EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 20.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1630 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on a Union Civil Pr otection Mechanism 
{COM(2011) 934 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1632 final}  
 
EN    EN Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commissi on’s services involved  in its preparation 
and does not prejudge the final form of any  decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
EN 1   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
EU civil protection (CP) legi slation consists of two C ouncil Decisions establishing a 
Community Mechanism1 and a Financial Instrume nt (CPFI), respectively2. The Mechanism 
supports and coordinates the preparation an d deployment of Member States’ in-kind 
assistance (teams, experts and equipment) to c ountries requesting intern ational assistance in 
major emergencies of all kinds, natural or  man-made, within and outside the EU. 
Disasters are becoming more frequent, intens e and complex. Current systems for prevention 
and protection against disasters a nd coordination at EU level need to be adapted to deal with 
such challenges effectively and efficiently. 
This impact assessment (IA) was carried out by th e Commission to help guide that process. It 
examines EU CP cooperation policy options, incl uding all aspects of an ex-ante evaluation for 
the future form of the CPFI. 
2. CONSULTATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The IA process included an IA Steer ing Group of 21 relevant services3 and an extensive 
external study4. 
The main stakeholders are national CP authori ties, international orga nisations, UN agencies, 
emergency management organisations, and the humanitarian community. Three targeted 
stakeholder consultations5 and a series of stakeh older events were held6. Following the IA 
Board’s opinion, the IA report was re vised to reflect all comments. 
3. THE PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED  
The current CPFI will expire at  the end of 2013. The Mechanism Decision is closely linked to 
the CPFI but has no expiry date. EU CP actions under the Mechanism and CPFI face three major challenges: 1) the continuous increase  in numbers, intensity, and complexity of 
disasters; 2) budgetary constrai nts given the current economic situation; and 3) systemic 
limitations inherent to the current mandate of the Mechanism, restricting the effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence of  EU disaster response. 
The Mechanism currently has a number of shortcom ings related to the re sponse, preparedness 
and prevention of disasters: 
(1) Reactive and ad hoc mechanics
 limit the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of 
European disaster response. Currently the Mechanism is not in a position to 
                                                 
1 OJ L 314, 2007, p. 9. 
2 OJ L 71, 2007, p. 9. . 
3 SG, SJ, BUDG, HOME, ENV, JUST, CLIM, RTD, JRC, MOVE, ENER, REGIO, SANCO, AGRI, 
ENTR, INFSO, ELARG, DEVCO, FPIS, EEAS. 
4 Annex C. 
5 Stakeholder meetings from  6 April and 17 June 2011 with 120 participants each. 
6 Meeting of CP Directors-General in Budapest on 23-25 May 2011. 
 
EN 2   EN guarantee the availability of assistance when  needed and does not allow meaningful 
contingency planning. 
(2) Critical gaps in response assets  due to insufficient quantit ies, problems of timing or 
sharing. Gaps occur with regard to assets to deal with low probability/high impact 
risks, specialised high-cost a ssets and 'horizontal' assets. 
(3) Limited transport solutions and heavy pr ocedures hinder optimal response: Lack of 
good access to transport can prevent assistance being provided; procedures for requesting EU financial support for tran sport are considered administratively 
burdensome for quick response actions. 
(4) Limited preparedness in training and exercises:  
Incompatibility problems have arisen 
for equipment, cooperation procedures, indivi dual preparedness and trust in partners’ 
capabilities. Without EU assistance, Participa ting States (PS) will not be able to raise 
their preparedness levels for overw helming and cross-border events.  
(5) Lack of integration of prevention : Sector-based prevention po licies lack a general EU 
risk management framework where the differe nt elements can be brought together to 
link prevention with preparedness and response more effectively. 
3.1. Baseline 
In the baseline scenario, no ch anges to the Mechanism Decisi on are made and the CPFI is 
renewed in its current form. This  would result in a response system that is not effective 
enough to meet needs, misses the opportunity to reap economic bene fits through better 
pooling, and does not exploit th e potential of cooperation to  reinforce prevention and 
preparedness.  
The Commission considers that  without further action: 
(1) fewer assets would be available for EU cooperation; 
(2) transport-related problems and delays would increase; 
(3) individual Member States would no t achieve sufficient preparedness; 
(4) cooperation benefits in prev ention would be suboptimal. 
3.2. Justification for EU action and subsidiarity 
Article 196 TFEU provides the spec ific legal basis for the Union’ s civil protection actions to 
support and complement Member States’ action at national, regional and local level in 
preventing, preparing for and responding to natu ral or man-made disasters and to promote 
consistency in internatio nal civil-protection work. 
EU action in this field involves managing situ ations with a strong multinational component, 
requiring overall coordination and concerted ac tion beyond the national level. EU added value 
would result from economies of scale, such as logistics, transport, voluntary pool of assets, 
better use of scarce resources  and economies of preventive action instead of post factum 
response to disasters. 
 
