EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 26.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1242 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
accompanying document to the Communication  
"Towards a stronger European disaster resp onse: the role of civil protection and 
humanitarian assistance" 
 
COM(2010)600 
SEC(2010)1243  
. 
EN    EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
2. Procedural Issues and External Consultati on with Member States and Stakeholders . 4 
2.1. Internal preparation ...................................................................................................... 4 
2.2. External expertise........................................................................................................ .5  
2.3. External consultation with Member States and stakeholders....................................... 5 2.4. Key points emerging from Me mber State consultations.............................................. 6 
2.4.1. Civil Protection ........................................................................................................ .... 6 
2.4.2. Humanitarian Aid........................................................................................................ .6  
2.5. Key points emerging from the stak eholder consultation meeting................................ 7 
3. Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Scene setter: The increasing freque ncy and severity of disasters ................................ 8 
3.2. Existing EU instruments for Disaster Response ........................................................ 10 3.2.1. EU Humanitarian Assistance ..................................................................................... 10 3.2.2. The EU Civil Protection Mechanism ......................................................................... 10 3.2.3. Military Assets ......................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.3. Problem definition: What is the nature , the scale and the underlying causes of the 
problem?..................................................................................................................... 12  
3.4. The Baseline Scenario: No policy change scenario? ................................................. 14 3.5. Subsidiarity .............................................................................................................. .. 15 
4. Policy Objectives ....................................................................................................... 16 4.1. Improving the effectiveness of EU Disaster  Response, including cost-effectiveness17 
4.2. Strengthening the coherence of EU Disaster Response ............................................. 17 
4.3. Increasing visibility.................................................................................................... 1 7 
5. Policy Options............................................................................................................ 18  
5.1. Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies.................................................................. 18 
5.2. Option 2: Maintaining the status quo......................................................................... 18 
5.3. Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based on a voluntary pool 
of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and assets)......................... 18 
5.4. Option 4:  Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity with EU-level assets ...... 19 
5.5. Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force.................................... 21 5.6. Preliminary screening of the options.......................................................................... 21 5.6.1. Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies.................................................................. 21 5.6.2. Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force.................................... 21 6. Proportionate Impact Analysis................................................................................... 22 6.1. Economic impacts of Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based 
on a voluntary pool of Member States' st andby capacities (human resources and 
assets) ........................................................................................................................ . 23 
6.2. Economic impacts of Option 4: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity with 
EU-level assets........................................................................................................... 24 
6.3. Social Impacts ............................................................................................................ 25 
6.4. Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 26 7. Comparing Options .................................................................................................... 26 7.1. Option 2: Maintaining the status quo......................................................................... 26 7.2. Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based on a voluntary pool 
of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and assets)......................... 27 
7.3. Option 4: Developing an EU  Disaster Response Capacity with EU-level assets ...... 27 
7.4. Conclusion: a hybrid proposal ?................................................................................. 29 8. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 30 
EN    EN  
1. INTRODUCTION  
The 2010 Haiti earthquake is a trag ic reminder of the importance of being able to respond to 
disasters swiftly, coherently and effectively. It has provided impet us to explore ways in which 
the EU's Disaster Response Capacity could be reinforced. The possibility of developments in 
this field has also recently b een boosted by the inclus ion of two closely linked constituencies, 
i.e. Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid, into  the portfolio of a single Commissioner. This 
administrative novelty will benefit existing syne rgies and complementarities and provide a 
new basis for the development of a more robu st and coherent approach to EU disaster 
response. 
In addition to the above, expectations in the field of EU Disaster Response1 have grown 
following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Civ il Protection has been granted an explicit 
legal basis by Article 196 TFEU which foresees that the ordinary legi slative procedure will 
apply to this area in future, replacing decisi ons by unanimity and mere consultation of the 
European Parliament. The treaty also contains , for the first time, a specific article on 
Humanitarian Aid (Article 214 TFEU) which recogni ses its status as a self-standing European 
policy area alongside othe r policies in the external relati ons field (development, trade, 
economic cooperation with third c ountries). In addition, the soli darity clause enshrined in 
Article 222 TFEU calls on Member States to  act jointly and the EU to mobilise all 
instruments at its disposal in order to res pond to natural and man-ma de disasters. Although it 
is still unclear how the arrangements for the implementation of the latter article will be 
formulated, it is unquestionable that it adds  to the political dr ive in this area. 
It is against this background that the Commission intends to  present a Communication on EU 
Disaster Response Capacity in November 201 0. In terms of substance, the Communication 
will outline ways in which the EU's  immediate response to disasters2 could be strengthened, 
whilst ensuring due regard for th e principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The main 
objective will be to improve effectiveness (rap idity of deployment and appropriateness of 
action), coherence (operational and political coordination) and visi bility, by building upon 
three components of the EU's response to disast ers (i.e. humanitarian aid and civil protection3, 
as well as military support wh ere needed and appropriate).  
The Communication will address both natural a nd man-made disasters (i.e. technological 
and/or environmental) inside and outside the EU, except for armed conflicts (complex 
                                                 
1 According to the Special Eurobarometer 328 on Civil Protection, published in November 2009, there is 
a remarkable degree of consensus (roughly 90%) that the EU should do more to provide support for its 
member states in the various fields of disaster management. An overwhelming majority of European respondents surveyed (91%) also believe that the EU should assist volunteer organisations in their 
respective countries. The full report is available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opini on/archives/ebs/ebs_328_en.pdf . 
2 A disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or 
society and causes human, material , and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s 
or society’s ability to cope using its own resources. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have 
human origins (IFRC definition). This does not in clude armed conflicts/complex emergencies – see 
footnote 5 infra . 
3 This is in line with the 2007 European Consensus on Humanitarian aid which provides an explicit 
declaration of the shared objectives and principles that underpi n EU Humanitarian Aid and underlines 
the need for complementarities between civil protection and humanitarian aid in responding to disasters. 
EN    EN emergencies)4, and will focus on the response phase. Although prevention and preparedness 
will not expressly be covered, a key assumpti on behind the preparation of the Communication 
will be the need for a balanced approach and for equal progress in terms of enhancing prevention, preparedness/Disaster Risk Reduc tion and reinforcing response capacity. The 
Communication will therefore encourage the further development of disaster prevention and preparedness at European, national and intern ational level, along the lines set out in the 
Commission's 2009 Communications
5. 
This impact assessment aims to provide the Commission with the information necessary in 
order to develop the aforementioned Communicati on. In particular, this report is intended to 
inform the Commission of the viability of a range of policy options that may be further 
explored for developing the EU's response to disaster inside and outside the EU. The report 
only commits the Commission services involved in  preparing it, should serve as a basis for 
discussion, and does not prejudge the final Commission decision. 
It should be noted that the assessment carried out herein is not intended to be exhaustive. On 
the contrary, the analysis undertaken is pr oportional to the ends sought. Given that the 
Communication will not propose so lutions but merely present options for further developing 
EU Disaster Response Capacity , possibly flagging the preferre d alternative, a full impact 
assessment does not appear necessary or require d at this stage. When, and if, concrete 
legislative proposals are advanced, these will need to be accompanied by a more in-depth 
impact assessment of the chosen options. 
Moreover, this report focuses primarily on those elements of the Communication where 
specific impacts can be identified  and which therefore require an impact assessment, i.e. the 
new policy options and different ways to or ganise and structure EU civil protection 
cooperation. It should be noted that the upcoming Communication will also deal with 
synergies with Humanitarian assistance but, give n that the latter will only result in policy 
statements on the need to reinforce existin g EU practice and policy, a specific impact 
assessment does not appear necessary for these issues. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION WITH MEMBER STATES 
AND STAKEHOLDERS  
2.1. Internal preparation 
Work on the impact assessment began in earl y 2010 with internal discussions within DG 
ECHO. Furthermore, an Impact Assessmen t Steering Group, comprising experts from 
                                                 
4 In UN terminology, armed conflicts are also referred to as "complex emergencies", i.e. "a humanitarian 
crisis in a country, region or so ciety where there is a total or co nsiderable breakdown of authority 
resulting from internal or external conflict  which requires an international response that goes beyond 
the mandate or capacity f any single agency and/or the ongoing UN country programme" (Guidelines on 
the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in 
Complex Emergencies – MCDA Guidelines). 
5 The Communication on a Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters 
(COM(2009)82final) and on an EU Strategy on supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries (COM(2009)84final), and the related Co uncil Conclusions adopted in November 2009, 
already set out the framework for an ambitious prevention agenda inside the EU and an ambitious DRR 
agenda for developing countries. 
EN    EN relevant Directorates-General6, was set up in order to ensure coordination amongst the 
different Commission services and provide political, techni cal and drafting advice. The 
Steering Group was involved in all pha ses of the Impact Assessment. 
A draft version of the Impact Assessment Report was submitted to the Impact Assessment 
Board at the end of July 2010. The Bo ard discussed the report on the 8th of September 2010 
and subsequently issued an Opinion. Beside s generally approving the Impact Assessment 
Report, the Board's Opinion contained commen ts and suggestions aimed at clarifying and 
developing it. The report has been finalised accordingly. 
2.2. External expertise 
The drafting of this Impact Assessment Report has benefitted from the data and conclusions 
enshrined in an independent exte rnal "Study on assessing  costs and benefits of various options 
related to the development of the EU disaster  response capacity". The report was drafted by a 
consultant specialised in assessments, i. e. the European Policy Evaluation Consortium 
(EPEC), and is available for consultation at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civi l_protection/civil/index.htm
. 
Close contacts with the consulta nt throughout the drafting of the IA report also meant that the 
Commission was able to draw upon EPEC's expertis e with regard to spec ific economic issues. 
Advice and assistance provided by EPEC prove d extremely useful and insightful.  
2.3. External consultation with Member States and stakeholders 
In a meeting on 10-11 June 2010, the Directors-Ge neral for Civil Protection of the European 
Union were asked to provide informal comment s on an issues paper detailing the options 
pertaining to civil protection wh ich are being considered for inclusion in the Communication 
on EU Disaster Response Capacity. An inform al meeting with EU heads for Humanitarian 
Aid was also held on 8 July 2010 to seek f eedback on issues relating to humanitarian aid 
outside the EU, which are to be inco rporated in the upcoming Communication7. 
Moreover, all stakeholders were invited to pa rticipate in a stakeholder consultation meeting 
held on the 22nd of July 2010 in Brussels8. Stakeholders were asked to comment on a 
consultation paper, circulated prior to the mee ting, dealing with all the aspects likely to be 
included or affected by the pl anned Communication on EU Disa ster Response Capacity. In 
total, the meeting brought toge ther over 130 representatives fro m Member States (covering all 
actors involved in the response to disasters – i.e. humanitarian aid, civil protection and 
military), international orga nisations, NGOs, research and industry. A public internet 
consultation was not deemed appropriate given the specialist nature of the subject-matter. 
                                                 
