Analysis of disaster management structures and cross- border collaboration in the Benelux and its bordering countries
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance Tobias Becking Student ID: I6080319
Supervisor: Marian Ramakers- van Kuijk, MCDM Second Reader: Dr. Lutz Krebs Placement Institution: EMRIC Office; Prins Bisschopsingel 53 Maastricht Maastricht, 14.08.2017 Declaration of Academic Integrity
2 Abstract
Background: In modern society, the number of disasters are increasing and the demand is often exceeding the capacity of the affected community´s emergency system. Moreover, disasters do not stop at borders and might have a cross-border impact. The level of preparedness or the capacity to cope with the adverse effects of a disaster is largely related to the responsibilities of the emergency system. Consequently, there is a need for cross-border collaboration. As this is a concern within the Benelux Union, research was needed on the disaster management systems of the neighbouring countries to extend the collaboration. Therefore, the study contributes data regarding the differences in the systems and existing stated in the Benelux contract in 2008. Objective: This study aims to analyse disaster management structures in the BENELUX- region and its neighbouring countries, to identify similarities and differences, which could affect cross-border collaboration. This study does this by identifying existing cooperation forms and existing barriers in the study region. Furthermore, it will be assessed what impact the five strategies on the future of the EU could have on cross-border cooperation in the field of disaster management. Method: A multi-method approach is used to answer the research questions. A narrative literature review was conducted comprising of a review of different laws, regulations, policies and possible existing agreements, to determine the state of affairs of disaster management structures. To gather more in depth information about existing cooperation and barriers to cooperation, face-to-face semi structured interviews, telephone and e-mail interviews were conducted. As the study is a collaboration with another author, the study region was split up. This study focuses on the four German States: Lower Saxony, North-Rhine Westphalia, Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate. Results and Discussion: Between the countries, differences among the disaster management structures and administrative organisations could be identified. Collaboration exists on state and regional level in different forms. Several agreements were signed with the neighbouring countries on different administrative levels to facilitate cross-border collaboration. However, obstacles to cross-border collaboration exist due to differences in disaster management and administrative structures. Another obstacle which was identified is a low priority for cross- border collaboration in some regions, because stakeholders are not interested or there is no specific need for assistance from the neighbouring country. The role of the European Union was described as important, as long as legal competences remain with the respective countries.
3 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Research Setting ...... 10 1.3 Research relevance ...... 12 1.4 Research goals and questions ...... 13 2. Theoretical Concept...... 13 2.1 Theory ...... 14 2.2 Conceptual Model...... 14 3. Research Methods...... 16 3.1 Research Design ...... 16 3.2 Data Collection ...... 17 3.2.1 Literature Review ...... 17 3.2.2 Benelux Questionnaire in NRW ...... 18 3.2.3 Semi-structured Interviews ...... 18 3.3 Data Analysis ...... 21 3.3.1 Literature Review ...... 21 3.3.2 Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 21 3.4 Validity and Reliability ...... 21 4. Result...... 22 4.1 National Disaster Management Structure ...... 22 4.2 North Rhine Westphalia ...... 24 4.2.1 Legal Basis ...... 25 4.2.3 Functioning ...... 26 4.3 Lower Saxony...... 28 4.3.1 Legal Basis ...... 29 4.3.2 Functioning ...... 30 4.4 Rhineland-Palatinate ...... 32 4.4.1 Legal Basis ...... 34 4.4.2 Functioning ...... 35 4.5 Saarland ...... 37 4.5.1 Legal Basis ...... 38 4.5.2 Functioning ...... 39 4.6 Cross-Border Cooperation ...... 41 4.6.1Lower Saxony- Dutch Border...... 41 4.6.2 North-Rhine-Westphalian -Dutchand Belgian Border ...... 43 4.6.4 Rhineland-Palatinate-Belgium Border- Luxembourgish Border- French Border ...... 45 4.6.5 Saarland-Luxembourg Border-France Border ...... 48 4.7 Obstacles for Cross-Border Cooperation ...... 50 4.8. Future of Cross-Border Collaboration ...... 54 4.8.1 Impact of EU ...... 54 4.8.2 Impact of five Eu Strategies ...... 56 5. Discussion ...... 57
4 6. Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 64 4.References ...... 67 Appendix A: Tables and Figures ...... 76 Appendix B: Coding Tree ...... 85 Appendix C: Interviews ...... 90 Appendix D: Notes from Telephone Interview with regional experts ...... 133
5 List of Figures
Figure 1: Administrative Structure Germany (Becking, 2017)...... 11
Figure 2: The Resource Dependence Institutional Cooperation (RDIC) (Rijk et al., 2007) ...14
Figure 3: The cooperation Circle adapted from the RDIC-Model(Rijk et al., 2007) ...... 15
Figure 4: Visualization of crisis management structure in Germany (Bundesministerium des Inneren, 2015) ...... 24
Figure 5: Adminstrative Devision of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Tubs, 2017a) ...... 25
Figure 6: Disaster Management Structure in North-Rhine-Westphalia (Becking, 2017) ...... 27
Figure 7: Administrative division of Lower Saxony (Tubs, 2017b) ...... 29
Figure 8: National Disaster Management Structure Lower Saxony (Becking, 2017)...... 31
Figure 9: Administrative division Rhineland-Palatinate (Tubs, 2017c) ...... 34
Figure 10: Disaster Management Structure Rhineland-Palatinate (Becking, 2017) ...... 36
Figure 11: Adminstrative division Saarland (Tubs, 2017d) ...... 38
Figure 12: Disaster Management Structure Saarland (Becking, 2017) ...... 40
Figure 13: Five Scenario of how the European Union could develop (European Commission, 2017) ...... 56
Figure 14: Policy recommendations for decisio-maker (Becking, 2017) ...... 66
Figure 15: Overview of Police Directorates in Lower Saxony (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres und Sport, 2017b) ...... 76
Figure 16: Organigram on coordination channels in Rhineland-Palatinate (Ministerium des Innern für Sport und Infrastruktur Rheinland-Pfalz, 2014) ...... 77
Figure 17: The 5 Stages of incident commanders in Rhineland-Palatinate (received from interview partner) ...... 77
List of Tables
Table 1: Search Terms, Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria for Literature Review (Becking, 2017) ...... 18
Table 2: List of Interview Partners and Type of Interview...... 20
Table 3: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in NRW (Becking, 2017) ...... 26
6 Table 4: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in Lower Saxony (Becking, 2017) ...... 30
Table 5: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in Rhineland-Palatinate (Becking, 2017) ...... 35
Table 6: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in Saarland (Becking, 2017) ...... 39
Table 7: Overview of Regional Agreements between The Netherlands and Lower Saxony (Strakeljahn, 2015) ...... 81
Table 8: Overview of Agreements in the Euregio Maas-Rhine (EMRIC, 2017e) ...... 81
Table 9: Results of Benelux Questionnaire (Becking, 2017) ...... 84
Table 10: Template Checklist from EMRIC Bureau for cross-border collaboration obstacles (EMRIC, 2017) ...... 85
7 1. INTRODUCTION
In modern society, the number of disasters are increasing. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), in the period between 1998-2009 disaster caused approximately 1000.000 fatalities, and affected 11 million people and thereby led to economic losses of 150 billion euro (European Enviroment Agency, 2017) Additionally, in the past, the countries within the European Union (EU) suffered from several terror attacks and natural disasters, which caused many casualties and increasing uncertainty within society. Examples of this include the terror attack in London (2017), Brussels (2016) and Paris (2015). As these large scale incidents can happen at every time and at every location, preparedness and well- functioning emergency systems for a rapid and adequate response to disasters are vital.
It is important to take into account that the terms disaster and crisis are not the same, although they might be related to each other. The two terms are often used interchangeably, because there are no defined cut off points. Therefore, it is crucial to point out the differences between the two terms for this study -razi Ahmadun, & Aini Mat Said, 2003)
The definition of a disaster might differ slightly, depending on the organization. The World Health Organization and European Hematology Association (2002) define a disaster as: occurrence disrupting the normal conditions of existence and causing a level of suffering that
The International Federation of Red Cross defines disaster in a different manner and thereby includes two crucial components of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), namely: vulnerability and hazard. According to Birkmann et al. (2013, p. 195) Vulnerability refers to the propensity of exposed elements such as physical or capital assets, as well as human beings and their livelihoods, to experience harm and suffer damage and loss when impacted by single or compound hazard
(Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2017) Based on these two concepts, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2017) defined a disaster using the following formula;
8 This formula shows that there is a correlation between vulnerability and hazard. However, this formula also displays that the capacity to cope, anticipate and recover is a vital element to control and manage the magnitude of the outcome, the disaster.
According to Ibrahim M. Shaluf et al. (2003), a disaster has several characteristics. It can be man-made, natural or hybrid (both man-made and natural), it can be planned (e.g. terror attack) or unplanned (e.g. accident) and is very likely to be a socially disruptive event. A natural disaster is a single event, which cannot be controlled by humans and the impact can be attributed to a geographical region and a specific time period. A crucial characteristic of a natural disaster is that the consequences are felt at the place and time of occurrence. A man- made disaster (MMD) is characterized by a clash between human, organizational and technological (HOT) factors and regulatory, infrastructure and preparedness (RIP) factors. The worst consequences do not necessarily appear at the point of occurrence of the disaster, but often occur after the event.
It becomes clearer that there are different approaches in defining a disaster. However, one element is present in every definition and can therefore be seen as a crucial component of the concept disaster. The level of preparedness or the capacity to cope is a mutual component and is largely related to the responsibilities of the emergency system. Therefore, these definitions show how important a well-functioning emergency system is to build resilience and protect the society from adverse effects as a result of a disaster (Menoni, Hormoz, Schneiderbauer, Kienberger, & Zeil, 2013).
The second term that is often used interchangeably with the term disaster is crisis. According to World Health Organization (2017, p. 1), a crisis is a situation that is perceived as difficult. Its greatest value is that it implies the possibility of an insidious process that cannot be defined in time, and that even spatially can recognize different layers/levels of intensity . A crisis can be seen as a man-made event, which can have both positive (system change) and negative (financial losses) sides. A crisis can be caused by economic and political issues, as well as by disasters and may not always be obvious. Based on these definitions, it can be seen that there are some differences that needs to be taken into account. One major difference, which is important for this study, is that a disaster has a sudden onset and is therefore more difficult to handle in comparison to a crisis which develops over time.
Disasters, however, have another characteristic that makes them so difficult to manage, namely their unpredictability and lack geographical definition. In addition, toxic clouds, fire
9 or floods do not stop at borders. It is therefore crucial that countries in border regions increase their collaboration. As a result, there is a call for better integrated risk disaster management in Europe. The exchange of knowledge among EU member states and implementation of cooperation agreements can be seen as a basis for efficient and effective cross border collaboration. The aim is to increase preparedness and therefore reduce adverse effects of a disaster (EMRIC Lenkungsgruppe Euregio Maas-Rhein in Crisismanagement, 2012).
The focus of this research will be to analyse the disaster management structure in Lower Saxony, North-Rhine Westphalia, Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate and compare them to the structures present in neighbouring countries, in order to reduce barriers of cross-border collaboration in the region of interest.
1.1 RESEARCH SETTING
The research will focus on disaster management structures of the BENELUX countries and their neighbouring countries. In addition, this research will analyse the legal basis of disaster management structures in order to compare the different laws and regulations in the respective countries. The disaster management structures to be analysed include those of fire and rescue services, as well as the ambulance services. Police and military measures to avert dangers are excluded, because the main focus and interest of the EMRIC bureau and the Benelux group is the ambulance and firefighting services. Due to the vastness of these regions and the restricted word count and scope of this study the research was divided in two parts. Regarding the geographical are of interest, this research is focusing on the four different states in Germany, namely: Lower Saxony, North-Rhine Westphalia, Saarland and Rhineland- Palatinate, which all have independent disaster management laws due to the principle of subsidiarity and the federal system in Germany (Andersen & Woyke, 1992). Furthermore, some limitations need to be made, regarding the focus of the administrative level. The states Lower Saxony, Rhineland Palatinate and Saarland have three administrative levels, which each have competences in the field of disaster management. The municipal level (Gemeinde), the rural district/district free city level (Kreis/Kreisfreie Stadt) and the state level (Bundesland). In North Rhine-Westphalia, another administrative level, namely administrative district (Regierungsbezirk) exists between the rural district/district free cities and the state level (Figure 1). The Federal Government does not have competences to influence state legislation regarding disaster management. This study focuses only on state level and does not take the analysis of cross-border cooperation on rural district level into
10 account. The reason for that is the limited in time available. The study region includes 18 rural districts and would exceed time and cope of the study.
Figure 1: Administrative Structure Germany (Becking, 2017)
However, if the interview partner on state level provides useful information from rural districts, which would have an added value to this study, this information will be included. The other border regions (Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Netherlands) will be covered by another student.
The study is conduct in collaboration with the Emric bureau. As the program manager Marian - rch was also presented to the Benelux Union, because there was a need for research on cross- border collaboration, this study is also supported by the Benelux Union. Now, this study contributes to a number of projects.
In the Benelux contract signed on 17.07.2008, a cooperation between the Benelux Union and neighbouring countries, state and regions was included. Until today, the Benelux Union and the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia cooperate in different themes, including public safety (Benelux, 2013). This cooperation has the name Senn Crise. Under Senn Crise the working group Senn Secours exist. Their focus is on firefighting, rescue services, as well as ambulance services, and good governance. This
11 working group is currently analysing the different systems in the four countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and NRW. The Benelux is interested in getting information about the legislation, policies and current state of cross border cooperation of their neighbouring countries. Both this study and the study of the other student will contribute to this aim.
Moreover, the study will be used 1 to compare the different laws and regulations and willingness/ability to cooperate in the region of interest. EMRIC is a cooperation between public services which are responsible for public safety. The cooperation includes uid- - lands, Region of Aachen (Stadt Aachen, Städteregion Aachen, Kreis Heinsberg, Kreis Düren, Kreis Euskirchen) for Germany and the Province of Liège and Limburg for Belgium (EMRIC, 2015). The aim of EMRIC is to improve cross border collaboration in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine in every day emergencies and during large-scale disasters (EMRIC, 2015). EMRIC, therefore, can be seen as an example in the study region for active cooperation in the field of disaster management. Another initiative within EMRIC is the International Knowledge and Information Centre (IKIC) project, which is currently starting up. The aim of IKIC is to pool knowledge in order to educate professionals about the differences in the national emergency response systems and thereby improving the collaboration in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine. As this study identifies the differences in the disaster management structures, the findings of this study can be used to identify hurdles and to define solutions to improve mutual support among professionals.
