aims to study the burgeoning cooperation between the EU and ASEAN in the field of DRRM and examine the effect of the latter on the EU-ASEAN relationship. Firstly, the development of the ASEAN and the EU disaster emergency response mechanisms will be studied so as to identify possible synergies between institutions and mechanisms. Further, the EU-ASEAN emergency response cooperation will be examined in the light of the broader EU-ASEAN relationship. 1

2 KEY WORDS: ASEAN, ASEAN-EU cooperation, Disaster Management, Disaster Risk Reduction, Community Resilience, EU, ACRONYMS AADMER ACDM AHA Centre ASEAN ASEM CPM CRED DG ECHO DRRM ESCAP EEAS EU EUSF HFA NOAH Project UN UNGA UNISDR WHO/EHA ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Management Association of South-East Asian States Asia-Europe Meeting Civil Protection Mechanism Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters European Commission Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Disaster Risk Reduction and Management United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific European External Action Service European Union European Union Solidarity Fund Hyogo Framework Agreement Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards United Nations United Nations General Assembly United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction World Health Organisation Department of Emergency and Humanitarian Action 2

3 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF TERMS In the last decades, the effects of climate change and global warming have become more visible, and the number of emergency situations has dramatically risen worldwide causing significant damage at local, regional and even global levels. As reported by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), in disasters who affected 78 million people were reported, whereas, in 2012, 357 natural triggered disasters were said to have occurred, resulting in victims worldwide and US$157 billion economic losses. 1 The European Union (EU) Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, Kristalina Georgieva, explained that [b]ecause of climate change, disasters are more frequent and more severe [and due to] population growth, urbanisation, and environmental degradation when they (disasters) hit more people are affected and there is more damage. 2 Neither disaster-prone South-East Asia, nor Europe are an exception to this phenomenon. It is enough to refer to the Haiyan (or Yolanda, as called in the Philippines) super-typhoon one of the strongest storms ever recorded, that hit severely the Philippines on 8 November 2013, causing economic damage worth US$15 billion, costing the life of more than 2300 people and affecting between 7 and 11 million people. 3 Many European countries suffered torrential rains, and, as a consequence deadly and costly floods, among which: Italy as the island of Sardinia in November 2013 (16 people lost their lives), the Western Balkans in May 2014 (3.1 million people were affected, 53 people lost their lives) 4, in Bulgaria in May and June 2014 (12 people lost their lives). Emergency situations that can be defined as unforeseen event[s] that [call] for immediate measures to minimi[s]e [the] adverse consequences transform into disasters if there is insufficient capacity of response and the normal living conditions of the affected society or community are heavily disrupted. 5 As stressed by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), although disasters are often caused by natural phenomena, they can be provoked by human activities, hence the division of disasters in two main categories: natural hazards 6 and technological or man-made disasters. 7 The first category regroups hydrological (floods and avalanches), geophysical (landslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis), climatological (extreme temperatures, wildfires, and droughts), and hazards of biological nature (disease epidemics and insect or animal plagues). The second group features disasters such as transport and industrial accidents, famines, displaced populations, pollution accidents and environmental degradation. 8 Both types of disasters cause widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. 9 The occurrence and effects of disasters are functions not only of 1 D. Guha-Sapir, P. Hoyois and R. Below, Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2012, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), August 2013, p. 1 2 K. Georgieva, EU Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, address at the ASEM Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, 4-6 June 2014, quoted in United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), The Tacloban Declaration, Manila, 17 June Typhoon Haiyan: Worse than hell, The Economist, 16 November UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), Situation Analysis: Floods Eastern Europe/Balkans, 24 May Glossary of Humanitarian Terms, Reliefweb, Draft Version, August 2008, p The term of natural hazards is preferred to that of natural disasters so as to avoid the erroneous assumption that his type of disasters is due exclusively to natural phenomena. 7 IFRC, Types of disasters, definition of hazard, IFRC official website. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., p