6 SG, SJ, BUDG, JLS, ENV, CLIM, RTD, JRC, MOVE, ENER, REGIO, R ELEX, DEV, SANCO, AGRI 
ENTR, INFSO, ELARG, AIDCO, MARE, HOME, JUST, ENER. 
7 In parallel, complementary discussions took place in the Foreign Affairs Counc il, the Informal Meeting 
of Defence Policy Directors, and in the Political and Security Committee on the basis of a joint paper of 
the High Representative and Commissioner Georgieva on the Lessons Learned from the EU Response 
to the Haiti Earthquake. While these discussions focu sed on the response to one particular emergency 
outside the EU, it included similar reflections on the need to strengthen the EU capacity to respond to external disasters. The key issues for discussion in this debate were also effectiveness, coherence and 
visibility. 
8 The meeting report is provided in Annex 1. 
EN    EN Whilst the most substantial stakeholder comments are reflected throughout the Impact 
Assessment (e.g. training, exerci ses, lessons learnt, the role  of the UN, voluntary pool, EU-
funded assets, TAST, the need for the EU to  focus on prevention/preparedness as well as 
response), comments deemed to be self evident (e.g. the need to build on existing instruments) 
have not been included. In this context, it should also be not ed that some comments which are 
not relevant to the Impact Asse ssment will be the obj ect of policy statements in the planned 
Communication (e.g. military support, prepos itioning, consular issues, common needs 
assessments)9. 
2.4. Key points emerging from Member State consultations 
2.4.1.  Civil Protection 
The following should be noted with regard to  the consultations undertaken with Member 
States' civil protection authorities: 
- Quasi-unanimity with regard to the need to strengthen the Mon itoring and Information 
Centre of the European Commission10 in terms of coordination and analytical capacity; 
- There was active support for enhanced planni ng (development of reference scenarios and 
contingency plans) and logistics (i.e. system atic use of Technical Assistance and Support 
Teams -TAST- and exploring contractual ar rangements to have TAST on standby);  
- There was support for exploring ways to simplify and enhance the current funding 
arrangements for transport; 
- There was an openness to discuss the possibility of developing a voluntary pool of pre-
committed assets;  
- There was "moderate caution" with regard to  the development of EU funded capabilities 
necessary to fill gaps in EU  Disaster Response Capacity; 
- Several Member States highlighted the importance of civil-military coordination.  
2.4.2.  Humanitarian Aid 
The following should be noted with regard to consultations undertaken with Member States' 
Humanitarian Aid actors: 
- All actors agreed that maximising the synergies and complementarities 
between Humanitarian Aid and Civ il Protection will entail benefits; 
- There was a general willingness to further st rengthen EU cooperation and coordination in 
the area of humanitarian aid building on the 2007 European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, 
provided that the UN's overall coordi nating role is fully respected; 
- Reluctance was expressed with regard to the creation of new structur es in the area of EU 
disaster response; 
                                                 
9 Comments dealing with issues outsid e the scope of the Impact Assessment and the Communication 
have not been tackled. 
10 See below, section 3.2.2. 
EN    EN - Regarding the option of an EU system of pr epositioning/stockpiling of relief assets, strong 
support was expressed for the work undert aken in this area by Humanitarian 
Aid organisations such as the UN World Food Pr ogramme (herein WFP) and the International 
Federation of the Red Cross (herein IFRC). Most  actors stressed that the EU's main role 
should consist in continued support to these stru ctures and that duplica tion of efforts should 
be avoided; 
- Most actors acknowledged the usefulness of  military support to EU disaster response 
in exceptional circumstances, subject to applicable international guidelines; 
- The need for all future arrangements to be  as cost-effective as possible was emphasized. 
2.5. Key points emerging from the st akeholder consultation meeting 
Discussions focused on the content of the consul tation document circulated in early July. The 
following issues emerged:  
- There was wide consensus amongst stakeholders on the need to reinforce the EU's disaster 
response capacity. Stakeholders agreed that th ere is scope for improving the systems for EU 
Civil Protection and EU humanitarian assistance  notwithstanding the fact that these systems 
work well and are delivering results in line with their current mandates; 
- In strengthening the EU's Disaster Response Capacity the EU should build on existing tools 
and instruments, avoiding duplications. Future  developments should be needs-driven and 
cost-effective and should aim to en sure the effectiveness, coheren ce, and visibility of the EU's 
response to disasters; 
- There was general support for the need to lin k actors and instruments involved in disaster 
response, simultaneously ensuring that ro les and mandates are clearly defined; 
- Most stakeholders acknowledged the need to develop the analytical and coordination 
capacity of the Monitoring and Information Centre; 
- The need to develop training initiatives in the area of di saster response was flagged by 
numerous stakeholders. It was suggested that such initiatives could bui ld upon the EU Civil 
Protection Training Programme t hus avoiding the creation of  new structures. Training 
possibilities should be open to all releva nt actors; 
- There was general support for the overall coordinating role of the UN outside the EU and 
stakeholders underlined the need for EU assist ance to be compatible with the UN cluster 
system; 
- Several Member States expre ssed their openness to the idea of a voluntary pool of key 
Member States' assets on standby for immediate deployment in EU operations. In this context, 
the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be  respected and for arrange ments to be genuinely 
voluntary and based on existing national capacities wa s underlined. Stake holders also noted 
that the circumstances in which Member States could refuse to deploy assets committed to the pool should remain relatively broad. The po ssibility of obtaining EU  co-funding for Member 
States' assets committed to the pool was raised; 
EN    EN - Reluctance was expressed with regard to the development of complementary EU-level 
assets. However, some stakeholders underlined the usefulness of certain  arrangements tested 
via the pilot project on the EU Forest Fire-fighting Tactical Reserve; 
- Stakeholders were opposed to the development of  an EU system for pr epositioning of relief 
items but welcomed continued su pport to the activities carried out by partner organisations 
such as WFP and IFRC; 
- Commission co-funding in the area of transport was strongly welcomed but it was suggested 
that administrative procedures s hould be simplified a nd co-financing rates c ould be increased. 
Most Stakeholders argued that  co-financing rates should not be linked to the level of pre-
commitment of assets; 
- It was generally acknowledged that Techni cal Assistance and S upport Teams (TAST) are 
useful for facilitating logistics arrangements during emergencies. The possibility of widening 
the TAST mandate was proposed; 
- Stakeholders agreed that military capacities can play an important role in supplementing 
civil protection and humanitarian assistance in disaster relief and that it is important to 
explore how the use of military assets in disa ster response can be made more effective and 
predictable. It was suggested that efforts s hould be made to define gaps where military 
capacity could provide added value. Nonetheless, any future use of military assets and capabilities as part of EU disaster re sponse should build on existing frameworks. 
3. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
First of all, this section w ill set out the relevant background against which the problem needs 
to be defined. Subsequently, it will outline existing instruments and identify the problems that the Communication aims to address. 
3.1. Scene setter: The incre asing frequency and severity of disasters 
Over the past 20 years Europe has suffered signi ficantly from natural di sasters in both human 
and economic terms. European Union Member St ates have been particularly affected by 
climate related disasters, chalking up major losse s in this respect. According to the Centre for 
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) "from 1989 to 2008, 953 disasters killed 
nearly 88,671 people in Europe, affected more than 29 million others and caused a total of 269 US$ billion economic losses. Compared to th e rest of the world, economic loss per capita 
is high in Europe, partly becau se it is very densely populated"
11.  
Man-made disasters including, in ter alia, technological and or  environmental disasters, 
industrial accidents and terrorist attacks have also become  increasingly prominent. The latter 
pose a particularly significant security threat to European citizens. Eu ropol has reported a 
total of 294 terrorist acts, or attempted acts, in EU Member States in the year 2009 alone. A 
number of these plots reveal 'home-grown' terrorism as a transnational challenge, often 
facilitated by the use of the internet, which calls for the EU to be part of an international response. 
                                                
 
11 http://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/CredCrunch17.pdf . 
EN    EN From a more general point of vi ew, the annual number of disast ers worldwide has consistently 
increased from 78 in 1975 to approximately 400 today12. Disasters claim an average of 85,000 
lives and affect approximately 230 million individua ls per year. It is presumed that climate 
change will accelerate this tr end and Oxfam predicts that, by 2015, an average of 375 million 
persons will be affected by climate-related disasters every year13. Other disasters, unrelated to 
climate, can dramatically alter these figur es. In 2010, for example, more than 200,000 were 
killed by the Haiti earthquake alone.  
The impact of disasters varies considerably ac cording to the level of preparedness of the 
countries concerned. Disasters hit developing countries hardes t insofar as they have less 
capacity to cope and to adapt. Within such countries the poorest inha bitants are the most 
harshly affected as they do not have the means to  deal with floods or other natural disasters. 
Furthermore, to make matters worse, the economi es of the countries be ing discussed tend to 
be based on climate/weather-sensitive sectors su ch as agriculture and fishery, increasing their 
vulnerability. Economic losses due to natural di sasters are approximately  20 times greater (as 
a percentage of GDP) in developing count ries than in industrialised countries. 
Research also shows an increase in the intens ity and severity of disasters in recent decades. 
Particularly important in this context appear to be the changing weather patterns across the 
globe which often mean that floods are higher th an before, cyclones are threatening areas that 
were previously safe, and droughts are affecting wider areas and more people. That being so, 
it is unsurprising that over the last three deca des there has been a steady increase in the 
economic losses that result from disasters.  
Figure 1: Damages caused by natural disasters 
  