1.3 RESEARCH RELEVANCE
Cross border disaster management is very complex and due to the increasing interdependency between countries in the EU, it is vital to ensure that public services responsible for public safety are able to cooperate, in order to offer mutual support and exchange resources. There is a need to gather essential knowledge about the differences in disaster management structure, to assess the obstacles which might occur due to these differences. Cross border disaster management has a crucial role in the area of interest, because borders are very close together and it is very likely that an accident/disaster might have a negative impact on a neighbouring
1 EMRIC: An abbreviation for Euregion Meuse-Rhine Incident control and Crisis management. A program office with three employees located in Maastricht which encourages cross-border collaboration in the Eurgio Maas-Rhijn through regular working group meetings and communication with involved stakeholders.
12 country (Ramakers, Jabakhanji, & Thönis, 2009). In addition, foreign assistance is sometimes closer and therefore quicker at the incident site than national/local services (Ramakers et al., 2009). As a result, reliable and quick exchange of information between and within countries is vital, in order to reduce the negative impact of a disaster for the population.
1.4 RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS
This study aims to analyse disaster management structures in the BENELUX-region and its neighbouring countries, to identify similarities and differences, which could affect cross- border collaboration. To reach this objective, the following research questions will be discussed.
What are the differences in disaster management structures in Lower Saxony, North-Rhine Westphalia, Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate, and how does this affect cross-border collaboration with Benelux countries and France?
a) Which national and regional policies regulate disaster management in the study region? b) What cooperation forms exist between the German States and their neighbouring foreign countries. c) What are the barriers regarding cross-border cooperation in disaster management can be identified in this region? d) What impact could the five strategies on the future of the EU have on cross-border cooperation in the field of disaster management?
As this study is a cooperation with another author, similar research questions are used in the partner study to compare the findings.
2. THEORETICAL CONCEPT
Following the research question and its objective, it is important to apply a theoretical concept to be able to critically analyse the differences in crisis management and the cooperation in a structured way. To do this, the Resources Dependence Institutional Cooperation (RDIC) Model will be used.
13 2.1 THEORY
The RDIC Model is a valid instrument, developed at Maastricht University to understand cooperation. According to the designer of the RDIC Model, Rijk, Raak, and Made (2007), this model is able to facilitate cooperation in different settings such as in disaster management structures. The model is a mixture of 4 different sociological theories, namely resource dependence theory, organizational behaviour theory, network theory and new institutional theory. The RDIC model was established based on empirical research.
Figure 2: The Resource Dependence Institutional Cooperation (RDIC) (Rijk et al., 2007)
The model is subdivided into three parts. The first part (Factors Level 1), which is based on the network theory, focuses on cooperation. To achieve this goal, it is crucial that important stakeholders in the field of public safety agree on joint courses of action. The second part (Factors Level 2) is based on the organizational behaviour theory. At this stage the ability to cooperate, which is largely dependent on the resources available (e.g time), is an important aspect. Another crucial determinant, is the motivation and the willingness to cooperate, which might be dependent on the culture and nationality. The last part (Factors level 3) is the most complex part of this model and is based on the resource dependence theory (Figure 2). Analysing all three stages will provide an overview of the level of cooperation in the region of interest, deliver information about present obstacles and provide information about areas which have room for improvement.
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The conceptual model is derived from the RDIC model and has been adjusted to the context of cooperation in the field of fire- and ambulance services. The new developed conceptual model, named the cooperation cycle, is more suitable for the study objectives as cooperation is no longer linear with a start and an end point. It is rather continuous and ongoing with no
14 defined start and end point. Therefore, it better serves the context of this research. According to Figure 3, cooperation is no longer an isolated component, but rather a central element to cross-border collaboration. In comparison to the original RDIC model, the cooperation cycle is not a linear procedure. It suggests a continuous cycle, which puts the emphasize on ongoing collaboration in order to constantly improve cooperation. One can say that the development of the cooperation cycle was inspired by EMRIC, because the longstanding collaboration in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine can be seen as an role-model regarding continuous work in cooperation of emergency services in order to permanently improve and expand cooperation between fire brigades and ambulance services.
Figure 3: The cooperation Circle adapted from the RDIC-Model(Rijk et al., 2007)
The cooperation cycle assumes that dependence and the need for cooperation, as well as the goals and the perception, are the starting point for collaboration. In addition, these factors have a major influence on the willingness to cooperate. If there are two independent stakeholders with no need for cooperation and no mutual goals, the effort and willingness to cooperate will be small. Furthermore, it is assumed that if there is willingness to cooperate, the next step will be to reduce barriers and harmonize legislation, system characteristics, languages and the financial aspects. Hence, legislations on national and regional level differ between and within countries, it is crucial to reduce barriers and conflicting laws, in order to harmonize cooperation. The system characteristics include all aspects regarding different levels of training and responsibilities of professionals in each country, as well as different standards of communication tools and variations in equipment and tools used in emergency
15 services. Moreover, language differences exist in the geographical area of interest and might be challenging as three different languages are spoken in this area (German, Dutch and French). When it comes to reimbursement, the financial aspects need to be clarified. Moreover, mutual exercises to improve collaboration are highly cost intensive and it therefore needs to be clarified how these costs are divided. Once these factors are harmonized, the cooperation circle assumes that the basis for cooperation is established.
Although cooperation has been reached, a continuous analysis and an ongoing assessment on needs, goals and perception is necessary, to ensure a high quality cooperation over time.
3. RESEARCH METHODS
The following section will describe the research design and the methodology of this study. In addition, this section will provide information on data collection and analysis.
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
This study aims to analyse and understand the different disaster management structures in each country and to identify the underlying barriers and obstacles that make cooperation more difficult or, in some regions, even impossible. As this research is exploratory, a qualitative approach is the most suitable study design. According to (D. Polit & C. Beck, 2012), exploratory research analyses the full nature of a phenomenon, including underlying factors that influence the phenomenon. Following this approach, it is possible to gain a holistic overview of the complexity of disaster management structures. To answer the research questions, a mixed method approach will be used in this study, to gain information from the literature as well as from experienced stakeholders in the disaster management field. As the first research question will be answered by observing, describing and documenting all aspects of disaster management, a descriptive approach is most suitable. To do this, a narrative literature review will be conducted comprising of a review of different laws, regulations, policies and possible existing agreements, to determine the current situation of disaster management structures. To answer the second research question, personal (face-to-face) semi structured interviews will be conducted, to gather more in depth information about existing cooperation and barriers to cooperation. Furthermore, the interviews to complement the findings from the narrative
16 literature review. Collectively, both parts will provide important information which can be analysed using the cooperation cycle.
3.2 DATA COLLECTION
The following part of the method section will provide more detailed information about the different data collection methods that will be used during this study.
3.2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
During the literature review several laws and regulations, as well as policies and possible existing agreements, will be reviewed. Furthermore, the disaster management structures in the different countries/states, will be assessed by using databases and websites of the respective states. Moreover, the literature review will include grey literature, which are studies with a more limited distribution in the academic field in order to prevent publication bias. (Brew & Lucas, 2009). In order to achieve a holistic approach during the literature review, the snowball sampling method will be used. Regarding the online research, the researcher will make use of different online databases, namely: PubMed, Google Scholar and SpringeLink. Furthermore, websites of local, regional, and supranational NGOs and organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Health organization (WHO) were searched. To narrow down the findings and restrict the amount of literature to be included in this study, inclusion and exclusion criteria were used and search terms were formulated. (See Table 1)
Search Terms: 1. Disaster Management OR Crisis Management OR Disaster Risk Management 2. Disaster Management OR Crisis Management AND Cross-Border OR Collaboration 3. Krisenmanagement OR Katastrophenmanagement AND Grenzübergreifende Zusammenarbeit 4. Grenzübergreifende OR Grenzüberschreitende AND Zusammenarbeit AND Kooperation
AND North-Rhine Westphalia Lower Saxony Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Inclusion Criteria:
17 - Publication Date: >2007 - Language: German, English - Systematic Reviews, Narrative Literature Reviews, Official Reports and Documents - Disaster Management Structures
Exclusion Criteria: - Publication Date: <2000 & Language Criteria not met - Non-scientific publications and non-official or unknown sources - Daily Collaboration in Emergency Care
Table 1: Search Terms, Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria for Literature Review (Becking, 2017)
3.2.2 BENELUX QUESTIONNAIRE IN NRW
Another source of data collection will be the survey about disaster management structures by c a questionnaire to find out to what extent the different regions in Benelux and their bordering countries cooperate. working group, which are representatives from the different ministries, distributed the questionnaire in their country of affiliation. As only NRW is part of the Benelux group, the questionnaires will not be available for the other states in Germany. However, in NRW the Ministry of the Interior distributed the questionnaire to all rural districts along the border to the Netherlands and Belgium. These questionnaires will be analysed within this study.
3.2.3 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
The data for the second research question will be gathered using semi structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the field of disaster management. Although interviews are cost intensive, and not anonymous, which might result in interviewer bias, they are superior to questionnaires. Firstly, because the response rate tends to be higher in personal interviews. Secondly, it is directly possible for the researcher to assess whether the questions have been misunderstood or not. Thirdly, answers to the questions are less superficial compared to written answers to closed end questions in a questionnaire (Galletta & Cross, 2013). However, a mixed method approach where interviews are used in the first place and questionnaires are used to supplement findings can be considered as a holistic approach to balance pros and cons of each approach. Interviews will be conducted in focus groups or in a one-on-one setting in the region of interest to get a holistic overview of the different views of involved stakeholders. Furthermore, a member check will be conducted, in order to check if the
18 findings about the national disaster management laws and regulations were correctly understood from the interviews. This is a crucial step in qualitative research to increase the holistic view of validity for gathered information and data (Koelsch, 2013). Therefore, stakeholders will be interviewed by the researcher in small groups or individually whereby the interview partners will be informed about the research setting and the storage of their sensitive data. In addition, the interview partners are asked to sign an informed consent preceding the interview. The identification of relevant stakeholders or groups of interest will be in accordance with the purposive sampling approach. Consequently, relevant stakeholders will be identified by using the network of the EMRIC office and the Benelux group. In addition, the snowball principle might be a possible solution to get in touch and identify unknown stakeholders.
The interviewees will be approached via e-mail or in regular working group meetings of the EMRIC office during the research period. All interviewees will be fully informed in advance about the purpose and the scope of the research in order to save time during the interviews and to give them the opportunity to prepare the meeting.
The interviews will be conducted in a face-to-face setting and in German, as the majority of the stakeholders are from Germany. The interview partners will be asked to fill out and sign an informed consent form where information about the research, the aim of the project and the storage of sensitive data will be provided in a written manner. The interviews will be recorded with an external microphone. In addition, an Iphone or Ipad will be used as a backup, in order to prevent loss of data if technical failures would occur. Data will be stored on a local server at the police station in Maastricht, where secure storage and regular back-up of files is guaranteed. For every interview, the same questions will be used to make comparison between the countries (Germany-->Netherlands, Belgium, France) and states in Germany possible. As the interviews are conducted in a semi structured manner, the interviewees and the researcher are able to be more flexible in answering the questions. Furthermore, as this research project is limited in time, semi-structured e-mail interviewing will be used to conduct qualitative in-depth interviews. The questions will be send to the interview partners, which gives them the possibility to take the necessary amount of time needed to provide reliable answer to the questions. Moreover, it is possible for the researcher to analyse the answers and contact the interview partner again for further questions. According to Meho (2006), this method is a quick, convenient and inexpensive way to collect high quality data if financial means are limited or geographic constraints exist. In addition to that, specialists for specific
19 regions are contacted via phone to receive more detailed information about a unique project in their region or more background information on a certain topic mentioned by the interview partner on state level. The information used for this study will be based on notes the researcher made during the phone call with the expert. These notes can be find in the appendix. The following Table provides an overview of government representatives on state level interviewed and the types of interviews conducted in the study region.
Country/State Institution Name Type Germany/Lower Police Directorate Dieter Strakeljahn Interview in person Saxony Osnabrück Ministry of the Interior Rainer Lange Interview via E- mail Germany/North- Ministry of the Interior Franziska Otte Interview in person Rhine Westphalia Elke Beermann
Germany/ Ministry of the Interior Andreas Hitzges Interview via Rhineland- Telephone Palatinate Aufsichts-und Heinz Interview in person Dienstleistungsdirektion Wolschendorf Dirk Backes Germany/Saarland Ministry of the Interior Volkmar Philippi Interview via E- mail The Netherlands/ Ministry of Veiligheid Interview in person Erwin de Hamer Den Haag & Justice Paul Kok
Total 7 Institutions 10 Stakeholders
Table 2: List of Interview Partners and Type of Interview
20 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis of the collected data is a crucial step in the research in order to receive a valid and reliable answer to the research questions. The next section provides an overview of how the data from the literature review and the interviews will be analysed
3.3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
The information gathered during the literature review, will be analysed using a deductive approach. The overall objective of a deductive approach is to test a developed theory (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Therefore, the researcher develops a theory to structure the research. The next step is to find evidence in the literature to confirm or adjust the theory (Blackstone, 2016). In order to do so, the literature will be screened and selected according to the inclusions and exclusion criteria. The selected literature will be screened for relevant sections that contain important information for the study. These parts will be read in detail and highlighted using colour coding. Only the most important and relevant parts will be used in the study.
3.3.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
All interviews will be transcribed, using codes for each interviewee to ensure confidentiality. It is important to transcribe the interviews immediately after the interview, in order to achieve accuracy. Moreover, the transcripts were send to the interview partners to confirm their statement and to check for accuracy. As stated in the informed consent from, the final research was send to the interview partner, in order to make sure that the interpretation of the interviews was done correctly and used in the right context.
To insure that all important points are taken into account, a coding tree was created in order to analyse the amount of information in a structured manner. Information will be extracted from the interview and coded according to categories and sub-categories. These categories entail information relevant to the related topic studied and summarize the findings in an organised way.
3.4 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY Validity and reliability are crucial concepts in qualitative research and increase the value of the research and can be used for a partial quality assessment. First of all, the detailed description of the research design and the method, aims at increasing the reliability of the
21 research, which makes it easier in the future for other researcher to replicate the study. According to Leung (2015), the essence of reliability includes the concept of consistency. As this study is conducted in a cooperation with another author to complement the findings, the same questions during the interviews will be used and the same inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature are used. In order to reduce bias and address the complexity, the research design will include triangulation. According to D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck (2012, p. 175) the complexity of a phenomenon by using multiple means of data collection to converge on . As part of the triangulation approach, comprehensive data use and constant data comparison is used to increase the reliability of the research. In order to ensure validity of the research, the use of appropriate tools and data processing is required. Therefore, in order to increase the internal validity and, at the same time, ensure an objective interpretation, member checks of the interviews will be conducted and conformation of the interviewees is required to prevent a subjective presentation of the results. As this study contributes to the enhancement of disaster management in Europe, generalizability is a crucial aspect in this project. Thus, the triangulation approach as well as the proper audit and documentation and the multidimensional theory in this research contribute to the generalizability of the results. Consequently, it might be possible to make predictions and draw conclusions based on this research for other projects and areas in Europe regarding cross border disaster management (Leung, 2015).
4. RESULT
The following part provides an overview of the findings of the literature review. First, it describes the national disaster management structures and then goes into more detail about the specific disaster management structures of the federal states, namely: North-Rhine Westphalia, Lower Saxony, Saarland and Rhineland-Palatinate.
