“From Gaps to Caps – Risk Management Capability Based on Gaps Identification in the BSR”

1. 15./16.11.2016, Stockholm “From Gaps to Caps – Risk Management Capability Based on Gaps Identification in the BSR” TASK D COMPARISON OF EVALUATIONS OF EMERGENCIES AND EXERCISES Jürgen Krempin Hamburg Fire and Rescue Service Hamburg Fire Service Academy

2. Task D Partners SwedenSwedish Civil Contingencies Agency EstoniaEstonian Rescue Board DenmarkFrederikssund Fire and Rescue Service LatviaState Fire and Rescue Service of Latvia GermanyHamburg Fire and Rescue Service (Task Leader) Poland Main School of Fire Service in Warsaw

3. Objectives Task D will serve • to compare evaluations of previous incidents/emergencies and exercises and • to draw conclusions on differences and similaritiesof best practices and main gaps while planning and assessing capabilities in the Baltic Sea Region.

4. Progression of Task D (1) March 2015 Kick-Off-Conference and planning workshop(Reykjavik)  Alignment of a detailed task implementation plan

5. Progression of Task D (2) May 2015 Seminar No. 1(Riga)  Defining criteria for the evaluation reports.  Two templates were compiled • one template for emergencies • one template for exercises … to make the evaluations of the countries comparable.

6. Template for Emergencies (1)

7. Template for Emergencies (1) B. Preparation for this kind of emergency 1. Existence of planning, framework, description 2. Legal basis 3. Responsibilities/leaderships 4. Involved actors, participants, organisations in civil protection A. General information 1. Kind of emergency: Flooding 2. Date of emergency 3. Place/region of emergency 4. Short description of emergency 5. Level of emergency

8. Template for Emergencies (2) E. Five dimensions 1. Management / leadership2. Cooperation3. Communication4. Knowledge and competence5. Resources F. Two capabilities 1. a. Prevention and preparedness1. b. Response2. Challenges / gaps C. During the emergency 1. Involved actors, participants, organisations in the actualemergency 2. Decisions, recommendations D. After the emergency 1. Reporting, debriefing / diffusing

9. Template for Exercises (1)

10. Template for Exercises (1) B. Preparation for this kind of exercise 1. Existence of planning, framework, description 2. Legal basis 3. Responsibilities/leaderships 4. Involved actors, participants, organisations in civil protection A. General information 1. Kind of exercise: Flooding 2. Date of exercise 3. Place/region of exercise 4. Short description of exercise 5. Level of exercise

11. Template for Exercises (2) E. Five dimensions 1. Management / leadership2. Cooperation3. Communication4. Knowledge and competence5. Resources F. Two capabilities1. a. Prevention and preparedness1. b. Response2. Challenges / gaps C. During the exercise 1. Involved actors, participants,organisations in the actual exercise 2. Decisions, recommendations D. After the exercise1. Reporting, debriefing / diffusing

12. Progression of Task D (3) November 2015 Seminar No. 2 (Tallinn) June 2016 Seminar No. 3(Hamburg) • Focussing on the evaluations submitted by all partners • Comparing the member states’ evaluation • Discussing on their content • Pointing out the key observations in them

13. Progression of Task D (4) September 2016 Final Seminar (Vilnius) • Agreement upon the layout of the summing up document • Consisting of evaluations of exercises and emergencies.

14. Emergencies Results and Conclusions

15. Main results emergencies I Knowledge and Competence Similarities • All six countries evaluate emergencies. Differences • In some countries evaluation of emergencies is not obligatory. Gaps • Lack of evaluation of small scale or local emergencies. Best practices • Evaluation of emergencies is integrated into legislation. • Common regulations, methodology, guidelines for evaluation of emergencies within the county. • Designated institution which follows how the lessons learned or recommendation from evaluation of emergencies are implemented. • Regular update of civil protection plans, as well as regular training and exercise.

16. Main results emergenciesII Resources Similarities • (Many) different institutions are involved (fire department, including volunteer fire department, police, civil protection department, ministries, emergency medical service, army, border guard, NGO and in some cases dyke supervisors). Differences / Gaps • Only two countries there were insufficient resources during the floods (need to improve early warning and monitoring systems in particular areas and protective infrastructure such as mounds, walls and dams). Best practices • Aerial scanning of terrain where the obtained data would be used for flood risk modelling and for determination of extend of protective infrastructure. • Common and comprehensive monitoring and early warning system for floods.

17. Main results emergenciesIII Communication Similarities • All countries used different communication ways to the public (radio, TV, SMS services, internet informative page, social media and others). Differences / Best practices • One of the countries during the emergency used a designated telephone number to the media/press, as well as designated telephone number to the public. Gaps • Almost all countries pointed out that during an emergency there was insufficient communication and information sharing among involved institutions. Best practices • Common and clear communication procedures and unified information sharing platform.