                                                 
12 See the EM-DAT database of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).  
13 Oxfam, "The Right to Survive", re port issued in 2009 and available at http://www.oxfam.org /en/policy/right-to-
survive  
EN    EN 3.2. Existing EU instruments for Disaster Response 
At present the European Co mmission can draw upon a wide ra nge of instruments when 
responding to major disasters.  Such instruments include, inter alia14, the use of Member 
States' civil protection assets through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism for disasters inside 
and outside the EU, and the prov ision of EU humanitarian assist ance to victims of natural 
disasters outside the EU, primarily in developi ng countries. Such instruments may, in certain 
circumstances, be supplemented by military assets in the response to disasters. 
3.2.1.  EU Humanitarian Assistance 
The EU (EU Member States and the European  Commission) represents the world’s largest 
humanitarian donor and is actively engaged in providing assistance, reli ef and protection to 
the victims of conflicts or disasters in developi ng countries. On the policy-side, the EU has an 
increasing role in defending humanitarian prin ciples, International Hu manitarian Law and a 
number of cross-cutting issues  – all based on the principles that underpin the 2007 European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. 
Humanitarian assistance offered through the European Commission15 is provided on the basis 
of needs and in line with the humanitarian prin ciples of humanity, neut rality, impartiality and 
independence. It is based upon the humanitarian imperative to save and preserve lives and is 
not subject to political or othe r considerations. Decisions to f und humanitarian assistance in a 
given country or region are based on the assessment of humanitarian needs.  
In the field of humanitarian aid, the Commission acts throu gh partner organisations, which 
include UN agencies, the Red Cross Movement, and approximately two hundred NGOs.  
Over the years, the EU, through the Commi ssion's humanitarian aid department (now 
Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid a nd Civil Protection - DG ECHO), has reinforced 
its presence in the field and considerably de veloped its assessment and reporting capacity. DG 
ECHO Situation Reports (SITREPs) are shared within the EU and c ontribute to response 
coordination.  
Cost efficiency and aid effectiveness  dictate  that relief items should be pre-positioned as close 
to the disaster zone as possibl e, drawing on local and regional  resources whenever feasible. 
This is why major international humanitarian or ganizations such as WFP and IFRC have been 
developing their pre-positioning capacities with financial support from the EU. 
3.2.2.  The EU Civil Protection Mechanism 
The EU Civil Protection Mechanism is a compre hensive tool covering various aspects of the 
disaster management cycle: prevention, prepared ness and response to disa sters. Established in 
2001 by a Council Decision (subsequently revised in 2007), the Mechanis m and all activities 
relating to it are financed through the Civil Pr otection Financial Instru ment adopted in 2007.  
                                                 
14 See the European Commission "Inventory of Crisis Management Capacities in the European 
Commission and Community Agencies", internal document, 31 July 2009. 
15 Legal basis: Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (OJ, N° L 163, of 2.7.1996, p.1). The EC provides more than €800 million per year for humanitarian assistance. Various geographic instruments for external assistance also have emergency reserves which can be 
mobilised, under certain circumstances and following specific decision making procedures, for short to 
medium term disaster response measures. 
EN    EN The EU Civil Protection Mechanism's main role is to support and coordinate the deployment 
of Member States' in-kind assi stance (teams, experts and equi pment) to countries requesting 
international assistance in case of major disast ers. The Mechanism can be activated for all 
types of emergencies (natural and man-made) w ithin and outside the EU (both in developing 
and developed countries). By pooling the civil pr otection capabilities of  the 31 Participating 
States (the EU-27, Iceland, Li echtenstein, Norway and Croatia16), the EU aims at ensuring not 
only the protection of pe ople but also of the natural and cu ltural environment, as well as 
property. Typical examples of civil protection assistance include search and rescue after 
earthquakes, water purificatio n and high capacity pumping in  floods, field hospitals and 
medicines, forest fire fighting airp lanes, tents and power generators.  
Particularly important for the functioning of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism is the 
Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) of th e European Commission, which represents its 
operational centre and is accessible on a 24-hour basi s. Any country inside or outside the EU 
which is affected by a major disaster can ma ke an appeal for assistance through the MIC 
which will act as a communication hub between th e participating states and the affected 
country, coordinating the deployment of in-k ind assistance by matching the offers of 
assistance put forward by the participating states  to the actual needs of  the disaster-stricken 
country. In the framework of the Mechanism most of the assistance provided is organised into 
flexible, interoperable modules so as to enha nce the efficiency of response efforts. Also 
noteworthy is the fact that the MIC supports the pooling and funding of  transport, deploys 
assessment and coordination teams to the site of  disasters, usually with logistical support 
(Technical Assistance and Support Teams – here in TAST), and provides useful and updated 
information on the actual status of ongoing emergencies. 
For major disasters with an important im pact on the health of  populations, the MIC 
collaborates with other EU tools and instruments, such as health mechanisms17. Within the 
Commission, the MIC cooperates with the Health  Threats Unit and, if necessary, with the 
Health Emergency Operation Facility of DG S ANCO. This cooperation is offered for the 
management of public health events inside th e EU, and may also be available for disasters 
occurring outside the EU.  
3.2.3.  Military Assets 
Within Member States, some civil protection authorities make use of military assets to 
respond to disasters occurring on their territory. Contrariwise, when providing assistance in 
response to disasters outside national borde rs, military capacities may only be used 
exceptionally, and as a last reso rt, to supplement the relief effo rt in large-scale disasters18. 
With unique capabilities in areas such as logistics and infrastructure, military assets can fill critical "capacity gaps" notably as regards tran sport (cargo planes, he licopters); logistical 
support; Chemical, biological, radiological an d nuclear (CBRN) capacities; and heavy 
                                                
 
16 Membership to the Mechanism is open to all EU can didate countries by signing an agreement with the 
Commission. The Commission also encourages potential ca ndidate countries to make appropriate use of the 
possibility of cooperating under the Mechanism.  
17 This occurred in response to the Ukraine pandemic (H1N1) of 2009.  
18 See, for example, the 2004 South-east Asian tsun ami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, 
the 2006 Algerian floods, a nd the 2010 Haiti earthquake.  
EN    EN engineering. In 2006 the EU developed a framew ork for the use of mili tary support in EU 
Disaster Response19. 
In order to avoid the blurring of military  operations and humanitarian aid, specific 
international guidelines20 and the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid foresee that 
military assets and capabilities be used in support  of humanitarian relief operations only as a 
‘last resort’ and in very limite d circumstances, i.e. where there is no comparable civilian 
alternative and only the use of military assets that  are unique in capability and availability can 
meet a critical humanitarian need21.  
3.3. Problem definition: What is the nature, the scale and the underlying causes of 
the problem? 
The problem definition and the remainder of this  impact assessment report will focus on civil 
protection for which the Communi cation will set out new policy options and propose different 
ways to organise and structur e future EU cooperation. These pr oposals will be complemented 
by statements on the need to reinforce existing EU practice with regard to humanitarian aid 
and the use of military assets in support of disaster relief. The latter do not require any 
specific impact assessment at this stage.  
The value of the current EU Civil Protection Mechanism is widely acknowledged. The system 
has functioned well in practice, carrying out it s mandate in full and delivering results which 
have exceeded expectations. In particular, coordination amongst part icipating states and 
voluntary ad-hoc pooling of resources has led to a higher capacity to respond to disasters 
inside and outside the EU.  
That being so, a series of extern al factors have raised concerns  as to whether, and how, the 
system's current mandate should be changed and extended in order to face future challenges in a cost effective way, simultaneously ensuring  a more efficient, rapid and predictable 
coordination. The global financia l situation and budgetary constr aints, for example, underline 
the necessity for any action taken to be as cost  effective as possible. Moreover at EU and at 
global level we are witnessing an increase in the frequency of natural and man-made (i.e. 
technological and environmental) disasters, wh ich results in a greater  number of EU civil 
protection operations in the fr amework of the Mechanism (see figure 2 below). The intensity 
and severity of disasters is also on the rise  and seemingly influen ced by factors such as 
climate change, terrorism, urbani sation and the intensification of  industrial activity. To avoid 
a widening gap between needs and capacity it is essential that the EU maximises the effectiveness of its re sponse, which, according to past e xperience, can be achieved with 
limited extra resources. 
Figure 2: The Evolution of EU Civ il Protection Mechanism Activations 
                                                 
19 See the General Framework for the use of Member St ates military and military chartered transportation 
assets and ESDP coordination tools in support of  EU disaster response, doc. 8976/06 and Military 
support to EU disaster response — Identification an d coordination of available assets and capabilities, 
doc. 9462/3/06 REV 3 and doc. 14540/06 + COR 1. 
20 Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defen ce Assets in International Disaster Relief—‘Oslo 
Guidelines’ (re-launched by UN OCHA in November 2006) 
21 See the Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member 
States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission on The 
European Consensus on humanitarian aid, paragraph 61. 
EN    EN  
 
The key shortcoming inherent in the current syst em is that insofar as it has been set up to 
support and coordinate, and is th erefore dependent upon, voluntary and ad hoc  offers of 
assistance by Member States, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism is not in a position to 
guarantee the availability of assistance in the event of a major disaster. In the Bulgarian 
Forest Fires of 2007, for example, Bulgaria's ac tivation of the MIC and their request for fire 
fighting aircraft was not effectiv ely catered for. No offers of assistance were received from 
Member States as aerial forest fire fighting capacities were eith er being used or could not be 
offered given the need to guarantee sufficient capabi lities to react to national forest fire risks. 
Bulgaria was eventually forced to turn to Russia for assistance. 
The ad hoc  nature of the current system necessari ly implies that the EU Civil Protection 
Mechanism is of a reactive, rather than a proactive , nature. The impossibility of foreseeing 
exactly what, and how much, assistance will be offered for any given emergency means that 
the MIC is unable to develop contingency plans for deployment, which inevitably leads to a 
degree of improvisation in the immediate res ponse phase, negatively affecting overall 
effectiveness .  
It also follows that decisions on the deploymen t of key assistance are sometimes delayed and 
that reaction times are dependent upon those of  the Member States, which may or may not 
offer assistance in a timely manner. Options to make the system more predictable and capable 
of better coordinating Member States' assistance would certainly provide added value. This is 
illustrated by the time line of the Haiti emergency. While this is considered a successful operation with a large amount of assistance depl oyed, the distribution of assistance over time 
demonstrates that certain Member States pr ovided assets very quickly – some European 
response teams were amongst the first internati onal teams to arrive on  site – whilst other 
Member States required several days to mobilis e key resources. Slow reaction times have also 
been noted in the 2010 Pakistan  emergency with assistance be ing offered and arriving on site 
two or three weeks after the cal amity. There is no doubt that su ch assistance would have had a 
much greater impact, in terms of saving lives an d alleviating human pain and suffering, had it 
reached the disaster stricken region earlier. 
Over the years it has also become apparent that  the system by which Member States offer in-
kind assistance also leads to an element of fr agmentation. Given that Member States propose 
assistance in response to a given emergenc y without necessarily taking the overall EU 
response effort into account, the offers received may lack coherence . In fact, it is not unlikely 
to find that assistance provided by Member States caters abundantly for some of the needs of 
the country requesting assistan ce whilst overlooking ot hers. This is agai n illustrated by the 
EN    EN response to the Haiti earthquake in which the dist ribution of the various types of assistance 
over time demonstrated clear fragmentation. In  particular, search and rescue teams which 
should have been deployed immediately in orde r to have any chance of succeeding were still 
being offered and deployed on day 4, when th e probability of findi ng survivors was low. 
Similarly, communication equipment which shoul d have been dispatched very early only 
started arriving on day 5.  
Options to make the system more predictabl e and capable of better coordinating Member 
States' assistance would certa inly provide added value. A more robust system ensuring a 
coherent EU response and which maximises the synergies between  the various actors 
involved would also ensure be nefits in terms of consiste ncy and cost-effectiveness. 
There is also scope for improving the visibility  of the EU's response to major disasters both 
for in kind assistance as well as for EU fina ncial contributions to international disaster 
response. Visibility has been referred to as a shortcoming of the EU response to the Haiti Earthquake and must be addressed in line wi th the expectations of EU citizens/polity
22. 
Visibility does not represent an  end in itself but a means fo r securing continued support by 
EU decision-makers and citizens for the European disaster response and humanitarian assistance, and for informing people at the rece iving end about the origin of aid. Additional 
efforts to ensure dual vi sibility (national and
 European) for civil pr otection assets deployed 
through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism woul d be valuable and would guarantee that 
citizens be proud of the workings of the EU in the field of disaster response. 
With new challenges on the horizon, a failure to  reinforce the EU’s di saster response capacity 
would certainly have consequences for disast er victims. Over the years the EU Civil 
Protection Mechanism activations have grow n from 3 in 2002 to 28 in 2009 demonstrating 
that the EU's role in this field is becoming increasingly consolidated and needed. With the onset of the financial crisis a nd the growing trend in frequency and severity of disasters, the 
shortcomings of the current mandate may become more prominent and start impacting on the 
EU's capacity to respond to disasters and assist countries and populations in need.  
3.4. The Baseline Scenario: No policy change scenario? 
Although it is difficult to predic t how a lack of public  intervention and the maintaining of the 
existing EU instruments for Disaster Response (particularly the EU Civil Protection Mechanism) will affect the problems presente d in section 3.3, it is possible to develop a 
tentative "no policy change" scenario.  
According to observational data and research it is unlikely th at the frequency and severity of 
disasters will remain the same or decrease in coming years. On the contrary, the upward trend 
demonstrated for several types of disasters over th e last few decades is likely to persist. That 
being so, the EU Civil Protec tion Mechanism would continue  coordinating Member State 
assistance offered via the MIC but the number of  cases in which the Mechanism would not be 
able to respond adequately to a request for assi stance would be likely to increase. In fact, an 
increase in disasters and/or their severity is lik ely to mean that Member States assets will be 
employed more often, and that th erefore they will not always be  available for deployment via 
the MIC.  
                                                