4.1 NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Germany is a federal state and consists of 16 states. Federalism is a characteristic of the German system and is enacted by its basic law (German constitution) since 1949 (Bundeszenzrale für Politische Bildung, 2017). One characteristic of the federal system is that there is a close collaboration between the federal government and the individual states (Sturm, 2001). This close collaboration is also important in the field of disaster management and is
22 based on the European strategy for internal security, which encourages a mutual European Security Model (Europäische Union, 2010). Due to the increasing risk of terror attacks and large scale incidents, a synergetic use of resources of all actors involved in this field is crucial to improve the efficiency of disaster management. Therefore, the federal government provides support to the states when it comes to large scale disasters. At the same time, there is close cooperation between the ministries regarding risk assessment and appropriate measures (Bundesministerium des Inneren, 2015). On the federal government level, the legal basis for emergency response is regulated in Article 30 of the basic law, whereby the legal requirements of emergency response on the state level are regulated in the respective fire protection laws (Brandschutz- und Feuerwehrgesetz) of each state. Although each state has its own regulations and resources, article 35 of the basic law states that a state is able to request assistance from other states in case a major disaster exceeds the capacity of one state (Bundesministerium des Inneren, 2015).
On the federal state level, depending on the cause of the disaster, the federal government is able to form specific crisis teams which coordinate resources with the affected states. The Federal Ministry of the Interior plays a crucial role in the field of disaster management. They coordinate the collaboration of different crisis teams on different levels, to ensure a smooth exchange of information. Collaboration between the state level, the federal level and the responsible government department ensures the pooling if relevant knowledge in order to take appropriate measures (Bundesministerium des Inneren, 2015).
Each state has its own laws and regulations regarding rescue services and disaster management. This legislative power is given to them by the basic law. Consequently, differences in leadership, training and equipment emerged. As different disaster management structures pose obstacles for collaboration among states and the federal government. An interdisciplinary federal-state working group defined new strategies for civil protection (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe, 2010). Aim of this new strategy is to harmonise disaster management structures among the different administrative levels. Therefore, a new department called the Federal Office for Citizen Protection and Disaster Support (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe) has been established to coordinate this harmonization. Until today, the states agreed to a joint implementation of the
23 Feuerwehr Dienst Vorschrift (FWDV 100 2 ) in the state legislation, which regulates the operational and tactical procedure at the incident scene.
Cooperation between municipalities, regions, states and the federal government in the case of a disaster, is ensured by means of the newly developed system, in which specialists from different departments and experts pool their knowledge in a so called crisis team (see Figure 4)
Figure 4: Visualization of crisis management structure in Germany (Bundesministerium des Inneren, 2015)
4.2 NORTH RHINE WESTPHALIA
North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) is one of the 16 states of the Federal Republic of Germany. NRW is structured into multiple administrative levels, namely administrative districts (Regierungsbezirke), rural districts/district-free cities (Landkreise/Kreisfreie Städte) and the municipalities (Gemeinden) (See Figure 5). The administrative district government is the general representation of the state government in the district and responsible for all state- governmental tasks, which includes disaster management (Landtag Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1962). All administrative levels have their own responsibilities when it comes to disaster
2 Responsibilities and competences of crisis teams are regulated in Feuerwehrdienstvorschrift 100 (Fire Service Regulation) (Institut der Feuerwehr NRW, 1999)
24 management. The municipalities are responsible for fire protection/prevention and technical assistance. The rural districts share responsibility for fire protection/prevention and technical assistance with the municipalities. In addition to that, they coordinate supra-local assistance when needed. Another task of the rural districts is to manage and coordinate civil protection measures, which they share with the district-free cities (Landtag Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1962).
Figure 5: Adminstrative Devision of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Tubs, 2017a)
4.2.1 LEGAL BASIS
The state laws regulating the disaster management structure has undergone several changes over the last decades. The last changes were made in 2016, where the disaster control law (Katastrophenschutzgesetz) from 29. December 1977 was updated and converted into the now most crucial law regarding disaster management, namely fire protection, technical assistance and civil protection law (Gesetz über den Brandschutz, die Hilfeleistung und den Katastrophenschutz, BHKG). This law describes and regulates all responsibilities of actors involved in disaster management (Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2015). In addition, there is a decree from 2016 which describes and regulates the work of crisis teams on different administrative levels. The ambulance service law from 1992, can be seen as an
25 addition to the BHKG and only focuses on the structure and organisation of emergency services and ambulances services
Law 2016 Gesetz über den Brandschutz, die Hilfeleistung und den Katastrophenschutz, (BHKG)
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities of actors involved in disaster management regarding fire protection, technical assistance and civil protection Decree 2016 Krisenmanagement durch Krisenstäbe im Land Nordrhein-Westfalen bei Großeinsatzlagen, Krisen und Katastrophen
Description: Decree on crisis management by crisis teams in NRW in case of large scale incidence Law 1992 Gesetz über den Rettungsdienst sowie die Notfallrettung und den
Krankentransport durch Unternehmen (Rettungsgesetz NRW- RettG NRW
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities of emergency services in emergency rescue
Table 3: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in NRW (Becking, 2017)
4.2.3 FUNCTIONING
In NRW, the management of disasters is based on the BHKG and the decree from 2016 on crisis management by crisis teams. Together, they describe the responsibilities on the operational and tactical level. The politically responsible person3 has both administrative as well as operational tactical tasks during a large scale incidents or disasters. This person must instigate, coordinate, decide and take responsibility for security as well as administrative measures. In order to carry out these tasks, the politically responsible person gets support
3 Depending on the which administrative level is in charge, the person who is responsible differ. On the municipal level the mayor is responsible, on the rural district level the county commissioner is responsible, on the district government level the president is responsible and on the state level the minister of the interior is responsible
26 from the incident commander (Einsatzleiter)4 on the scene and the crisis team (Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales NRW, 2016). A crisis team is necessary, if there is a need for a coordination and decision making beyond the usual level due to a disaster or large scale incident. In other words, a disaster or large scale incident exceeds the local capacities and in order to reduce harm or damage, more resources are needed, which needs to be coordinated on a higher administrative level (Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales NRW, 2016). How crisis teams are organized on the different administrative levels can be seen in Figure 6 and will be described in the next paragraph.
Figure 6: Disaster Management Structure in North-Rhine-Westphalia (Becking, 2017)
On the municipal level, the incident commander coordinates the emergency personnel and resources on the scene for minor fires or technical assistance. The incident commander is authorized to command the fire brigades and ambulance services, to take necessary operational measures and to request additional resources and emergency personnel via the dispatch centre (Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2015). If the incident overwhelms municipal resources or it affects multiple municipalities (which often is the case during floods) it is necessary to call on a crisis team to coordinate the emergency personnel of the multiple municipalities. The crisis team is chaired by the mayor (district free city) or the country commissioner (rural districts). The crisis team informs relevant authorities as well as the public about relevant decisions and measures to be taken. On the level of the rural districts and district-free cities, the crisis team pools all the administrative expertise in order to manage
4
27 the disaster. The crisis team does not take any operational tactical decisions, its main task is to coordinate the cooperation of the different rescue forces and to pool the available information(Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales NRW, 2016) As soon as the crisis team of a district or a district free city is activated, there is an obligation to report to the administrative level that is one up . In case of a superregional disaster, where several districts are affected, it is the responsibility of the Bezirksregierung to coordinate supra-local support, while respecting the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior for disaster management. On this level, the crisis team is managed by the district president who is in charge of the safety and security of the population in the administrative district. At the state level, the crisis team of the Ministry of the Interior becomes responsible if more than one administrative district is affected or the administrative support of the federal authorities is required. On the two highest administrative levels (federal and administrative district) the administrative organizational as well as the operational tactical tasks are bundled in one crisis team. No incident commander is put in place, since emergency personnel is always under the leadership of the district authorities (Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales NRW, 2016).
4.3 LOWER SAXONY
Lower Saxony is another of the 16 states of the Federal Republic of Germany and is structured into multiple administrative levels. As Germany is a federal republic, each state has its own state laws and administrative organisation. Lower Saxony is organised in a different way than NRW. The lowest administrative level is the municipal level. Here, the municipality is responsible for all public tasks in their geographical region(Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2010). As this includes fire protection and assistance, the municipalities are responsible for organising and maintaining fire brigades, and ambulance services (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2012). The next administrative level is the rural district/district free city (Landkreis/Kreisfreie Stadt) and the region of Hannover. However, Hannover has a special position regarding the administrative organization within the state, as this is not relevant for the general disaster management structure and would exceed the scope of the research, it will not be taken into account. The rural district is responsible to organise the inter-municipal fire protection and assistance, T (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2010) and is used for supra-local support such as an incident where more than one municipality is affected (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2012). The highest administrative level is state
28 level, where the Ministry of the Interior Niedersachsen is the highest safety authority for the fire brigades, ambulance services and civil protection (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres und Sport, 2017d). In 2005, Lower Saxony dissolved the administrative districts (Regierungsbezirke), thereby implementing a three-stage administrative structure and giving more administrative power to the rural district and district free cities (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres und Sport, 2017c). An overview of the existing rural districts and district free cities can be found in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Administrative division of Lower Saxony (Tubs, 2017b)
4.3.1 LEGAL BASIS
In Lower Saxony, the disaster management law (Katastrophenschutzgesetz, NKatSG) defines the tasks and responsibilities of each administrative level and their security authorities (e.g. Police Directorate). The disaster management law went into force in 2001 and was updated in 2002, 2012 and in 2013 to implement new European standards. The overall objective of this law is the prevention and the control of disasters (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2002). In addition, the disaster management law is complemented by the fire protection and assistance law for fire brigades (Niedersächisches Gesetz über den Brandschutz und die Hilfeleistung der Feuerwehr, NBrandSchG). It regulates the defence against fire hazards (defensive and preventive fire protection) as well as assistance in the case of accidents and emergency
29 situations for municipalities, rural districts and district free cities (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2012). Furthermore, the tasks, structure and provision of ambulance services is regulated and described in the rescue service law (Niedersächsisches Rettungsdienstgesetz, NRettDG).
Law 2001 Niedersächsisches Katastrophenschutzgesetz (NKatSG)
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities of actors involved in disaster management civil protection Law 2012 Niedersächisches Gesetz über den Brandschutz und die Hilfeleistung der Feuerwehr, NBrandSchG
Description: Law describing the defence against fire hazards, as well as assistance in case of accidents and emergency situations Law 2007 Niedersächsisches Rettungsdienstgesetz (NRettDG)
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities and tasks of emergency services in emergency rescue
Table 4: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in Lower Saxony (Becking, 2017)
4.3.2 FUNCTIONING
In Lower Saxony, each municipality is responsible for fire protection and assistance within their geographical territory and has to maintain, train and organise its own voluntary fire brigades and rescue services. The head of the fire brigade is responsible on the operation level and coordinates its forces on the scene (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2012). Together, the fire brigades of each (rural district fire brigade). It is not an independent fire brigade, it is rather an umbrella term for all ict free cities, here the professional fire brigades are responsible for fire protection and assistance together with the ambulance services. er the leadership of the
30 5 of the rural district (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2012). The of the rural district or district free city (head of the professional fire brigade) is in charge during a large scale incidents or disasters.
The main responsibility regarding disaster management and operational tactical tasks in lower Saxony. This institution is located on the administrative level of the rural district or district free city (Niedersächsische Akademie für Brand und Katastrophenschutz, 2017). Figure 8 visualizes the disaster management structure and will be described in more detail in the following paragraph.
Figure 8: National Disaster Management Structure Lower Saxony (Becking, 2017)
As mentioned in Section 4.3, Lower Saxony implemented a three-stage administrative structure with the municipality as the lowest level and the state level as the highest administrative level. In case of a small incident, the municipality is responsible for technical assistance and ambulance services. As long as the municipal emergency personnel is able to deal with the incident, coordination is done by the mayor and the incident commander (Landesregierung Niedersachsen, 2002). If two municipalities are affected by an incident, the next administrative level takes over the operational tactical tasks, which includes alerting the coordinating disaster relief under the leadership of the county commissioner for a rural district or the mayor for a district free city. The
5
31 (disaster control authority) of the affected geographical region is the authority in charge of setting up a crisis team (Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, 2017). The head of the crisis team is county commissioner (Landrat) or the mayor and it consists of six different subject where each is responsible for a specific task. This can for instance be communication, supply, press and media work or human resources(Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres und Sport, 2017a). As soon as a disaster spreads to the jurisdiction of several disaster control authorities or several disasters occur at the same time, police directorates can take over the central management of the disaster on the tactical operational level on their geographical are (see Figure 13, Appendix A). The responsibility of the coordination of the forces at the scene will, however, remain with the incident commander (chief of fire brigade). The highest public authority in disaster management is the ministry of the interior, which coordinates resources on the state level in Lower Saxony (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres und Sport, 2017a). The Brand- directorate for fire and civil protection), is affiliated to the police directorate and plays a special role during disasters. It coordinates the interdisciplinary disaster management training, the management of federal funds, and the coordination and organization of cross-border cooperation with the Netherlands and other federal states (Polizeidirektion Osnabrück, 2017).
4.4 RHINELAND-PALATINATE
Rhineland-Palatinate is a state located in the west of Germany with a border to France, Luxembourg and Belgium (see Figure 9). Like the other federal states, RP is structured in different administrative levels. A distinction is made between municipalities, district free cities and rural districts. Municipalities carry out every public task of the local community in their territory, as part of the autonomous administration (Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz, 1994).Several municipalities form a rural district which can carry out public tasks in its geographical territory as free tasks of self-administration6. Cities which do not belong to a rural district are district free. However, they have the same tasks and responsibilities as rural districts (Rheinland-Pfalz, 1994). Regarding disaster management, the municipalities, district free cities and rural districts in Rhineland-Palatinate fulfil their tasks in fire protection, in general assistance and in civil protection as compulsory tasks of municipal self-
6 Self-administration: the municipalities has the possibility to satisfy needs and interests of their community. In other words, it is the transmission of administrative tasks to legally independent organisations in order to involve citizens directly in the fulfilment of state tasks.
32 administration. In the case of major incidences, they coordinate the measures with neighbouring local authorities - even beyond the national and state borders - and support each other where necessary (Portal für Brand- und Katastrophenschutz Rheinland Pfalz, 2017a). Although the administrative levels are similar in comparison to the other state, Rhineland- Palatinate has a special institution called the supervision and service administration body (Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion, ADD) It is a central administrative authority based in Trier in Rhineland-Palatinate. Since 2000, it has been an intermediary between the state government and municipal self-administration. In contrast to the government districts (Koblenz, Rheinhessen-Pfalz and Trier), dissolved in 1999, the task of the supervision and service administration body is to pool knowledge within a central body, which makes it easier to coordinate and collaborate among authorities (Aufsichts- und Dienstleistungsdirektion, 2017). In terms of disaster management and civil protection, the supervision and service administration body carries out the central tasks of the state and provides support for municipalities duringlarge scale incidents and coordinates supra-local assistance (Portal für Brand- und Katastrophenschutz Rheinland Pfalz, 2017a).
