COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT  accompanying document to the Communication  "Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance"  COM(2010)600 SEC(2010)1243
Date: 2010-10-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aid to disaster victims, civil defence, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, man-made disaster, natural disaster, the EU's international role

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 response: the role of civil protection and 
humanitarian assistance" 

COM(2010)600 
SEC(2010)1243 

. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.4. 
3.5. 
4. 
4.1. 
4.2. 
4.3. 
5. 
5.1. 
5.2. 
5.3. 

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3 
1. 
Procedural Issues and External Consultation with Member States and Stakeholders . 4 
2. 
Internal preparation ...................................................................................................... 4 
2.1. 
External expertise......................................................................................................... 5 
2.2. 
External consultation with Member States and stakeholders....................................... 5 
2.3. 
2.4. 
Key points emerging from Member State consultations.............................................. 6 
2.4.1.  Civil Protection ............................................................................................................ 6 
2.4.2.  Humanitarian Aid......................................................................................................... 6 
Key points emerging from the stakeholder consultation meeting................................ 7 
2.5. 
Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 8 
3. 
Scene setter: The increasing frequency and severity of disasters ................................ 8 
3.1. 
Existing EU instruments for Disaster Response ........................................................ 10 
3.2. 
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 
The Baseline Scenario: No policy change scenario? ................................................. 14 
Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 15 
Policy Objectives ....................................................................................................... 16 
Improving the effectiveness of EU Disaster Response, including cost-effectiveness 17 
Strengthening the coherence of EU Disaster Response ............................................. 17 
Increasing visibility.................................................................................................... 17 
Policy Options............................................................................................................ 18 
Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies.................................................................. 18 
Option 2: Maintaining the status quo ......................................................................... 18 
Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based on a voluntary pool 
of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and assets)......................... 18 
Option 4: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity with EU-level assets ...... 19 
5.4. 
Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force.................................... 21 
5.5. 
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 
Proportionate Impact Analysis................................................................................... 22 
6. 
Economic impacts of Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based 
6.1. 
on a voluntary pool of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and 
assets) ......................................................................................................................... 23 
Economic impacts of Option 4: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity with 
EU-level assets ........................................................................................................... 24 
Social Impacts ............................................................................................................ 25 
Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 26 
Comparing Options .................................................................................................... 26 
Option 2: Maintaining the status quo ......................................................................... 26 
Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based on a voluntary pool 
of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and assets)......................... 27 
Option 4: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity with EU-level assets ...... 27 
Conclusion: a hybrid proposal ?................................................................................. 29 
Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 30 

6.3. 
6.4. 
7. 
7.1. 
7.2. 

7.3. 
7.4. 
8. 

6.2. 

EN 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The 2010 Haiti earthquake is a tragic reminder of the importance of being able to respond to 
disasters swiftly, coherently and effectively. It has provided impetus to explore ways in which 
the EU's Disaster Response Capacity could be reinforced. The possibility of developments in 
this field has also recently been boosted by the inclusion 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  synergies  and  complementarities  and  provide  a 
new  basis  for  the  development  of  a  more  robust  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.  Civil  Protection  has  been  granted  an  explicit 
legal  basis  by  Article  196  TFEU  which  foresees  that  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  will 
apply  to  this  area  in  future,  replacing  decisions  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 recognises its status as a self-standing European 
policy  area  alongside  other  policies  in  the  external  relations  field  (development,  trade, 
economic  cooperation  with  third  countries).  In  addition,  the  solidarity  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 respond to natural and man-made 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 drive in this area. 

It is against this background that the Commission intends to present a Communication on EU 
Disaster  Response  Capacity  in  November  2010.  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  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  The  main 
objective  will  be  to  improve  effectiveness  (rapidity  of  deployment  and  appropriateness  of 
action),  coherence  (operational  and  political  coordination)  and  visibility,  by  building  upon 
three components of the EU's response to disasters (i.e. humanitarian aid and civil protection3, 
as well as military support where needed and appropriate).  

The  Communication  will  address  both  natural  and  man-made  disasters  (i.e.  technological 
and/or  environmental)  inside  and  outside  the  EU,  except  for  armed  conflicts  (complex 

1 

2 

3 

EN 

The 

countries. 

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 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_328_en.pdf. 
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  include  armed  conflicts/complex  emergencies  –  see 
footnote 5 infra. 
This  is  in  line  with  the  2007  European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  aid  which  provides  an  explicit 
declaration of the shared objectives and principles that underpin EU Humanitarian Aid and underlines 
the need for complementarities between civil protection and humanitarian aid in responding to disasters. 

available 

report 

full 

is 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
emergencies)4, and will focus on the response phase. Although prevention and preparedness 
will not expressly be covered, a key assumption 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  Reduction  and  reinforcing  response  capacity.  The 
Communication will therefore encourage the further development of disaster prevention and 
preparedness  at  European,  national  and  international  level,  along  the  lines  set  out  in  the 
Commission's 2009 Communications5. 