4 the gravity of the emergency, but also of the vulnerability 10 of a community or society and of its capacity to address the emergency situation. 11 According to Rudolph Kent and Joanne Burke, humanitarian crises are now recognised as reflections on the ways that societies structure themselves and allocate their resources. We would argue here that such an assertion can actually be made for all disasters. 12 Experience in the management of emergencies has shown that there is a need to intervene throughout the crisis life cycle, which means that actions need to be taken for disaster prevention, prompt and appropriate emergency response and disaster relief (including stabilisation, reconstruction and reconciliation, aimed at achieving rapid and durable recovery). Moreover, the involvement of different sectors and actors of both state and nonstate nature and the coordination of their efforts is essential. This comprehensive approach has been deemed necessary by a majority of international actors and has been embraced by many states, regional and sub-regional organisations. Indeed, the Resolution 60/195 of the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) concerning the International Strategy for Disaster Management, confirms the above-mentioned statement by emphasising the need to deploy efforts in all areas development, disaster risk reduction, disaster response and disaster recovery. 13 In this sense, addressing the vulnerability of populations and increasing their resilience to disasters is essential to reaching the goal. The resolution further endorses four documents that are essential for the commitment to crisis management at the international level the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World: Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation and its Plan of Action, 14 the Hyogo Declaration, 15 the Hyogo Framework of Action : Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters 16 (both of which adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held at Kobe, Japan, in January 2005). This is a proof that crisis management has moved high up in the political agenda internationally over the past few decades, showing a growing concern that communities continue to experience excessive losses of precious human lives and valuable property as well as serious injuries and major displacements due to various disasters worldwide. 17 Governments have become increasingly conscious about the challenges disasters are posing to them, which is why emergency management is now at the centre stage of governmental interests. 18 The last document quoted above the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA), singles out five priorities for action: 10 Vulnerability is defined as the predisposition to suffer damage due to external events. Definition from World Health Organisation (WHO), Disasters and Emergencies, Definitions, Training Package, WHO Department of Emergency and Humanitarian Action (WHO/EHA), March The International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) defines disaster through the formula: (Vulnerability+Hazard)/Capacity = Disaster, where hazard is the emergency situation. For more information, please see: IFRC, What is a disaster, IFRC official website. 12 R. Kent and J. Burke, Commercial and humanitarian intervention in changing context, Commercial and Humanitarian Engagement in Crisis Contexts: Current Trends, Future Drivers, Humanitarian Futures Programme, King s College, June 2011, p United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Resolution 60/195 adopted by the UNGA, 2 March UN, Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World, Guidelines for Natural Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation, World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan, May UN, Hyogo Declaration, World Declaration on Disaster Reduction, January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. 16 UN, Hyogo Framework for Action : Building the resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Excerpt from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction, January 2005, Kobe. 17 UN, Hyogo Declaration, op. cit., p Kent and Burke, Current Trends, Future Drivers, op. cit., p.9. 4

5 - bring disaster reduction on top of the agenda of both national and local authorities and consolidate the institutional basis for implementation; - evaluate and monitor disaster risks and develop and strengthen early warning systems; - employ scientific and technological advances to create resilient communities; - reduce the main risk factors; - enhance disaster preparedness and ensure effective response. 19 The HFA also details guiding principles and practical means for achieving disaster resilience and is said to be the first plan that endeavours to describe the efforts all stakeholders need to make so as to reduce disasters losses by As stressed by EU Commissioner Georgieva, the costs of disasters have quadrupled in 40 years making the need to increase investment in prevention and preparedness even more obvious (today only 4% is spent for disaster preparedness and prevention). 20 According to the EU Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (DG ECHO) each Euro spent in disaster preparedness saves 7 spent on disaster relief. 21 In recent years governments around the world have paid increased attention to disaster risk reduction: 121 countries have passed laws aiming at significant reduction of disaster risk and around 40 of them have a separate budget-line for disaster risk reduction. 22 This being said, it is important to note that when a crisis occurs on the territory of a given state and affects its population the primary responsibility of managing the emergency situation lies within the affected state. 23 Frequently, however, individual states do not have the capacity to manage large-scale disasters, this assumption being even more true for developing states which tend to focus their limited resources in disaster relief, often at the expense of development and, thus, of vulnerability reduction and community resilience. In such cases, so as to respect sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity, assistance is provided on the basis of an appeal by the affected country and upon its consent. 24 The UNGA Resolution 60/195 emphasises the importance of international cooperation and partnerships to support [ ] national efforts and puts forward the commitment of States to provide assistance for developing countries that are prone to natural disasters and disasterstricken States in the transition phase towards sustainable physical, social and economic recovery, for risk-reduction activities in post-disaster recovery and for rehabilitation processes. 25 Indeed, international assistance to disaster-stricken countries can be composed of both short term measures allowing to provide disaster relief (including the provision of supplies such as water, food, shelter, blankets and medical equipment, dispatching of relief personnel and specialised teams, relief equipment and technical assistance), as well as longterm measures helping to prevent disasters from occurring and contributing to the development of resilient societies. 19 UN, HFA, op. cit., pp K. Georgieva, EU Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, Post-Haiyan A Way Forward, speech, ASEM Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, Manila, 5 June 2014, retrieved 10 July 2014, 21 European Commission Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (DG ECHO), European Solidarity in Action, p UNISDR, Hyogo Framework of Action, official video by the UNISDR, retrieved 4 July 2014, 23 UNGA, Resolution 60/195, op. cit., Art UNGA, Strengthening the effectiveness and cooperation of international urban search and rescue assistance, Resolution 57/150, 16 December 2002, p UNGA, Resolution 60/195, op. cit., Art

