OECD Strategic Crisis Management Workshop, presentation by Dr. Tarik MEZIANI


Published on

This presentation by Dr. Tarik Meziani, Civil Protection Unit, Council of the European Union, was made at the 2014 OECD/Swiss Federal Chancellery Strategic Crisis Management Workshop (12-13 June, Geneva).

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

OECD Strategic Crisis Management Workshop, presentation by Dr. Tarik MEZIANI

  1. 1. Political/Strategic Crisis Management at EU level The EU Integrated Political Crisis Response arrangements (IPCR) General Secretariat of the Council of the EU - Tarik MEZIANI 3rd Workshop on Strategic Crisis Management Geneva, 12-13 June 2014
  2. 2. The Crisis Continuum Crisis Member States response EU instruments (Crisis Platform, Civil Protection Mechanism, …) EU Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) Solidarity Clause Requirement for coordination at EU political level Invocation (Member State)
  3. 3. Rationale for Integrated “crisis” arrangements at EU political level The specific context • (2004) Madrid and (2005) London bombings & (2004) Tsunami Pacific/Indian Ocean  The requirement • supporting the EU and its MS to respond at strategic/ political level in a coordinated manner to major terrorist attacks and disasters  The (first) tool : the 2006 Emergency and Crisis Coordination arrangements (CCA) and their review
  4. 4. CCA experience 2006 - 2010  No full activation – Activation in 3 occasions in info-sharing mode (2008 Mumbai, 2010 Haiti and Eyjafjallajökull)  5 CCA Exercises conducted with various scenarios (multi- sectoral crises resulting from terrorism/disasters)  Lessons resulted in the CCA review process:  Phase 1: do we need such a tool at all?  Even if no activation, exercises showed the need was still there  Phase 2: how can we make it more “usable”?  LL: CCA seen as a complex machinery / last resort (“Armageddon”)  Need for a flexible system, based on well established procedures  Tackle needs for coordinated approach => integrated picture of situation
  5. 5. Result of the CCA Review Process: the new IPCR arrangements Reinforce EU’s ability to take “rapid” decisions when faced by major emergencies requiring a response at EU political level New approach – new name : "EU Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) arrangements” Support the Solidarity Clause (Art. 222 TFEU)  single set of crisis arrangements
  6. 6. In short …
  7. 7. They are designed to be  Flexible and scalable (proportionality)  Based on existing procedures and working groups/committees (no adhockery)  Under Presidency "political control and strategic direction" (governance)  Organised around COREPER (rapidity, cross-cutting responsibility)
  8. 8. They do not …  … infringe on MS responsibilities (subsidiarity)  … replace existing sectorial arrangements (such as the Civil Protection Mechanism) … the IPCR “mantra” : « IPCR fully exploit synergies between stakeholders and existing means structures and capabilities at EU level »
  9. 9. The IPCR architecture Political decision- making/coordination •Coreper •Council preparatory bodies when and if relevant •Council/European Council Analysis and possible response •Presidency roundtable: •Situation and possible evolution •Breaking points (thresholds of irreversibility) •Policy options/ Proposals for action •Communication Situation •IPCR Web Platform •Stepped-up information exchange •Structured information collection •Internal communication •Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis (ISAA)
  10. 10. The IPCR process in practice
  11. 11. Key supporting elements • Presidency informal roundtable,  similar to a “COREPER briefing” meeting • Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis (ISAA) by the Commission and the European External Action Service (all relevant structures involved incl. ECHO ERCC, and EU SitRoom) • Council-owned Web Platform  managed by the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC) + EEAS and Commission support within respective responsibilities
  12. 12. The IPCR Web Platform • A Council-owned dedicated and password protected tool, permanently available. • (Multiple) Crisis page(s) activation, including in info-sharing mode • Matching the right information with the right level of responsibility • “Peacetime” use for networking, exchanging information (incl. on on-going situations outside an IPCR activation), building preparedness, etc. • GSC overall management, working together with the Commission and the EEAS and Member States experts
  13. 13. Q1: How to integrate the international dimension into exercises for strategic crisis management? => What we (try to) do for the first IPCR exercise 1. Motivation: need for INCO resulting from the scenario  Transboundary crisis, stressing the interdependencies  Effectiveness of the overall response  Benefit for the national response 2. Method  Operate in an international dimension (at least 7 MS involved)  IPCR Process (CCA LL) => Rely on well-established procedures and existing fora 3. Level of Ambition  In line with objectives / experience  Piggybacking: 2-way street
  14. 14. Q2: What are the challenges related to exercising different sense-making approaches between countries? • Sense-making approach  Differs between levels and sometimes between countries  Differs according to use, e.g. national (inter-ministerial) vs multilateral  Keep using your own way (realism, avoid ad-hoc approaches) • Main challenges  Shared and coherent picture of the situation  Get people/countries to understand each other, even if they don’t speak the same “language” • Past experience  IPCR Development (CCA review/LL): Develop a common picture to inform/support decision-making => ISAA
  15. 15. Q2: What are the challenges related to exercising different sense-making approaches between countries? The IPCR way: ISAA • Two-pronged approach  Sectoral (expert) level input gathered at EU level by established networks/methods (Commission/EEAS sectoral networks)  Nationally validated contributions (IPCR-specific, “Validating Authorities” concept) • Facilitate integration  Develop templates and encourage their use  But do not impose (better to have input not in line with the template than no input)  Anticipate => questionnaires (structured information collection) • Deal with the elephant in the room  Define the governance, define the methodology (integration, validation)
  16. 16. Q3: How can international crisis management exercises be useful to improve sense-making processes and policy coordination across national boundaries? • Promote ownership • Build and test the feedback loop – Integration of IPCR dimension in national process – Use IPCR exercise at will for national purposes • Evaluation guidelines: promote 360°assessment – What did we learn, what did you learn • Transparency – Information hub – IPCR Web Platform => repository for inputs from all MS, match the level of info/access to the level of responsibility, access to same level of information
  17. 17. The IPCR process
  18. 18. First IPCR Exercise (Dec 2014) • Based on Cyber Europe 2014 (piggybacking) • Discussion based Exercise focusing on IPCR process/procedures (political/strategic level) • Crisis of multiple dimensions (energy, economic, social, trade, security, etc.) - Escalation to political level • Need for a common understanding on the stakes and priorities, and on action to take in several policy areas • Need for a coherent EU political response, encompassing all relevant dimensions • IPCR arrangements activated by the Presidency upon request from the affected MS => short-term response and medium to long-term (sustainable) solutions need to be envisaged…
  19. 19. • For more information : – contact the IPCR Secretariat : IPCR@consilium.europa.eu – IPCR flyer – IPCR Web Platform: access granted by each Managing Authority https://IPCR.consilium.europa.eu