 
22 See footnote 1, above.  
EN    EN In these circumstances, the inst ruments at the EU's disposal, although generally providing a 
high quality EU response, would not be able  to guarantee appropriate results in all 
circumstances. It is against this background that the various options proposed must be 
assessed.  
3.5. Subsidiarity  
The Union's role in the field of civil protection is set out in Article 196(1) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the EU, according to which the Union shall, inter alia , support and 
complement Member States' action at national,  regional and local level in responding to 
natural or man- made disaster s within the Union and promote consistency in international 
civil-protection work. It follows that Civil Protection response to  disasters appears to be an 
area of supporting/complementary competence s ubject to the principl e of subsidiarity. 
According to Article 5(3) of  the Treaty on European Union:  "Under the principle of 
subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of th e proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved 
by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by 
reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better  achieved at Union level."  
In order to solve the problems presented in this  impact assessment there is a necessity for EU-
based action and coordination. Although the primar y responsibility to respond to disasters lies 
with Member States, past practice under th e Mechanism has shown that there are real 
possibilities for national civil protection resource s to be overwhelmed by the sheer scale of 
disasters. In such cases, assistance from other Me mber States is necessary. Thus, action in this 
field clearly involves managing time-critical situ ations with a strong trans-/multinational 
component. Given the difficulties of multilateral cooperation amongst Member States, there is 
an obvious need for overall coordination and concerted action at EU level.  
Moreover, a recent study financed by the Commission ( "Strengthening the EU capacity to 
respond to disasters: Identification of gaps in the capacity of the Community Civil Protection 
Mechanism to provide assistan ce and options to fill the gap s – A scenario-based approach" ) 
demonstrates that there are seve ral scenarios in which massive European assistance would be 
required (e.g. in case of CBRN  attacks in the EU). In such circumstances the current 
arrangements based on ad hoc national decision -making do not appear to guarantee sufficient 
European assistance.  
Although the goodwill of Member St ates is essential for achieving the policy objectives 
sought, i.e. a an effective, coherent, and visibl e EU response to disast ers, purely domestic 
action can not guarantee such an end result. Improving such aspects of the EU Civil 
Protection Mechanism requires that action be taken at EU level, in compliance with the aims and legislative procedure enshrined in Article 196 TFEU. Such an interpretation is confirmed 
by the solidarity clause established by Arti cle 222 TFEU which requires the Union to 
mobilise all instruments at its disposal in orde r to respond to terrorist attacks and natural or 
man-made disasters at the request of Member States.  
In light of the above, one must conclude that th e subsidiarity principle is respected since the 
policy objectives discussed he rein cannot be achieved by Me mber States acting alone but 
require the involvement of all Member  States via action at EU level. 
EN    EN Compliance with the principle of proportionality  will be assessed when analysing the impacts 
of the various policy options proposed23.  
4. POLICY OBJECTIVES  
The overall objective is to develop and reinforc e the EU's capacity to respond to disasters by 
building on all available tools, capacities a nd expertise and maximising the synergies and 
complementarities between them. The options pr oposed aim to create a more solid and robust 
system capable of ensuring a better protection of  people, the environment and property in the 
immediate aftermath of emergencies. 
The developments stemming from the Treaty of Lisbon are also an important consideration in 
this context. Article 196 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union grants the 
Union an explicit legal basis in the field of civil protection for, inter alia , supporting and 
complementing Member States’ action at nation al, regional and local le vel in responding to 
natural or man-made disasters within the Union. For the firs t time, a specific article on 
Humanitarian Aid, Article 214 of the Treaty, re cognises humanitarian aid as a self-standing 
European policy area alongside other policies in the external relations field (development, 
trade, economic cooperation with third countries ). This new articulation provides room and 
expectations to strengthen the EU's political l eadership in humanitarian  aid policy at various 
levels. Improving the effectiveness of the curre nt system is theref ore not only desired, 
especially in light of lessons learnt from r ecent emergencies such as Haiti, but is also 
supported by the Treaties.  
The solidarity clause enshrined in Article 222 TFEU, which establishe s a legal obligation on 
Member States to assist each other and on the EU to mobilise all assets at its disposal in order 
to respond to an emergency, further underlines the need to strive towards a reinforced disaster 
response capacity. 
The overall objective will be achieved by pursuing the following specific objectives: 
● Improving the effectiveness of EU Disast er Response, including cost-effectiveness 
● Strengthening the coherence of EU Disaster Response 
● Increasing visibility 
Such objectives do not require the creation of  any new mechanisms but, rather, presuppose 
the need to develop and build upon instrument s already in place. That being so, additional 
costs, if any, are likely to be  realistic and not disproportionate  to those incurred at present. 
It should also be noted that the initiative propo sed by this paper is of a political nature and 
will need to be followed by legislative proposal s in 2011. If approved, the entry into force of 
such proposals would be envisaged for January  2014. The implementation of the objectives 
listed above, including the measurability of th eir outcomes, will be largely dependent upon 
such developments. 
                                                 
23 See Chapters 6 and 7, below.  
EN    EN 4.1. Improving the effectiveness of EU Disaster Response, including cost-
effectiveness 
Improved effectiveness requires that  the predictability of the sy stem be strengthened in order 
to increase the rapidity of EU response. The EU should, in particular, aim to reduce decision-
making times and guarantee the imme diate availability of assist ance in the aftermath of a 
disaster. In this context the development of pre-agreed depl oyment plans would be useful, 
especially given their capacity to maximise certain s ynergies (e.g. in the fi eld of transport and 
logistics). 
Moreover, the EU should aim to improve the efficiency and coordinated mobilisation of 
Member States’ resources in a way that is more  cost-effective than what Member States could 
deliver alone. In this context, the advantages  stemming from increased European coordination 
should serve as a basis for developing a more ta rgeted and less fragmented (i.e. fewer ad hoc 
offers) EU-wide approach. The pursuit of the latt er will be of paramount importance if the EU 
is to ensure an effective re sponse in the years to come.  
Finally, the EU should aim to further enhance the overall cost-effectiveness of EU civil 
protection cooperation by encouraging comple mentarities and burden-sharing in the 
development of response capacit ies. Whilst each Member State is responsible for ensuring 
that it is sufficiently equipped to respond to predictable or recu rrent risks, it may be possible 
to secure economic gains by pooling a nd sharing additional reserve capacities, 
complementing each Member State's basic re sponse assets. By developing such reserve 
capacities at EU level and shar ing the overall burden betwee n all Member States, economies 
of scale can be pursued and savings secured.  
4.2. Strengthening the coherence of EU Disaster Response 
The EU should aim to guarantee an adequate political and operational coordination in all 
disaster response operations. In particular, for those occasions24 where humanitarian, civil 
protection and military assets are mobilised simulta neously it is essential that these be “joined 
up” and that the existing synergies and comp lementarities be maximised. Parallel systems 
would only reduce the effectiveness of the ove rall response and undermine its coherence. For 
major disasters outside the EU in which th e UN leads the overall coordination of global 
assistance, the EU should also  plug its assistance into the overall UN-led package. 
Furthermore, via strengthened coordinati on, the EU should also  avoid duplication, 
fragmentation and ineffectiveness in disaster re sponse operations. In this context, consistency 
and close ties with ac tivities carried out in other disa ster management phases (prevention, 
preparedness, relief, rehabilitation and development) should also be assured.  
4.3. Increasing visibility 
Visibility does not represent an end in itself but a means for securing the continued support of 
EU decision-makers and citizens for European di saster response and humanitarian assistance, 
and for informing people at the receivi ng end about the origin of assistance. 
                                                 