This  impact  assessment  aims  to  provide  the  Commission  with  the  information  necessary  in 
order to develop the aforementioned Communication. 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  proportional  to  the  ends  sought.  Given  that  the 
Communication will not propose solutions but merely present options for further developing 
EU  Disaster  Response  Capacity,  possibly  flagging  the  preferred  alternative,  a  full  impact 
assessment  does  not  appear  necessary  or  required  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  organise  and  structure  EU  civil  protection 
cooperation.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  upcoming  Communication  will  also  deal  with 
synergies  with  Humanitarian  assistance  but,  given  that  the  latter  will  only  result  in  policy 
statements  on  the  need  to  reinforce  existing  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  early  2010  with  internal  discussions  within  DG 
ECHO.  Furthermore,  an  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group,  comprising  experts  from 

4 

5 

In UN terminology, armed conflicts are also referred to as "complex emergencies", i.e. "a humanitarian 
crisis  in  a  country,  region  or  society  where  there  is  a  total  or  considerable  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). 
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  Council  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,  technical  and  drafting  advice.  The 
Steering Group was involved in all phases 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 Board discussed the report on the 8th of September 2010 
and  subsequently  issued  an  Opinion.  Besides  generally  approving  the  Impact  Assessment 
Report,  the  Board's  Opinion  contained  comments  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 external "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), 
address: 
consultation 
available 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/index.htm. 

following 

and 

the 

for 

at 

is 

Close contacts with the consultant throughout the drafting of the IA report also meant that the 
Commission was able to draw upon EPEC's expertise with regard to specific economic issues. 
Advice and assistance provided by EPEC proved extremely useful and insightful.  

2.3. 

External consultation with Member States and stakeholders 

In a meeting on 10-11 June 2010, the Directors-General for Civil Protection of the European 
Union  were  asked  to  provide  informal  comments  on  an  issues  paper  detailing  the  options 
pertaining to civil protection which are being considered for inclusion in the Communication 
on  EU  Disaster  Response  Capacity.  An  informal  meeting  with  EU  heads  for  Humanitarian 
Aid  was  also  held  on  8  July  2010  to  seek  feedback  on  issues  relating  to  humanitarian  aid 
outside the EU, which are to be incorporated in the upcoming Communication7. 

Moreover,  all  stakeholders  were  invited  to  participate  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  meeting,  dealing  with  all  the  aspects  likely  to  be 
included  or  affected  by  the  planned  Communication  on  EU  Disaster  Response  Capacity.  In 
total, the meeting brought together over 130 representatives from Member States (covering all 
actors  involved  in  the  response  to  disasters  –  i.e.  humanitarian  aid,  civil  protection  and 
military),  international  organisations,  NGOs,  research  and  industry.  A  public  internet 
consultation was not deemed appropriate given the specialist nature of the subject-matter. 

6 

7 

8 

SG, SJ, BUDG, JLS, ENV, CLIM, RTD, JRC, MOVE, ENER, REGIO, RELEX, DEV, SANCO, AGRI 
ENTR, INFSO, ELARG, AIDCO, MARE, HOME, JUST, ENER. 
In parallel, complementary discussions took place in the Foreign Affairs Council, 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 focused 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. 
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,  exercises,  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 noted that some comments which are 
not relevant to the Impact Assessment will be the object of policy statements in the planned 
Communication  (e.g.  military  support,  prepositioning,  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  Monitoring  and  Information 
Centre of the European Commission10 in terms of coordination and analytical capacity; 

-  There  was  active  support  for  enhanced planning  (development  of  reference  scenarios and 
contingency  plans)  and  logistics  (i.e.  systematic  use  of Technical  Assistance  and  Support 
Teams -TAST- and exploring contractual arrangements 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 
between Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection will entail benefits; 

that  maximising 

synergies 

agreed 

actors 

the 

and 

complementarities 

- There  was  a general  willingness to  further strengthen  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 coordinating role is fully respected; 

-  Reluctance  was  expressed  with  regard  to  the creation  of  new  structures  in  the  area  of  EU 
disaster response; 

9 

10 

Comments  dealing  with  issues  outside  the  scope  of  the  Impact  Assessment  and  the  Communication 
have not been tackled. 
See below, section 3.2.2. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- Regarding the option of an EU system of prepositioning/stockpiling of relief assets, strong 
this  area  by  Humanitarian 
support  was  expressed  for 
Aid organisations such as the UN World Food Programme (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 structures and that duplication of efforts should 
be avoided; 

the  work  undertaken 

in 

-  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 stakeholder consultation meeting 

Discussions focused on the content of the consultation 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 there 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 ensure the effectiveness, coherence, and visibility of the EU's 
response to disasters; 

- There was general support for the need to link actors and instruments involved in disaster 
response, simultaneously ensuring that roles 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  disaster  response  was  flagged  by 
numerous stakeholders. It was suggested that such initiatives could build upon the EU Civil 
Protection  Training  Programme  thus  avoiding  the  creation  of  new  structures.  Training 
possibilities should be open to all relevant actors; 

- There was general support for the overall coordinating role of the UN outside the EU and 
stakeholders  underlined  the  need  for  EU  assistance  to  be  compatible  with  the  UN  cluster 
system; 

-  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. In this context, 
the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be respected and for arrangements to be genuinely 
voluntary and based on existing national capacities was underlined. Stakeholders also noted 
that the circumstances in which Member States could refuse to deploy assets committed to the 
pool should remain relatively broad. The possibility 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 prepositioning of relief 
items  but  welcomed  continued  support  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 should be simplified and co-financing rates could 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  Technical  Assistance  and  Support  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  disaster  response  can  be  made  more  effective  and 
predictable.  It  was  suggested  that  efforts  should  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 response should build on existing frameworks. 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

First of all, this section will 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 increasing frequency and severity of disasters 

Over the past 20 years Europe has suffered significantly from natural disasters in both human 
and  economic  terms.  European  Union  Member  States  have  been  particularly  affected  by 
climate related disasters, chalking up major losses 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 the rest of the world, economic loss per capita 
is high in Europe, partly because it is very densely populated"11.  

Man-made  disasters  including,  inter  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. Europol  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 view, the annual number of disasters 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  individuals  per  year.  It  is  presumed  that  climate 
change will accelerate this trend 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 figures. In 2010, for example, more than 200,000 were 
killed by the Haiti earthquake alone.  

