1. Emergency Preparedness of Estonia Case Study of Performance Audit National Audit Office of Estonia Alina Undrits

2. The purpose of the audit was to assess the preparedness for high likelihood and serious consequences of emergencies The audit covered four emergencies: bird flu, influenza pandemic, extensive marine pollution, accident in the transportation of dangerous chemicals.

3. The purpose of the audit was to assess the functioning of the emergency preparedness system arrangements for emergency prevention, preparations for emergencies. E preparedness = E prevention + Preparations for an E (risk assessment and (A contingency plan and risk reduction measures) resources for fulfilling the plan)

4. A state is ready for an emergency if it has been identified where, why and when an emergency may occur; a justified assessment of the likelihood and the extent of the consequences of an emergency has been made; all risks requiring management have been reduced; a contingency plan which specifies a clear chain of management and determines the roles of all parties involved and all resources has been made for responding to an emergency (in the case of a threat/danger); preconditions for implementing the plan have been created by ensuring the existence/availability of the required resources and conducting training events and exercises.

5. The assessment of emergency preparedness In spite of the serious and recognizable efforts of the ministries, Estonia is not ready for emergencies resulting from bird flu, influenza pandemic, extensive marine pollution or transportation accidents involving dangerous chemicals. The preparedness for bird flu can be achieved with rather little effort and time. The preparedness for an influenza pandemic takes more effort and time. The preparedness for extensive marine pollution was not at the required level at the end of the audit. The preparedness for an emergency resulting from a transportation accident involving dangerous chemicals is inadequate.

6. The assessment of the emergency preparedness arrangements The emergency preparedness arrangements are inefficient because they do not support preparing a quality risk assessment or a contingency plan allowing for quick resolution of an emergency and the creation of the prerequisites necessary for fulfilling the plan. Diffusion of responsibilities within ministries weakens the readiness to deal with emergency situations; There is no general overview of the resources which are necessary for implementing of a contingency plan; There is no complete overview of emergency preparedness; The state has no idea the preparedness for which emergencies need most attention and for which to first allocate money.

7. Recommendations Recommendations to the Minister of the Interior as regards making emergency preparedness arrangements more efficient by adding the following principles to the Emergency Preparedness Act (EPA) and other legal acts on crisis management. Recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Social Affairs, Minister of the Interior for improving preparedness for an emergency resulting from an infectious animal disease, an influenza pandemic, extensive marine pollution and a transportataion accident involving dangerous chemicals.

8. Nobody has been made responsible for emergency preparedness and emergency response 1. Depending on an emergency, a leading ministry should be appointed and that ministry should be responsible for emergency preparedness and emergency response management. The leading ministry has to have the powers, resources and support from the parties involved which all are necessary for fulfilling this role. An alternative would be to appoint the Ministry of the Interior the leading ministry for all emergencies.

9. Nobody has been made responsible for population evacuation arrangements 2. An entity responsible for population evacuation should be appointed and that entity should carry out an analysis of the need to evacuate in the case of an emergency and draw up the respective evacuation plan which includes: evacuation arrangements (duties of all parties involved, including the ministries), places where people would be evacuated and the existence of required conditions in these places, transportation needs, protection of the property of evacuees, etc.

10. No complete risk assessment is carried out 3. The leading ministry should carry out a comprehensive risk assessment, which is necessary for planning emergency preparedness, and a risk description/assessment form which contains a comprehensive overview of all implemented risk reduction measures, their efficacy and costs from one side and measures which need to be implemented and their approximate costs from the other which would allow for their effect to be taken into account in assessing an emergency.

11. No complete overview is given of emergency preparedness 4. The leading ministry should draw up a complete overview of emergency preparedness. For this purpose the involved ministries and counties should forward information on emergency preparedness (incl. risk assessments, crisis management plans) to the leading ministry. 5. Periodic analyses of preparedness should be carried out to find out the shortcomings in order to constantly increase the level of emergency preparedness of the state.

12. Proper risk reduction measures are not planned and implemented 6. The leading ministry should link making a risk assessment of an emergency with the development plans of the ministries and the budget so it is possible to improve planning and implementation of actions necessary for risk reduction.

13. No systematic risk management decisions are made 7. Emergencies should be prioritised for each year on the basis of the assessments given in the summary of risk assessments of the ministries and financing for ensuring preparedness for the top priority emergency (i.e. risk reduction plan) should be planned in the state budget.

14. There are some differences between the Emergency Preparedness Act and special acts 8. In managing response activities to emergencies regulated by special acts (Infectious Animal Disease Control Act, Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Act) the control committees should function as crisis management teams.

15. No complete plan is prepared 9. The leading ministry should draw up a comprehensive contingency plan which should contain a clear chain of management as regards emergency response, specify the roles of all parties involved and cover all resources necessary for emergency response.

16. There is no general overview of the resources necessary for implementing the plan 10. The leading ministry should ensure the existence and availability of the resources required for emergency resolution: it should prepare a comprehensive overview of necessary, existing and missing, but required resources, draw up a plan for long-term investments into acquiring the missing resources and organise coordinated procurement of missing, but required resources, e.g. personal protective equipment.

17. Not all parties involved are taken into account in training events and exercises 11. The leading ministry should draw up a plan for training events and exercises on emergency response and organise its implementation to ensure that the preparedness of the parties involved is at the adequate level.

18. Audit influence Much attention is paid to the problem and there is the change of attitude “not happend – no problem”. Making the emergency preparedness arrangements more efficient is the most important task because it will improve preparedness for all emergencies, not only for inspected emergencies. Minister of the Interior, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Social Affairs, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Economy Affairs and Communications agreed with most of the conclusions and recommendations made during the audit. During the audit and in order to solve the problems, the Ministry of the Interior has drawn up a concept for changing the legal bases for crisis management and formed an interministerial task force which should prepare the draft for the Emergency Preparedness Act Amendment Act and its derivative acts.

19. Never let the perfection become the enemy of good enough! Report is available: http://www.riigikontroll.ee/upload/failid/20033_ka_en_28.06.2007_lopp.pdf Further information: Alina Undrits Senior Auditor NAO of Estonia alina.undrits@riigikontroll.ee + 372 6400-719 or + 372 5044-174

20. Thank you for your attention!