33
Figure 9: Administrative division Rhineland-Palatinate (Tubs, 2017c)
4.4.1 LEGAL BASIS
The legal basis for comprehensive modern emergency response and disaster relief is the state law on fire protection, general assistance and civil protection (Landesgesetz über den Brandschutz- die allgemeine Hilfe und den Katastrophenschutz, LBKG). The law stipulates that the fire brigades, as institutions of the municipalities and rural districts, must undertake the necessary measures to ward off fire hazards and other dangers (Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz, 1981). The fire service regulation specifies the tasks by establishing rules for the organization, equipment and training of fire brigades in Rhineland-Palatinate (Portal für Brand- und Katastrophenschutz Rheinland Pfalz, 2017b). Brandschutz- over the past decades to strengthen the rights of the volunteers, to tackle demographic change and to meet criteria and standards on EU level (Portal für Brand- und Katastrophenschutz Rheinland Pfalz, 2017b). In addition to these two state laws, there is a specific state law
34 describing the organization and responsibilities of the ambulance services. The state law on rescue services, emergency transports and patient transfers (Landesgesetz über den Rettungsdienst sowie den Notfall- und Krankentransport) defines the role of the ambulance service in Rhineland-Palatinate and, defines quality and safety standards (Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz, 1991).
Law 1981 Landesgesetz über den Brandschutz- die allgemeine Hilfe und den Katastrophenschutz (Brand- und Katastrophenschutzgesetz-LBKG-)
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities regarding fire protection, general assistance and civil protection Law 1991 Landesgesetz über den Rettungsdienst sowie den Notfall- und Krankentransport (Rettungsdienstgesetz-RettG-)
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities of rescue services, emergency transports and patient transfers Regulation 1991 Feuerwehrverordnung (FwVo)
Description: State law on fire service regulation describing the tasks, organization, equipment and training of the fire brigades
Table 5: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in Rhineland-Palatinate (Becking, 2017)
4.4.2 FUNCTIONING
The fire brigade is responsible for civil protection and is organized in such a way that allows for the initiation of effective disaster relief measures during large scale incidents of any kind and size within eight minutes after alarm. The central tasks of the state is carried out by the supervision and service administration body and the ministry responsible for the fire and disaster control (Portal für Brand- und Katastrophenschutz Rheinland Pfalz, 2017c). On the lowest administrative level, the municipality is responsible for fire protection and general assistance. If the incident exceeds the scope of the local resources within a municipality or more than one municipality is affected, it is the responsibility of the rural district to organise and coordinate the supra-local support in the field of civil protection, fire protection, general
35 assistance and ambulance services. Therefore, only rural districts and district free cities are have competences and responsibilities for disaster management on the regional level (Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz, 1981). On the operational level, the head of the fire brigade of the municipality or district free city is the incident commander, (see Figure 15, Appendix A) and responsible for the forces on the scene. The political responsible person has both administrative as well as operational tactical tasks in case of a large scale incident.
Figure 10: Disaster Management Structure Rhineland-Palatinate (Becking, 2017)
On the municipal level and in district free cities, the mayor is the political responsible person and within a rural district the county commissioner (Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz, 1981). Each rural district or district free city is obliged to set up crisis teams in the case of a large scale incident, in order to coordinate measures and ensure adequate information exchange between the forces on the scene (operational level) and responsible departments, such as the health department for disease outbreak. (administrative-political)(Landesregierung Rheinland- Pfalz, 1981). In case an incident has an effect on more than one rural district or the incident is of major public concern, the - is the next higher - the state coordination centre to coordinate the disater relief. The interminesterial coordination team consists of state secretaries, heads of the departments (e.g health depertment) and other decision making staff of the ministtries, affected authorities and institutions. (Portal für Brand- und Katastrophenschutz Rheinland Pfalz, 2017d). To deal with major damage events, large-scale
36 hazards and other extraordinary events, the state government's interministerial crisis team is activated in order to coordinate tasks of the ministries, with the federal government, the state, the neighboring states and other bodies. Figure 10 visualizes the disaster management structure in Rhineland-Palatinate. The figure is based on an organigram of coordination channels in Rhineland-Palatinate developed by the Ministry of the Interior (see Figure 14, Appendix A).
4.5 SAARLAND
Saarland is a state in the south-west of Germany. It has a border to Luxembourg and France, as well as Rhineland-Palatinate (see Figure 11). Saarland is a rather small state and consists of municipalities, five rural districts and one regional association (merger of a district free city and a rural district). The regional association is a unique administrative structure in Germany, however, their administrative tasks in disaster management, are similar to those of a rural district (Landesregierung Saarland, 1964). Because of the size of the federal state and rather small villages in rural areas fire protection, technical assistance and disaster management is largely executed by voluntary fire brigades, only the capital (Saarbrücken) has a professional fire brigade (Landeshauptstadt Saarbrücken, 2017). Like in the other states, the political responsibility differs between fire protection/technical assistance and disaster management. According to the Landesregierung Saarland (2006), fire protection and technical assistance is guaranteed by the municipalities, the rural districts and the regional association Saarbrücken on behalf of the state. Disaster management is the responsibility of the state, the rural districts and the regional association Saarbrücken. In each rural district and in the
Katastrophenschutzbehörde) is responsible for disaster management. On the federal state level, Ministry of the Interior, is responsible for disaster management. Furthermore, the state promotes fire protection, technical assistance and disaster relief and supports and advises municipalities in order to fulfil their tasks (Landesregierung Saarland, 2006).
37
Figure 11: Adminstrative division Saarland (Tubs, 2017d)
4.5.1 LEGAL BASIS
The legal basis regarding disaster management has changed over the last decades. Before 2006, Saarland had two different laws for fire protection/technical assistance (Gesetz über den Brandschutz und die Hilfeleistung im Saarland, BSG) and disaster management (Gesetz über den Katastrophenschutz im Saarland, LKatSG). While the BSG regulated the emergency response of the fire brigades, the LKatSG described the necessary regulations regarding disaster relief and prevention. Since 2006, a law for both fire protection/technical assistance and disaster management was implemented, in order to ensure uniform standards (Gesetz über den Brandschutz, die Technische Hilfe und den Katastrophenschutz im Saarland, 2006). One reason why the federal state government amended its law was that fire protection/technical assistance and disaster management are closely linked. Since the responsibility of disaster management is at the rural district level, it is simpler to ensure a smooth transition from the combating of dangers of greater magnitude (supralocal) up to the prevention of disasters. The uniform task assignment is intended to prevent the change of the incident commander(Diegmann & Thome, 2008). Furthermore, there is a regulation which describes the organization of the disaster management and the tasks the different special services such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence (CBRN) and information and communication technology (Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband Saarland, 2014). Regarding the regulation of the ambulance service, Rettungdienstgesetz (SRettG) from 1994, which describes the structure and the organisation
38 of the ambulance service (Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralamierung Saar, 2011).
Law 2006 Gesetz über den Brandschutz, die Technische Hilfe und den Katastrophenschutz im Saarland (SBKG)
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities regarding fire protection, general assistance and civil protection Law 1994
Description: Law describing and regulating the responsibilities of rescue services, emergency transports and patient transfers Regulation 2014
Description: State Regulation, describing the organisation of the special services (e.g. CBRN)
Table 6: Overview of Legal Basis regarding Disaster Management in Saarland (Becking, 2017)
4.5.2 FUNCTIONING
In Saarland, the municipalities are obliged to set up and maintain a local fire brigade. As mentioned in section 4.5, the majority of the fire brigades are voluntary fire brigades where the major is responsible for emergency personnel and equipment, as the head of the fire department. As long as the local voluntary fire brigade has enough resources to cope with an incident, the mayor is the political responsible person and the section commander of the fire brigade is the incident commander. As soon as an incident requires supra-local assistance of over the operative-tactical and administrative-organizational leadership (Landesregierung Saarland, 2006). They have, at their discretion, in accordance with effective disaster management. This includes in particular:
39 1. The establishment of a disaster management system to support disaster control authorities 2. The formation of a technical incident commander in case of a large scale incidents to independently combat threats
It is not clearly defined how the rural districts have to do this, as long as they fulfil the legal requirements in accordance to the FWDV100, they have the freedom to decide how to implement the above mentioned requirements. Therefore, the organization might differ slightly between rural districts (Landesregierung Saarland, 2006).
Figure 12: Disaster Management Structure Saarland (Becking, 2017)
In general, for the duration of the deployment, the leadership of the necessary unites and facilities. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint an incident commander which coordinates the forces on the deployment site. For operational- tactical concerns, the incident commander is obliged and the political responsible person, namely the county commissioner. They also define the start and the end of the disaster, as far as their area is affected by the disaster. In any other situation (more than one rural district is affected), the start and the end of the disaster. This is done by the crisis team of the Ministry of the Interior, which needs to be set up in order to ensure that all authorities involved in disaster relief, work together in an inter-departmental and multidisciplinary way (Landesregierung Saarland, 2006). Therefore, it can be said that the
40 Ministry of the Interior makes decision on the highest administrative level and the minster of the interior is the political responsible person.
4.6 CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
The following part describes the current state of cross-border collaboration in the study region in more detail. The information presented in this section are extracted from the semi- structures interviews with the government representatives involved in the cross-border collaboration. Furthermore, information from the Benelux questionnaires (only for NRW) and legal documents and agreements provided by the interview partners were taken into account. The first part provides an overview of agreements on national level between the federal government of Germany and the Netherlands, Belgium and France. The second part describes the cross border collaboration more into detail and focuses on the different states.
4.6.1LOWER SAXONY- DUTCH BORDER
The 180 km long border between Lower-Saxony and the Netherlands stretches from the North-Sea till NRW. This, however, only describes the border on the mainland and not the off-shore border and the border on the islands (Duensing, 2017). Along the border there is a close collaboration between the province of Drenthe, Fryslan, Groningen, Overijssel (NL) and rural districts Leer, Emsland and Grafschaft Bentheim (Ger) (Niedersächsische Staatskanzelei, 2017).
Agreements
Although the responsibility regarding disaster-management is with the states and rural districts, when it comes to international cross-border collaboration, a framework agreement between the states on national level is necessary in order to develop regional agreements between the countries (Niedobitek, 2001). Therefore, the two countries Germany and the Netherlands signed a bilateral-agreement on the 07. July 1988 on mutual assistance in the event of disasters and large scale incidents. A framework agreement, called Anholter- Agreement was signed between NRW, Lower Saxony, the federal government of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 23.05.1991 about cross-border collaboration between regional authorities and other public bodies (I2/P1, e-mail communication, 06.07.2017)7. Based on the bilateral agreement from 1988 an agreement was signed in 2014 between the
7 I1/P1: Interview 1/Participant 1
41 Ministry of the Interior of Lower Saxony and the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands about mutual assistance during disasters and large scale incidents. It regulates that the development of this cooperation should continue to be the subject of regular discussions at a high political level. Therefore, the involved parties want to meet up twice a year to improve and implement continuous cooperation. Moreover, the agreement regulates that both countries inform each other in case of a disaster which might have an impact on a region of the other country (I2/P1, e-mail communication, 06.07.2017). The aim is to foster and improve information exchange between the dispatch centres and the political responsible persons (I2/P1, e-mail communication, 06.07.2017).
Cooperation and Regional Projects
In the border region between Lower Saxony and the Netherlands, several projects and working groups could be identified. According to I1/P1 (personal communication, 17.06.2017) a working group consisting of 30 people (stakeholders responsible for disaster management on ministerial level), which meet up twice a year to discuss up to date issues regarding cross-border disaster management and plan exercises to improve collaboration. An example here is the joint exercise between the Security Region Groningen and Emden which is planned for 2017.The cooperation on regional level exists between Groningen, Drente, Twente, Overeijsel (NL) and Aurich, Emden, Bentheim and Emsland (GER). Here, several agreements were signed on regional level (see Appendix A, Table 7). In addition, regarding nuclear hazard prevention, representatives from the administrative district in Münster (NRW) join the working group as this region might also be affected by a nuclear incident of the . On the rural district level, several agreements were signed between the regions/municipalities regarding mutual assistance during disasters and large scale incidents as well as support by fire protection and general assistance. One
Achterhoek and Twente from 27.08.2001. Here, the agreement does not only regulate the collaboration during a disaster or large scale event but also the mutual support in fire protection, general assistance, ambulance services and transport capacities (see Table 7 XX, Appendix A). An overview of all agreements between municipalities in Lower Saxony and the regions in the Netherlands can be found in the same appendix (I2/P1, e-mail communication, 06.07.2017).
42 In the past, several projects were initiated by the police directorate in Lower Saxony in order to improve cross-border collaboration, mutual understanding of the other disaster management system and the information exchange. Therefore, a contact list for both countries, German and the Netherlands, were developed for everyday use and for the alarm phase. The objective of the contact list is to improve communication and make it easier to identify the right contact person in the neighbouring country. Another project is the development of a comparability map. The aim is to visualize the tasks and structure of the crisis teams or disaster management system of the neighbouring country. In 2016 a mutual emergency response plan was developed (not published yet) between Niedersachsen and the Netherlands, which determines the different tasks of stakeholders in the field of disaster management in Germany and the Netherlands and the availability of resources and emergency personnel (I1/P1, personal communication, 17.06.2017). At the moment the Police Directorate is working on an online portal for the 30 members of the working group and other involved stakeholders to make information online available in order to improve collaboration and information exchange for contact details, joint exercises and up to date information (I1/P1, personal communication, 17.06.2017).
4.6.2 NORTH-RHINE-WESTPHALIAN -DUTCHAND BELGIAN BORDER
Contrary to Lower Saxony, NRW borders on two countries, namely the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium. The 395 km long border to the Netherlands, stretches from the rural district Borken in the north until Aachen in the south. Along the border the rural districts Kleve, Viersen and Heinsberg can be found(Bezirksregierung Köln, 2017). In comparison the border to Belgium is rather small and only 99 km long and includes the region of Aachen and the rural district )
Agreements
A framework-agreement, namely the Anholter-Agreement, was signed on 23.05.1991 to make it possible for rural districts/district free cities and municipalities to sign agreements for cross- border collaboration (Emric, 2017d). The cross-border collaboration in the field of disaster management with the Netherlands is based on the bilateral agreement from 07.06.1988 and forms the basis for the new agreement from 30.04 2014. This agreement was signed by the Ministry of the Interior of NRW and the Ministry of Security and Justice in den Haag and regulates the mutual assistance during a disaster and large scale-incident (I3/P2, personal communication, 26.06.2017). In addition, a joint declaration was signed on 16.11.2000 in den
43 Haag by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands and the Minister of the Interior of the State of North-Rhine-Westphalia concerning cross-border cooperation. The objective of the declaration is to strengthen the cross-border collaboration in the area of police work and fire and disaster protection. Therefore, the joint declaration encourages the communication between the different administrative levels in both countries(Ministerium für Inneres und Kommunales NRW, 2017). The new agreement from 2014, signed in Enschede, aims at improving the efficiency and effectivity of cross-border collaboration and preventive measure in the field of civil protection. Furthermore, it encourages that the protection of the society should be priority number one and this should not be restricted by national borders or different disaster management structures (Recht.NRW.de, 2017).
