The December 2004 tsunami
The Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004 caused devastation
on an almost unprecedented scale, killing an estimated 200,000
people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless and
in urgent need of water, shelter and medical treatment throughout
south-east Asia and as far away as east Africa.
The intervention conducted under the Community Civil Protection
Mechanism in response was the biggest since its creation in
2001, with offers of help from a majority of participating
states and civil protection operations in four different countries.
Chronology
Aid sent
Intervention by country
Added value
After the tsunami: lessons learnt
Chronology
The Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) in Brussels
was immediately warned of the disaster by automatic earthquake
alert in the early hours of 26 December. By 08:30 CET the
first contacts had been made with UN
OCHA (United Nations' Office for the Coordination of Human
Affairs), the then Netherlands Presidency of the EU and other
Commission services, to assess the situation and the appropriate
response. At 10:30 CET, following an international request
for assistance from Sri Lanka, the MIC activated the Mechanism
and broadcast details of the aid required to its network of
24-hour contact points in member states.
Over the following days a further three countries (Thailand,
Indonesia and the Maldives) requested help through the Mechanism.
During the course of the operation, the MIC facilitated the
sending of assistance to the disaster-stricken countries,
issued regular updates on the situation and changing aid priorities,
and matched offers to needs. Activity in the MIC remained
intense until the second half of January 2005, when civil
protection efforts were gradually wound down in favour of
the long-term reconstruction phase.
Aid sent
The aid sent through the Mechanism after the tsunami included
“traditional” civil protection assistance - such as search
and rescue teams, pumping and water purification equipment,
medical aid, shelter and food - and help specific to the circumstances.
For instance, the MIC assisted local and consular authorities
overwhelmed by the needs of European tourists. It encouraged
member states to use planes sent to carry aid to the region
for repatriation on their way back. It also launched a call
for forensic experts to help with body identification, leading
to the dispatch of several specialist European teams to Thailand.
Six EU assessment and coordination experts were appointed
on site to facilitate the civil protection operation from
the ground. They played a crucial role in liaising with local
and UN authorities leading the relief operation, and reporting
back on aid requirements and logistical bottlenecks.
The emergency assistance sent through the Mechanism complemented
the rapid response work of the European
Commission’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO), which immediately
released €3 million on the day of the disaster to enable partners
in the region to deliver fast relief to the victims. By early
February 2005 over €100 million had been committed in reconstruction
aid.
Mechanism interventions by
country
- Sri Lanka: call for assistance on 26 December
2004, expert arrives on site on 27 December, emergency relief
speedily dispatched
- Thailand: MIC participates in inter-consular conference
calls and issues call for help with forensic identification
to member states after local authorities are overwhelmed,
resulting in the dispatch of specialist teams and equipment
from the Community
- Indonesia: call for assistance launched on 28 December
2004 following UN advice that situation had been under-estimated
and was extremely serious. MIC appoints assessment expert,
who plays valuable role in coordinating aid to Banda Aceh
in Sumatra
- Maldives: early reports of only limited damage
prove over optimistic; MIC dispatches expert on site and
emergency relief is sent by member states.
Added value
The flow of accurate, constantly updated information between
the MIC, national headquarters and the disaster zone was essential
to efficiency. Using the MIC as a communications and coordination
hub cut down on the administrative burden of liaising with
each European donor state individually that would otherwise
have fallen to the local authorities, and ensured aid could
rapidly be found where available.
For instance, cases of tetanus in Indonesia increased rapidly
in the days following the disaster. The EU coordinator on
site informed the MIC that the country was in urgent need
of a large number of high-dosage anti-tetanus immunoglobulin.
Through the network of national contact points, the MIC was
able to locate a large stock of 4,000 anti-tetanus doses in
Denmark, as well as a medical plane about to leave for Asia
and able to transport it.
MIC activity during the
tsunami
- Over 1000 emails and telephone calls handled during
the initial phase of the emergency
- 23 messages and 13 situation reports broadcast to
all member states
- Six EU assessment and coordination experts selected
and appointed
- MIC staffed almost around the clock for two weeks
|
After the tsunami: lessons learnt
Overall the Mechanism performed well and speedily after
the tsunami, helping to muster resources from member states
and avoiding duplication between them. However, the intervention
also highlighted a number of gaps, namely relating to:
- Insufficient
transportation means
- Lack of
access to information about military resources
- Different
conceptions of the role of EU coordination among member
states
Following the experience of the tsunami, civil society gave
a clear signal that it wished to see a stronger and more effective
European response to disasters. A number of initiatives have
been taken to address limitations in the system. In April
2005, the Commission issued a Proposal
for a Council Regulation establishing a Rapid Response and
Preparedness Instrument for major emergencies, to fund
actions contributing to preparedness and response in case
of disaster, as well as a Communication
on Improving the Community Civil Protection Mechanism.
This was followed in January 2006 by a Proposal
for the COUNCIL DECISION establishing a Community civil protection
mechanism (recast). |