A Brief Discussion on NATO’s Role in Disaster Response
By Alexander Landry, Alexander Fremis, and Liam Patrick
“Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy.”
- Max Mayfield, Former Director of US National Hurricane Center
INTRODUCTION
With the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and NATO’s inherent response towards enhanced posturing on the eastern flank, there is no doubt that the upcoming Madrid Summit will heavily focus on the future of NATO in terms of the collective security perspective in Europe. However, one topic that will arise at the upcoming summit, now likely to take a sidebar to the current conflict, will be the presentation of the first Climate Change and Security progress report as a follow-up to the 2021 NATO Climate Change and Security Action Plan. As climate change will continue to emerge as a threat multiplier in the future—although NATO is currently preoccupied with the invasion of Ukraine and potential new member countries—NATO must also remain clear in its approach to the issues surrounding climate change. This article will deal with one of these consequences in particular: natural disasters and the inherent disaster response that has ultimately become increasingly required as of late.
As natural disasters continue to pose a threat to all countries in the NATO domain, certainly beyond the scope of the current Ukraine conflict, this article seeks to explore the Alliance’s current posture in dealing with disaster response. Subsequently, with this basis outlined, this article examines examples from two member nations having already faced recent disaster response requirements nationally—Canada and Spain—and how they approach disaster response nationally. In doing so, we can then ascertain how the Alliance can seek to move forward in apportioning resources and planning efforts, mostly based on the examples of its member nations, which are already committed to such activities on an internal basis.
DISASTER RESPONSE FRAMEWORK
Disaster response in its current form generally is described as responding through methods that involve coordinated, targeted, tailored, and timely reactions during the immediate happening of a disaster, or as a response to the consequences of the aforementioned event. This being said, at a time when world events occur in increasingly unpredictable and catastrophic manners, how are states able to respond within a manner that will prove to be effective? For example, events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been relatively unimaginable only three to four short years ago.
Looking briefly at the consequences within the scope of member nations, natural disasters within the Americas have taken 74,836 lives and cost US $1.7 trillion in damages, and within Europe 159,438 lives have been lost, costing US $476.5 billion in damages—only since 1974.[i] When considering that many of these natural disasters have stemmed from climate change and human causes, it is evident that they will not be subsiding anytime soon. Moreover, it must be understood that their growing complexity and consequences will continue to consistently threaten the cooperative security NATO seeks to achieve, weakening and creating fractures within the foundations that keep an alliance together either directly through how member nations are affected or indirectly in case of famine, refugee movements, inhabitable areas, etc.
NATO’S CURRENT POSTURE
As the complexities of society only heighten, NATO must continually pursue different means of protecting its member states and associated partners from potential threats. Based on the pace of climate change over the past several decades, this now includes both natural and man-made disasters that perpetually threaten cooperative security, generally in the wake of industrial progress. Accordingly, in order to maintain the balance of security and progress, existing mitigation and adaptation efforts must continue to be implemented as well as improved upon.
Within the scope of Alliance efforts, NATO has done just this in recognition of the problems we face with climate change, especially considering the vast geographical differences and the distance between member states. Stemming from the Civilian Emergency Planning Committee at the highest level, such efforts include the establishment of institutions such as the Crisis Management and Disaster Response Centre of Excellence (CMDR COE) and the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC)—two entities established to coordinate disaster response efforts among allied nations, as well as research into the improvement of such methods.
Within the scope of doctrine and research, at its core, the Crisis Management and Disaster Response Centre of Excellence is a multi-nationally funded and NATO-accredited institution that trains and educates leaders and specialists from NATO member and partner nations. Specifically, the CMDR COE is able to provide recognized expertise and experience in the functional areas of crisis management and disaster response, through the leveraging of subject-matter experts, focused research, and educational seminar—all in support of capability enhancement in recognition of Alliance priorities.[ii] Established in 2013 in Sofia, Bulgaria, then subsequently accredited by Allied Command Transformation (ACT) in 2015, the CMDR COE portfolio is broad in its topical approach, touching on items including resilience, protection of civilians, and climate change itself. Through the understanding of this array of topics within the scope of its defined spheres of disaster response and crisis management, the CMDR COE is therefore able to coordinate movement forward in matters related to NATO, while avoiding duplication of assets, resources, and capabilities already present within the NATO command structure.