A framework agreement was signed in 1996 between the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate, the Walloon Region and the German-speaking Community of Belgium on cross-border cooperation between local authorities and other public authorities. This framework agreement is the basis for the agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium on mutual assistance in the event of disasters or serious accidents (EMRIC, 2017c). There is no specific agreement between the state NRW and Belgium to regulate cross-border collaboration (I3/P2, personal communication, 26.06.2017).
Cooperation and Regional Projects
The cooperation between NRW and Netherlands was described as good and active (I3/P1, personal communication, 26.06.2017). Every two years a Symposium with stakeholders in the field of disaster management from ministerial and local level is organized to get to know each other and improve communication and collaboration. Based on the results of the Benelux questionnaire (see Table 9, Appendix A) the collaboration with the Security Regions in the Netherlands differ from region to region. In the Euregio Maas-Rhine (EMRIC) and in the rural district Borken have close collaboration regarding the Fire Brigade, the Ambulance Service and Civil Protection. Therefore, the collaboration between Aachen City Region and South Limburg (NL) can be used as an example of active cross-border collaboration at regional level. Several agreements were signed between the region of Aachen and the security region South Limburg. Here, the EMRIC collaboration can be seen as a facilitator of collaboration on operational, administrative and tactical level between the Netherlands and Germany. Regular meetings and close contact between the government representatives made
44 it possible to sign agreements regarding daily ambulance service cooperation and disaster management. Furthermore, the Emric bureau asked the state government to find a solution for the legal problems regarding the blue light and sirens. Today no legal problems exist anymore for cross border deployments (Recht.NRW.de, 2004). In addition, an overview of agreements signed on regional level can be found in Appendix A (Table 8). In comparison, for some municipalities in the rural district Kleve cross-border collaboration does not exist, neither regarding daily cross-border collaboration, nor regarding cross-border disaster management. An overview of the collaboration of all rural districts along the NRW-Dutch border can be found in Table 9 (Appendix A).
Along the Belgian-NRW border only one agreement on municipality level could be identified besides the national agreements. An example of that is the agreement between the city of Aachen and the municipality of Kelmis (BE) on mutual assistance regarding fire protection and the ambulance service.
4.6.4 RHINELAND-PALATINATE-BELGIUM BORDER- LUXEMBOURGISH BORDER- FRENCH BORDER
Rhineland Palatinate borders on three different countries. As visualized in Figure 9, it can be seen that in the north-west Rhineland-Palatinate - has a small border, approximately 57 km, to the region of Wallonia in Belgium. In the south west the two rural districts - - border with Luxembourg which stretches until the state border of Saarland and is about 125 km long. And in the south of Rhineland-Palatinate the border to France is about 105 km long and the regions Lorraine and Alsace (FR) are located along the border(Gube, 2003).
Agreements
As Rhineland-Palatinate borders on three different countries, cross border collaboration requires agreements with all countries to ensure cooperation and communication. With Belgium the collaboration is based on the framework agreement from 6.11.1980 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium on mutual assistance in the event of disasters or large scale incidents (Ministerium für Inneres und für Sport Rheinland Pfalz, 2017). This framework-agreement is supplemented by the German-Belgian agreement on urgent assistance and ambulance services between Rhineland-Palatinate, represented by the Minister of the Interior and Sports, and the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by the Federal
45 Ministries of Social Affairs and Public Health. This agreement was signed in 2009 in Eupen and St. Vith.
Regarding the border to Luxembourg only agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg exist. This is the agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on mutual assistance in the event of disasters and accidents from 02.03.1978 (Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2016). Based on this agreement a new legislation entered into force in 1981 to support the mutual assistance during disaster and reduce barriers for cross-border collaboration such as the exchange of emergency personnel and resources(Bundesgesetzblatt, 1981). No specific agreement was signed on state level between Rhineland-Palatinate and Luxembourg.
Regarding the border to France, several agreements, conventions and laws regulating the cross-border collaboration could be identified on the national level. A framework agreement on the national level was signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic over the mutual assistance for disasters or large scale incidents on 03.02.1977. Based on the framework agreement, an agreement from 18 March 1985 between the Federal Minister of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Minister of the Interior and for the decentralization of the French Republic was signed to implement the agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on mutual assistance in the event of disasters or large scale incidents(Bundesgesetzblatt, 1980). On 22.06.2005 a new framework agreement was signed between the two countries regarding cross-border healthcare cooperation. One year later in 2006 a new law was implemented, namely: The law on the framework agreement of 22 July 2005 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the French Republic on cross-border health cooperation and the administrative agreement of 9 March 2006 between the Federal Ministry of Health of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Minister for Health and Solidarity of the French Republic on the implementation modalities for the framework agreement of 22 July 2005 on cross-border healthcare cooperation (Bundesgesetzblatt, 2006). In addition, two agreements were signed between the state Rhineland-Palatinate and the region of Lorraine and Alsace to put the agreements, which were made on national level into practice. The first one is an agreement between the Prefects of the Lorraine Region and the Prefects of the Moselle Region and the Minister of the Interior and Sports of Rhineland-Palatinate on the implementation of the agreement of 3 February 1977. The second agreement between the
46 same parties aims at fostering the mutual information exchange on dangers and damage which may affect the territory of the neighbouring country (I5/P1, personal communication, 11.07.2017).
Cooperation and Regional Projects
Based on the two interviews conducted in Rhineland-Palatinate and the number of agreements made on national and state level, the cooperation in general can be described as successful. The cooperation between Rhineland-Palatinate and the bordering countries is, in particular, intensive regarding nuclear defence and nuclear safety due to the power plant Cattenom (FR). According to I5/P1 (personal communication, 11.07.2017) regular exercises every three years at the power plant are mandatory to practice the procedures in case of nuclear incidents. The interview partner mentioned the Herka-Wenra approach as an approach for better cross- border coordination of protective actions during the early phase of a nuclear incident and sees a major potential for improving cross-border collaboration in this field. The aim of the HERCA- mechanisms for countries to exchange adequate information and to achieve practical and operational solutions on a voluntary basis during an emergency leading to a uniform way of dealing with any serious radiological emergency situation, regardless of national border line, (Herca-Wenra, 2014, p. 2). But not only regarding nuclear defence and safety the collaboration is good with France. During the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 there were in total 128 cross-border deployments from the fire brigade and the ambulance service. Furthermore, representatives from the ministries - regarding cross-border disaster management and to get to know representatives from the neighbouring countries (I5/P1, personal communication, 11.07.2017). Moreover, in the field of ambulance services there is a close cooperation with France. Based on the agreements, it is regulated that the competences of the paramedics are based on the legal foundation of their own country. The objective is, that the medical emergency personnel has the same permissions as in their own country during the treatment in order to make use of qualified and trained staff and do not loose trained skills that are usually not allowed for the emergency personnel in the neighbouring country. (I4/P1, personal communication, 13.07.2017). There is no agreement with Luxembourg, because the Federal Government in Germany rejected the draft from the Ministry of the Interior of Rhineland-Palatinate as a framework-agreement. According to the interview partner I4/P1 (personal communication, 13.07.2017) the
47 bureaucratic hurdle is too high to get an agreement for approximately four cross-border deployments per year, which lead to a lack of motivation for involved stakeholders on state level. A unique project between Germany and France can be described as a good example how to collaborate. As Jürgen See, head of the ambulance service in Lindau (Rhineland- Palatinate) described, there is a German NEF (Notarzteinsatzfahrzeug) 8 stationed in Wissembourg (FR) with a German paramedic, a French Emergency-Physician and a bilingual nurse to solve the language barrier. This cooperation exists since 1992 and improved a lot over time. The cooperation is informally organised between the stakeholders responsible for ambulance services in this region (I9/P1, personal communication, 27.07.2017)
4.6.5 SAARLAND-LUXEMBOURG BORDER-FRANCE BORDER
The border between Saarland and Luxembourg is rather small with approximately 10 km and - border with Luxemburg (Figure 11). The border stretches from the north-west of the rural district, until the border triangle between Germany, Luxembourg and France. In comparison, the border to France is much longer and stretches from the border triangle until the south-east of Saarland and the - The border is approximately 157 km long and therefore prone to cross-border collaboration with French regions Lorraine, Alsace and the Departement Moselle(Saar-Nostalgie, 2017).
Agreements
In Saarland the same framework agreements as in Rhineland-Palatinate apply, as they were signed between the national governments. However, in addition to the framework-agreement, the state Saarland signed three other agreements on the state level with the bordering regions in France. The first agreement was signed in 2002 between the Prefects of the Lorraine region Prefects of the Moselle Division and the Minister for Internal Affairs and Sports of the Saarland on the implementation of the Agreement of 3 February 1977 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on mutual assistance during a disasters or large scale incident. It regulates and describes the cross-border collaboration between Saarland and the Departement Moselle during disasters and large scale incidents and not the spontaneous supra-local support on the daily basis as this works traditionally good since
8 Ambulance emergency response vehicle: A vehicle with a Paramedic and an Emergency Physician which response to emergencies but do not transport patients
48 decades (I6/P1, e-mail communication, 05.07.2017). The second agreement is between the Prefects of the region Lorraine and the Prefects of the Departement Moselle and the Minister for Internal Affairs and Sports of the Saarland on mutual information on hazards and damages which may affect the territory of the neighbouring country, which was signed in 2002. In short, it describes which communications channels the bordering regions are using to ensure sufficient information exchange during a disaster or a large scale incident (I6/P1, e-mail communication, 05.07.2017). The third agreement, signed in 2008, between the Director of the Agence Regionale de l'Hospitalisation Lorraine and the Minister of Interior and Sports of the Saarland on cross-border ambulance service collaboration. The basis for this collaboration is the framework agreement from 22.06.2005 which was described above and is also from relevance for Rhineland-Palatinate. The agreement from 2008 regulates and describes the processes of cross-border deployments of ambulances and medical emergency personnel between the state Saarland and the Departement Moselle (I6/P1, e-mail communication, 05.07.2017).
Although there are framework agreements between Germany and Luxembourg, there are no agreements on state level between Saarland and Luxembourg. That means, that specific agreements on regional level regarding mutual support during disasters or regarding the ambulance service do not exist. However, there is still a form of cross-border collaboration based on the framework agreement on national level, which provides a legal basis for cooperation in case of a disaster or large scale incident if resources and emergency personal is needed from the neighbouring country (I6/P1, e-mail communication, 05.07.2017).
Cooperation and Regional Projects
The cooperation between France and Saarland can be describes as good and close as they share a long border (157) together. In comparison, the cooperation between Saarland and Luxembourg is lacking as the border is only 10 km long and not densely populated. On the French side, the nuclear power plant in Cattenom and the chemical complex Carling, have an impact on Saarland and also require preparatory measures for the disaster management in Saarland. For this reason, there are a number of cross-border working groups at both national and regional level. regional committee Saarland, Lorraine, Luxembourg and Rhineland-Palatinate working priorities. The objective of this working group is to improve the collaboration between the dispatch centres in this region and strengthen the collaboration on operational level. Furthermore, the working group is a useful to pool knowledge between experts in this
49 field and in general to get to know each other and stakeholders from the neighbouring countries. In addition, there is a special working group regarding the nuclear power plant in Cattenom which meets once per year to exchange information and experiences from joint exercises every three years. (I6/P1, e-mail communication, 05.07.2017). In general, the interview partner described the collaboration as very good between France and Saarland and also with Luxembourg even though there the no need along the short border. According to the interview partner, the Herka-Wenra approach would a useful approach to implement harmonised practises and procedures in the region (I6/P1, e-mail communication, 05.07.2017). However, collaboration does not only exist regarding the nuclear defence and security, also regarding the ambulance services there is a unique project between Saarland and France.
4.7 OBSTACLES FOR CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
The following chapter describes the existing obstacles for cross-border disaster management cooperation in the study region. The information presented in this section are based on the semi-structured interviews and several documents provided by the government officials.
Administrative Structure
Within the interviews conducted in the four different states, the major differences regarding the administrative structure were mentioned as an obstacle to cross border collaboration in disaster management. The administrative structure in Germany, as a Federal State, is very complex and administrative structures even differ between the states. In comparison, the administrative structure in the Netherlands is less complicated, as decisions which are made on the national level apply to the whole country. In Germany, legislative power for disaster management can be found at state level and executive power can be found at the level of the rural districts and district free cities. BeforeBefo cross-border collaborative agreements on regional or municipal level can be signed, framework agreements are necessary. In regions (e.g. Rhineland-Palatinate and Luxembourg) where no framework agreements were put in place, it is not always clear who the responsible institution is and at which administrative level the competences are to sign agreements or execute decisions (I3/P1, personal communication, 26.06.2017). Furthermore, the interview partners mentioned that it is difficult to identify the exact counterpart in a neighbouring country. Especially in Belgium where responsibilities and competences are spread over different governmental levels, information exchange is perceived as rather difficult (I3/P2, personal communication, 26.06.2017). According to I4/P1
50 (personal communication, 13.07.2017), the labour turnover makes regular communication even more difficult because stakeholders in this field, as representatives of the government, change positions frequently.
Legal Differences
Legal differences were perceived to be the biggest obstacle to cross-border cooperation by the interview partners. The interview partners I7/P1/P2 (personal communication, 28.06.2017) mentioned that in the past there were issues that some administrative districts in Germany did not accept the Dutch security regions as the administrative level that has the competences to sign cross-border agreements based on the Anholt-Agreement. The root of the of this problem is a decree from the Ministry of Interior in Düsseldorf, where due to a misunderstanding and language differences, the security regions where located at the wrong administrative level. As a result, one administrative district, which is the regulatory authority for municipalities within the district, did not accept one agreement in the first place, which was made between the municipality and the security region (GGD) 9 (I7/P1/P2, personal communication, 28.06.2017). However, as this is a known problem between Germany and the Netherlands, Düsseldorf, as the highest administrative level in NRW, intervened and prevented agreements from being rejected due to this legal problem. However, it is time intensive due to extra bureaucratic work, costs more effort, and makes the legal situation rather difficult because competences are still not fully regulated (I3/P1, telephone communication, 20.07.2017). Another legal problem mentioned by one of the interview partners I1/P1 (personal communication, 17.07.2017) is the different perception between the countries regarding data protection. Data protection is a sensitive topic in Germany and a lot of projects cannot be implemented or the execution of projects is rather difficult due to data protection issues. An ere, local information regarding nuclear power plants were gathered to visualize the hazards for specific regions in a map. As Germany treats most of these information confidentially, only little data could be provided to the Netherlands to be included in handling sensitive data in Germany is a legal issue and a major obstacle to cross-border disaster management collaboration. In addition, several minor legal issues where brought up by I5/P1 (personal communication, 11.07.2017). According to the interview partner, the use
9Gemeentelijke Geneeskundige Dienst (Public Health Service)
51 of the fire brigade driver licence 10 (Feuerwehrführerschein) in other countries, the use of emergency light and sirens, and the liability law needs clarification.