The  impact  of  disasters  varies  considerably  according  to  the  level  of  preparedness  of  the 
countries  concerned.  Disasters  hit  developing  countries  hardest  insofar  as  they  have  less 
capacity  to  cope  and  to  adapt.  Within  such  countries  the  poorest  inhabitants  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 economies of the countries being discussed tend to 
be based on climate/weather-sensitive sectors such as agriculture and fishery, increasing their 
vulnerability. Economic losses due to natural disasters are approximately 20 times greater (as 
a percentage of GDP) in developing countries than in industrialised countries. 

Research also shows an increase in the intensity 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 than 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  decades  there  has  been  a  steady  increase  in  the 
economic losses that result from disasters.  

Figure 1: Damages caused by natural disasters 

12 
13 

See the EM-DAT database of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).  
Oxfam,  "The  Right  to  Survive",  report  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  Commission  can  draw  upon  a  wide  range  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  provision  of  EU  humanitarian  assistance  to  victims  of  natural 
disasters outside the EU, primarily in developing 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,  relief  and  protection  to 
the victims of conflicts or disasters in developing countries. On the policy-side, the EU has an 
increasing  role  in  defending  humanitarian  principles,  International  Humanitarian  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 principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and 
independence. It is based upon the humanitarian imperative to save and preserve lives and is 
not subject to political or other considerations. Decisions to fund 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  through  partner  organisations,  which 
include UN agencies, the Red Cross Movement, and approximately two hundred NGOs.  

Over  the  years,  the  EU,  through  the  Commission's  humanitarian  aid  department  (now 
Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection - DG ECHO), has reinforced 
its presence in the field and considerably developed its assessment and reporting capacity. DG 
ECHO  Situation  Reports  (SITREPs)  are  shared  within  the  EU  and  contribute  to  response 
coordination.  

Cost efficiency and aid effectiveness dictate that relief items should be pre-positioned as close 
to the disaster zone as possible, drawing on local and regional resources whenever feasible. 
This is why major international humanitarian organizations 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 comprehensive tool covering various aspects of the 
disaster management cycle: prevention, preparedness and response to disasters. Established in 
2001 by a Council Decision (subsequently revised in 2007), the Mechanism and all activities 
relating to it are financed through the Civil Protection Financial Instrument adopted in 2007.  

14 

15 

See  the  European  Commission  "Inventory  of  Crisis  Management  Capacities  in  the  European 
Commission and Community Agencies", internal document, 31 July 2009. 
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 assistance (teams, experts and equipment) to countries requesting 
international  assistance  in  case  of  major  disasters.  The  Mechanism  can  be  activated  for  all 
types of emergencies (natural and man-made) within and outside the EU (both in developing 
and developed countries). By pooling the civil protection capabilities of the 31 Participating 
States (the EU-27, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Croatia16), the EU aims at ensuring not 
only  the  protection  of  people  but  also  of  the  natural  and  cultural  environment,  as  well  as 
property.  Typical  examples  of  civil  protection  assistance  include  search  and  rescue  after 
earthquakes,  water  purification  and  high  capacity  pumping  in  floods,  field  hospitals  and 
medicines, forest fire fighting airplanes, tents and power generators.  

Particularly  important  for  the  functioning  of  the  EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  is  the 
Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) of the European Commission, which represents its 
operational centre and is accessible on a 24-hour basis. Any country inside or outside the EU 
which  is  affected  by  a  major  disaster  can  make  an  appeal  for  assistance  through  the  MIC 
which  will  act  as  a  communication  hub  between  the  participating  states  and  the  affected 
country,  coordinating  the  deployment  of  in-kind  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  enhance  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 – herein TAST), and provides useful and updated 
information on the actual status of ongoing emergencies. 

For  major  disasters  with  an  important  impact  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  SANCO.  This  cooperation  is  offered  for  the 
management  of  public  health  events  inside  the  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  borders,  military  capacities  may  only  be  used 
exceptionally,  and  as  a  last  resort,  to  supplement  the  relief  effort  in  large-scale  disasters18. 
With unique capabilities in  areas  such  as  logistics  and infrastructure,  military  assets  can fill 
critical  "capacity  gaps"  notably  as  regards  transport  (cargo  planes,  helicopters);  logistical 
support;  Chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear  (CBRN)  capacities;  and  heavy 

16 

17 
18 

Membership  to  the  Mechanism  is  open  to  all  EU  candidate  countries  by  signing  an  agreement  with  the 
Commission.  The  Commission  also  encourages  potential  candidate  countries  to  make  appropriate  use  of  the 
possibility of cooperating under the Mechanism. 
This occurred in response to the Ukraine pandemic (H1N1) of 2009. 
See, for example, the 2004 South-east Asian tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, 
the 2006 Algerian floods, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
engineering.  In  2006  the  EU  developed  a  framework  for  the  use  of  military  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  limited  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 Communication will set out new policy options and propose different 
ways to organise and structure future EU cooperation. These proposals 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 its mandate in full and delivering results which 
have  exceeded  expectations.  In  particular,  coordination  amongst  participating  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 external 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 financial situation and budgetary constraints, 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,  which  results  in  a  greater  number  of  EU  civil 
protection operations in the framework of the Mechanism (see figure 2 below). The intensity 
and  severity  of  disasters  is  also  on  the  rise  and  seemingly  influenced  by  factors  such  as 
climate change, terrorism, urbanisation 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  response,  which,  according  to  past  experience,  can  be  achieved  with 
limited extra resources. 

