Are State Institutions prepared for Emergencies?

In Lithuania, the number of events which may result in emergency situations is growing. Such events include threats posed by natural disasters and human actions: fire, excessive rainfall, explosives, terror threats etc. Hydrometeorological services forecast that the number of emergencies resulting from natural disasters and catastrophic meteorological phenomena caused by climate change will increase in the future. Emergencies may also become more frequent due to changes in the geopolitical situation.

Audit conducted by the Supreme Audit Institution aimed at assessing the preparedness of state institutions responsible for civil protection and emergency response revealed that preparedness for emergencies is not adequate in Lithuania. More than one third of the state institutions failed to organise institution-level civil protection exercise for more than three consecutive years, while more than one fourth also failed to conduct civil protection training. Thus, a major part of state institutions have not checked their preparedness to respond to real and imminent threats for quite a while and their employees have not acquired even minimal knowledge of the actions to be taken in the event of an emergency.

In 2010, the Government established that state institutions responsible for emergency response should have fully equipped shelters; however, more than two thirds of these institutions do not have such shelters available. The main shelter designed for the operations of the State Emergency Operations Centre has not been completed yet, while the auxiliary shelter fails to meet some of the installation requirements. This poses a threat that, in the event of an emergency, for example, major chemical accident, adequate protection of persons organising its liquidation may not be ensured.

Auditors note that the institutions employ formal approach to preparedness for emergencies. At the end of 2015, a quarter of state institutions still had no emergency management plans, while these should have been drawn up in 2011. The mentioned plans should clearly define actions and measures to effectively liquidate hazard. It is difficult to expect smooth and well-coordinated work of state institutions without having a clear action plan.

Back in 2015, auditors concluded that municipal institutions also found it difficult to achieve the civil protection objectives: in the event of risk of emergency or in an actual emergency, warning sirens could be used to warn only 51.5 percent of the population and not all residents have the opportunity to receive warning messages to their mobile phones; the institutions are not adequately prepared to manage emergencies and protect the people in case of danger.

The Supreme Audit Institution presented the recommendations to the Government, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Energy and the Fire and Rescue Department which should help to ensure better preparedness for emergencies.