6 It is not rare that a disaster affects the population 26, economy, environment of more than one state, thus making it crucial for the authorities of all countries and non-state actors concerned to coordinate their efforts, even more so given the large number of organisations and other entities working on crisis management that have emerged since the 1970s. Indeed, the lack of coordination in the disaster relief efforts, for instance, could potentially create a situation of oversupply of aid and, thus, clogging of vital infrastructure channels, and could possibly result in unanswered needs of affected populations. This is why trans-boundary disasters call for well-developed and catered to the victims needs regional policies. Moreover, if one is to believe the gloomy, but realistic, prognosis of scholars like Randolph Kent and Joanne Burke according to whom future disasters will be characterised by their global, multifaceted and complex nature, with natural hazards leading to violent conflict that will result in environmental, technological and systems failures, cooperation at the international level looks indispensable. 27 Collaboration not only between state and non-state actors, but also between governments, the UN system, international organisations, regional and sub-regional organisations and within these organisations is crucial to prevent and address effectively the consequences of disasters that affect communities and societies globally. In this sense, regional and sub-regional integration mechanisms play an essential role since they rely on close links between states, be it economic, political or social. They can, thus, contribute to a timelier, more adequate and coordinated response to disasters (especially in cases when the country that has suffered the most losses does not possess the necessary resources to deal to remedy those losses). The UN recognises and emphasises the need to develop regional initiatives and risk reduction capacities of regional mechanisms and to strengthen them, wherever they exist, and encourages the use and sharing of all the existing tools. 28 And indeed, one cannot stress more the benefits of the development and exchange of expertise, technical knowledge and experience between regional and sub-regional organisations active in the field of disaster management, and the positive effect the latter has on the consolidation of institutional arrangements and the drafting and implementation of relevant legislation, which are crucial for the construction of an effective disaster management system. The EU with its 28 Member States and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) featuring 10 Member States 29 are considered to be among the most advanced and successful sub-regional integration processes not only in their respective regions, but also worldwide. The ASEAN-EU dialogue relations were established in 1977 and formalised through the signing of the 1980 Agreement between the European Economic Community and ASEAN. In 2007 the two parties signed the Nuremberg Declaration on an EU-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership (hereafter Nuremberg Declaration). 30 The partnership has grown in recent years to include a number of security-related fields, including crisis response and disaster management, explicitly mentioned in the section on socio-cultural cooperation of the Nuremberg Declaration. 26 It should be noted, here, that communities and ethnic groups are often divided by state frontiers. 27 Kent and Burke, Current Trends, Future Drivers, op. cit., p UNGA, Resolution 60/195, op. cit., Art Created on 8 August 1967, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) regroups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. 30 EU and ASEAN, Nuremberg Declaration on an EU-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, Nuremberg, 15 March

7 This is why it is both interesting and extremely relevant to study the interactions between them when it comes to disaster management. In order to understand the potential of EU-ASEAN collaboration in DRRM, it is crucial to set out the circumstances in which the disaster management systems of the two entities developed and look at their main achievements. This paper will, then, examine the EU-ASEAN budding cooperation in the management of disasters and the potential of its future development. This analysis will lead to some reflections on effects of collaboration on the overall EU-ASEAN relationship. PART 1: EU AND ASEAN DISASTER MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS AND POSSIBLE INTERACTION In order to tackle the question of the interactions and cooperation between the EU and ASEAN in relation to disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), one needs to examine the mechanisms each organisation has developed during the years of its existence and due to the exposure to an increasing number of disasters. A. Disaster management mechanism inside the EU The EU is an internationally recognised actor in the field of humanitarian aid and disaster management, as well as the world s biggest donor of humanitarian aid. Indeed, the European Institutions and the EU Member States together provide for more than half of the official global humanitarian aid. 31 Before exploring the disaster management mechanism of the EU, it is crucial to make the distinction between two types of EU actions: civil protection (emergency relief efforts deployed both in EU Member States and in third countries) 32 humanitarian assistance (used only for disasters occurring outside the EU). 