Figure 2: The Evolution of EU Civil Protection Mechanism Activations 

19 

20 

21 

See the 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 and capabilities, 
doc. 9462/3/06 REV 3 and doc. 14540/06 + COR 1. 
Guidelines  on  the  Use  of  Military  and  Civil  Defence  Assets  in  International  Disaster  Relief—‘Oslo 
Guidelines’ (re-launched by UN OCHA in November 2006) 
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  system  is  that  insofar  as  it  has  been  set  up  to 
support  and  coordinate,  and  is  therefore  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 activation of the MIC and their request for fire 
fighting  aircraft  was  not  effectively  catered  for.  No  offers  of  assistance  were  received  from 
Member States as aerial forest fire fighting capacities were either being used or could not be 
offered given the need to guarantee sufficient capabilities 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  necessarily  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  response  phase,  negatively  affecting  overall 
effectiveness.  

It also follows that decisions on the deployment 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 deployed, the distribution of assistance over time 
demonstrates  that  certain  Member  States  provided  assets  very  quickly  –  some  European 
response  teams  were  amongst  the  first  international  teams  to  arrive  on  site  –  whilst  other 
Member States required several days to mobilise key resources. Slow reaction times have also 
been noted in the 2010 Pakistan emergency with assistance being offered and arriving on site 
two or three weeks after the calamity. There is no doubt that such assistance would have had a 
much greater impact, in terms of saving lives and 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 fragmentation. Given that Member States propose 
assistance  in  response  to  a  given  emergency  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  assistance  whilst  overlooking  others.  This  is  again  illustrated  by  the 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
response to the Haiti earthquake in which the distribution of  the  various types of assistance 
over  time  demonstrated  clear  fragmentation.  In  particular,  search  and  rescue  teams  which 
should have been deployed immediately in order to have any chance of succeeding were still 
being  offered  and  deployed  on  day  4,  when  the  probability  of  finding  survivors  was  low. 
Similarly,  communication  equipment  which  should  have  been  dispatched  very  early  only 
started arriving on day 5.  

Options  to  make  the  system  more  predictable  and  capable  of  better  coordinating  Member 
States'  assistance  would  certainly  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 benefits in terms of consistency 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  financial  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  with  the  expectations  of  EU  citizens/polity22. 
Visibility  does  not  represent  an  end  in  itself  but  a  means  for  securing  continued  support  by 
EU  decision-makers  and  citizens  for  the  European  disaster  response  and  humanitarian 
assistance, and for informing people at the receiving end about the origin of aid. Additional 
efforts  to  ensure  dual  visibility  (national  and  European)  for  civil  protection  assets  deployed 
through  the  EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  would  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 disaster response capacity 
would  certainly  have  consequences  for  disaster  victims.  Over  the  years  the  EU  Civil 
Protection  Mechanism  activations  have  grown  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 and 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 predict 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  presented  in  section  3.3,  it  is  possible  to  develop  a 
tentative "no policy change" scenario.  

According to observational data and research it is unlikely that 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 the last few decades is likely to persist. That 
being  so,  the  EU  Civil  Protection  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 assistance would be likely to increase. In fact, an 
increase in disasters and/or their severity is likely to mean that Member States assets will be 
employed more often, and that therefore they will not always be available for deployment via 
the MIC.  

22 

See footnote 1, above. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In these circumstances, the instruments  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  disasters  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  subject  to  the  principle  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 the 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 primary responsibility to respond to disasters lies 
with  Member  States,  past  practice  under  the  Mechanism  has  shown  that  there  are  real 
possibilities  for  national  civil  protection  resources  to  be  overwhelmed  by  the  sheer  scale  of 
disasters. In such cases, assistance from other Member States is necessary. Thus, action in this 
field  clearly  involves  managing  time-critical  situations  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 assistance and options to fill the gaps – A scenario-based approach") 
demonstrates that there are several 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  States  is  essential  for  achieving  the  policy  objectives 
sought,  i.e.  a  an  effective,  coherent,  and  visible  EU  response  to  disasters,  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  Article  222  TFEU  which  requires  the  Union  to 
mobilise all instruments at its disposal in order 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 the subsidiarity principle is respected since the 
policy  objectives  discussed  herein  cannot  be  achieved  by  Member  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 reinforce the EU's capacity to respond to disasters by 
building  on  all  available  tools,  capacities  and  expertise  and  maximising  the  synergies  and 
complementarities between them. The options proposed 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  national,  regional  and  local  level  in  responding  to 
natural  or  man-made  disasters  within  the  Union.  For  the  first  time,  a  specific  article  on 
Humanitarian Aid, Article 214 of the Treaty, recognises 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 leadership in humanitarian aid policy at various 
levels.  Improving  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  system  is  therefore  not  only  desired, 
especially  in  light  of  lessons  learnt  from  recent  emergencies  such  as  Haiti,  but  is  also 
supported by the Treaties. 

The solidarity clause enshrined in Article 222 TFEU, which establishes 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 Disaster 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  instruments  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 proposed by  this paper is of  a political  nature and 
will need to be followed by legislative proposals 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  their  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 system 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  immediate  availability  of  assistance  in  the  aftermath  of  a 
disaster.  In  this  context  the  development  of  pre-agreed  deployment  plans  would  be  useful, 
especially given their capacity to maximise certain synergies (e.g. in the field 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 targeted and less fragmented (i.e. fewer ad hoc 
offers) EU-wide approach. The pursuit of the latter will be of paramount importance if the EU 
is to ensure an effective response in the years to come. 