On the operational side, the EADRCC pre-dates the CMDR COE by almost two decades, formed in 1998 and acting as NATO’s primary source and response mechanism for responding to disasters within NATO’s sphere of influence. Since its inception, the EADRCC has provided a coordinating system that up to 70 states, both NATO and associate nations, can and have utilized when asking for foreign assistance in response to disasters within their borders.[iii] Although this generally remains specific to the Euro-Atlantic region, the EADRCC has also previously been active in coordination of events around the world, including the evacuation of Afghan families in August 2021.[iv] A significant strength that the EADRCC leverages is its centralized ability to coordinate directly at the strategic and political levels with other multi-national organizations, namely the United Nations Office for Coordination of Human Affairs (UN OCHA).[v] Although both organizations hold mandates to coordinate and provide assistance in times of disaster and crises, the OCHA has relatively more experience as its totality of member nations far outnumbers NATO’s. Moreover, with the EADRCC, it must be underlined that states only file requests yet receive no guarantee for foreign assistance. Specifically, it is up to each NATO member to determine whether to provide assistance, varying greatly from the pronounced ideals of Article V regarding collective security and attacks on member nations.
Finally, in addition to the CMDR COE and EADRCC mentioned above, a new stakeholder is currently emerging that will play a significant role in research regarding disaster response—the Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence (CCSCOE). In 2021, the Government of Canada announced that, through engagements with NATO, Canada would be proposing the formation of the CCSCOE in support of the rapidly changing global security environment and recognition that “NATO must continue to prepare for, mitigate, and adapt to the security impacts of climate change.”[vi] With Canada itself a victim of various annually recurring natural disasters throughout its provinces, this will undoubtedly include a look at disaster response intertwined with climate change overall, which will be further discussed in terms of its national approach later in this article.
Though it is still unclear what the new CCSCOE will entail in terms of commitment from Alliance member nations, it is evident that a majority of the institution’s interest will focus on its purported key tenets of awareness, adaptation, and mitigation. With an initial proof of concept currently being circulated within the higher echelons of the NATO structure, Canada intends to have the institution at full operational capability by 2023. Nevertheless, the similarity between the already existing CMDR COE and the upcoming 2023 COE is very apparent, as both aim to provide many of the same provisions concerning disaster response. Accordingly, as proposed in previous articles by Atlantica authors, it would be beneficial for both organizations, as well as others such as the Energy Security Centre of Excellence (ENSECCOE), to collaborate with each other.[vii] Moreover, considering the fact that the COEs will originate from two different continents, different perspectives may become apparent, which would be beneficial in fostering the overall conversation on collective security and climate change. As such, with the CCSCOE promoting collaboration, it only seems natural to allow both domestic and international collaboration to occur; the CMDR COE already provides a basis for educating and implementing forms of disaster response. Thus, the CCSCOE can further develop the ideas already present and potentially implement strategies used, and vice versa, with organizations such as the CMDR COE, ENSEC COE, and EADRCC.
Overall, as a review specifically of the NATO Climate Change and Security Action Plan’s objectives, the Alliance’s goals remain to increase Allied awareness, adapt to climate change, contribute to the mitigation of climate change, enhance outreach, and track progress.[viii] With the first Climate Change and Security Progress Report set to be delivered at the 2022 Madrid Summit, it remains clear that it is the above institutions that will continue to assume leadership roles within the basis of climate change and disaster relief. This will also include playing a large part in the future of the Climate and Security Action Plan and potentially any future Strategic Concepts concerning disaster response. Next, we will briefly touch on two examples of member nations’ efforts to ascertain potential key strategies moving forward for the Alliance as a whole in this domain.
MEMBER NATION APPROACH – CANADA
Looking now at member nation approaches on a national level, it is important to understand the mechanisms in place within member states of the Alliance, as they can potentially feed into the overall discussion taking place on the future of NATO within the scope of disaster response.