33 The internal dimension of the first type of DRRM measures will be examined in here below, while the assistance provided to third countries will be looked at in the subsequent part of this article. Floods are by far the most frequent and costly (both in terms of losses of human lives and financial losses) disaster affecting the EU. For the period floods in the EU killed more than 2500 people, affected more than 5.5 million and caused direct economic losses of more than 90 billion. 34 Indeed, the CRED underlines in its report for 2012 that in that year Europe suffered three times more climatological disasters than in previous years due to the cold waves and extreme winter conditions. 35 Furthermore, [d]amages from natural disasters in Europe in 2012 ( ) were the highest of the decade, more than two times the annual average damages for Legal framework of cooperation between EU Member States Before examining the Disaster Management Mechanism developed by the EU, one needs to examine the legal framework of cooperation between EU Member States. The Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (hereafter Lisbon Treaty) emphasises the role of the EU in 31 DG ECHO, Presentation, official website of the DG ECHO. 32 European Union, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), C326/47, OJ, 2012, Part III, Title XXIII Civil Protection, Article Article 214(1) of the TFEU. 34 Connie Hedegaard: Our adaptation strategy will help decision-makers in Europe choose the best solutions to the benefit of their citizens., News, webpage of Commissioner Hedegeaard, 16 April Guha-Sapir, Hoyois and Below, Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2012, op. cit, p Ibid. 7

8 enhancing cooperation and coordination between Member States so as to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disasters. In particular, one of the main goals of the EU in the field of civil protection of EU citizens is to: support and complement Member States' action at national, regional and local level in risk prevention, in preparing their civil-protection personnel and in responding to natural or man-made disasters within the Union. 37 Furthermore, the Solidarity Clause binds the EU and its Member States to act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of ( ) a natural or a man-made disaster. At the demand for assistance of the political authorities of one of the EU Member States, the EU is expected to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal ( ) to assist a Member State in its territory, while the Union s Member States need to coordinate their assistance in the Council of the European Union. 38 Due to the complexity of the issues and the limited scope of this paper, the decisionmaking process between the different EU institutions and the Member States will not be examined in detail, neither will the actions adopted by Member States be scrutinised. The paper will, however, briefly look at some of the main institutional stakeholders when it comes to crisis response within the EU, and, in particular, two of the DGs within the European Commission DG ECHO and DG Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO). 2. The role of the Commission and its Directorate Generals The most important DG at the Commission for the disaster management policy of the European Union is, without any doubt, DG ECHO. The Commission s European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), created in 1992 with the aim to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of natural and man-made disasters, was transformed into the Directorate General Humanitarian Aid in 2004 and in 2010, civil protection was added to the responsibilities of DG ECHO, the objective being to ensure better coordination and response to disasters occurring both inside and outside the EU. When it comes to EU s intervention in emergency cases inside the Union, the main instrument used is the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM). 39 Developed in 2001, it is immediately activated at the reception of an appeal for assistance from an EU Member State. Between 2001 and 2012 it was used more than 150 times, 40 and for the period more than 80 times. 41 The CPM is operationalised by the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) which has three functions: to be the contact point for requests and offers of assistance, to coordinate the deployment of European assistance and to raise public awareness of civil protection and response and preparedness. At its creation, the CPM was based on the voluntary contribution of in-kind assets and trained expert teams of its members, but since this configuration did not allow for the necessary planning of disaster relief operations, a new legislation which was voted in 37 European Union (EU), Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (hereafter Lisbon Treaty), Official Journal of the European Union, (2007/C 306/01), 17 December EU, Lisbon Treaty, op.cit., Solidarity Clause, Art. 188R. 39 The Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM) is a DRRM instrument used both in EU Member States and in thirds countries. In the latter case, after receiving an appeal from a third country, the European Commission needs to consult with the EU Council and the EU Parliament. The 28 EU Member States, Norway, Iceland and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia participate in the CPM. 40 European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 383, Civil Protection, Report, conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, June 2012, p DG ECHO, Presentation, op.cit. 8