Finally,  the  EU  should  aim  to  further  enhance  the  overall  cost-effectiveness  of  EU  civil 
protection  cooperation  by  encouraging  complementarities  and  burden-sharing  in  the 
development  of  response  capacities.  Whilst  each  Member  State  is  responsible  for  ensuring 
that it is sufficiently equipped to respond to predictable or recurrent risks, it may be possible 
to  secure  economic  gains  by  pooling  and  sharing  additional  reserve  capacities, 
complementing  each  Member  State's  basic  response  assets.  By  developing  such  reserve 
capacities at EU level and sharing the overall burden between 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 simultaneously it is essential that these be “joined 
up”  and  that  the  existing  synergies  and  complementarities  be  maximised.  Parallel  systems 
would only reduce the effectiveness of the overall response and undermine its coherence. For 
major  disasters  outside  the  EU  in  which  the  UN  leads  the  overall  coordination  of  global 
assistance, the EU should also plug its assistance into the overall UN-led package. 

Furthermore,  via  strengthened  coordination,  the  EU  should  also  avoid  duplication, 
fragmentation and ineffectiveness in disaster response operations. In this context, consistency 
and  close  ties  with  activities  carried  out  in  other  disaster  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 disaster response and humanitarian assistance, 
and for informing people at the receiving end about the origin of assistance. 

24 

Humanitarian assistance and civil protection 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 and 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 strive to improve the visibility of its response 
(i.e.  for  in  kind  assistance  as  well  as  for  financial  contributions  to  international  disaster 
response).  In  this  context,  a  scenario  planning  approach  is  also  needed  for  communication 
issues. EU institutions, Member States and EU actors should develop a joint communications 
strategy  capable  of  granting  visibility  to  the  Member  States’  and  the  EU’s  response,  and  to 
communicate European disaster response 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 meeting the objectives identified 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.  Concrete  options  encompassing  more 
technical and legislative elements will be developed and assessed following the adoption of 
the Communication and prior to presenting legislative proposals.  

5.1. 

Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies  

In  certain  circumstances  the  best  way  to  guarantee  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 future approach to be adopted in 
this field.  

5.2. 

Option 2: Maintaining the status quo 

Maintaining the status quo implies the continuation of the current EU policies in the field of 
EU disaster response. The activities and instruments outlined in section 2.2 would continue to 
exist. Financing would be guaranteed along the lines of the 2007-2013 financial perspectives. 

5.3. 

Option 3: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity based on a voluntary 

pool of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and assets) 

One of the options considered in order to overcome the problems detailed in chapter 3 would 
consist  of  developing  a  voluntary  pool  of  pre-identified  Member  States'  capacities  on 
standby for deployment in EU operations. Teams and assets would continue to remain under 
national command and control but with a stronger commitment from Member States to make 
them ready and available for immediate action in EU civil protection operations upon request 
from the MIC. The final decision on deployment would remain with the Member States, who 
may need the resources to respond to domestic emergencies. Moreover, it should be noted that 
standby capacities would not need to be held on reserve or sit idle in-between EU operations 
as Member States would have the right to employ them internally.  

The deployment of Member States' standby capacities would form the nucleus of the EU civil 
protection  response  to  disasters  inside  and  outside  the  EU  and  would  be  complemented  by 
additional  Member  State  offers  provided  in  the  same  way  as  civil  protection  assistance  is 
currently organised. Moreover, additional efforts could also be made 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 large enough to ensure a credible contingency 
planning and to optimise the benefits of the overall system. Some examples of possible pool 
sizes  are  provided  in  the  EPEC  "Study  on  assessing  costs  and  benefits  of  various  options 
related  to  the  development  of  the  EU  disaster  response  capacity"25.Military  relief  and 
transport  assets,  in  particular  strategic  airlift  capability,  should  be  included  in  the  pool  of 
available capacities capable of being channelled via the MIC in accordance with the European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and international (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 also 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 effectiveness 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 fighting, 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.  More  recently,  the  MIC  deployed  a  multinational 
flood response module, with personnel from the three 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 shortcomings 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.  Specific  consideration  should  be  given  to  assets 
performing  horizontal  tasks,  such  as  assessment  (rapid  environmental  impact  assessment 
modules),  logistics  and  coordination  (in  particular  Technical  Assistance  and  Support  Teams 
(TAST) and telecommunications equipment). This approach could be further developed into 
an all-encompassing EU coordination centre in the field, also providing services for the UN. 
Similarly,  the  development  of  complementary  EU-funded  assets  could  be  considered  for 
specialised  high  value  response  assets  where  common  resources  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  range  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  States  to  downscale  national  capabilities  and  simultaneously 
increasing the cost-effectiveness of EU response. 

Examples  of  EU-level  capacities  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 consisted 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 planes 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 evaluation 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 

EN 

See https://extranet.emsa.europa.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=142  

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
5.5. 

Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force 

The  development  of  an  independent  European  force  with  its  own  capabilities,  means, 
strengths and coordination, coupled with preparedness organisation and a pooling of existing 
resources  would  certainly  ensure  the  coherence  and  effectiveness  of  the  EU’s  response  to 
disasters.  A  European  force  based  on  such  principles  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  operational  centre  to  draft  scenarios  and  protocols  and  its  own 
Training Institute for Civil Protection and Humanitarian aid to provide training for staff, for 
national  and  regional  teams  making  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  option  does  not  appear  to  satisfy  the  comparison 
criteria vis-à-vis the objectives sought. 

This  approach  can  not  be  considered  effective.  Discontinuing  existing  policies  would  have 
dramatic  consequences  for  countries  and  populations  in  need,  including  within  the  EU, 
especially given the ever increasing importance of EU disaster response at global level. Fewer 
lives  would  be  saved,  more  property  would  be  destroyed  and  environmental  degradation 
would  increase.  Moreover,  it  is  evident  that  it  would  imply  disregarding  a  huge  wealth  of 
experience, knowledge and information 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  expenditure  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 inflicted to property or to the 
environment. Moreover, for obvious reasons the approach envisaged in this option would not 
contribute  to  the  positive  visibility  of  EU  action.  Contrariwise,  a  significant  degree  of 
frustration and dissatisfaction amongst stakeholders would likely ensue. 