As a member nation, Canada has internally dealt with the effects of climate change in the forms of floods and fires for the past decade, repeatedly seeing its military committed to disaster relief efforts as a result. This has only strengthened Canada’s resolve in the face of climate change, now having normalized disaster response as one of the mandates for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in the form of domestic operations in aid to civil authorities, named Operation LENTUS. The CAF was also heavily involved in the Government of Canada’s response to the COVID-19 crisis through Operation LASER and Operation VECTOR. These operations as well as others have allowed the CAF to significantly contribute to the wellbeing of Canadians. Furthermore, these operations also carry the added benefit of allowing the CAF an opportunity to foster a positive public image: the latter being crucially important given that the Canadian public is generally apathetic towards matters of defense and security.[ix]
While the CAF has proven itself as a relatively effective instrument for conducting these operations, doing so comes with several drawbacks. Firstly, extended disaster assistance operations require large numbers of personnel to conduct as well as equally large numbers of personnel performing critical supporting functions. In fact, Canadian senior military leadership has previously remarked that dedicating these personnel to support civil requests for disaster assistance has put increased strain on the military to meet its other operational mandates. This is especially true for critical force generation and training activities such as the annual confirmation event Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE. As an annual brigade-level certification exercise, MAPLE RESOLVE is a critical component of the CAF’s routine force generation activities. However, coincidentally taking place at the same time as flood season in the spring of each year, maintaining enough personnel to simultaneously respond to potential disaster assistance operations and participate in critical training such as MAPLE RESOLVE has proven to be a challenge for the CAF over the past few years.[x]
Ultimately, Canada has proven proficient in its use of armed forces for disaster response domestically. Conversely, questions remain as to the place of the armed forces in assisting civil authorities responding to disasters. That is to say that while the CAF serves as the ultimate guarantor of Canadian sovereignty, and as such is able to conduct any type of operation, responsibility for public safety is held at the provincial level in Canada. Relating back to the Alliance, given the previously discussed challenges in balancing assistance to civil authorities and military readiness for the purposes of collective security, leveraging military forces to respond to natural disasters does not come without drawbacks. With the increasing severity and frequency of natural disasters caused by global warming, discussions around how states respond to natural disasters will only become more intense in the years to come.
MEMBER NATION APPROACH – SPAIN
Understanding the delicate balance required between maintaining military capabilities in terms of readiness while also being prepared for domestic responses to disasters, NATO member nation Spain sough to separate the two in 2005 with the creation of the Unidad Military de Emergencias or Spanish Emergency Military Unit (UME).[xi]
Consisting of 3,500 military personnel specially trained for emergency response missions, the unit spreads five battalions across the nation that are capable of flexible and rapid response. Its mandate is to contribute to military action requested by the government for national emergencies, or in support of Spain’s regions and cities, a task that falls on the Armed Forces as a whole as part of the Spanish National Defence Act. The guiding concept underpinning UME deployments is its capability to reach any region within mainland Spain in less than four hours, ultimately allowing for a surge of local capabilities on a rapid basis throughout the nation. With a structure that includes its own training centers, formation commanders, and exercise mandates, the UME remains a standalone entity, which ultimately allows it flexibility yet focus in ensuring its competency with the tasks at hand. In contrast to the duties of the CAF detailed above, no balance is required in terms of mandates, as the UME maintains the sole purpose of emergency and disaster response.
Internationally speaking, the UME has also deployed on various relief missions as a part of the European Union’s civil protection mechanisms (coordinated by the EADRCC), as well as in support of UN humanitarian assistance missions. These include areas such as Nepal, Haiti, Ecuador, and Greece. Of note, Canada has also provided assistance on such missions through the leveraging of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART); however, the distinguishing factor here is that the DART in Canada generally stems from a surge of units, whereas the UME deploys as separate and whole entities tailored to the required response.
Overall, the UME currently enjoys broad popularity in Spanish society, which has been able to appreciate its specific attributes within the military service, as well as the support it provides. Relating once more to the Alliance, it is clear that drawbacks do exist in needing to maintain such capabilities, specifically when coordinating them on an international basis. However, it is clear from the UME example that there are also many benefits to having a dedicated force structure for this specific task. These include the ability to maintain competency at the highest level within its specific capabilities as well as the size of the response available in one entity (similar to the Warfighting Corps or NATO Response Force concepts) versus the need to surge from different units such as is done currently for disaster response.
CONCLUSION
Looking back, it was Max Mayfield, former director of the US National Hurricane Center between 2000 and 2007, that stated “preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy.” Having been at the helm of one of the key institutions involved with the US response to the infamous Hurricane Katrina, those words from Mayfield resonate loudly, particularly now in times of crisis, where NATO seems reinvigorated by Russian aggression on its eastern flank. Accordingly, as NATO moves forward with future strategic concepts, it is clear that climate change and disaster response will remain present as threats to be addressed, not only by member nations but also by the Alliance as a whole.
