The normative framework of civil protection: first steps within the EEC

Cooperation in the area of civil protection at EU level could be traced to the end of 1970s. At the beginning, such a cooperation developed at bilateral level with the establishment of two parallel initiatives in France and Italy dealing with disaster mitigation. Both countries, for responding to social concern over the devastating potential of catastrophic events, initiated a highly beneficial period of cooperation. As early as 1980, France established the Plan d’Exposition aux

Risques393_{, a national programme to assess the geophysical environment and map}

natural and man-made hazards, examining the level of risk they posed to the public. In Italy, three groups of the National Research Council were given the task of assessing the level of risk posed by floods, landslides, volcanic activity and earthquakes, and of developing technical policies for risk mitigation.

Given the diverse nature and extent of the risks many EU countries face, it is easy to understand the scale of the task presented to national administrations. Disaster

393 _{The Risk Exposure Plan (PER) has been established in 1982 by the law on compensation for} victims of natural disasters (Law No. 82-600 of July 13, 1982). For further information see, http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Reglementation-et-plan-de,24012.html.

148 hazards were largely dependent on the geography and climate of the individual nations concerned. Many southern States were especially prone to earthquakes or forest fires, while in northern Europe disasters tended to be smaller and related to technology, such as industrial or transport accidents. In some cases, countries were able to cope with such catastrophes on their own, but often emergency assistance was required from other nations. It was in this context that the EU concept of cooperation in civil protection issues emerged: it was recognised that different countries had developed different areas of expertise to cope with the different types of hazards they faced and that there were benefits and efficiencies to be gained through cooperation.

The clear necessity to tackle this issue in a supranational coordinated manner emerged just in the early 1980s, after the Seveso disaster394 _{and the Chernobyl}

accident395_{. Indeed, the underestimation of the risks originating from the presence}

of production facilities on one hand and the subsequent growing attention to the protection and preservation of the environment and of individuals on the other, put the issue of industrial risk at the centre of the public debate.

394 _{The accident took place on July 10, 1976, in a chemical plant located near the town of Seveso,} 25 km north of Milan. A chemical cloud containing several kilograms of dioxin TCDD was released into the environment and contaminated a vast and densely populated area causing death and suffering of tens of thousands of human beings and animals. Moreover, it has been recorded elevated cardiovascular mortality in the first years after the event and increases in diabetes and other chronic lung diseases. The response to Seveso disaster was widely criticized as too slow and ineffective. Against this background, a new regulatory framework to be shared by all the Member States was perceived as urgent and in 1982 the European Economic Community (hereinafter EECC) adopted the Directive 82/501/EEC, renamed as Seveso I Directive (Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (Seveso I Directive), OJ L 230, 5 August 1982). See, B. Pozzo, “The institutional and legal framework of reference: the Seveso Directives in the Community and their implementation in the Member States”, in B. Pozzo (ed.) The Implementation of the Seveso Directives in an Enlarged Europe. A

look into the past and a challenge for the future, Kluwer Law International, 2009, p. 3; T. Ǻhman, C. Nilsson , “The Community Mechanism for Civil Protection and the European Union Solidarity Fund”, in S. Olsson (ed.), Crisis Management in the European Union: Cooperation in the Face of

Emergencies, p. 85; M. Kotzur, “European Union Law on Disaster Preparedness and Response”, in German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 55, 2012, pp. 267-268.

395 _{In the early morning hours of April 26, 1986, residents of the Ukrainian village of Pripyat saw a} spectacular and terrifying sight: a glowing fountain of molten nuclear fuel and burning graphite was spewing into the dark sky through a gaping hole in the roof of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant only a few kilometres away. See, European Parliament, Resolution on the reaction of the Community to Chernobyl (Doc. A2-4/87), OJ L 125/92, 11 May 1987, para. 6.

149 In April 1985, the European Commission – DG Environment hosted the first meeting on civil protection and, under the Italian Presidency impulse, the Italian Minister of Civil Protection Giuseppe Zamberletti invited the other European Ministers for an informal summit in Rome. Indeed, Italy had been already hit by a number of natural catastrophes, i.e. the earthquake in Garfagnana which had caused thousands of displaced and homeless people, and the Italian Minister had urged his European colleagues to tackle this issue all together. On this occasion, Member States had agreed to coordinate their national civil protection capacities in the case of major natural disasters laying the foundations for Community cooperation in this field396_.

As the initial agenda focused on managing large-scale natural disasters, responsibility for the European Community’s activities in this area was given to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment. The Italian Commissioner Ripa di Meana then argued that his Directorate should do more in the wake of forest fires and heat waves in Southern Europe by working for the development of a “Europe for citizens”397_{. While the general interest was more}

oriented to the effects of natural disasters, the 1986 explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear facilities confirmed the potentially devastating effects of such disasters. Accordingly, Member States became more sensitive towards possible man-made disasters able to cause damages to the environment, to people as well as to trade. Thus, seen the difficulties faced by the then European Community in tackling the different approaches of Member States, it arrived the moment to provide a even more combined response to whatever kind of calamity at EU level.

Between 1985 and 1994, studies and research programmes, a variety of policy instruments were put into place leading to the establishment of operational tools for the preparedness of those involved in civil protection and response in the event of a disaster. It must be noted that all these Community operations were based on

396 _{See, C. Wendling, The European Union Response to Emergencies. A Sociological Neo-} Institutionalist Approach, European University Institute, 2009, p. 98.

397 _{See, M. Ekengren, N. Matzen, M., Rhinard, M. Svantessson, “Solidarity or Sovereignty? EU} Cooperation in Civil Protection”, in European Integration, Vol. 28, 2006, p. 460.

150

ad hoc resolutions by the Council and Member States without a legal basis398_.

Therefore, at these first stages of the process of development of a EU configuration for civil protection, it appears quite clear that it was essentially a intergovernmental system based on national capacities and determination. Despite this and the fact that the instruments adopted were and non-binding, step by step they became more relevant up to the creation of a comprehensive system capable to face different kinds of calamities and helped to shape the basis of the existing Civil Protection Mechanism legislation by making the occurrence of serious disasters an issue of common concern399_.

2.2 The normative framework of civil protection: from Maastricht to the