9 2013 and came into effect in the beginning of established the civil protection intervention modules composed of response capacities and experts that can be deployed immediately if the need arises. 43 This new system allows for better planning and more quick and coherent reaction since Member States voluntarily commit to this pool of response capacities and experts ( ) core resources for standby. 44 These modules are managed by the newly created European Emergency Response Centre (ERC) responsible for the coordination within Member States (between civil protection and humanitarian aid authorities), between EU institutions and between the EEAS, the Council and EU Member States. Through the reform mentioned above EU resources used for civil protection (managed by the MIC) and for humanitarian intervention (dealt with by the Crisis Room). Besides DG ECHO, other Directorate Generals within the European Commission are part of the disaster management system of the EU. Probably the most important of those is DG REGIO which endeavours to increase the territorial cohesion in Europe and the reduction of disparities in the development of different regions in Europe. 45 DG REGIO disposes with a number of instruments that contribute to the accomplishment of its mission, the most important of which are the European Structural and Investment Funds. One of these funds the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF), is extremely relevant for our study since it provides assistance to disaster-stricken regions within Europe, both to EU Member States and countries engaged in accession negotiations with the EU. The EUSF, created in 2002 in response to the severe floods in Central Europe, complements the Member State s public expenditure for emergency operations in case the losses caused by the disaster exceed 3 billion or 0.6% of the country s gross national income. 46 Until May 2014, a total of 3.58 billion have been distributed in 23 countries to help governments face the consequences of major national disasters. 47 It is important to mention that the EUSF provides for the possibility of countries neighbouring the EU struck by the same disaster as a country eligible under the EUSF for which a major disaster has been recognised to receive financial aid (regardless of the cost of the damage). 48 The Regulation in force for the EUSF was recently revised so as to simplify the procedure for allocation of the resources from the fund and, in particular, to clarify the eligibility for regional disasters when the threshold for intervention mentioned above is not reached. Since the entry into force of this revision on 28 June 2014, the EUSF can be utilised to supplement the disaster relief efforts of the affected country for a regional disaster that has provoked direct damage in excess of 1.5 % of that region s gross domestic product (GDP). 49 Thanks to these measures, for instance, the Bulgarian provinces of Varna, Dobrich and Veliko Tarnovo, which were affected by torrential rain and floods in June 2014, can benefit from financial assistance through the EUSF. 42 The new Civil Protection Legislation adopted in 2013 made it compulsory for all EU Member States to initiate disaster risk reduction activities. According to the UNISDR, [t]his was the first time that disaster risk reduction measures were included as legally binding elements of regional legislation. (UNISDR, Report 2013, 2013, p.17) 43 DG ECHO, Emergency Response Coordination Centre, ECHO Factsheet, July DG ECHO, EU Civil Protection Legislation, ECHO Factsheet, July 2014, retrieved 10 July Directorate General Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), Mission Statement, official website of DG REGIO. 46 DG REGIO, EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF), official website of DG REGIO. 47 DG REGIO, EUSF Interventions since 2002, last updated May DG REGIO, EUSF, op. cit. 49 Official Journal of the EU, Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund of 15 May 2014, Amendments, Art. 2, 3. 9

10 An interesting new initiative was launched on 19 September 2012 when the European Commission submitted a proposal to the European Parliament and the European Council for the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corpse EU Aid Volunteers. 50 This corpse trains and deploys European citizens willing to assist communities who have suffered disasters. The more than 10,000 volunteers meant to be sent out to disaster-stricken areas around the world for the period will also support local, national and international organisations active in DRRM. The latter will benefit from this European initiative as a special focus will be put on capacity-building measures. As stressed by Men and Orbetsova, the initiative will create a positive spill-over effect both in the communities where the volunteers are deployed and in the EU. 51 The authors explain that given that the EU Aid Volunteers programme will organise a specialised training for EU citizens, the overall resilience to disasters in the EU will be enhanced. B. Disaster management mechanism within ASEAN After examining the mechanism of addressing crisis situations developed by the EU, this paper will turn itself to the developments in another, extremely disaster-prone region South- East Asia, so as to look into the efforts deployed at the regional level by ASEAN, as well as its platform responsible for disaster management. As stressed by the UN General Assembly Resolution 60/195, consequences of disasters are especially severe for developing countries and hamper the achievement of their sustainable development. 52 This implies that significant efforts are needed in South-East Asian states, most of which (if not all) can be considered as developing countries, so as to ensure disaster risk is lowered and the path toward sustainable development followed. According to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), the continent most often hit by natural hazards in 2012 was Asia, accounting for 40.7 percent of the disasters worldwide, and the Philippines and Indonesia, where more than half of the population of ASEAN lives, are among the five top countries in the world hit by natural disasters. 53 Moreover, in 2012 Asia accounted for more than 64 percent of the global natural disaster victims Legal framework of cooperation between ASEAN Member States Like the EU, both ASEAN institutions and ASEAN Member States are strongly committed to reducing risk related to disaster and have been working to optimise the resources and provide for timely and adequate response to disasters. In this respect is interesting to note that Indonesia was the first country to adopt the HFA as it needed to deal with the aftermath of the deadly tsunami of 2004 that killed more than people. 55 The idea of achieving a disaster-resilient ASEAN community is embedded in a number of 50 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corpse, EU Aid Volunteers, COM(2012) 514 final, 19 September 2012, Brussels, available at: < (accessed 12 June 2013). 51 Orbetsova and Men, China-EU experience and budding cooperation in emergency management, op. cit. 52 UNGA, Resolution 60/195, op. cit. 53 Guha-Sapir, Hoyois and Below, Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2012, op. cit, p Ibid., p UNISDR, Hyogo Framework of Action, official video by the UNISDR, op.cit. 10

