Priešgaisrinių ir gelbėjimo pajėgų organizavimas Lietuvoje bei Estijoje

LTStraipsnyje analizuojami Lietuvos ir Estijos priešgaisrinių bei gelbėjimo pajėgų organizavimo modeliai. Priešgaisrinių ir gelbėjimo pajėgų organizavimo modelių Lietuvoje bei Estijoje palyginimas vertingas tuo, kad abiejų šalių panašios istorinės ir regioninės sąlygos, bet skiriasi požiūriai į tam tikras administracines praktikas. Nagrinėjant Lietuvos ir Estijos modelius siekiama palyginti šių šalių sistemas ir išryškinti jų skirtumus bei privalumus. Analizuojamos abiejų šalių teisinės bazės, veiklos struktūros ir organizaciniai gaisrų gesinimo bei gelbėjimo operacijų ir pasirengimo joms sprendimai. Straipsnyje aptariami valstybinių, savivaldos ir savanoriškų tarnybų veiklos aspektai, pajėgų pasirengimas ekstremalioms situacijoms, vertinamos techninių ir žmogiškųjų išteklių paskirstymo galimybės. Lyginamoji analizė atskleidžia skirtingą organizacinių modelių poveikį veiklos efektyvumui ir viešajam saugumui. Tyrimo rezultatai gali būti naudingi siekiant tobulinti priešgaisrinės apsaugos ir skirtingą organizacinių modelių poveikį veiklos efektyvumui ir viešajam gelbėjimo tarnybos veiklos organizavimui, siekiant veiksmingo tarptautinio bendradarbiavimo Baltijos šalyse. PAGRINDINIAI ŽODŽIAI: Lietuvos ir Estijos modeliai, priešgaisrinės ir gelbėjimo pajėgos.

ENThis article examines the organisational and operational structures of fire and rescue services (FRS) in Estonia and Lithuania, highlighting the advantages of centralisation and the integration of volunteer firefighters. Estonia’s FRS has undergone substantial recentralisation, streamlining resources and enhancing operational efficiency, particularly in rural areas. The centralisation effort enables the Rescue Board to coordinate effectively across regions, employing standardised methodologies tailored to local risks. A key tool, the Rescue Teams’ Risk Assessment Methodology, ensures that resources are deployed optimally, addressing specific regional needs and maintaining high standards of service. Notably, Estonia ensures that fire and rescue services reach 90% of the country within 15 minutes, demonstrating the effectiveness of its centralised system. In contrast, Lithuania employs a mixed model, dividing responsibilities between state and municipal services. This model often results in challenges, such as fragmented coordination, inconsistent resource allocation, and unclear operational standards. While offering flexibility, Lithuania’s mixed approach leads to inefficiencies in equipment supply, service delivery and strategic alignment. These challenges are compounded by a decline in volunteer firefighter numbers, raising concerns about long-term sustainability and effectiveness. Estonia’s success is partly attributed to its robust volunteer firefighter network, supported by systematic funding and incentive programmes. Volunteers play an essential role in remote areas, reducing costs while maintaining comprehensive coverage. This approach allows Estonia to allocate resources efficiently, directing savings towards improving professional firefighters’ salaries and upgrading equipment.External service contracts also enhance flexibility and cost-effectiveness, providing additional opportunities for optimisation. Lithuania could benefit from similar measures, such as expanding its volunteer network and implementing better support mechanisms for volunteers. Furthermore, Lithuania faces the challenge of reconciling the coexistence of its state fire service and municipal services. Efforts to address these issues include pilot programmes like the integration of six municipal teams into the state system. While this approach improves training, preparedness and resource allocation, the cost of maintaining such structures remains high. A more cost-effective solution might involve leveraging a stronger volunteer base, as in Estonia, and establishing clearer guidelines for collaboration between municipal and state services. The article concludes that adopting elements of Estonia’s centralised model could significantly improve Lithuania’s FRS. Greater integration between state and municipal services, standardised risk-based resource deployment, and enhanced volunteer recruitment, are key areas for development. These changes would not only increase cost efficiency and service reach, but also build public trust in FRS operations. Additionally, both countries face challenges in volunteer motivation and retention, making this an important area for future research, to ensure the sustainability of their fire and rescue systems. KEY WORDS: fire and rescue services, Lithuanian and Estonian models.

• Development of performance management reforms in Lithuanian public sector. Baltic journal of law & politics 2013, 6, 2, 50-74.
• Lietuvos valstybės tarnybos reforma 2004–2018 m. – europeizacijos aspektas.. Regional formation and development studies 2019, 1 (27), 70-78.
• Lietuvos viešojo valdymo reformų institucinė sandara 2009–2012 m.. Regional formation and development studies 2015, 1 (15), 36-46.