EN 3   EN 4. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW  
General objectives Specific objectives 
Response 
(1) More effective and efficient response 
through planning and enhanced 
availability of assistance Shift from a reactive and ad hoc  coordination to a pre-
planned, pre-arranged and predictable system  
(2) Address critical gaps in response 
capacity Identify and fill critical gaps in disaster response 
capacity in a cost-effective way  
(A) Reduce bottlenecks posed by limited logistical and 
financial transport resources. Transport 
(3) Improve the response to major 
emergencies through better transport 
solutions (B) Simplify the transport provisions and streamline 
administrative procedures  
Preparedness 
(4) Support and complement PS 
preparedness actions with a coherent 
EU preparedness policy framework (1) Better link national preparedness systems by 
creating more consistency. 
(2) Enlarge the scope of current EU preparedness 
actions and link them better with national programmes. 
(3) Define preparedness explicitly as one objective of 
the EU CP cooperation and provide sufficient funding.  
Prevention 
(5) Support and complement PS disaster 
risk management actions by a coherent 
EU prevention policy framework (1) Support national disaster risk management planning. 
(2) Improve the sharing of experience by promoting a 
common understanding of disaster risk management 
practices and provide funding for reaching a high level of protection. 
(3) Integrate disaster prevention policies  
(4) Strengthen prevention awareness raising  
5. THE OPTIONS ASSESSED AND THEIR IMPACTS  
5.1. Availability of assistance 
In the 2010 Response Communication7, the Commission proposes a European Emergency 
Response Capacity  (a voluntary pool of pre-committed PS assets), an Emergency Response 
Centre , facilitating transpor tation and EU-funded assets filling capacity gaps. All stakeholders 
strongly support more planning, pre- arrangements and predictability. 
Policy options for availability of assistance:  (1) Voluntary pool wit hout EU co-financing; 
(2) Voluntary pool with a limite d EU co-financing (only depl oyment costs); (3) Voluntary 
pool with a higher degree of EU  co-financing (some developm ent, including equipment), 
standby costs and deployment. 
Option 1 would not affect the EU budget or entail  any legislative modifications. It would be a 
purely political commitment, and would not ensure the reliable availability of sufficient assets 
in a sustainable way. Option 2 would reduce th e financial constraint s on PS to contribute 
assets to the pool and make the EU response more coherent and needs-based. This would 
avoid duplication, boost compleme ntarities and speed up the delivery of assistance with 
overall efficiency gains. The administrative  burden on PS and the EU would be low. The 
estimated budgetary shift is EUR 9 million a year . The impact of Option 3 is comparable to 
                                                 
7 COM(2010) 600. 
 
EN 4   EN Option 2 and would further enhance the effectiven ess and efficiency of EU disaster response, 
as it would result more quick ly in a functional pool.  
Overall, Options 2 and 3 are superior in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, with benefits 
under Option 3 even more pronounced. 
5.2. Identifying and fill ing critical gaps  
The 2010 Communication mentions di fferent ways of filling response gaps with the option of 
EU-funded assets to be shared ac ross the EU and deployed in wa ys similar to those from the 
voluntary pool. When not require d for EU operations, the ma naging PS could use assets 
domestically. 
Policy options for critical gaps : (1): filling gaps by PS without  EU co-financing; (2) filling 
gaps by PS with EU co-financing; (3) filling gaps with EU-level assets. 
Option 1 would be without si gnificant costs to the EU budget but also with limited 
effectiveness. The financial burdens and bene fits unevenly spread among PS are likely to 
create tension. Option 2 would effectively a nd efficiently fill gaps and share assets, 
introducing a more equitabl e and coherent model through (partial) burden-sharing and 
reducing financial constraints on PS. Option 3 is highly effective,  allowing the EU to address 
identified gaps in a timely and cost-effectiv e manner — subject to budget availability. Higher 
implications for the EU budget could be questioned for reasons of subsidiarity. 
Option 2 seems particularly appropriate for asse ts responding to low probability/high impact 
risks, Option 3 for horizontal a ssets benefiting all ac tors, especially if budgetary implications 
are low. 
5.3. Transport  
Policy options for limited logistical and financial resources for transport : (1) discontinuation 
of the scheme; (2) no policy change; (3) increas e the maximum EU co-financing for transport 
for top priority needs; (4) increase the maxi mum EU co-financing for transport across the 
board. 
Option 1 would undermine the achievement of CP objectives and is therefore discarded. 
Option 2 relies on private cost-free solutions and on PS offering transport to each other. 
Options 3 and 4 would reduce the barriers rela ted to financing tran sport. Option 3 would 
make the overall response needs-based. The administrative burden of  Options 3 and 4 on 
external partners is likely to remain the same. Option 4 carries the risk that low transport costs 
could encourage deployment of non-esse ntial goods, so Opti on 3 is preferred. 
Policy options for achieving stream lined administrative procedures : (1) no policy change; (2) 
simplification. 
Option 1 includes simplification to be undert aken by the Commission without legislative 
revision. Option 2 includes legislative revi sion and is expected  to further reduce 
administrative costs for the EU and the PS a nd significantly contribute to achieving the 
objectives. As Option 1 is not considered suffi cient to yield significant improvements, Option 
2 is preferred. 
 