Although rethinking current arrangements may be considered necessary, this should not come 
at the expense of what has been developed so far. This option should therefore be disregarded. 

5.6.2. 

Option 5: The development of an EU Civil Protection Force 

The  development  of  an  independent,  robust  and  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  visibility  would  result  from  this 
approach  and  represent  a  tangible  and  visible  expression  of  EU  solidarity  both  within  the 
Union and worldwide. 

EN 

   EN 

 
Whilst  the  creation  of  a  European  Force  would  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 particularly 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 increased 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. Furthermore, given that a similar proposal 
proved particularly controversial in the past, this option also appears politically unsound. 

In light of the above, the following chapters will therefore focus on analysing the impacts of, 
and comparing, Options 2, 3 and 4. 

6. 

PROPORTIONATE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The  envisaged  Communication  will  propose  options  for  reinforcing  EU  disaster  response 
capacity,  possibly  flagging  preferred  alternatives.  Under  such  circumstances,  a  full  and 
detailed analysis of impacts appears premature. 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 analysis 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  Commission  in  terms  of  coordination  and  analytical 
capacity.  Such  a  development  will  occur  regardless  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  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  the 
EU's civilian disaster response. Increased responsibilities of the Centre in terms of planning, 
transport  coordination,  scenario  development  and  information  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 identified in chapter 5, but 
will not consider Option 2. In fact, given that the latter represents the continuation of existing 
EU  policies  and  therefore  mirrors  the  baseline  scenario  outlined  in  Chapter  3,  it  should  be 

27 

EN 

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,  assets,  strengths  and  coordination.  Barnier's  full  report  is  accessible  at 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2004-
2009/president/pdf/rapport_barnier_en.pdf. 

following 

address: 

   EN 

 
                                                 
used as a baseline for comparison rather than be treated as one of the elements that need to be 
analysed.  

In  this  context,  it  should  also  be  noted  that  stakeholder  consultations  (see  chapter  2  above) 
have demonstrated that Member States generally 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 development of EU-level assets (Option 4). 

6.1. 

Economic impacts of Option 3: Developing 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 States will not be inclined to commit 
assets  to  the  pool  unless  they  are  certain  that  they  can  still  meet  their  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 that 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 additional investments in new 
response  capacities  at  Member  State  level.  Whilst  each  Member  State  would  remain 
responsible for ensuring that it is sufficiently equipped to respond 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 allow Member States to actively rely on such 
assets  in  order  to  develop  contingency  plans  and  complement  their  basic  response  assets  in 
times of need. Overall, by keeping such reserve 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  aftermath  of  a  disaster,  this  should  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  been  possible.  The  collective  response  facilitated  by  the  pool 
arrangement and the associated pre-planning, would guarantee a more rapid identification of 
transport  options  and  would  enable  appropriately  located  assets  to  be  collected  and 
transported  together,  reducing  journey  times  and  costs.  Moreover,  allocation  of  assets 
amongst  aircraft  could  be  made  more  efficient,  maximising  the  use  of  airlift  capacity  and 
reducing marginal costs. As the scale of the proposed voluntary pool increases the magnitude 
of  benefits  that  might  be  expected  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 impact on total annual operating costs if the annual 
deployment of Member States’ capacities increased by reason of their inclusion 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 which 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  the  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  permanent  staffing  of  their  modules  with  inevitable 
additional  costs.  On  a  more  general  level,  certain  Member  States  with  particular 
organisational  structures  may  incur  costs  in  making  the  relevant  organisational  and  legal 
transition from the status quo. 

The negative impacts mentioned above are strongly influenced by the way in which assets are 
selected  from  the  pool  and  the  size  of  the  pool  itself.  Demand  related  impacts  on  a  given 
Member  State  could,  for  example,  be  mitigated  via  a  rotating  selection  policy  rather  than 
selection by preference. In addition, a larger pool would be likely 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  burden  sharing,  along  the  lines  of  the  one  tested  for  the 
BaltFloodCombat  high  capacity  pumping  module,  would  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  Member  States  to  increase  their  involvement  in  EU  disaster 
response  efforts.  The  increased  EU  response  capacity  deriving  therefrom  would  further 
relieve  pressure  on  those  Member  States  carrying  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 assets. Research also suggests 
that a voluntary pool model would not have material impacts on capital costs and, in the long 
run, this type of arrangement may reduce the need for additional investments 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: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity 

with EU-level assets 

This  option  will  result  in  an  increase  in  overall  EU  Disaster  Response  Capacity.  EU  level 
assets will enable Member States to have access to capacities that may previously have been 
either unavailable or unaffordable at national level. 

The most important economic impact of this Option would be the avoidance of capital costs 
by Member States. The procurement of complementary EU funded assets and airlift capacity 
would in fact guarantee that Member States could call upon substantial collective capacities 
previously  lacking  at  national  level,  without  incurring  additional  investment  costs.  This 
guaranteed  availability  would  be  a  major  benefit  going  well  beyond  the  ones  which  could 
ensue  from  the  implementation  of  a  voluntary  pool  of  assets.  In  particular,  one  global 
investment  at  EU  level  to  purchase  complementary  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  such  capacities  individually.  Similarly,  with 
regard to assets for which an increase in capacity is envisaged, this Option would provide vast 
benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, reducing the need for Member States to 

EN 

   EN 

 
invest domestically.  

