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

1. Political/Strategic Crisis Management
at EU level
The EU Integrated Political Crisis Response
arrangements (IPCR)
General Secretariat of the Council of the EU - Tarik MEZIANI
3rd Workshop on Strategic Crisis Management
Geneva, 12-13 June 2014

2. The Crisis Continuum
Crisis
Member States response
EU instruments (Crisis Platform, Civil
Protection Mechanism, …)
EU Integrated Political
Crisis Response (IPCR)
Solidarity Clause
Requirement for
coordination at EU
political level
Invocation
(Member State)

3. Rationale for Integrated “crisis”
arrangements at EU political level
The specific context
• (2004) Madrid and (2005) London bombings & (2004) Tsunami
Pacific/Indian Ocean
 The requirement
• supporting the EU and its MS to respond at strategic/ political
level in a coordinated manner to major terrorist attacks and
disasters
 The (first) tool : the 2006 Emergency and Crisis
Coordination arrangements (CCA) and their review

4. CCA experience 2006 - 2010
 No full activation – Activation in 3 occasions in info-sharing
mode (2008 Mumbai, 2010 Haiti and Eyjafjallajökull)
 5 CCA Exercises conducted with various scenarios (multi-
sectoral crises resulting from terrorism/disasters)
 Lessons resulted in the CCA review process:
 Phase 1: do we need such a tool at all?
 Even if no activation, exercises showed the need was still there
 Phase 2: how can we make it more “usable”?
 LL: CCA seen as a complex machinery / last resort (“Armageddon”)
 Need for a flexible system, based on well established procedures
 Tackle needs for coordinated approach => integrated picture of
situation

5. Result of the CCA Review Process:
the new IPCR arrangements
Reinforce EU’s ability to take “rapid” decisions
when faced by major emergencies requiring a
response at EU political level
New approach – new name : "EU Integrated
Political Crisis Response (IPCR) arrangements”
Support the Solidarity Clause (Art. 222 TFEU)
 single set of crisis arrangements

6. In short …

7. They are designed to be
 Flexible and scalable (proportionality)
 Based on existing procedures and working
groups/committees (no adhockery)
 Under Presidency "political control and strategic
direction" (governance)
 Organised around COREPER (rapidity, cross-cutting
responsibility)

8. They do not …
 … infringe on MS responsibilities (subsidiarity)
 … replace existing sectorial arrangements (such as
the Civil Protection Mechanism)
… the IPCR “mantra” :
« IPCR fully exploit synergies between stakeholders and existing
means structures and capabilities at EU level »

9. The IPCR architecture
Political decision-
making/coordination
•Coreper
•Council preparatory bodies when
and if relevant
•Council/European Council
Analysis and
possible
response
•Presidency roundtable:
•Situation and possible evolution
•Breaking points (thresholds of
irreversibility)
•Policy options/ Proposals for action
•Communication
Situation
•IPCR Web Platform
•Stepped-up information exchange
•Structured information collection
•Internal communication
•Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis
(ISAA)

10. The IPCR process in practice

11. Key supporting elements
• Presidency informal roundtable,
 similar to a “COREPER briefing” meeting
• Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis (ISAA)
by the Commission and the European External Action Service
(all relevant structures involved incl. ECHO ERCC, and EU SitRoom)
• Council-owned Web Platform
 managed by the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC) +
EEAS and Commission support within respective responsibilities

12. The IPCR Web Platform
• A Council-owned dedicated and password protected tool,
permanently available.
• (Multiple) Crisis page(s) activation, including in info-sharing mode
• Matching the right information with the right level of responsibility
• “Peacetime” use for networking, exchanging information (incl. on
on-going situations outside an IPCR activation), building
preparedness, etc.
• GSC overall management, working together with the Commission
and the EEAS and Member States experts

13. Q1: How to integrate the international dimension into
exercises for strategic crisis management?
=> What we (try to) do for the first IPCR exercise
1. Motivation: need for INCO resulting from the scenario
 Transboundary crisis, stressing the interdependencies
 Effectiveness of the overall response
 Benefit for the national response
2. Method
 Operate in an international dimension (at least 7 MS involved)
 IPCR Process (CCA LL) => Rely on well-established procedures and
existing fora
3. Level of Ambition
 In line with objectives / experience
 Piggybacking: 2-way street

14. Q2: What are the challenges related to exercising different
sense-making approaches between countries?
• Sense-making approach
 Differs between levels and sometimes between countries
 Differs according to use, e.g. national (inter-ministerial) vs
multilateral
 Keep using your own way (realism, avoid ad-hoc approaches)
• Main challenges
 Shared and coherent picture of the situation
 Get people/countries to understand each other, even if they don’t
speak the same “language”
• Past experience
 IPCR Development (CCA review/LL): Develop a common picture to
inform/support decision-making => ISAA

15. Q2: What are the challenges related to exercising different
sense-making approaches between countries?
The IPCR way: ISAA
• Two-pronged approach
 Sectoral (expert) level input gathered at EU level by established
networks/methods (Commission/EEAS sectoral networks)
 Nationally validated contributions (IPCR-specific, “Validating
Authorities” concept)
• Facilitate integration
 Develop templates and encourage their use
 But do not impose (better to have input not in line with the template
than no input)
 Anticipate => questionnaires (structured information collection)
• Deal with the elephant in the room
 Define the governance, define the methodology (integration, validation)

16. Q3: How can international crisis management exercises be
useful to improve sense-making processes and policy
coordination across national boundaries?
• Promote ownership
• Build and test the feedback loop
– Integration of IPCR dimension in national process
– Use IPCR exercise at will for national purposes
• Evaluation guidelines: promote 360°assessment
– What did we learn, what did you learn
• Transparency – Information hub
– IPCR Web Platform => repository for inputs from all MS, match the
level of info/access to the level of responsibility, access to same level
of information

17. The IPCR process

18. First IPCR Exercise (Dec 2014)
• Based on Cyber Europe 2014 (piggybacking)
• Discussion based Exercise focusing on IPCR process/procedures
(political/strategic level)
• Crisis of multiple dimensions (energy, economic, social, trade,
security, etc.) - Escalation to political level
• Need for a common understanding on the stakes and priorities, and
on action to take in several policy areas
• Need for a coherent EU political response, encompassing all
relevant dimensions
• IPCR arrangements activated by the Presidency upon request from
the affected MS => short-term response and medium to long-term
(sustainable) solutions need to be envisaged…

19. • For more information :
– contact the IPCR Secretariat :
IPCR@consilium.europa.eu
– IPCR flyer
– IPCR Web Platform: access granted by each
Managing Authority
https://IPCR.consilium.europa.eu