24 Humanitarian assistance and civil pr otection assets are not always deployed together (in 2009, out of 17 
civil protection interventions in third countries 3 also  involved humanitarian assistance). EU military 
capacity is mobilised only for exceptionally large disasters. 
EN    EN Given that European citizens expect a quick an d efficient reaction to major disasters and the 
fact that visibility has been signaled as one of the shortcomings of the EU response to the 
Haiti earthquake, it is necessary for the EU to st rive to improve the visibility of its response 
(i.e. for in kind assistance as well as for fina ncial contributions to international disaster 
response). In this context, a scenario planni ng approach is also n eeded for communication 
issues. EU institutions, Member States and EU actors s hould develop a joint communications 
strategy capable of granting visibility to the Me mber States’ and the EU’s response, and to 
communicate European disaster respons e in the respective constituencies.  
5. POLICY OPTIONS  
This section outlines the most relevant aspects of the policy options which have been 
considered for addressing the problems and meeti ng the objectives identi fied above. It should 
be noted that given that the Communication on EU Disaster Response Capacity will be of a 
political nature and will propose possible ways to develop EU disaster  response, the policy 
options presented herein deal with substantive issues. Concre te options encompassing more 
technical and legislative elements will be developed and assessed following the adoption of the Communication and prior to pr esenting legislative proposals.  
5.1. Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies  
In certain circumstances the best way to guarant ee cost-efficiency is to cease activities in a 
specific sector. Discontinuing existing policies in  the field of EU disaster response would 
imply dismantling the instruments currently in place simultaneously terminating all connected 
activities. This option would also  imply having to rethink the futu re approach to be adopted in 
this field.  
5.2. Option 2: Maintaining the status quo 
Maintaining the status quo implies the continuati on of the current EU policies in the field of 
EU disaster response. The activ ities and instruments outlined in  section 2.2 would continue to 
exist. Financing would be guaranteed along th e lines of the 2007-2013 fi nancial perspectives. 
5.3. Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Re sponse Capacity based on a voluntary 
pool of Member States' standby capaci ties (human resources and assets) 
One of the options considered in order to ove rcome the problems detailed in chapter 3 would 
consist of developing a voluntary pool of pre-identifi ed Member Stat es' capacities  on 
standby for deployment in EU operations. Teams and assets would con tinue to remain under 
national command and contro l but with a stronger commitment from Member States to make 
them ready and available for immediate action in  EU civil protection op erations upon request 
from the MIC. The final decision on deploymen t would remain with the Member States, who 
may need the resources to res pond to domestic emergencies. Mo reover, it should be noted that 
standby capacities would not need to be held on reserve or sit idle in-b etween EU operations 
as Member States would have the right to employ them internally.  
The deployment of Member States' standby capaciti es would form the nucleus of the EU civil 
protection response to disaster s inside and outside the EU and would be complemented by 
additional Member State offers provided in th e same way as civil protection assistance is 
currently organised. Moreover, add itional efforts could also be ma de to ensure dual visibility 
EN    EN (national and  European) for civil protection assets deployed through the EU Civil Protection 
Mechanism, which was a shortcoming of the EU's effort in Haiti.  
The size and composition of the pool should be la rge enough to ensure a credible contingency 
planning and to optimise the benefits of the overall system. Some ex amples of possible pool 
sizes are provided in the EPEC "Study on asse ssing costs and benefits of various options 
related to the development of th e EU disaster response capacity"25.Military relief and 
transport assets, in particular strategic airlift capability, sh ould be included in the pool of 
available capacities capable of being channell ed via the MIC in accordance with the European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and inte rnational (notably Oslo) guidelines. 
The creation a voluntary pool of Member State capacities would need to be bolstered by the 
development and continued commitment to joint training, exercises and work on lessons learnt. Moreover, there would al so be a necessity to develop contingency plans and scenarios 
in order to make use of the pool's full potential.  Reliance on such activities would be essential 
in order to guarantee the effectiv eness and coherence of the system. 
Figure 3: The Preparatory Action on an EU Rapid Response Capability 
• Existing EU standby modules 
• In the framework of the Preparatory Action on an  EU Rapid Response Capacity, the Commission 
has co-financed a number of projects to develop standby arrangements for key resources. 
Through these projects a series of intervention modules (including search and rescue, water 
purification, medical teams, forest fire fighti ng, CBRN detection and decontamination, temporary 
shelter, logistics and base camps) are currently on standby in different Member States for EU civil 
protection operations. Some of these modules have been used in real-time operations. For 
instance, in response to the Haiti earthquake, an Italian field hospital, a French water purification 
unit and a Swedish logistics team/base camp were  deployed at the request of the MIC with 
funding available from the Preparatory Action. Mo re recently, the MIC deployed a multinational 
flood response module, with personnel from the th ree Baltic Member States, to help respond to 
the floods in Poland and the Republic of Moldova. The Preparatory Action is currently in its third 
and final year. Legislative proposals must be tabled in  order to pursue this type of arrangement in 
the future.   
5.4. Option 4:  Developing an EU Disaster Response  Capacity with EU-level assets 
Another possible option to overcome the shortc omings and achieve the objectives mentioned 
above would be to develop complementary EU-funded assets for certain specific needs for 
which there are identified gaps in EU response and for which action at European level would 
be considered more cost-effective. Specifi c consideration should be given to assets 
performing horizontal tasks, such as assessment (rapid environmental impact assessment modules), logistics and coordination (in part icular Technical Assistance and Support Teams 
(TAST) and telecommunications equipment). This  approach could be further developed into 
an all-encompassing EU coordination centre in th e field, also providing services for the UN. 
Similarly, the development of complementary EU-funded assets could be considered for 
specialised high value respons e assets where common re sources and burden-sharing 
arrangements may result in efficiency gains and where national resources typically prove to 
be insufficient. 
                                                
 
25 See section 2.2 above. 
EN    EN Although funded by the Union, EU level capacities would be entrusted to the interested 
Member States on a delegated management basis.  Their availability would be guaranteed for 
EU operations but, when not in use, they would be accessible to managing Member States for 
national purposes. The number of EU-level capacities could rang e from small, i.e. aimed at 
filling the most important gaps, to large, i.e. covering a substantial number of assets in key 
areas, thus allowing Member St ates to downscale national capabilities and simultaneously 
increasing the cost-effectiveness of EU response. 
Examples of EU-level capacitie s already in operation or which have been tested on a 
provisional basis include EMSA 's oil spill recovery vessels26 or the EUFFTR (see figure 4 
below).  
Figure 4: The EU Forest Fire -fighting Tactical Reserve 
The EU Forest Fire-fighting Tactical Reserve 
• The option of developing complementary EU-level  assets was tested through a pilot project 
establishing an EU Forest Fire-Fighting Tactical Reserve (EU FFTR) under the Preparatory Action on 
an EU Rapid Response Capacity. The EU FFTR consis ted of two forest-fighting aircraft (Canadair CL-
215 type) that were kept available at EU level to  supplement Member States’ forest fire-fighting 
capacities in case these were overwhelmed. The pl anes were available from 1 July to 30 September 
2009, making successful interventions in 4 Member  States (6 operations in total – see overview 
below). The project was implemented by France  with the Commission/MIC deciding when and where 
the planes would be used. Although a detailed evaluati on is ongoing, the preliminary appraisal of the 
project is encouraging. A similar project was implemented this summer through the 2010 call for 
proposals under the Preparatory Action on an EU Rapid Response  Capability . 
•  
•  
                                                 
26 See https://extranet.emsa.europa.eu/index.php?optio n=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=142   
EN    EN 5.5. Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force 
The development of an indepe ndent European force with its own capabilities, means, 
strengths and coordination, coupl ed with preparedness organisa tion and a pooling of existing 
resources would certainly ensure the coherenc e and effectiveness of the EU’s response to 
disasters. A European force based on such prin ciples would need to be mandated to have 
access to pre-identified resources of Member States and should also be able to acquire additional resources, regardless of whether any pre-identified gaps in EU response capacity 
actually exist. The latter would be entrusted to  volunteering Member States to be managed on 
a delegated basis along the lines explained in Option 4. 
In order to develop a credible preparedness organisation, the European force would also 
require the setting up of an ope rational centre to draft scenar ios and protocols and its own 
Training Institute for Civil Protection and Human itarian aid to provide training for staff, for 
national and regional teams ma king up the European force, and for evaluation experts 
working for the EU.  
5.6. Preliminary screening of the options  
5.6.1.  Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies  
Discontinuing existing policies in the field of EU disaster response would imply dismantling 
the instruments currently in place. This optio n does not appear to sa tisfy the comparison 
criteria vis-à-vis the objectives sought. 
This approach can not be considered effec tive. Discontinuing existi ng policies would have 
dramatic consequences for countries and popu lations in need, incl uding within the EU, 
especially given the ever increasing importance of  EU disaster response at global level. Fewer 
lives would be saved, more pr operty would be destroyed a nd environmental degradation 
would increase. Moreover, it is  evident that it w ould imply disregarding a huge wealth of 
experience, knowledge and inform ation acquired over the years. 
The huge damage occasioned by Option 1 would not be cost-effective. Although the option 
implies savings in terms of withholding expe nditure at Member States' and EU level 
(approximately €24 million/annum with regard to  the latter), these savings would not be 
commensurate to the loss of life occasioned nor to the damage in flicted to prope rty or to the 
environment. Moreover, for obvious reasons the approach envisaged in this option would not 
contribute to the positive visi bility of EU action. Contrari wise, a significant degree of 
frustration and dissatisfaction amongst stakeholders would likely ensue. 
Although rethinking current arrange ments may be considered necessary, this should not come 
at the expense of what has been developed so far. This option should th erefore be disregarded. 
5.6.2.  Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force 
The development of an independent, robust a nd sizeable European Force would certainly 
ensure the effectiveness of the EU’s response to disasters. In  fact, this development would 
imply that significant amounts of  resources would be made available for EU operations. 
Important benefits in terms of coherence, effectiveness and visi bility would result from this 
approach and represent a tangi ble and visible expression of EU solidarity both within the 
Union and worldwide. 
EN    EN Whilst the creation of a European Force woul d be consistent with the EU's policy of 
reinforcing EU disaster response capacity, it would also have some major drawbacks. In 
particular, it would make for a weaker case in terms of subsidiarity and could also be 
criticised in terms of proportionality.  
Moreover, the financial cost of creating an EU civil protection force similar to the one 
proposed by Michel Barnier27 appears excessive. This is particul arly the case given that assets 
would need to be created ex novo  and would not be selected from those already existing at 
Member State level. The resulting costs would only be partially offset by the savings that 
Member States would incur by reason of increas ed reliance on the Force and less investment 
on their own resources. In addition, this development might substantially disrupt existing Member States' structures with adverse consequences in terms of efficiency.  
Overall, from an economic point of view the creation of a European Force does not appear 
tenable, especially in the current financial context. Furthe rmore, given that a similar proposal 
proved particularly controversial in the past, this option also appear s politically unsound. 
In light of the above, the following chapters wi ll therefore focus on analysing the impacts of, 
and comparing, Options 2, 3 and 4. 
6. P
ROPORTIONATE IMPACT ANALYSIS  
The envisaged Communication will propose opti ons for reinforcing EU disaster response 
capacity, possibly flagging preferred alternatives. Under such circumstances, a full and detailed analysis of impacts appears prematur e. Throughout this section the aim will therefore 
be to carry out an impact assessment that  is proportionate to  the end result sought. 
In light of the above, the analys is undertaken herein will focus on the economic impacts of the 
policy options proposed and will only touch upon the environmental and social impacts 
stemming therefrom.  
It should be noted that all Options will require a strengthening of the Monitoring and 
Information Centre of the European Commissi on in terms of coordination and analytical 
capacity. Such a development will occur regardle ss of the option pursued as it is envisaged 
that the ECHO and the MIC crisis rooms will, in  the near future, be merged into a genuine 
response centre, operational on a 24 hours basis and responsibl e for the coordination of the 
EU's civilian disaster response. Increased respon sibilities of the Centre in terms of planning, 
transport coordination, scenario  development and informati on collection and sharing are 
likely to result in a higher workload which may, in turn, require a greater commitment in terms of human resources.  
This section will seek to analyse the impacts of  Options 3 and 4, as iden tified in chapter 5, but 
will not consider Option 2. In fact, given that th e latter represents the continuation of existing 
EU policies and therefore mirrors the baseline  scenario outlined in Chapter 3, it should be 
                                                