Another major economic benefit of Option 4 is the 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  response  operations  by  reducing  mobilisation  costs 
(compared  to  the  commercial  leasing  of  such  capacities)  and  enhancing  rapidity  and 
efficiency  of  response.  Significant  efficiency  gains  could  also  arise  from  joined-up 
transportation and logistics as well 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 and 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  covered  by  the  EU,  thus  guaranteeing  the 
abovementioned  "new  model  of  burden-sharing"  and  allowing  all  costs  to  be  shifted  to  the 
Union28. 

Insofar as costs are concerned, the development of EU-level capacities will require some form 
of tendering and management. However, it is estimated that such administrative costs would 
not  be  excessive  and  would  be  met  by  strengthening  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 incisively via a pool of Member States or EU-level 
assets  would  undoubtedly  reduce  the  number  of  casualties,  alleviate  suffering  and  minimise 
harm to individuals and communities as a whole. The positive impacts for societies affected 
by disasters would thus 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  further  cooperation  with  third  countries.  Secondly, 
increased belief in EU disaster response would 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 capacity would also mean that EU citizens would be more inclined 
to support national policies with a strong European disaster response component.  

Furthermore, the development of EU assets (Option 4) which would be entrusted to Member 
States on a delegated management basis would be the maximum expression of EU solidarity 
in accordance with Article 222 TFEU and the desires and expectations of EU citizens (as per 

28 

The  cost  of  developing  various  EU  funded  assets  (in  particular  a  high  capacity  module,  an  emergency  shelter 
module, a field hospital module, and TAST) are estimated in the contractors study "Assessing costs and benefits of 
various options related to the development 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  (Option  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  effectiveness  deriving  from  such  developments 
would  allow  the  EU  to  react  more  rapidly  to  emergencies,  thus  significantly  reducing  the 
negative impacts of disasters on the environment (e.g. an immediate and effective response to 
a forest fire incident can substantially 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 carried out via a multi-criteria analysis.  

The following criteria are used to compare the options: 

Effectiveness of the option in relation to the objectives30; 

Cost-effectiveness31 of the option; 

Coherence32 of the option with regard to overarching EU objectives, strategies and priorities. 

These criteria largely correspond to the policy objectives identified 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 scenario (status quo – Option 2). Charts and graphs 
are used to sum up and graphically represent conclusions.  

7.1. 

Option 2: Maintaining the status quo 

The  status  quo  (with  or  without  incremental  changes)  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 
30 

31 

32 

33 

See supra, footnote 1 
Effectiveness entails the evaluation of the rapidity of response and the availability of sufficient capacity 
in case of need. 
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. 
Coherence  is  achieved  when  options  are  logically  ordered/integrated,  when  they  are  consistent  (clear 
and intelligible), and well coordinated.  
Visibility  is  the  capacity  to  render  something  noticeable.  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 Response Capacity based on a voluntary 

pool of Member States' standby capacities (human resources and assets) 

The development of a voluntary pool of pre-identified Member States' capacities on standby 
for immediate deployment in EU operations would represent a major step in reinforcing the 
EU's disaster response. 

In terms of effectiveness it would 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  other  important  reasons.  Whilst  this  would 
inevitably limit the advantages deriving from contingency planning, it is fair to assume that 
Member States will generally be inclined to pool 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 most 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 competences 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 could 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  flexibility  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 protection assistance is currently organised.  

Since most civil protection capabilities are already on standby for national 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 the MIC than those which would be necessary to 
implement the baseline scenario (which already foresees reinforcing the MIC's analytical and 
coordination capacity). Ensuring the dual visibility (national and European) of civil protection 
assets  deployed  via  the  pool  or  the  EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  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 subsidiarity and be proportional 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  options  discussed,  there  may  be  some  cases  in 
which the use of EU-level assets would be more justified in terms of economic impacts (see 
sections 7.3 and 7.4 below). 

7.3. 

Option 4: Developing an EU Disaster Response Capacity with EU-level assets 

Developing  complementary  EU-funded  assets  for  certain  specific  needs  has  a  number  of 
advantages in terms of effectiveness and coherence. 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 option would also provide opportunities 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); 

complementary high-value assets in areas where national resources typically prove to 

ii) 
be insufficient; 

iii) 

other assets. 

The first category of assets is envisaged to be more cost-effective 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 partners present on the ground), 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 burden-sharing arrangements, 
as assets such as aerial forest fire fighting capacities are expensive to buy or rent. The burden-
sharing arrangements would be expected to significantly reduce the burden on each 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  implemented  during  the  summer  of  2009  (see  Figure  4 
above).34 

Similar gains are not immediately visible with regard to the last category of EU-level assets 
(neither  performing  horizontal  tasks  nor  high-value  assets  in  areas  where  national  resources 
typically  prove  to  be  insufficient),  and  should  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 pumping, field hospitals or search and rescue). 

The creation of EU-level capacities can imply significant shifts in costs between the EU and 
the Member States. EU-level assets would require 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 impacts could be maximised and negative impacts 
limited by defining an optimal size and composition of EU-level assets. 

Figure 5 - Summary: Comparison of options 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/prote/pilot_project08_en.htm.  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Option  3  (voluntary 
pool) 

Option  4  (EU-level 
assets) 

Almost 
entirely 
achieves  the  specific 
objective.  The  fact 
that  member  States 
to 
able 
will  be 
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.  

compatible 
the 

Fully 
with 
effectiveness 
objective  due  to  the 
of 
prioritisation 
assets 
EU 
for 
operations. 

The most efficient, as 
it  relies  on  already 
existing  MS’  assets. 
Cost-effectiveness 
further 
be 
could 
by 
maximised 
optimising 
the  size 
and  composition  of 
the pool. 