11 recently adopted documents which could be considered as the backbone of the ASEAN DRRM system. The ASEAN founding Declaration of 1967 mentions among the main purposes of ASEAN the promotion of peace and stability in the region and of the active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest. 56 This provision is often referred to as ASEAN Solidarity. In June 1976 the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Member States signed in Manila the ASEAN Declaration for Mutual Assistance on Natural Disasters, through which they manifested their readiness to assist, within their capabilities, any Member State affected by a natural disaster of major magnitude, enhancing exchanges and communication between each-other. 57 Although not legally binding, this Declaration showed commitment at the national level, as well, since each Member State was expected to designate a national government agency which will act as a body coordinating both national measures cooperation with other ASEAN Member States. 58 This pledge was reaffirmed through the signing in July 2005 of the landmark legally binding ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). The AADMER states the need for substantive reduction of disaster losses and joint response to disasters through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international co-operation. 59 Actually, the document legally binds ASEAN Member States to undertake DRRM measures at a local, national and at regional levels and ensure the implementation of the HFA. In the spirit of the HFA, the AADMER prioritises prevention and mitigation of disasters and, in line with Resolution 60/195 of the UN GA, emphasises the need to involve all stakeholders, increase community preparedness and strengthen early-warning and response systems. 60 Moreover, each Member State makes available on a voluntary basis assets and capacities for the regional standby arrangements for disaster relief and emergency response. 61 The implementation of the AADMER is closely monitored by an annual Conference of the ASEAN Member States. The Agreement establishes, as well, a special ASEAN Disaster Management and Emergency Relief Fund administered by the ASEAN Secretariat which gathers the voluntary contribution of ASEAN Member States, but allows for third parties to contribute to the Fund as well. ASEAN countries have, indeed, been endeavouring to develop other areas of cooperation by adopting a more holistic approach to economic integration. In 2003, the ASEAN countries adopted the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II which mentioned the establishment of an ASEAN Community by The ASEAN Summit of January 2007 fostered the implementation of the ASEAN Security, Economic and Socio-Cultural Communities and that of February 2009 adopted the ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint and the ASEAN Socio-cultural Community Blueprint, which complete the policy framework of ASEAN integration. These decisions are a proof of the shift of focus from key sectors of economic integration to other areas such as energy, education, social protection or disaster management, needed to ensure sustainable development and deepen integration between ASEAN Member States. The ASEAN Socio-cultural Community is presented in the 56 ASEAN, ASEAN Declaration (Declaration of Bangkok), Bangkok, 8 August 1967, retrieved 11 July 2014, 57 ASEAN, ASEAN Declaration for Mutual Assistance on Natural Disasters, Manila, 26 June 1976, retrieved 10 July 2014, 58 Ibid. 59 ASEAN, ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), Vientiane, 26 July 2005, Art Ibid., Art Ibid., Art

12 document as people-centred and socially responsible community, built on the principles of solidarity and unity among nations. 62 In 2012 the ASEAN countries adopted a new Work Programme for the Agreement for the period which focuses on urban resilience and disaster risk financing. 63 The Work Programme also contributes to the enhancement of technical and institutional capacities of ASEAN Members and the introduction of DRRM measures into national development policies ASEAN DDRM Institutional Framework The signing of the AADMER paved the way to the establishment of an entire DRRM mechanism by ASEAN. The most important bodies in this mechanism are the ASEAN Conference of Parties (COP), which gathers at a Ministerial level to review and evaluate the implementation of the AADMER, and the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM) which acts as the executive body of the Agreement. The ACDM, initially an experts group, is composed of the respective national agencies of all ASEAN Member States, responsible for DRRM. The Committee is charged with the promotion of collaborative disaster research activities. The work of the COP and the ACDM is supported by the Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance Division of the ASEAN Secretariat which also enables cooperation amongst ASEAN Member States and international organisations, including the UN and the EU. This Division is responsible for the evaluation and monitoring of the AADMER Work Programme, as well as for the use of the ASEAN Disaster Management and Emergency Relief Fund. 65 Although cooperation in DRRM is not explicitly mentioned in the ASEAN Charter, the latter lists under the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community an ASEAN agency that is essential for its DRRM mechanism the ASEAN Coordination Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre), 66 The establishment of the AHA Centre was announced by the AADMER with the aim to assemble and consolidate information and analysis on natural or man-made hazards, disaster risk assessment, and disaster management capacities provided by National Focal Points (i.e. earmarked assets and capacities available for the regional standby arrangements for disaster management). The AHA Centre based in Jakarta, Indonesia, and governed by the ACDM, de facto opened its doors on 17 November It acts as a hub and disseminates the information thus gathered and, on occasions, analyses the implications of disasters at a regional level. 