Through the leveraging of its current institutions such as the CMDR COE and EADRCC as well as through the establishment of the CCSCOE, NATO can seek to intertwine its efforts in a focused manner towards ensuring efficient application of its resources moving forward within the scope of both disaster response and climate security. Moreover, taking notes from how its member nations conduct their own disaster response efforts domestically, the Alliance must continue to seek methods to enhance awareness, adaptation, and mitigation of climate change—either through potential creation of secondary mandates such as in Canada or the apportionment of actual force entities such as within Spain.
In essence, it is clear that NATO recognizes the threat climate change poses, actively addressing secondary consequences such as disaster response. Although it is unlikely that threats by man-made or natural disasters will garner the importance of other threats such as those contained within Article V any time soon, responses to them remain foundational to continued “preparation through education”, ultimately avoiding “learning through tragedy” while continuing to enhance cooperative security moving forward.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Captain Alexander Landry, P.Eng, PMP is a Canadian military engineering officer currently serving within the Engineering Division at NATO Allied Land Command. He has experience on operational deployments both domestically for natural disaster response in Canada, and within an expeditionary setting in Ukraine. He currently writes for various professional journals with topics centering of future security issues concerning both Canada and NATO, also volunteering as the Strategic Initiatives Specialist for the Canadian Journal of Emergency Management.
Captain Alexander Fremis, PMP currently serves as an Officer in the Canadian Army. Previously, he served internationally as a part of NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup Latvia, as well as on domestic operations within Canada in disaster assistance. He is currently a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University pursuing a Master of Public Safety specializing in National Security, also volunteering as the Managing Editor for the Canadian Journal of Emergency Management.
Liam Patrick is a Canadian Political Sciences student at the University of Manitoba. With interests stemming from international affairs to domestic policy regarding security, he has previously published with NATO Allied Land Command’s Land Power magazine concerning security in the Black Sea Region.
**The opinions expressed in this work are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization(s) affiliated with them.
NOTES
[i] Daniel Pavlinovic, “Climate and weather related disasters surge five-fold over 50 years, but early warnings save lives – WMO report”, UN News, 1 September 2021, accessed 4 May 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662.
[ii] CMDR COE, “About Us”, n.d., accessed 4 May 2022, https://www.cmdrcoe.org/menu.php?m_id=18.
[iii] Andrzej Jacuch, “NATO’s Involvement in Humanitarian Operations and Disaster Response”, Defence Science Review, 10 October 2017, accessed 4 May 2022, http://www.defencesciencereview.com.pl/NATO-S-INVOLVEMENT-IN-HUMANITARIAN-OPERATIONS-DISASTER-RESPONSE,119559,0,2.html.
[iv] NATO, “Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre”, 20 September 2021, accessed 4 May 2022, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52057.htm#:~:text=The%20Euro%2DAtlantic%20Disaster%20Response,NATO%20Allies%20and%20partner%20countries.
[v] NATO, “NATO’s Role in Disaster Response”, May 2021, accessed 4 May 2022, https://www.nato.int/eadrcc/mcda-e.pdf.
[vi] Office of the Prime Minister, “Strengthening Translatlantic Defence and Security”, 14 June 2021, accessed 2 May 2022, https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2021/06/14/strengthening-transatlantic-defence-and-security.
[vii] Christensen and Landry, “The Climate and Security Centre of Excellence – Canada’s Opportunity for Climate Security Leadership”, Atlantica, 10 March 2022, accessed 4 May 2022, https://www.atlantic-forum.com/atlantica/zlp5x0djko93j8g1q0kwglhdo34i94.
[viii] NATO, “NATO Climate Change and Security Action Plan”, 14 June 2021, accessed 4 May 2022.
[ix] Murray Brewster, “Military is off the radar of most Canadians: DND poll”, CBC News, 20 July 2018, accessed 5 May 2022, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dnd-canadians-military-poll-1.4754083.
[x] Lee Berthiaume, “Growing need for army during natural disasters “could affect readiness”: commander“ The Canadian Press, 20 January 2020, accessed 5 May 2022, https://globalnews.ca/news/6435390/canada-army-natural-disaster-response/.
[xi] LTC Llopart & LTC Garcia, “The Spanish Emergency Military Unit (Unidad Militar de Emergencias) –The Government’s Special Emergency Tool”, Consor Seguros, Edition 14 Spring 2021, https://www.consorsegurosdigital.com/en/numero-14/front-page/the-spanish-emergency-military-unit-unidad-militar-de-emergencias-the-goverments-special-emergency-tool.