 
27 In 2006 Michel Barnier presented a plan detailing twelve ways in which the EU's crisis management 
response could be improved. At the heart of the proposal was the creation of a European Civil Protection Force with its own, asse ts, strengths and coordination. Ba rnier's full report is accessible at 
the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2004-
2009/president/pdf/rapport_barnier_en.pdf . 
EN    EN used as a baseline for comparison rather than be tr eated as one of the elements that need to be 
analysed.  
In this context, it should also be noted that  stakeholder consultati ons (see chapter 2 above) 
have demonstrated that Member States genera lly welcome discussions on the development of 
a voluntary pool of assets (Option 3). On the contrary, they have  expressed a moderate degree 
of caution with regard to the developm ent of EU-level assets (Option 4). 
6.1. Economic impacts of Option 3: Developi ng an EU Disaster Response Capacity 
based on a voluntary pool of Member States' standby capacities (human 
resources and assets) 
A shift from the status quo to a voluntary pool model is unlikely to have significant impacts 
on capital costs. In fact, it is safe to assume that Member Stat es will not be inclined to commit 
assets to the pool unless they are certain that they can still meet th eir own civil protection 
needs. It follows that the voluntary pool would represent only a small part of what already 
exists. Furthermore, if one considers that the terms regulating the commitment of assets would 
expressly allow them to be withdrawn in times of domestic need, it is clear that additional equipment costs would not need to be incurred by Member States. 
With the frequency and intensity of disasters on the rise, it is likely th at Member States will 
need to invest in increasing their capacities,  thus accruing costs. Once fully developed and 
operational, the pooling arrangement may reduce the need for additiona l investments in new 
response capacities at Member State leve l. Whilst each Member State would remain 
responsible for ensuring that it is sufficiently equipped to res pond to predictable or recurrent 
risks, it would be possible to secure economic gains by pooling and sharing additional reserve capacities. In fact, the commitment of assets to the voluntary pool would not only guarantee 
availability for EU operations but would also a llow Member States to actively rely on such 
assets in order to develop contingency plans a nd complement their basic response assets in 
times of need. Overall, by keeping such reserv e capacities at EU level and sharing the overall 
burden between Member States, economies of scale could be pursued  and savings secured. 
It can also be assumed that , as a general rule, Option 3 would not create additional 
deployment costs. Although the development of  a voluntary pool would certainly guarantee 
availability in the immediate af termath of a disaster, this shoul d neither affect the cost of 
moving assets nor of operating them on site. To the contrary, there may even be opportunities, 
particularly with regards to transport, for assets  to be deployed in a more cost efficient manner 
than would otherwise have b een possible. The collective re sponse facilitated by the pool 
arrangement and the associated pre-planning, w ould guarantee a more rapid identification of 
transport options and would enable appropri ately located assets to be collected and 
transported together, reducing journey times and costs. Moreover, allocation of assets 
amongst aircraft could be made more efficien t, maximising the use of  airlift capacity and 
reducing marginal costs. As the scale of th e proposed voluntary pool increases the magnitude 
of benefits that might be exp ected to result would increase in parallel, largely due to the 
economies of scale that could be accomplished.  
On the contrary, Option 3 may have an imp act on total annual operati ng costs if the annual 
deployment of Member States’ capacities increa sed by reason of their in clusion in the pool. 
Such a development may also have important consequences for certain Member States in 
terms of staffing costs. In fact , in those Member States in wh ich the organisational structure 
foresees that modules be staffed by people with full time jobs in other occupations, scaling up 
EN    EN their use may result in the break down of th e service delivery model (i.e. staff may, for 
example, be unable to obtain leave for more frequent deployments). In such cases Member 
States would need to turn to a more permanen t staffing of their m odules with inevitable 
additional costs. On a more general level,  certain Member Stat es with particular 
organisational structures may incur costs in making the relevant or ganisational and legal 
transition from the status quo. 
The negative impacts mentioned above are strongl y influenced by the way in which assets are 
selected from the pool and th e size of the pool itself. Dema nd related impacts on a given 
Member State could, for example, be mitigated via a rotating selection policy rather than selection by preference. In addi tion, a larger pool would be likel y to result in a lower demand 
on the capacities “enlisted”.  
Impacts could be further alleviated by ensuring  EU funding for certain predefined eligible 
costs. A new model of burde n sharing, along the lines of the one tested for the 
BaltFloodCombat high capacity pumping module, w ould ensue, shifting a part of the costs 
from Member States to the Union. Not only would this allow Member States to cover some of 
the total annual costs deriving from involvement  in the voluntary pool but it would also serve 
as an incentive for smaller Memb er States to increase their involvement in EU disaster 
response efforts. The increased EU respons e capacity deriving therefrom would further 
relieve pressure on those Member States ca rrying a heavier disaster response burden, and 
strengthen the EU's ability to respond to major emergencies outside the EU.  
Overall, a voluntary pool of disaster response assets could potentially deliver benefits for 
individual Member States and the EU as a whole The benefits  envisaged primarily concern 
the possibility of maximising cost -efficiencies when deploying a ssets. Research also suggests 
that a voluntary pool model would not have mate rial impacts on capital costs and, in the long 
run, this type of arrangement may reduce the ne ed for additional inve stments in new response 
capacities at Member State level. Although summary total costs for Member States may rise if 
the voluntary pool requires an increase in the level of personnel readiness and/or a greater 
frequency of deployment of assets, such demand  related impacts could be partially offset by 
pool design and through EU co-financing. 
6.2. Economic impacts of Option 4: Developi ng an EU Disaster Response Capacity 
with EU-level assets 
This option will result in an increase in overa ll EU Disaster Respons e Capacity. EU level 
assets will enable Member States to have acce ss to capacities that may previously have been 
either unavailable or unafford able at national level. 
The most important economic imp act of this Option would be th e avoidance of capital costs 
by Member States. The procurement of compleme ntary EU funded assets and airlift capacity 
would in fact guarantee that Member States  could call upon substant ial collectiv e capacities 
previously lacking at national level, without  incurring additional investment costs. This 
guaranteed availability would be a major be nefit going well beyond the ones which could 
ensue from the implementation of a voluntary pool of assets. In pa rticular, one global 
investment at EU level to purchase complement ary assets, which could then be shared and 
used by all Member States, is likely to involve a substantially lower investment for the EU as 
a whole than if each Member State acquired su ch capacities individually. Similarly, with 
regard to assets for which an increase in capacit y is envisaged, this Option would provide vast 
benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness and effi ciency, reducing the need for Member States to 
EN    EN invest domestically.  
Another major economic benefit of Option 4 is th e potential for more cost-effective solutions. 
EU level assets which can be called upon by all Member States would considerably increase the cost-effectiveness of disaster respons e operations by reducing mobilisation costs 
(compared to the commercial leasing of su ch capacities) and enhancing rapidity and 
efficiency of response. Signi ficant efficiency gains could also arise from joined-up 
transportation and logistics as we ll as other economies of scale. 
Besides the above, the purchasing of additional EU assets to be operated by member States 
would also increase efficacy of deployment a nd cost-effectiveness at operational level much 
in the same way as outlined for Option 3. In addition, all standby/deployment costs of the 
complementary funded assets would be co vered by the EU, thus guaranteeing the 
abovementioned "new model of burden-sharing" and allowing all costs to be shifted to the 
Union
28. 
Insofar as costs are concerned, the development of EU-level capacities w ill require some form 
of tendering and management. However, it is es timated that such administrative costs would 
not be excessive and would be met by stre ngthening the capacities of the MIC, i.e. a 
development on which there is quasi-stakeholder unanimity and which, in any case, is likely 
to result from the normal evolution of the baseline scenario.  
6.3. Social Impacts 
The proposals considered in this report (Option 3 and 4) will not trigger social impacts in the 
traditional sense of the word but will, on a more general level, have important societal impacts. 
The possibility of reacting promptly and incisive ly via a pool of Member States or EU-level 
assets would undoubtedly reduce th e number of casualties, alle viate suffering and minimise 
harm to individuals and communities as a whole.  The positive impacts for societies affected 
by disasters would t hus be undeniable.  
Moreover, a more coherent and effective response  would certainly increase people’s belief in 
the EU’s capacity to respond to disasters. The consequences of this would be twofold. Firstly, 
populations affected by disasters would be more willing to collaborate with the EU, 
potentially influencing the possibility of furt her cooperation with third countries. Secondly, 
increased belief in EU disaster response woul d help to win the support of EU citizens/polity 
which could, in turn, increase the willingness of  national administrations to provide further 
assets for the voluntary pool or support EU-level  assets. Public awareness and knowledge of 
the EU’s disaster response capac ity would also mean that EU c itizens would be more inclined 
to support national policies w ith a strong European disaster response component.  
Furthermore, the development of EU assets (O ption 4) which would be entrusted to Member 
States on a delegated manageme nt basis would be the maximu m expression of EU solidarity 
in accordance with Article 222 TFEU and the desi res and expectations of  EU citizens (as per 
                                                