18. Main results emergenciesIV Cooperation Differences • Different approaches in every country on how to ensure cooperation with enterprises in a preparation phase. Some of countries prepare cooperation with enterprises for various kinds of tasks. Gaps • Some countries pointed out that there was insufficient routine for cooperation between institutions during the flood. Best practices • Pre-established cooperation body with determined competence, where representatives of various institutions are involved. These cooperation bodies could be in different levels (local, regional, national) to ensure strategic coordination or operational coordination.

19. Main results emergenciesV Management / Leadership Similarities • In all countries fire department placed the officer in charge. Differences • Due to the different states structures and forms of governments in Baltic Sea Region countries the management and leadership of particular emergency in various stages (prevention and preparedness, response and recovery) is diverse.

20. Exercises Results and Conclusions

21. Main results exercises I Knowledge and competence Similarities • Accumulated certain experience and knowledge to handle daily life emergencies and disaster situations. • Different levels were trained - operational, tactical, senior and high level decision makers. • Special attention is given to evaluate the implementation of tactical skills, decision making, and conformity with legislation. • Lack of real accident/disaster experiences to test psychological strength of target group and pressure to apply the decision. • Could happen that due to special circumstances (unexpected event or situation, like chemical event) the gathered knowledge may fade away (thrill, uncertainty of situation or information). • Lot of professional knowledge within the own service / institution, but gaps in knowledge for other cross-sectoral institutions competences.

22. Main results exercises II Knowledge and competence Differences • Some countries put more effort to examine their operational or decision making skills and knowledge, but some countries put an effort to test main soft skills ( like mentioned 5 dimensions in proposed methodology). • Evaluation of knowledge and competences after exercise may be divided as part of self-assessment and side performed observation and assessment (from group of competent experts). • Some countries have broader access to scientific knowledge (due to the scale of country, existing academic staff and facility, existing cooperation with academic or research institution). • Lack of knowledge to apply new technical support systems, technologies and/or tools.

23. Main results exercises III Resources Similarities • Rely mostly on own resources, but if other partners involved appropriate procedures are planned (agreements, legislation). • Other institutions are involved and their resources were used if dimension / level of exercise increase (form local to national level). • Most countries have proper resources, no gaps were illuminated. • Resources are mainly from the fire department.

24. Main results exercises IV Resources Differences • Lack of proper (own) resources to deal with difficult consequences (commercial resources could be used). • Probably less flexibility is given to first responders to improvise the performance and deal with difficult environment and situation. • Various availability to apply new technical support systems, technologies, tools. • Some countries widely use volunteer organizations and their resources. • Some countries receive great support from other organizations and institutions for exercise planning and exercise process. • Some countries have additional financial allocation for organising of exercises.

25. Main results exercises V Communication Similarities • Communicationamong institutions involved in disaster management are well tested and verified. • Wide range of communication means are used to reach (inform) population. Back-up or alternative systems and communication means exist to maintain regular communication. Differences • Some countries communicate the results and outcomes of exercises to the decision makers (some leave it internally). • For some countries the legal background (legislation) requires and defines to communicate the results of exercises. • Awareness should be risen on possible capabilities available at local and regional, level, including at cross sectoral level. • Need to improve a common situational awareness to ovoid on outdated information

26. Main results exercises VI Cooperation Similarities • Institutions want to participate in other institutions exercises and international exercises to test own training requirements also related to cooperation. • Institutions tend to cooperate to design and to develop the exercises; • Legal basis exists on national, regional or local level for cooperation and managing the exercises. • Responsible organizations have agreements in place to ensure proper measures of cooperation. Differences • For some countries it is difficult to convince other institutions or private sector to participate in exercises (practical or theoretical level). • Cooperation becomes more tailored. • Data need to be shared among institutions. • Timely information sharing needs to be improved.

27. Main results exercises VII Management / Leadership Similarities • Regional and/or national distribution of the competences exists. • Clear allocation of competences at national / regional / municipal level. • Leadership is certain when there is single type of disaster, but when complex disaster situation is simulated where organization required to share the ownership of the risk or threat (and competences overlay) it may create uncertainty of who is in charge. • Not all actors are involved in exercises in decision making process. First responders dedicated their exercises mostly on testing and examining SOPs(Standard Operating Procedure). Differences • Different management structures of disaster management systems exist (scale of the country, political structure, policy etc.). • Some institutions strictly follow their competences and roles but some institution may add some flexibility to their actions according to situation.

28. Results / conclusions Entire results and conclusions can be found in • Task D Document Thank you for listening