67 A disaster-stricken ASEAN Member State can request for assistance directly or through the AHA Centre, which can channel such assistance. 68 A priori, the assistance delivered to the disaster-stricken country is monitored by the country receiving the assistance. The AHA Centre is expected to facilitate activities for technical cooperation, as well as for scientific research. In December 2012, the AHA Centre launched a Disaster Emergency Logistic System There are signs that ASEAN countries are collaborating with each-other in DRRM and that a sense of ASEAN Solidarity is already present among the Member States. The 62 ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Socio-cultural Community Blueprint, Jakarta, June UNISDR, Annual Report 2013: Final Report on Biennium Work Programme, 2013, p L. Mercado Carreon, Working with ASEAN on disaster risk reduction and disaster management, Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Issue 50, April Ibid. 66 ASEAN, ASEAN Charter, 20 November 2007, Singapore, Annex ASEAN, AADMER, Art Ibid., Art

13 readiness of Viet Nam to contribute to the disaster fund for the Philippines after the Yolanda typhoon, no matter the hard situation the country had to face itself after it suffered the effects of the typhoon. 69 A number of DRRM initiatives triggered by big disasters that occurred in the ASEAN region in the last decade, have been undertaken in recent years. The Report for 2013 of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) mentions, for instance, an initiative of public-private collaboration for risk financing and insurance of local governments, launched in the ASEAN region, with the Philippines as the forerunner. 70 Another interesting initiative called the Hotel Ready, which is being implemented in Malaysia, Myanmar and the Philippines, aims to measure the resilience to disasters of businesses. 71 It is, nevertheless, not very clear to what extent initiatives like the ones mentioned above are actually ASEAN-coordinated projects and not initiatives of individual governments. C. Possible synergies between the Disaster Management Mechanisms of ASEAN and the EU Regardless of the differences between the EU and ASEAN in terms of their structure, functioning, overall objectives, the two organisations can learn a lot from each-other. Indeed, as explained by Men and Orbetsova, exchange of good practices and cooperation [can] markedly lowe[r] transportation and other costs, hel[p] ensure adequacy and complementarity and avoi[d] duplications of assistance materials. 72 Resolution 60/195 of the UNGA underlines the positive impact scientific and technical advances could have on the development of the resilience of communities (and especially vulnerable communities) to disasters and, in this respect, highlights the need for developing countries to have access to technology so as to tackle natural disasters effectively. 73 The author of this paper would like to draw the attention to a number of parallels that could be drawn between the DRRM systems of the EU and of ASEAN. It is interesting to draw a parallel between the EU CPM and the AHA Centre. Indeed, one could argue that the functioning of the AHA Centre resembles very much that of the EU CPM. Nevertheless, unlike the instruments available in ASEAN s DRRM mechanism managed by the AHA Centre, the EU CPM allows for the civil protection mechanism and all related instruments to be utilised not only in the CPM Member States (which, by the way, are not limited to the EU), but also in third countries, including the South-East Asian region. One must admit, however, that the use of earmarked assets and capacities voluntarily set aside by Member States that AADMER introduced in 2005, was adopted by the EU CPM only in 2013 through the Legislation on Civil Protection (see above).moreover, strong resemblances exist between the ASEAN Disaster Management and Emergency Relief Fund and the EUSF. 69 ASEAN, ASEAN Readiness to Provide Relief to the Philippines; Offers Assistance to Viet Nam, Report, 12 November ASEAN, AADMER, op. cit., p Ibid. 72 V. Orbetsova and J. Men, China-EU experience and budding cooperation in emergency management, in Inge Govaere and Sara Poli (eds.), EU Governance of Global Emergencies: Emergencies: Legal Framework for Combating Threats and Crises, Leiden, Brill, 2014, pp UNGA, Resolution 60/195, op. cit. 13

14 1. What ASEAN can learn from EU? The European disaster management system has existed for 20 years now and has been constantly adapting to both the increase of natural hazards and man-made disasters and the evolving nature of the European Union. Even though a number of pitfalls persist and the potential of the EU and its Member States when it comes to disaster preparedness and rapid and efficient response to crises is not used to its full extent, the EU has undeniably created a comprehensive disaster management system and has built up expertise in early warning systems, disaster prevention measures and disaster risk reduction. EU community s and Member States experience and lessons learnt from the elaboration and implementation of disaster prevention and disaster relief measures, such as earthquake-resilient building codes, together with the good practice in coordinating efforts of different actors so as to ensure timely and efficient reaction in emergency situations, could be of great value to EU s international partners, among which ASEAN. Urban development is another field of expertise ASEAN could draw. A significant number of EU Member States, most of which have very high percentage of their population living in urban areas, have been facing for decades problems linked to hazards due to urbanisation and industrialisation and have developed both experience and expertise in the management of big agglomerations. Indeed, many European countries in which more than 80 percent of the population lives in urban areas have managed to increase the resilience of their communities to disasters. This could be of extreme interest to ASEAN given the high urbanisation rate growth many of its members are experiencing. According to the Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013 drafted by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the percentage of the urban population grew from 25.5 percent in 1980 to 45.3 percent in 2012, with some countries like Laos experiencing very high urban population growth rates (5.2 percent as compared to an average for the region of 2.6 percent). 