 
28 The cost of developing various EU funded assets (in pa rticular a high capacity modul e, an emergency shelter 
module, a field hospital module, and TA ST) are estimated in the contractors study "Assessing costs and benefits of 
various options related to the devel opment of the EU Disaster Response Capacity". See section 2.2, above.  
EN    EN the Eurobarometer29).  
6.4. Environmental Impacts 
Both the voluntary pool of standby assets (Opti on 3) and EU-level assets (Option 4) would 
allow the EU to guarantee the availability of assistance in the immediate aftermath of any 
emergency. The increased coherence and effec tiveness deriving from such developments 
would allow the EU to react mo re rapidly to emergencies, t hus significantly reducing the 
negative impacts of disasters on the environment (e.g. an immediate and effective response to 
a forest fire incident can substant ially reduce environmental damage). 
7. COMPARING OPTIONS  
Given that in comparing the options there is  a need to present arguments that combine 
qualitative, quantitative and monetary data and, considering that there are various degrees of 
certainty, the comparison of options is car ried out via a multi-criteria analysis.  
The following criteria are used to compare the options: Effectiveness of the option in relation to the objectives
30; 
Cost-effectiveness31 of the option; 
Coherence32 of the option with regard to overarching  EU objectives, strategies and priorities. 
These criteria largely co rrespond to the policy objectives iden tified in chapter 4, namely the 
effectiveness, coherence and visibility of  the EU's disaster response. Visibility33 is dealt with 
separately as it is considered a horizontal aspect  that will require consideration in each of the 
options. 
Options are compared against the baseline scenar io (status quo – Option 2). Charts and graphs 
are used to sum up and graphi cally represent conclusions.  
7.1. Option 2: Maintaining the status quo 
The status quo (with or without incremental ch anges) corresponds to the baseline scenario 
(see chapter 3.4) and is in line with the overarching objectives of  EU policy. Nevertheless, it 
should not be amongst the preferred options as it does not provide significant improvements 
in terms of effectiveness, coherence and visibility, i.e. the specific objectives the Commission 
aims to achieve via the upcoming Communication. 
                                                 
29 See supra , footnote 1  
30 Effectiveness entails the evaluation of the rapidity of  response and the availability of sufficient capacity 
in case of need. 
31 The objectives should result in tangible benefits produced by money spent; i.e.  cost effectiveness means 
ensuring the most profit in exchange for the amount of money that is spent. 
32 Coherence is achieved when options are logically ordered/integrated, when they are consistent (clear 
and intelligible), and well coordinated.  
33 Visibility is the capacity to render something noticea ble. Increased visibility in EU disaster response 
implies that EU action should obtain a greater degree of general attention/prominence. 
EN    EN 7.2. Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Re sponse Capacity based on a voluntary 
pool of Member States' standby capaci ties (human resources and assets) 
The development of a voluntary pool of pre-identified Member States' capacities  on standby 
for immediate deployment in EU operations woul d represent a major step in reinforcing the 
EU's disaster response. 
In terms of effectiveness it w ould almost fully achieve the specific objectives detailed above. 
A small proviso in this regard is related to the fact that according to  the envisaged design 
Member States would voluntarily commit assets to the pool and could refuse their deployment 
whenever needed for national purposes or ot her important reasons. Whilst this would 
inevitably limit the advantages deriving from con tingency planning, it is fair to assume that 
Member States will generally be inclined to poo l capacities and will rarely refuse to deploy. 
The impact on the availability of assets in case of an emergency and on the rapidity of 
response to disasters would thus  appear to be insignificant. 
The approach proposed in Option 3 would also appear to be the mo st cost-effective as it relies 
on Member States' assets and makes use of what  already exists. Moreover, should assets need 
to be created, this would fall within the comp etences of Member States who would therefore 
be able to make use of their extensive knowledge and expertise in the field. The overall cost-effectiveness of the option being evaluated coul d be further increased by defining an optimal 
size and composition of the pool, taking into  account the different types of capacities 
available at national level. Moreover, the flex ibility of the system would be ensured by 
supplementing the assets in the voluntary pool with ad hoc  offers from Member States 
provided in the same way as civil protect ion assistance is currently organised.  
Since most civil protection capabilities are al ready on standby for na tional purposes, Option 3 
would not generate significant extra costs at Member States' level as pre-commitment would 
not result in a need to create backup capacities. Similarly, it would not require significantly 
more resources at EU level for reinforcing th e MIC than those which would be necessary to 
implement the baseline scenario (which already foresees reinforcing the MIC's analytical and 
coordination capacity). Ensuring th e dual visibility (national and European) of civil protection 
assets deployed via the pool or  the EU Civil Protection Mech anism would also be readily 
achievable with minor expense. 
Finally, the option would be compatible with the EU’s policy and the Commission’s priority 
to strengthen EU disaster management. On the one hand, it would be fully consistent and 
respect the responsibilities of Member States for the prevention, preparedness and response to 
disasters, on the other hand, it would be in line with the principle of EU solidarity when 
disasters strike. By focusing on Member States' assets it would also ensure full compliance 
with the principle of s ubsidiarity and be proporti onal to the ends sought. 
Option 3 appears to be the most appropriate for achieving the objectives  identified. Although 
it should generally be preferred to the other opt ions discussed, there may be some cases in 
which the use of EU-level assets would be mo re justified in terms of economic impacts (see 
sections 7.3 and 7.4 below). 
7.3. Option 4: Developing an EU Disaster Re sponse Capacity with EU-level assets 
Developing complement ary EU-funded assets  for certain specific needs has a number of 
advantages in terms of effectiveness and cohere nce. Effectiveness would be even greater than 
EN    EN for the voluntary pool option as the use of assets  would be prioritised for EU operations at all 
times, thus ensuring full availability. This opti on would also provide opp ortunities to increase 
EU visibility which would be comparable to those offered by the voluntary pool option. 
In terms of cost-effectiveness, there is a need to distinguish three groups  of EU-level assets:  
i) those performing horizontal tasks, such as assessment (rapid environmental impact 
assessment modules), logistics and coordination (in particular TAST and telecommunications 
equipment); 
ii) complementary high-value assets in areas  where national resource s typically prove to 
be insufficient; 
iii) other assets. The first category of assets is envisaged to be more cost-effec tive if assets are developed at 
EU level rather than in Member States, due to burden-sharing and economies of scale. For 
example, it would be advisable to  contract EU-level TAST to serve EU teams on site (and 
possibly provide services to the UN and other part ners present on the gro und), rather than rely 
on individual Member States’ contributions. 
A Similar rationale applies to high-value assets in areas where national resources typically 
prove to be insufficient. Here the key is to develop capacity and burde n-sharing arrangements, 
as assets such as aerial forest fire fighting cap acities are expensive to buy or rent. The burden-
sharing arrangements would be ex pected to significantly reduce the burden on e ach individual 
Member State. One example of a functioning scheme allowing the effective sharing of complementary aerial forest fire -fighting capacities, is the EU Forest Fire-Fighting Tactical 
Reserve (EUFFTR) pilot project implement ed during the summer of 2009 (see Figure 4 
above).
34 
Similar gains are not immediately visible with re gard to the last category of EU-level assets 
(neither performing horizontal tasks nor high-va lue assets in areas where national resources 
typically prove to be insufficient), and shoul d be assessed on a case by case (asset type by 
asset type) basis. It could well be that Member  States are better equipped to provide such 
assets (e.g. high capacity pu mping, field hospitals or search and rescue). 
The creation of EU-level capacities can imply si gnificant shifts in cost s between the EU and 
the Member States. EU-level assets would requi re substantial investments at Union level but 
would create savings at the national one. In most  cases it can be expected that the savings 
would outweigh the costs due to the economies of  scale and possible synergies, resulting in 
net gains for the EU. Moreover, positive impact s could be maximised and negative impacts 
limited by defining an optimal size and composition of EU-level assets. 
Figure 5 - Summary: Comparison of opti ons against the baseline scenario 
 Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Coherence 
Option 2 (status quo) 0 0 0 
                                                 