EN 5   EN 5.4. Preparedness  
Stakeholders expressed general satisfaction with current training and exercise arrangements. 
Some requested broadening of their scope. Opti ons to introduce binding legislation, binding 
standards or quality labels were discarded at an early stage, as the legal basis of Article 196 
TFEU excludes harmonisation.  
Policy options: 1) Non-binding gu idelines on training and exercises and no change in CPFI 
spending levels; 2) General EU preparedne ss policy framework without legally binding 
provisions plus supplementary EU funding for the establishment of a training network and 
other actions; 3) EU support fo r CP training made conditional on PS training centres meeting 
certain minimum requirements. 
Option 1: Non-binding EU guidelines likely to lead to variati ons in preparedness levels in PS 
would not be effective. Economic, environmental and social impacts, including the administrative burden, would be limited, as PS would implement only their own standards. 
Option 2: Given that PS are at different levels as regards preparedness, the implementation of 
non-binding EU guidelines would have varyi ng implications in terms of costs and 
effectiveness. If EU financial support were pr ovided, the cost would (partly) be incurred by 
the EU budget. 
Option 3: Enhanced effectiveness and efficien cy in response operations involving more than 
one PS is achieved through common principles, knowledge, better inte roperability and a 
bigger resource pool. Costs at EU level are limited  with regard to the se tting-up of a training 
network. Implementation costs in PS relate to i. e. standards for curricula. The administrative 
burden for public and private operators may be significant as the adherence to the standards 
and the fulfilment of the requirements are likely  to entail considerable  extra reporting costs. 
Options 2 and 3 would provide better benefits in terms of efficiency  and EU added-value, 
compared to Option 1. Option 3 would likely be s uperior to Option 2 in terms of effectiveness 
and coherence, but met with re servations from stakeholders. 
5.5. Prevention  
Stakeholders agree that prevention actions need to become an integral part of a balanced 
approach moving EU civil protection forward.  
Policy options: 1) No new EU legislation, but  guidelines on minimum national prevention 
standards and on national disaster  risk management plans (RMPs) and same co-funding levels 
as at present; 2) General EU prevention pol icy framework with non- binding guidelines plus 
supplementary EU funding for RMPs; 3) set ting a date for completion of RMPs by MS 
accompanied by Commission guidelines  
Option 1 might lead to varying implementation of RMPs and minimum prevention standards, 
and would fail to achieve a higher over all prevention sta ndard in the EU. 
Option 2 would lead to faster implementation of guidelines, provided that PS apply for EU 
funding. The costs would depend on the ad vancement of each national system. The 
administrative costs of additional reporting would be low or insignificant. Economic, 
environmental and social impacts would be superior to Option 1. 
 
EN 6   EN Option 3 entails a consistent, equitable a pproach throughout the EU, though implementation 
might be delayed due to the length of the le gislative processes. Lo w administrative burden. 
While Option 1 provides insufficient effectivene ss and coherence, Options 2 and 3 would be 
beneficial for effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Option 2 would allow faster 
implementation, while Option 3 might lead in the medium-term to more coherent 
implementation of disaster risk management plans, but met with re servations from key 
stakeholders. 
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  
The IA proposes the following be included in the legislative proposal: On response,  essential 
elements and principles on the voluntary pool of assets (Availability of assistance Option 3), 
and on EU-funded assets (Critical gaps Option 2), with a reference to the implementation 
rules. On transport , the IA proposes revision of some of  the current legal provisions to 
increase the maximum EU financing rate for tr ansport operations, and simplify administrative 
procedures. On prevention  and preparedness,  a general EU policy framework and 
Commission guidelines are propos ed. A deadline should be cons idered for MS to develop 
RMPs (Prevention Option 3). Supplementary EU  financial assistance  would support the 
development of RMPs and meeting minimum st andards, the training network and other 
actions (Preparedness Option 2). 
Additional funding to support ac tions would require corresp onding changes to the CPFI. 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Commission will evaluate and benchmark th e implementation of the legislation not 
earlier than three years after its coming into force on the basis of inter alia  monitoring 
information, such as results indicators and baselines such as response times and preparedness measures.