Differences in National Disaster Management Structures
Not only the legal and administrative differences were perceived as obstacles to cross-border cooperation, also differences in national disaster management structures lead to difficulties and problems. According to I6/P1 (e-mail communication, 05.07.2017), every country has its own disaster management laws and therefore different structures. Consequently, competences and responsibilities of crisis teams in the neighbouring country might be different and located at a different administrative level. Moreover, the foundation for plans regarding disaster risk reduction set different working priorities for disaster management in each country. As a result, practices and procedures in case of a disaster differ a lot. These different approaches constitute an obstacle to cooperation. Another problem mentioned by I5/P1 (personal communication, 11.07.2017) is the differences in training standards. This is especially difficult in the ambulance services where each country has different trainings for their professionals. Consequently, emergency personnel has different competences and responsibilities, which lead to problems when it comes to cross border deployments and the execution of medical emergency treatment.
Communication Systems
Communication is vital for fire brigades, ambulance services and the disaster management in general. Communication is key to coordinate forces on the scene, to warn the public in case of toxic clouds, or to exchange information between disciplines. Therefore, communication systems are crucial to organise the emergency personnel during a disaster (Berger, 2010). According to I5/P1 (personal communication, 11.07.2017) difficulties occur when it comes to cross-border radio communication, which makes communication and exchange of information difficult. The language barrier poses one problem to communication issues, however, often technical difficulties are perceived to be a bigger problem. The head of the dispatch centre in Aachen mentioned the two different systems available for radio communication in Germany.
10A Driving license for emergency vehicles for voluntary members of the volunteer fire brigades, the rescue services recognized under national law and the technical assistance services(Landeshauptstadt Mainz, 2017)
52 The majority of fire brigades and ambulance services in Germany communicate via analogue radio, which can be seen as an outdated technology. This mode of communication stands in contrast to the majority of countries in Europe, which make use of digital radio. Along the Dutch-German border, effort was made to create technical possibilities to be able to communicate with the domestic dispatch centre 10 km across the border. However, in practice, this does not work due to the outdated technology or topographical constraints. Another technological problem is that with analogue radio, communication gets worse the further away the radio is from the transmission mast. Digital radio on the other hand have a different problem, as soon as the signal is not good enough, communication is not possible at all. Based on these issues, cross-border communication is often not possible and mobile phones are used as the last resort (I8/P1, personal communication, 27.07.2017)
Language & Culture
As mentioned, communication plays a vital role to exchange information and to manage and organize the emergency personnel and resources on the scene. In some border regions, language is perceived to be a major obstacle and even a bigger hurdle than legal requirements. In other regions, the language barrier is not a problem at all. According to I3, P2 (personal communication, 26.06.2017), government representatives and stakeholders in the field ort cross-border disaster management in the Netherlands often speak German, which makes communication with their German counterparts easier. In contrast, the opposite was reported by I6/P1 (e-mail communication, 05.07.2017). Communication without interpreter is often not possible between Germany and France, due to lack of German and French language skills on both sides of the border. This makes communication on the scene impossible and slows down daily communication between the stakeholders on regional or state level. Moreover, cultural differences between the countries are a factor that affect communication. Often cultural differences lead to interpretation issues between corresponding stakeholders. This poses a substantial threat to risk communication and the misinterpretation of received information might lead to wrong decisions with a serious impact on disaster management (I5/P1, personal communication, 11.07.2017). In line with that, I5/P1 would welcome a cross-cultural communication training, in order to improve communication and understanding of cultural differences.
53 Low Priority for Cross-Border Cooperation
Differences can be found in how developed cross-border collaboration is among the study region. Some regions are in an enhanced stage and other regions are lacking behind. One explanation is that cross-border collaboration is always dependent on the priorities set by the region. According to I7/P1/P2 (personal communication, 28.06.2017) some stakeholders or political responsible persons are not motivated and have a low priority regarding cross-border collaboration. Based on their experiences, it is highly dependent on the personal motivation of the person in charge of cross-border activities. Furthermore, the geographical territory determines the need for cross-border cooperation as well. If the population density is too small, it is less likely that there will be a need for cross-border cooperation, because national emergency structures are likely to deal with emergencies and disaster themselves. Moreover, in rural areas less people are at risk due to lower population density. Based on the low population density, it is very likely that there less need for cross-border collaboration and cross border disaster management will have a low priority. In line with that, I5/P1 (personal communication, 11.07.2017) confirms that joint commitment and motivation of responsible people in charge for cross-border collaboration is crucial and a determinant of collaboration.
4.8. FUTURE OF CROSS-BORDER COLLABORATION
The following chapter describes the future of cross-border collaboration in the study region. The information is based on the semi-structured interviews with government representatives and experts in the field of cross-border disaster management. The focus of this chapter is on the role of the European Union and the Benelux. On March 1, 2017, the European Union Commission published a white paper where five scenarios of the development of the EU 27 until 2025 were presented (European Commission, 2017). This chapter explores the hypothetical impact of these five scenarios on the future of cross-border collaboration.
4.8.1 IMPACT OF EU
In general, the role if the EU in the field of cross-border disaster management is estimated as positive. Interview partner I1/P1 (personal communication, 17.07) describes the EU as an important institution to coordinate disaster relief. According to I1/P1, the EU is a crucial facilitator between the member states, NGO´s and experts in the field of cross-border disaster management. Furthermore, with the European Union it is easier to share resources between Member States during a disaster. As the Netherlands and Lower Saxony both border the North Sea, the exchange of sandbags in case of major floods is crucial to disaster risk
54 reduction. Furthermore, I7/P1 states that the European Union also provides a large amount of European Regional Development Fund to support cross-border disaster management (personal communication, 28.06). In contrast, I2/P1 (e-mail communication, 06.07) stated, that the EU Civil Protection Mechanism Decision No 1313/2013/EU (Europäische Union, 2013) which aims at pooling EU civil protection capabilities is a good approach to facilitate coordination between the EU countries and the EU. However, this mechanism is not being seen as expedient and feasible. The own infrastructure and resources available in the states are sufficient to cope with disasters. If necessary, cross-border collaboration with the neighbouring country can be coordinated on the European level via the ERCC (Emergency Response Coordination Centre)11. Another interview partner I3/P2, described that the problem with the EU is that the states in Germany are not represented in the European Union. The Ministry of Interior of the federal government represents the Federal Republic of Germany and they do not have any competences in the field of disaster management. Consequently, it is difficult for stakeholders of each state to communicate their interests (personal communication, 26.06). In line with that, interview partner I4/P1 mentioned problems with the single market in the ambulance service sector. The interview partner was active in an initiative to stop European-wide bidding procedure for awarding the ambulance services as this is originally state responsibility in Germany. Concerns were mentioned that the national ambulance service quality gets overruled by commercial interest and would consequently destroy existing structure of civil protection and ambulance services within the states. Similar, I5/P1 states that EU regulations are in some instances overwhelming and not practical. An example was provided of the council directive 2013/59/EURATOM. The directive states in Article 51 (1): shall ensure that the system for individual radiological monitoring affords outside workers equivalent protection to that for exposed workers employed on a permanent basis by the (European Union, 2013). Based on that, every voluntary and professional worker in civil protection needs personal protective equipment. According to I5/P1, this approach would be desirable, however not feasible and necessary for every region in Germany.
11 Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO), was set up to support a coordinated and quicker response to disasters both inside and outside Europe using (European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, 2017)
55 4.8.2 IMPACT OF FIVE EU STRATEGIES
To assess the impact of the EU, the five hypothetical scenarios of how the European Union could develop will be used (European Commission, 2017). The five scenarios are the following:
Scenario 1 EU 27 sticks to the course and carries on Scenario 2 Nothing but the single market Scenario 3 Those who want more collaboration do more Scenario 4 Doing less more efficient Scenario 5 Doing much more together
Figure 13: Five Scenario of how the European Union could develop (European Commission, 2017)
The impact of these five strategies were seen different among the interviewed stakeholders. as the ideal solution regarding cross-border disaster management due to the concerns
EU 27 gradually re-centred on the single market. With other words, there is no joint approach in areas such as security and defence. As I4/P1 describes, the single market and the European wide bidding procedure is a threat to the quality of ambulance services. The fear is that quality in civil protection is overruled by commercial interests. If the EU´s interest would be focussed on the single market, the bidding procedure would become even worse (personal want to cooperate more in certain fields do more and other Member States do less. According the hazards shared with other countries such as floods along the North Sea and the shared need for sandbags, the collaboration is closer and more sophisticated compared to other hazards. In other words, the Member States who have a shared need collaborate more and where Member States do less but more efficiently to tackle certain priorities together. This is in line with I5/P1, who described some EU regulations as overwhelming and not expedient in reaching their goal. Consequently, it would be desirable to agree which areas the EU should a situation is described where the EU decides to do much more together across all policy areas. According to I4/P1, this is not feasible as Germany is a federal state and in terms of
56 disaster management the responsibility is with the states and not with the federal government which is represented in the EU (personal communication, 13.07.2017).
5. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to analyse the disaster management structures and the cross-border activities of the four German States; Lower Saxony, North-Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland- Palatinate and Saarland to determine the current state of cross-border cooperation between the states and the Benelux countries and France. In the following chapter, the research questions will be answered while elaborating the discussion of the results in relation to the RDIC-Model and the cooperation cycle.
National Disaster Management Structure
In order to answer the main research question about the differences in disaster management structure and its impact on cross-border collaboration in this field among the four German states, the sub-questions will be discussed into more detail. The first sub-questions focused on the differences in the legal situation and the functioning of the different disaster management structures. Although the four states are part of the Federal Republic of Germany, the federal system and Article 30 of the basic law gives the responsibility of disaster management to the respective states. Each state has its own fire protection law and own disaster management structure. Even though the disaster management structure of the states has some similarities regarding the regulation and tactical procedure at the incident scene, which is regulated in the Feuerwehr Dienst Vorschrift 100 (FWDV 100), there are still crucial differences. One example of that is the administrative structure of NRW in comparisons to the other states. NRW is the only state where administrative districts (Detmold, Münster, Düsseldorf, Arnsberg und Köln) play a crucial role in the field of disaster management. The administrative district does not only provide crisis teams to coordinate supra-local support, they are also supervisory authority for rural districts and districts free cities. Therefore, NRW has a four-stage administrative structure, starting from municipality level, to rural district level, to administrative district level and state level. In comparison, Lower Saxony dissolved the administrative districts in 2005 and implemented a three-stage administrative structure while giving more power and responsibilities to rural districts and districts free cities. The states Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland also implemented a three-stage administrative structure. In terms of cross-border collaboration with the neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands, which collaborates with NRW and Lower Saxony, the differences in
57 administrative structure, competences and responsibilities might be difficult to understand. Furthermore, as every state uses ascending management systems with multiple levels of coordination, each level has its own administrative body responsible for disaster management, which differs between the states. This administrative complexity might result in difficulties for foreign authorities to understand which administrative level is responsible for what. It is noteworthy that all states updated most laws and plans regulating disaster management in the respective state over the last decades. In NRW, the fire protection, technical assistance and civil protection law was amended in 2016 and thereby also mentioned cross-border cooperation explicitly for the first time. Under § 40 (1) it is mentioned that municipalities and rural districts should provide cross-border assistance on request of the neighbouring country (Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2015). Furthermore, in the coalition agreement of the new elected government in NRW, closer cross-border collaboration for medical emergencies and nuclear hazard response is mentioned as a future focus (CDU-NRW, 2017). This highlight how important updating disaster management plans is, in order to increase preparedness, resilience and the capacity to cope with up-to-date hazards. This is also in line with Carter (2008), who states that the level of preparedness is dependent on valid and updated disaster plans.
Cross-Border Cooperation
In the majority of the border regions, cross border collaboration exists between the German states and the neighbouring countries. Agreements are in place on national, state and regional level. However, there are major differences in the extent of collaboration between the states and even more between different regions. Responsibilities regarding cross border collaboration are spread out amongst the different administrative levels. Major differences exist between competences and responsibilities. Consequently, a municipality cannot sign an agreement with a security region in the Netherlands without prior consent of the next higher supervisory authority. This administrative expense is the result of the different competences and responsibilities in the field of disaster management and costs a lot of time and perseverance. In line with the cooperation cycle, as soon as there is a need, the willingness to cooperate is the next crucial factor, which determines cross border cooperation. In Rhineland- Palatinate the willingness to cooperate with the neighbouring countries was high and a lot of effort was put in agreements regarding cross-border emergency healthcare with France and Luxembourg. The agreement between Rhineland-Palatinate and France got accepted based on a framework-agreement between the national governments of Germany and France. The
58 agreement between Luxembourg and Rhineland-Palatinate got rejected by the federal government in Germany after the political responsible person for the ambulance service in Rhineland-Palatinate put a lot of effort in the collaboration. Consequently, in some regions the motivation of stakeholders in charge of cross-border collaboration decreased and agreements to improve collaboration will get less priority on the political agenda. This creates tension between high potential impact of disaster vs. low priority of cross border disaster management (McConnel & Drennan, 2006). It will become more difficult to find a sympathetic political ear to facilitate cross-border collaboration. Consequently, a paradox situation occurs, where the only option is to wait for a disaster with a supra-national impact. This would open the window of opportunity 12 to push forward the need for cross-border cooperation and increases political attention (McConnel & Drennan, 2006). However, whether this is a preferred situation, remains to be questioned.
Furthermore, in many interviewees, it was confirmed that cooperation is highly dependent on the willingness and motivation of the person in charge for it. As a result, the extent of cooperation between the regions differs significantly as the perseverance of the stakeholders differs significantly. Dissolving the administrative districts in Lower Saxony, gave more decision making power to the municipalities and rural districts, which can be seen as a positive effort to reduce the administrative expense and increase the willingness to cooperate.
Agreements exist on different administrative levels. The federal government, on the one hand needs to sign agreements with the neighbouring country to pave the way for cross-border disaster management agreements on state or regional level. On the other hand, the legal responsibility for disaster management is with the respective states. A framework-agreement on national level is required in order to develop regional agreements and regulate competences. However, the lack of a framework agreement often results in a clash of competences between the administrative levels. This does not only lead to confusion for foreign stakeholders in this field, but also leads to a vast variety of agreements. Consequently, it is difficult for authorities in Germany and its neighbouring countries to keep the overview of the different types of agreements signed on different administrative levels. The vast variety of agreements leads to insecurity regarding responsibilities, competences and content of agreements among stakeholders responsible for cross-border disaster management, which
12
(Investopedia, 2017)
59 poses a threat to the practical implementation of these agreements. Standardization of regional agreements along all borders in the study regions would be desirable and a positive development in order to reduce the risk of implementation gaps.