34 Also see http://ec.europa.eu/echo/ civil_protection/civil/pro te/pilot_project08_en.htm .  
EN    EN Option 3 (voluntary 
pool) Almost entirely 
achieves the specific objective. The fact that member States will be able to choose whether to make assets available for the pool, coupled with their right not to provide committed assets when needed internally, may limit availability at EU level.  The most efficient, as 
it relies on already existing MS’ assets. Cost-effectiveness could be further maximised by optimising the size and composition of the pool. Fully compatible 
with overarching objectives and would strengthen the EU in this regard. Ensures maximum respect for subsidiarity and proportionality 
Option 4 (EU-level assets) Fully compatible 
with the effectiveness objective due to the prioritisation of assets for EU operations. Potentially efficient 
for some assets (horizontal tasks and high-cost capacities insufficient at national level). Would require investment from the EU (which could be offset by savings at MS level). Fully coherent with 
overarching objectives. Whilst conformity with subsidiarity/ proportionality would be fully ensured, Option 3 appears to be more appropriate in this respect.  
7.4. Conclusion: a hybrid proposal ? 
Compared to the baseline, both Options 3 an d 4 have clear advant ages, outweighing the 
disadvantages of the status quo with regard to  all criteria, as summarised in figure 5 above. 
These Options should therefore be preferred to  the baseline scenario. In particular, the 
comparison highlights the advantages of Option 3 with regard to its co mpatibility with the 
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the advantages of Option 4 in terms of 
effectiveness and (potentially) co st-effectiveness (especially with regard to EU-level assets 
performing horizontal tasks and specific hi gh-value assets). A graphic reflection of 
comparative strengths and weaknesses is  represented in figure 6 (below).  
Figure 6 - Comparative Benefits/Costs of  Different Policy Options (indicative) 
Level of impacts +
+
+ +
+ + 0 - - 
- - 
- 
- 
... ensures effectiveness of EU  CP response        
... ensures coherence of the EU CP response        
... ensures cost-efficiency of the EU CP response        
EN    EN ... ensures the visibility of th e EU CP response        
... does not imply significant costs at the MS level        
... does not imply significant costs at the EU level        
... adheres to the principles of 
subsidiarity/proportionality        
Option no:*  3 4  2    
In light of the above conclusions, it may be useful to balance the advantages and 
disadvantages of the various options with the aim of desi gning a system that maximises 
effectiveness and coherence, simultaneously en suring minimal negative impacts and costs. In 
merging the options preference should be given to Option 3 insofar as it demonstrates a greater degree of compatibility  with the principles of s ubsidiarity and proportionality. 
However, the aspects of Option 4 which ensure  significant economic gains for the EU should 
also be taken into account.  
The relative strengths of the options consider ed point towards a hybrid system comprising the 
following elements: 
A voluntary pool of Member States’ assets committed to EU operations. This should form 
the core of the system. The size and composition of the pool will be determined at a later 
stage; 
Complementary ad hoc offers of Member States  along the lines of the current EU Civil 
Protection Mechanism;  
Supplementary EU-level assets  where cost-efficiency outweighs  the political disadvantage of 
not relying on Member States' assets. This is most likely with regard to assets performing 
horizontal tasks (e.g. TAST) and sp ecialised high-value assets th at are lacking in the Member 
States. Although a study which may provide some  feedback on this i ssue has already been 
launched, further economic analysis of the costs and benefits of developing each capacity will 
need to be undertaken. 
This system would be further reinforced  by continued support to the humanitarian 
organisations that develop and manage the prepositioning of relief items for international humanitarian operations, and backed by  military assets  in specific cases. 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
At this early stage of policy developmen t, impacts of possible policy options are 
merely being assessed and compared with no final decision as to which options will be selected. Monitoring and evaluation does not currently appear necessary. It should be noted, however, that when options will be selected for inclusion into concrete legislative proposals, the Commission will ensure that appropriate monitoring and evaluation arrangements, including reporting, shall be put in place. 
EN    EN Annex I : Stakeholder Consultation Meeting Report  
Report from stakeholder consultation meet ing: Impact Assessment for the Commission 
Communication on Reinforcing the European Union's Disaster Response Capacity 
Brussels, 22 July 2010 
The meeting brought together 130 representatives fr om a wide range of act ors involved in the 
response to major disasters. Pa rticipants included humanita rian aid, civil protection and 
military staff from the EU Member States, in ternational organisations , EU institutions, NGOs, 
research and industry.  
In line with the stakeholder consultation docum ent sent out prior to the meeting, discussion 
focused on whether EU disaster response can be ma de more effective, coherent and visible.  
Summary:  It was generally acknowledged that alt hough there is room for further improving 
the systems for EU civil protection and EU humanitarian assistance, these systems are 
delivering expected results and functioning in line with their current mandates. The future 
reinforcement of the EU's disaster response capacity should build on existing tools and 
instruments available at European and intern ational level, and avoi d creating duplications. 
The UN's overall role in coordi nating international relief outside the EU should continue to be 
fully supported. The principles of a needs-based approach, coupled with the effectiveness and 
coherence of the EU’s response, are central to future developments. Different actors and 
instruments involved in disaster  response should be brought together when strengthening the 
EU's disaster response capacity, simultaneousl y ensuring that their roles and mandates are 
clearly defined. In the area of humanitarian assistance, the European Consensus on 
Humanitarian Aid  is considered the framework for any future initiatives. EU civil protection 
cooperation should continue to be based primaril y on Member States' resources, while there is 
a clear scope for improvement in terms of pred ictability and better planning of assistance. 
Cost-effectiveness should remain a central concer n in the further development of EU Disaster 
Response.  
Many stakeholders supported the objective of c ontinued reinforcement of the EU’s disaster 
response capacity through a compre hensive and all-hazard approach. Contingency planning , 
scenarios , training , exercises  and work on lessons learnt  were generally considered to 
increase the effectiveness of the response, while the need to remain flexible was noted. Future 
reference scenarios should remain  relatively general and disti nguish between disasters inside 
the EU and in third countries. Within the EU , preparedness for disast ers should be based on 
risk assessments and mapping, once they become available.  
The importance of building on the civil protection module system was repeatedly stressed, 
as was the importance of the interaction between  civil protection and hum anitarian assistance. 
Stakeholders strongly supported the further reinforcement of analytical planning and 
coordination capacity of the MIC. 
Future training initiatives in the area of EU disaster response  could build on the EU civil 
protection training programme and other training progr ammes (incl. at international level), 
and should avoid the creation of new structures. Possibilities fo r broadening the scope of the 
EU Civil Protection Mechanism training pr ogramme and opening it to humanitarian aid 
professionals (for participation or for lectur ing), the EU and Member States' diplomats, 
international partners, as well as military and other personnel invol ved in the response to 
EN    EN disasters was welcomed. More efforts should be ma de to attain gender balance in the training 
programmes. 
While the Communication will focus on disa ster response, it was clarified that 
prevention/preparedness and DRR  are equally important and that  work in these fields will 
be pursued in parallel.  
The overall coordinating role of the UN outside the EU  was repeatedly underlined. It was 
considered important to ensure that EU assistan ce be needs driven and fitting into the cluster 
system, that the role of the host country as well as  the Humanitarian Coordinator (where 
applicable) be respected. Some  stressed that humanitarian  actors should lead work on 
common needs assessments . The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid should be 
appropriately referred to as it clarifies th e complementary role of civil protection in 
humanitarian aid response, and the EU's support for the humanitarian principles.  
A few stakeholders also called for the Comm unication to recognise the importance of 
consular cooperation , including medical evacuation of ci tizens from disaster areas.  
The importance of International disaster  response laws, rules and principles ( IDRL ) was 
noted. References were also made to the usef ulness of closer cooperation with NATO, both in 
relation to its civilian capabilities and its potential role in identifying military assets in disaster response. The cooperation between MIC and EADRCC was considered to be of key 
importance by some stakeholders. 
Discussion on further developing th e EU's disaster response in th e field of civil protection was 
welcomed by stakeholders, who expressed a fu ll spectrum of views on the issue. Several 
Member States expressed their openness to the idea of a voluntary pool of key Member 
States' assets on standby for immediate deployment in  EU operations, while a number of 
conditions were mentioned. In line with the pr inciple of subsidiarity, such arrangements 
should be genuinely voluntary and based on th e existing Member States' capacities. Some 
participants noted that circumstances in wh ich the Member States could refuse deploying 
assets committed to the pool should remain relatively broad. A possible need for EU co-
funding for Member States' assets committed to the pool was raised.  
The majority of Member States that took the floor did not support the option of developing 
complementary EU-level assets . However, some spoke in favour of arrangements such as 
those tested through a pilot proj ect on the EU Forest Fire-fi ghting Tactical Reserve, and 
especially those focusing on horizontal and spec ialised support tasks (t echnical assistance and 
support, IT etc.). There was a common understanding that cost c onsiderations of any proposed 
arrangements should be carefully considered. The flexibility of the system and minimal 
investments should be key considerations  in developing future arrangements.  
The need for common quality criteria for th e resources deployed was raised. The use of 
international standards, such as the Sphere sta ndards, also in the area of civil protection was 
noted. Accountability towards beneficiaries should remain pivotal.  
Stakeholders were opposed to the development of an EU system for prepositioning of relief 
items. EU support to preposit ioning of humanitarian partner organisations such as WFP and 
IFRC was supported. It was recalle d that the WFP Humanitarian  Response Depots are open to 
Member States and to humanitari an organisations. Stakeholders  stressed that the EU should 
retain its role as a donor in the area of humanitarian aid and not take over functions carried 
out by humanitarian organisations.  
EN    EN Given that an important share of fundi ng for humanitarian assistance is spent on transport 
and logistics, the need for an efficient management of arrangements in such fields was 
highlighted. The Haiti earthquake was said to have initially involved too many players and 
supply-chains. 
The Commission's co-funding for the transport of  Member States' assistance  was broadly 
supported but it was suggested th at administrative procedures should be simplified and co-
financing rates could be increased. Most of the Member States argued that co-financing rates 
should not be linked to the level of pre-co mmitment of assets to the voluntary pool. The 
possibility of distinguishing between situations inside a nd outside the EU was noted.  
The Technical Assistance and Support Teams (TAST)  were considered very useful for 
facilitating logistics arrangements during disast ers. Their mandates could be deepened and 
broadened, and they could also be used  to provide servi ces to the UN.  
Stakeholders called for more concerted effort s in the field of transport during major 
emergencies in order not to drive up the prices, possibly making better use of the 
Commission's framework contract  with a transport broker.  
Stakeholders agreed that military capacity  can play an important role in supplementing civil 
protection and humanitarian assist ance in disaster relief, and that  it is important to explore 
how the use of military assets in disaster response can be made more effective and predictable. Military assets and capabilities are used as a last resort and under civilian 
command in international disaster response, as  foreseen by the Oslo Guidelines and the 
European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. Howeve r, it was recalled that military assets and 
capabilities sometimes play a more important ro le in national disaster response schemes.  
It was suggested that efforts should be made to define the niche-specific  capabilities and gaps 
where military capacity could provide added valu e. The use of military capacities should be 
avoided in direct assistance and in sectors such as water and sanitation, field hospitals etc. 
where humanitarian organisations already have specific expertise and capabilities which are 
largely sufficient to cover the needs. 
The use of military assets and capabilities as part of EU disaster response should build on 
existing frameworks, such as the 2006 EU arrangements on military support to EU disaster response
35. The division of labour between the Commission and the future EEAS Council 
secretariat in coordinating EU military assets and capabilities in disasters should be clarified for the benefit of external stakeholders. A scenar io for using EU Battlegroups in disaster relief 
is currently being considered.  
Most speakers did not see the need for the establishment of an independent EU pool of civil-
military liaison officers  separate from that developed by OCHA, nor for standby military 
resources for disaster relief. References were  also made to the usefulness of closer 
cooperation with NATO, both in relations to its ci vilian capabilities and its potential role in 
identifying military assets in disaster re sponse. The cooperation between MIC and EADRCC 
within the agreed framework was considered to  be of key importance by some stakeholders. 
                                                
 
35 General Framework for the use of Member States military  and military chartered transportation assets and ESDP 
coordination tools in support of EU disaster response, doc. 8976/06 and Military support to  EU disaster response — 
Identification and coordination of available assets a nd capabilities, doc. 9462/3/06  REV 3 and doc. 14540/06 + 
COR 1  
EN    EN Stakeholders agreed on  the scope for improving EU coordination in the aftermath of 
disasters , both on an operational and a strategic/politic al level. In the area of humanitarian 
assistance it was agreed that information shari ng regarding funding intentions, analyses, needs 
assessments etc. can be improved. As civil pr otection and humanitarian assistance are brought 
together in the Commission, stakeholders agr eed that there are new opportunities for stronger 
EU coordination in the aftermat h of disasters. Appr opriate coordination a rrangements with the 
CCA arrangements, relevant Commissioners, th e future EEAS, the High Representative/Vice 
President etc. were noted as  crucial. Coordination, cons ultation and c ooperation with 
international organisations should be  referred to in the Communication.  
Regarding the option of a web-based tool for interactive and secure information exchange 
on EU humanitarian assistance , stakeholders stressed the need to build on the existing 14 
points system and the tools in place in the area of civil protecti on (CECIS and the MIC 
Portal). Real-time coordination prior to de cisions on humanitarian funding was thought to 
favour equitable distribution of EU funds. Ex isting Commission information tools should be 
rationalised.  
Coordination was also consider ed important in the area of EU advocacy  where greater use of 
coherent and joint action could be made. In the area of disast er preparedness in developing 
countries, ISDR and the Hyogo framework for ac tion provide the basic framework for action.  
Stakeholders strongly s upported increased work on lessons learnt  and evaluations . It was 
suggested that future evaluations and EU lessons learnt exercises, such as the one taking place 
in the aftermath of the Hait i earthquake, should involve NGOs  and other stakeholders.  
Several stakeholders requested  further consultation opportuni ties. It was clarified that 
following the adoption of the Communication, cu rrently foreseen for November 2010, there 
will be extensive consultations and political deba tes in the relevant fora. Legislative proposals 
will follow in 2011.