74 The study of ESCAP shows that the rate of urbanisation in Asia and the Pacific is greater than that in any other region of the world, and stresses that it is in the poorest and least urbanised countries that the highest rates are found. 75 Combined with the urban population growth, the phenomenon of urbanisation is causing a number of challenges to countries, including lack of access to safe water, proliferation of diseases, shortages of adequate shelter, increased probability of environmental catastrophes, and problems linked to the infrastructure. Moreover, in a number of ASEAN countries more than half of the urban population lives in slum households, 76 thus, rendering the latter extremely vulnerable to both natural and man-made disasters. To quote but one case: In this sense, the knowledge and know-how exchange between the EU and ASEAN in these crucial areas could contribute to building disaster-resilience. Another initiative that could be reinvented by ASEAN is the EU Voluntary Corpse. The mobilisation and training of ASEAN citizens for deployment in disaster-stricken areas at a local, national or international level can be of extreme benefit for strengthening the cooperation on a people-to-people level and increasing resilience with ASEAN communities through a more bottom-up approach. 74 United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013, A.2. Urbanisation, 3 December Ibid. 76 Slum households are located in areas classified as urban by the administrative authorities of a country. They shelter a group of individuals that do not have access to one or more of the following: security of tenure, structural quality and durability of dwelling, access to safe water, access to sanitation facilities, and sufficient living area. (ESCAP, Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific, op.cit.). 14

15 2. What can the EU learn from ASEAN? If the EU has experience to share in terms of cooperation, control of the urbanisation process and use of high-tech equipment and products of DRRM, ASEAN countries have gained rich experiences in their long-term fight against natural disasters. 77 Besides the know-how that the South-East Asian communities have constructed over centuries being frequently confronted with disasters, many of the ASEAN countries have developed different DRRM instruments. As stressed by the President by the Philippines, Benigno S. Aquino III, on 4 June 2014, developments in science and technology, as well as facilitated access of citizens to critical information are crucial for DRRM. 78 He further noted the innovations and initiatives of the Philippines, such as Project NOAH (Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards). The latter was launched in 2011 the objective being to promote, integrate and implement advanced science and technology to increase the DRRM capacity of the Philippine government. The project deploys instruments and methods to create high resolution hazard maps that could be used by communities and local governments, delivers readily accessible, timely and accurate hazards information through various media and communication platforms. 79 The idea is not only to improve the abilities of national and local governments, academy and civil society organisations to incorporate DRRM measures, but also to allow for a bottom-up approach which will help build resilience to disasters in communities. We might be seeing the first fruits of the risk reduction measures undertaken by the government according to the UNISDR the human casualties of the extremely strong Typhoon Haiyan were minimised thanks to the quick action of the authorities in the Philippines. 80 Indeed, the Report for 2013 of the UNISDR points out that the government of the Philippines dedicated a budget of US$293 million for disaster management (with special emphasis being put on disaster risk reduction. 81 The inhabitants of a small island in Cebu Province, the Philippines, the houses of which got completely wiped out by the Haiyan Typhoon, were all saved thanks to the timely evacuation made possible by the efforts to implement at a local level the HFA through early warning systems and evacuation preparedness. 82 Viet Nam was also affected by the typhoon through strong wind and heavy rain, but fortunately managed to evacuate 800, 000 people before the disaster occurred. PART 2: EU-ASEAN COOPERATION IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT After examining the DRRM mechanisms that have been developed in the EU and in ASEAN to deal with emergencies that occur internally, and after looking at the possible synergies and incentives for both sides to collaborate, it is time to investigate the budding cooperation in DRRM between the EU and ASEAN. This cooperation, as we will see, entails a strong 77 ASEM, ASEM Workshop on Cooperation on Capacity Building of Disaster Relief, Background, May 2009, Chengdu, China. 78 B. S. Aquino, President of the Republic of the Philippines, Keynote Speech at the ASEM Manila Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Post- Haiyan/Yolanda A Way Forward, 4-6 June 2014, quoted in the Chair s Summary Statement, p Department of Science and Technology, Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (NOAH) Project, About, website of the project. 80 UNISDR, Annual Report 2013, op. cit., p Ibid., p Ibid., p