The cooperation between Lower Saxony and the bordering security regions in the Netherlands is currently developing into a positive direction. A lot of effort was put in the development of a contact list of responsible person in disaster management for both countries, Germany and the Netherlands in order to improve communication. Furthermore, a comparability map was developed in order to make it easier to find the exact counterpart in the other country. However, the interview partner mentioned that even though there is a need for collaboration, a lack of human and financial resources are often a barrier for the development of similar projects. Therefore, more financial support for regional cross-border activities from the national government would be a positive development.
Another good example of close cross-border cooperation is the Euregio Maas-Rhine where the security region South Limburg and the Aachen city Region collaborate. One reason for the close collaboration is the high need for assistance during large scale incidents, as expressed in the following quote. faster than other regions within the country. This is especially the case for Zuid-Limburg, which only has 6 kilometres of border to Limburg-Noord. In addition, it has been arranged that victims can be transported to hospitals within the own and neighbouring regions without any delay, where the best timely care can be delivered. These EMRIC-agreements increase (EMRIC, 2017a).
In line with the cooperation cycle, dependence and need are a crucial determinants of cooperation. In the interviews, additional factors which determine cooperation were mentioned and could be added to the cooperation cycle. In the majority of the regions, the factor of population density, geography and certain risk areas such as nuclear power plants were mentioned as determinates for cross-border collaboration.
Obstacles
The obstacles identified in this study confirm the obstacles to cross-border disaster management cooperation stated by the Benelux (Benelux, 2011). However, one needs to say that generalizability of all problems to the regions should be avoided. Each region is specific and sometimes unique in terms of their characteristic. The interviews confirmed that there are some obstacles, such as the differences in disaster management systems, which are similar in
60 every region. However other obstacles, such as the language barrier, are a major problem at the border between France and Germany but not between the Netherlands and Germany. Based on the interviews, the explanation is that people in the Netherlands often speak German but people in France do not speak German. This leads to the conclusion that stakeholders in Germany are often highly dependent that foreign stakeholders speak German. An interview partner in Rhineland-Palatinate described the language barrier as the biggest obstacles to cross-border disaster management cooperation because communication without a professional translator is often not possible. However, only little effort is made in Germany to find solutions for this problem. Besides the language barrier, the differences in administrative structures pose an obstacle to cross-border cooperation. According to the interviews, stakeholders are not fully aware of the foreign administrative and disaster management structure. In addition, interview partners in Germany described the German administrative structure as rather complex and it is not always clear who has what competences and responsibilities in detail. This complex administrative structure, in combination with the great variety of agreements, made on several administrative levels make it difficult to keep the overview and organize a well-structured cross-border disaster management collaboration. The establishment of a central body, such as the Emric bureau, in each country dealing with administrative and legal issues for cross border disaster management would be a positive development to concentrate knowledge, competences and responsibilities in this field. In addition, training and educating people who work with these agreements is core. Here the IKIC13 project, another initiative of the EMRIC bureau in the Euregio Maas-Rhine, can be seen as a good example. According to Emric (2017b): agreements, those who have to work with these agreements need to be educated. To do so, universities, research institutes, educational institutes and services with legal tasks in public safety, will bundle their powers in a consortium At the moment, cross-border cooperation requires a lot of time, patience and perseverance from stakeholders involved in this field. One serious problem in the future will be to find stakeholders who bring along these characteristic as cross-border collaboration is highly dependent on the person in charge for it. Another solution to overcome this obstacle is a contact list and a comparability map of the different systems, which was created by stakeholder in Lower Saxony. This would make it easier for
13 International Knowledge and Information Centre which aims at making use of e-learning and connecting existing training centres to improve cross-border collaboartion
61 stakeholders to find their counterpart for information exchange in the neighbouring country and to understand the administrative and disaster management structure. Nevertheless, as Teutsch (2010) describes disaster response organizations need to systematically manage and exchange information from multiple sources to collaborate effectively. To manage and exchange information among stakeholders, ICT 14 solutions can help governments and organisations to facilitate effective collaboration in the 21st Century. In terms of cross-border collaboration, further research needs to be done to assess the impact of ICT support on information exchange during disasters.
Another major obstacle to cross-border collaboration are the legal differences. During the interviews in Germany the different perceptions of data security was mentioned. German stakeholders are often restricted in their ability to act independently as data security is a sensitive and important topic in Germany. This often leads to problems regarding information and knowledge exchange which would enrich and encourage cross-border collaboration. The above mentioned obstacles seemed to be similar in all four states, however, specific obstacles among the states and regions. In order to address them, further research is needed on the regional level to propose individual solutions. Due to the complexity and variety of obstacles to collaboration in disaster management it is advisable to create a checklist of achievements and existing problems to keep an overview and better communicate progress to regional stakeholders working in the field. A template checklist created by the Emric bureau can be found in Appendix A (Table 10).
Future of Cooperation
The findings of the study show that cross-border disaster managements already existed before the involvement of the EU. It means that cross-border collaboration will always exist if there is a specific need for it. In general, the involvement of the EU was seen as positive among the interview partners as they facilitate collaboration with financial means such as the Interreg funding program. Among the interviewees it was mentioned that it is vital to get to know each other on the administrative and operational level and to learn from different working methods. Therefore, the EU could be a supranational institution which provides a platform for knowledge exchange and best practice. As cross-border collaboration is often seen as a lengthy complicated process which often leads to frustration, the EU could facilitate the information distribution of accomplishments to regional stakeholders. Besides all the positive
14 ICT: Information and Communications Technology
62 influence of the EU, some scepticism was mentioned among the interview partners. Although the EU has a lot of positive influence, some stakeholders have their problems with EU involvement. The legal competences and responsibilities regarding disaster management is by the states and EU legislation is often seen as not feasible or practical. Furthermore, the effort to pool civil protection capabilities and the European-wide bidding procedure for awarding ambulance services is considered as critical. According to an interview partner, there is a risk that quality is overruled by commercial interests. Another reason for that could be that the states see the risk to loose competences and decision making power over their own disaster management resources. In line with that, the second scenario (focus on single market) was the only scenario considered to have a negative impact on cross-border collaboration because this would also mean the potential end of the interreg funding program. Scenario one and three described the current state of cross-border collaboration and would not change anything. The last scenario, doing much more together, can be described as a utopian scenario, which is not feasible because harmonization of systems and professions would be very challenging and not desirable due to different regional characteristics and risk potentials.
Taking into account the cooperation cycle, one can say that the EU cannot change the need and the willingness to cooperate of stakeholders involved in this field. In addition, the position of the EU to harmonize system characteristics and legislations in order to facilitate collaboration can be considered as difficult. However, the EU as a supra-national institution might be able to formulate and facilitate common goals among Member States. This would facilitate better cross-border collaboration in the field of disaster management, in order to increase resilience and the capacity to cope with new threats. This would be in line with Ahrens and Rudolph (2006, p. 217), who state Collaboration between actors is required in
Strength and Limitations
The first limitation of this study is the limited time frame. The geographical region from Lower Saxony till Rhineland-Palatinate includes 18 rural districts, which, if an interview partner would have been selected from each rural district, would have led to n unfeasible study design in the limited study duration. Therefore, the choice was made to only interview stakeholders at state level. The interviews were conducted on state level and the interviewed stakeholders were mainly involved in administrative/organisational tasks. This fact might have led to a biased view, as no stakeholders on operational level were interviewed. This could be done in future research to supplement the results of this study. Furthermore, it was
63 not always possible to conduct interviews on both sides of the border. Due to the time restriction, it was only possible to conduct one interview in Den Haag (NL). This might lead to a biased viewpoint, leading towards the German view. Further research could try to conduct interviews on regional level and on both sides of the border by prolonging the study duration.
A strength of this study is that most of the interviews were conducted in a face-to-face setting. Although it would have been desirable to conduct all interview in person, two interviews were conducted via E-mail. This made it possible to collect data from stakeholders which would otherwise not have been interviewed. Moreover, due to holiday period, two interview partners were not able to reply to the final member check. In future studies, holiday periods should be considered beforehand.
The authors language skills can be seen as a strength of the study, as all interviews were conducted in German. This made communication with interview partner easier and no problems occurred in terms of misunderstandings or not being able to express opinions.
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has found that cross-border collaboration between the four German states and their neighbouring countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France) exists. Collaboration exists in different forms and can be described as heterogeneous. Characteristics such as population density, risk areas, disaster system structures and administrative structures of each region are factors that influence the willingness and ability to cooperate. In addition, the vast variety of agreements signed on different administrative levels lead to insecurities and lack of knowledge among emergency personnel and government representatives.
Another finding of this study is that stakeholders in the study region have a lack of knowledge about the different administrative structures and the differences in disaster management systems in the neighbouring country. This, together with the language barrier, could be defined as the biggest obstacles to cross-border collaboration in the field of disaster management. However, the IKIC project of the Emric bureau could be an approach to reduce these barriers. In addition to this, the study identified that the complex administrative structure in Germany leads to a fragmented distribution of competences and responsibilities in the field of cross-border collaboration. This leads to insecurity and misunderstandings among government representatives, and has caused unnecessary delays in the past.
64 This study verifies the new developed cooperation cycle (Figure 3) and the assumption that willingness to cooperate needs to be established in the first place, before tackling issues related to the ability to cooperate. This also counts for the need of cross-border cooperation. Even though there is a need, the willingness to cooperate needs to be established first. This is in line with the interviews, which have shown that cross-border collaboration in the field of disaster management is highly dependent on the willingness to cooperate of the responsible stakeholders.
The role of the EU was recognized as positive by the stakeholders interviewed in this study. The majority of the interview partners described the EU´s role as a supranational facilitator for cooperation through financial means (Interreg). Nevertheless, criticism was expressed among the stakeholders, regarding the determination of competences in the field of disaster management. Furthermore, some effort (e.g. pooling European wide civil protection capabilities) of the EU is being seen as not expedient and feasible. However, experts mentioned it would be desirable if the EU and national governments get more involved as a facilitator for knowledge exchange and best practice, to improve collaboration among the regions in the geographical area of interest.
In line with the findings of this study, the following policy recommendations are formulated for decision-maker in the field of cross-border collaboration in the field of disaster management:
1. Create an overview of all exiting cross-border agreements for each state in the field of disaster management 2. Overview of administrative structures and depiction of communication streams in each stage to list important stakeholders including their task and contact details. This could be included in education and training courses to decrease the communication barriers and improve cooperation. 3. More decision making power should be given to municipalities, rural districts and district free cities to reduce bureaucratic burden (Bottom-up approach15). 4. Create incentives to increase the willingness to cooperate. This could be done by giving out cross-border collaboration awards (financial means or new equipment)
15 -up approach means that local actors participate in decision-making about the strategy and in the selection of the priorities to be pursue (European Leader Association for Rural Development, 2017)
65 for innovative and active cross-border collaboration. 5. Further study on regional and municipal level in the bordering countries is needed
Figure 14: Policy recommendations for decisio-maker (Becking, 2017)
66 4.REFERENCES
https://add.rlp.de/de/ueber-uns/
http://www.benelux.int/files/5614/5396/9655/428-Grensoverschrijdende-web.pdf
http://www.benelux.int/files/4214/0603/4840/Gemeenschappelijke_werkprogramma_ SENN-RISK_-_DEF_DE.pdf
http://www.bezreg-koeln.nrw.de/brk_internet/nrw-zahlen- geodaten/index.html
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/3585?e=blackstone_1.0- ch02_s03
http://www.bbk.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/BBK/DE/Publikationen/Wissenscha ftsforum/Band-4_NeueStrategie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
http://www.bbk.bund.de/DE/Service/Fachinformationsstelle/RechtundVorschriften/Re chtsgrundlagen/Katastrophenhilfeabkommen/Frankreich.html
67 http://www.bbk.bund.de/DE/Service/Fachinformationsstelle/RechtundVorschriften/Re chtsgrundlagen/Katastrophenhilfeabkommen/Luxemburg.html?nn=1898892
https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?start=//*%5B@attr_id=%27bgbl206s1330.p df%27%5D - __bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl206s1330.pdf%27%5D__15009810 40683
http://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Bevoelkerungsschutz/Krisenmanagement/krisen management_node.html http://www.bpb.de/izpb/159329/foederalismus-in-deutschland
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/hazard_risk.html
https://www.cdu-nrw.de/koalitionsvertrag-fuer-nordrhein-westfalen-2017-2022
http://lv- saarland.drk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Bereitschaften/Gesetze_und_Vorschriften/Ver waltungsvorschriften/Verordnung_%C3%BCber_die_Organisation_des_Katastrophen schutzes_im_Saarland.pdf
http://www.erichshagen-woelpe.de/geschichte/niedersachsen2.htm
68 https://emric.info/en/citizens/accidents?set_language=en https://emric.info/en/professionals/projects/ikic https://emric.info/de/professionals/rechtsgrundlage/katastrophen-und- grossschdensereignisse
https://emric.info/de/professionals/rechtsgrundlage/rahmenabkommen https://emric.info/de/professionals/rechtsgrundlage/regelrettung-rettungsdienst
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D1313
https://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil- protection/emergency-response-coordination-centre-ercc_en
http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-17-385_en.htm
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/natural-hazards-and- technological-accidents
http://www.elard.eu/en_GB/the-bottom-up-approach
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013L0059&from=DE
69 http://politische-bildung- rlp.de//fileadmin/download_neu/Landesgeschichte/LandeskundeRLP-Gube.pdf
http://www.idf.nrw.de/service/downloads/pdf/fwdv100.pdf
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about- disasters/what-is-a-disaster/ http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/window-of-opportunity.asp
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105
https://mainz.de/vv/produkte/verkehrsueberwachung/181010100000070770.php?orga nisationUnit=181010100000028890 http://www.saarbruecken.de/leben_in_saarbruecken/gesundheit_sicherheit/feuerwehr_ saarbruecken
http://www.nds- voris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&query=KatSchG+ND&psml=bsvorisprod.psml&max=t rue&aiz=true
http://www.lexsoft.de/cgi- bin/lexsoft/justizportal_nrw.cgi?xid=4202571,1
70 http://www.nds- voris.de/jportal/?quelle=jlink&query=BrandSchG+ND&psml=bsvorisprod.psml&max =
http://landesrecht.rlp.de/jportal/portal/t/hp6/page/bsrlpprod.psml?pid=Dokumentanzei ge&showdoccase=1&js_peid=Trefferliste&documentnumber=1&numberofresults=1& fromdoctodoc=yes&doc.id=jlr- Brand_KatSchGRPrahmen&doc.part=X&doc.price=0.0 - focuspoint
http://landesrecht.rlp.de/jportal/portal/t/1ahw/page/bsrlpprod.psml?pid=Dokumentanz eige&showdoccase=1&js_peid=Trefferliste&fromdoctodoc=yes&doc.id=jlr- RettDGRPrahmen&doc.part=X&doc.price=0.0 - focuspoint http://landesrecht.rlp.de/jportal/portal/t/19z7/page/bsrlpprod.psml?pid=Dokumentanze ige&showdoccase=1&js_peid=Trefferliste&fromdoctodoc=yes&doc.id=jlr- GemORPrahmen&doc.part=X&doc.price=0.0 - focuspoint
http://sl.juris.de/cgi- bin/landesrecht.py?d=http://sl.juris.de/sl/gesamt/KSVG_SL.htm
http://sl.juris.de/cgi- bin/landesrecht.py?d=http://sl.juris.de/sl/gesamt/BrandTHKatSchG_SL.htm - BrandTHKatSchG_SL_rahmen
https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_text_anzeigen?v_id=1520071121100236135
71 https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uac t=8&ved=0ahUKEwjiuaK_vvvSAhWDWRQKHWK4CmAQFggfMAA&url=http%3 A%2F%2Fbookshop.europa.eu%2Fen%2Fensureing-to-move-ahead- pbKI3212501%2Fdownloads%2FKI-32-12-501-EN- C%2FKI3212501ENC_002.pdf%3Bpgid%3Dy8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb00 00G2-0TtsJ%3Bsid%3DuBa96w0l- si95Vx2HDsjTG8A9XWjmUBGpmQ%3D%3FFileName%3DKI3212501ENC_002.p df%26SKU%3DKI3212501ENC_PDF%26CatalogueNumber%3DKI-32-12-501-EN- C&usg=AFQjCNGZ9j2wSgBtr77rHAeITNF5P__gmA&sig2=fQ1TyTIjm1bNxemo7 bBuLg:
https://mdi.rlp.de/fileadmin/isim/Unsere_Themen/Sicherheit/Krisenmanagement/Doku mente/Abstimmungswege.pdf
https://mdi.rlp.de/de/service/pressemitteilungen/detail/news/detail/News/rettungsdiens tabkommen-zwischen-dem-koenigreich-belgien-und-rheinland-pfalz-unterzeichnet-1/
https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_text_anzeigen?v_id=62020161021103137880
https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_bes_text?anw_nr=1&gld_nr=2&ugl_nr=2051&bes_id =3136&val=3136&ver=7&sg=0&aufgehoben=N&menu=0
http://www.feuerwehrschulen.niedersachsen.de/katastrophenschutz/katastrophenschut z-in-niedersachsen-86044.html
http://www.stk.niedersachsen.de/themen/europa_internationales/relaunch_2016/europ a_internationales/internationale_zusammenarbeit/partnerschaften_landes/zusammenar beit-mit-den-niederlanden-146418.html
http://www.nlwkn.niedersachsen.de/hochwasser_kuestenschutz/hochwasserschutz/hint
72 ergrund_vorsorgeinformationen/organisation_im_hochwasserschutz/katastrophenman agement/aufgaben-und-organisation-in-der-gefahrenabwehr-119250.html
http://www.mi.niedersachsen.de/kats/katastrophenschutz-62914.html
http://www.mi.niedersachsen.de/themen/innere_sicherheit/polizei/allgemeines_ueber_ polizei/organisation_polizei/organisation-der-polizei-63134.html
http://www.mi.niedersachsen.de/themen/verwaltungsmodernisierung_organisation_lan desverwaltung/verwaltungsmodernisierung/62926.html http://www.mi.niedersachsen.de/minister/wir-ueber-uns-62581.html
http://www.pd-os.polizei-nds.de/wir_ueber_uns/brand--und-katastrophenschutz-zivile- verteidigung-109954.html
https://bks- portal.rlp.de/organisationen/landesbeh%C3%B6rden
https://www.bks- portal.rlp.de/brandschutz/rechtsgrundlagen
https://bks-portal.rlp.de/katastrophenschutz/organisation- kats/abstimmungswege-kats
https://www.bks- portal.rlp.de/organisation/add
73 https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_bes_text?anw_nr=1&gld_nr=9&ugl_nr=922&bes_id= 3061&val=3061&ver=7&sg=0&aufgehoben=N&menu=1
https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_vbl_show_pdf?p_id=21482 http://landesrecht.rlp.de/jportal/portal/t/1a8h/page/bsrlpprod.psml?pid=Dokumentanze ige&showdoccase=1&js_peid=Trefferliste&documentnumber=1&numberofresults=1 &fromdoctodoc=yes&doc.id=jlr-LKreisORPrahmen&doc.part=X&doc.price=0.0 - focuspoint
http://www.saar-nostalgie.de/Grenze.htm
http://www.govtech.com/em/disaster/Effective-Disaster- Management-Strategies.html https://frr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Nordrhein-Westfalen,_administrative_divisions_- _de_-_colored_(full_featured_-_larger_labels).jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Lower_Saxony,_administrative_divisions_-_de_- _colored.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rhineland-Palatinate,_administrative_divisions_- _de_-_colored.svg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Saarland,_administrative_divisions_-_de_- _colored.svg
http://www.who.int/hac/about/definitions/en/
74 http://apps.who.int/disasters/repo/7656.pdf
https://www.zrf- saar.de/mediapool/237/3_1_saarlaendisches_rettungsdienstgesetz.pdf
75 APPENDIX A: TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 15: Overview of Police Directorates in Lower Saxony (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Inneres und Sport, 2017b)
76
Figure 16: Organigram on coordination channels in Rhineland-Palatinate (Ministerium des Innern für Sport und Infrastruktur Rheinland-Pfalz, 2014)
Figure 17: The 5 Stages of incident commanders in Rhineland-Palatinate (received from interview partner)
77 Landkreis/krei Stadt, Veiligheidsr Jahr Inhalt sfreie Stadt Kreis, egio, Gemeinde Gemeente, , Organisatie Organisati on
Landkreis Keine schriftlichen Aurich Abkommen, Zusammenarbeit geregelt über Ablaufpläne der Leitstellen beiderseits der Grenze
Landkreis Gemeinde Gemeente 24.06.1999 Unterstützung bei Brand- Emsland Rhede Bellingwedd und e Schadensbekämpfung
11.06.2012 Vereinbarung zur
grenzüberschreitenden Veiligheitsre Zusammenarbeit bei gio Großschadens- und Groningen Katastrophenereignissen
Veiligheitsre gio Drenthe November 2016 Gemeinsamer Gefahrenabwehrplan
Veiligheitsre gio Groningen
Veiligheitsre gio Drenthe
LK Leer
78
Landkreis Kreis Regio 27.08.2001 Gegenseitige Grafschaft Borken Achterhoek, Unterstützung bei Bentheim NRW Großschadens/Katastrop Regio henereignissen mit den Twente Bereichen Brandbekämpfung, technische Hilfeleistung, Rettungsdienst, Transportkapazitäten
Stadt Gemeente 16.06.1998 Gegenseitige Hilfe bei Nordhorn Denekamp Brand- und Unfalleinsätzen der Feuerwehr
Samtgeme Gemeente 11.09.2005 Unterstützung bei Brand- inde Coevoerden und Emlichhei Schadensbekämpfung m
Stadt Bad Gemeente 26.01.2007 Gegenseitige Hilfe bei Bentheim Losser Bränden und sonstigen Schadensereignissen mit Personal, Fahrzeugen, Gerätschaften und Löschmittel
Samtgeme Gemeente 15.09.1999 Unterstützung bei Brand- inde Tubbergen und Uelsen Schadensbekämpfung
Samtgeme Gemeente 21.03.2002 Unterstützung bei Brand- inde Hardenberg und Uelsen Schadensbekämpfung
Landkreis DRK- Ambulancedi 16.06.1998 Gegenseitige Grafschaft Kreisverba enst Oost, Unterstützung im Bentheim nd Hengelo Rettungsdienst und im Krankentransport,
79 Kostenpauschale
Regio 26.10.2009 Gegenseitige IJsselland, Unterstützung und Hilfe Regio bei Drenthe, Großschadens/Katastrop Gemeente henereignissen Hardenberg und Coevorden (ab 2. Halbjahr 2011 auch Gemeente Emmen)
Stadt Veiligheidsre 04.06.2014 Gegenseitige Hilfe bei Nordhorn gio Twente Brand- Katastrophen- und Großschadenslagen oder Unfall-einsätzen (Nachbarschaftshilfe)
Landkreis Leer Veiligheitsre 11.06.2012 Vereinbarung zur gio grenzüberschreitenden Groningen Zusammenarbeit bei Großschadens- und Veiligheitsre Katastrophenereignissen gio Drenthe
November 2016 Gemeinsamer Gefahrenabwehrplan
Veiligheitsre gio Groningen
Veiligheitsre gio Drenthe
LK Emsland
80
Stadt Emden Bundesrep Ministerium 03.08.2004 Brandschutz und ublik für Verkehr, Hilfeleistung aus dem Deutschla Wasserwirts Wasser im nd, Stadt chaft und Mündungstrichter der Emden öffentliche Ems und seewärts Arbeit der einschl. der Häfen Delfzijl Niederlande und Eemshaven
Table 7: Overview of Regional Agreements between The Netherlands and Lower Saxony (Strakeljahn, 2015)
Year Agreements on Disaster Management
2013 Vereinbarung zwischen der Veiligheidsregio Zuid-Limburg und der Stadt Aachen und der Städteregion Aachen über eine enge Kooperation in den Bereichen Katastrophenschutz und Krisenbwältigung 2013 Vereinbarung zwischen der Veiligheidsregio Zuid-Limburg, de Veiligheidsregio Limburg-Noord und des Kreises Heinsberg über eine enge Kooperation in den Bereichen Katastrophenschutz und Krisenbewältigung
Agreements on daily Fire Protection and Ambulance Care
1994 Vereinbarung zwischen der Stadt Aachen und der Gemeinde Vaals über gegenseitige Hilfeleistung bei der Brandbekämpfung und Rettungsdienst (DE-NL) 1996 Vereinbarung zwischen der Stadt Aachen und der Gemeinde Kerkrade über gegenseitige Hilfeleistung bei der Brandbekämpfung und Rettungsdienst (DE-NL) 2004 Ausrüstung und Verwendung von Kennleuchten für blaues Blinklicht (Rundumlicht) und von Warnvorrichtungen mit einer Folge von Klängen verschiedener Grundfrequenz (Einsatzhorn) an Einsatzkraftfahrzeugen der Feuerwehren, der Einheiten und Einrichtungen der Gefahrenabwehr und des Rettungsdienstes (Blaulichterlass NRW) 2013 Publiekrechtelijke Overeenkomst Grensoverschrijdende Buren- Ambulancehulpverlening tussen De Stadt Aachen als Träger rettungsdienstlicher Aufgaben, de Städteregion Aachen en de Kreis Heinsberg als Träger Rettungsdienste, vertegenwoordigd door respectievelijk de Oberbürgermeister van de Stadt Aachen, de Städteregionsrat van de Städteregion Aachen en de Landrat van de Kreis Heinsberg en de Geneeskundige Gezondheidsdienst Zuid Limburg, hierna te noemen GGD Zuid Limburg verantwoordelijk voor de ambulancezorg in Zuid-Limburg vertegenwoordigd door haar bestuursvoorzitter (NL-DE)
Table 8: Overview of Agreements in the Euregio Maas-Rhine (EMRIC, 2017e)
81
Cross- Contac Cross- Cooperatio Problems Cross- Problems Border t per Border n Border Coopera year Daily Agreement Disaste tion s r
Aachen Yes: Severa Yes: Yes: Harmonisat Yes: Legal Civil l times Ambula bilateral ion of Bilater problems protectio a Year nce agreement standards, al between n, Fire (Emric Service s between Harmonisat agreem federal Brigade - regions ion of ent on governmen & Meetin Radio federal t and the Ambula gs) communica state states nce tion level Service Simmerath No No Yes No No Yes No (AA) Selfkant Yes: Severa Yes Yes n.a. Yes n.a. (AA) Fire l times Brigade a year Herzogenr Yes Yes: 1 Yes: Yes: Legal Yes n.a. ath (AA) x per Fire Agreement problems year Brigade between and & municipali insurance General ties probelms Assista nce Monschau Yes: Yes: 1 No n.a. n.a. Yes No (AA) Fire x per Brigade year Roetgen Yes: No Yes Yes: No Yes No (AA) Fire Between Brigade Aachen Eupen and Belgium Kreis No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Viersen Brüggen No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (VIE) Nettetal Yes: Yes: 2 Yes: Yes: No Yes n.a. (VIE) Fire x per Fire Between Brigade year Brigade Venlo and & & Nettetal Ambula Ambula nce nce Services Service s Niederkrüc Yes: Yes: Yes: Yes: Yes: n.a n.a. hten (VIE) Fire 2-3 x Highwa Agreement Language Brigade per y A 52 between barrier
82 year Roermond and Niederkrüc hten Kreis n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Heinsberg Waldfeuch Yes: Yes: No Yes: Yes: Yes Yes: t (HS) Fire 1 x per Agreement No digital Different Brigade year between radio in procedures Echt Echt and Germany (joint Waldfeuch (communic training) t ation problem) Wegberg Yes: Yes: No No n.a. Yes n.a. (HS) Fire Severa Brigade l times Roermo per nd year Kreis Yes: Yes: No No No Yes No Kleve Security 2 x per Region year in NL Emmerich Yes/No: n.a. No No Yes: Yes Yes: a.R. (KLE) Only the Lack of Different fireboat staff, organisatio problems nal regarding structures, insurance language barrier Geldern No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (KLE) Goch No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. No (KLE) Kevelaer Yes: Yes: Yes No n.a. Yes Yes: (KLE) Fire 1 x per Room for Briagde year improveme nt, but it needs a legal basis Kranenbur Yes: Yes: No No n.a Yes Yes: g (KLE) Fire 1 x Harmoniza Brigade per tion of Provinz year regulations Gelderla regarding nd-Zuid safety, competenc es Rees No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (KLE) Strealen No n.a. n.a. n.a. Yes: n.a. n.a
83 (KLE) Problems regarding the use of sirens Weeze No: n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (KLE) No need Kreis Yes: Yes: Yes Yes Yes: Yes Yes: Borken Security 2 x per Communic Communic Region year ation ation in NL problems, problems, transmissio transmissio n of n of information informatio s, language ns, barrier, language more barrier, information more about NE informatio needed n about NE needed Südlohn Yes: Yes: Yes: Yes: Yes: n.a. n.a. (BOR) Fire min. 1 Since official Communic Brigade x per 2009 agreement ation at the Winters year scene, wijk and different Achterh equipment, oek different standards Bocholt Yes: Yes: Yes Yes: Yes: n.a. n.a. (BOR) Fire 1-2 Fire Small delay Brigade exercis Brigade & alerting the Aalten es Ambulanc Fire 3-4 e Services Brigade, meetin however gs good communica tion with dispatch centre Vreden Yes Yes: Yes: Yes Yes: No n.a (BOR) Min 5 Security Alerting x per Regions could be year Gelderl improved and (SMS works good)
Table 9: Results of Benelux Questionnaire (Becking, 2017)
84