Fully 
compatible 
overarching 
with 
objectives and would 
strengthen  the  EU  in 
this  regard.  Ensures 
maximum respect for 
subsidiarity 
and 
proportionality 

some 

Potentially  efficient 
for 
assets 
(horizontal  tasks  and 
high-cost  capacities 
at 
insufficient 
level). 
national 
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 
fully 
be 
ensured,  Option  3 
appears  to  be  more 
appropriate 
this 
respect.  

in 

7.4. 

Conclusion: a hybrid proposal ? 

Compared  to  the  baseline,  both  Options  3  and  4  have  clear  advantages,  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  compatibility  with  the 
principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  and  the  advantages  of  Option  4  in  terms  of 
effectiveness  and  (potentially)  cost-effectiveness  (especially  with  regard  to  EU-level  assets 
performing  horizontal  tasks  and  specific  high-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 the EU CP response 

... does not imply significant costs at the MS level 

... does not imply significant costs at the EU level 

adheres 

... 
subsidiarity/proportionality 

to 

the 

principles 

of 

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  designing  a  system  that  maximises 
effectiveness and coherence, simultaneously ensuring 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  subsidiarity  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 considered 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 specialised high-value assets that are lacking in the Member 
States.  Although  a  study  which  may  provide  some  feedback  on  this  issue  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. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

At  this  early  stage  of  policy  development,  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 meeting: 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 from a wide range of actors involved in the 
response  to  major  disasters.  Participants  included  humanitarian  aid,  civil  protection  and 
military staff from the EU Member States, international organisations, EU institutions, NGOs, 
research and industry.  

In line  with the stakeholder  consultation document sent out  prior to the meeting, discussion 
focused on whether EU disaster response can be made more effective, coherent and visible.  

Summary: It was generally acknowledged that although 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  international  level,  and  avoid  creating  duplications. 
The UN's overall role in coordinating 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,  simultaneously  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 primarily on Member States' resources, while there is 
a  clear  scope  for  improvement  in  terms  of  predictability  and  better  planning  of  assistance. 
Cost-effectiveness should remain a central concern in the further development of EU Disaster 
Response.  

Many  stakeholders  supported  the  objective  of  continued  reinforcement  of  the  EU’s  disaster 
response capacity through a comprehensive 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 distinguish between disasters inside 
the EU and in third countries. Within the EU, preparedness for disasters 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 humanitarian 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  programmes  (incl.  at  international  level), 
and should avoid the creation of new structures. Possibilities for broadening the scope of the 
EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  training  programme  and  opening  it  to  humanitarian  aid 
professionals  (for  participation  or  for  lecturing),  the  EU  and  Member  States'  diplomats, 
international  partners,  as  well  as  military  and  other  personnel  involved  in  the  response  to 

EN 

   EN 

 
disasters was welcomed. More efforts should be made to attain gender balance in the training 
programmes. 

the  Communication  will  focus  on  disaster  response, 

While 
that 
prevention/preparedness and DRR are equally important and that work in these fields will 
be pursued in parallel.  

it  was  clarified 

The overall coordinating role of the UN outside the EU was repeatedly underlined. It was 
considered important to ensure that EU assistance 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  the  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  Communication  to  recognise  the  importance  of 
consular cooperation, including medical evacuation of citizens from disaster areas.  

The  importance  of  International  disaster  response  laws,  rules  and  principles  (IDRL)  was 
noted. References were also made to the usefulness 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 the EU's disaster response in the field of civil protection was 
welcomed  by  stakeholders,  who  expressed  a  full  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  principle  of  subsidiarity,  such  arrangements 
should  be  genuinely  voluntary  and  based  on  the  existing  Member  States'  capacities.  Some 
participants  noted  that  circumstances  in  which  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  project  on  the  EU  Forest  Fire-fighting  Tactical  Reserve,  and 
especially those focusing on horizontal and specialised support tasks (technical assistance and 
support, IT etc.). There was a common understanding that cost considerations 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  the  resources  deployed  was  raised.  The  use  of 
international standards, such as the Sphere standards, 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 prepositioning of humanitarian partner organisations such as WFP and 
IFRC was supported. It was recalled that the WFP Humanitarian Response Depots are open to 
Member  States  and  to  humanitarian  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  funding  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  that  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-commitment  of  assets  to  the  voluntary  pool.  The 
possibility of distinguishing between situations inside and outside the EU was noted.  

The  Technical  Assistance  and  Support  Teams  (TAST)  were  considered  very  useful  for 
facilitating  logistics  arrangements  during  disasters.  Their  mandates  could  be  deepened  and 
broadened, and they could also be used to provide services to the UN.  

Stakeholders  called  for  more  concerted  efforts  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  assistance  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. However, it was recalled that military assets and 
capabilities sometimes play a more important role 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 value. 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 
response35.  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 scenario 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 civilian capabilities and its potential role in 
identifying military assets in disaster response. 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  and  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/political  level.  In  the  area  of  humanitarian 
assistance it was agreed that information sharing regarding funding intentions, analyses, needs 
assessments etc. can be improved. As civil protection and humanitarian assistance are brought 
together in the Commission, stakeholders agreed that there are new opportunities for stronger 
EU coordination in the aftermath of disasters. Appropriate coordination arrangements with the 
CCA arrangements, relevant Commissioners, the future EEAS, the High Representative/Vice 
President  etc.  were  noted  as  crucial.  Coordination,  consultation  and  cooperation  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  protection  (CECIS  and  the  MIC 
Portal).  Real-time  coordination  prior  to  decisions  on  humanitarian  funding  was  thought  to 
favour equitable distribution of EU funds. Existing Commission information tools should be 
rationalised.  

Coordination was also considered important in the area of EU advocacy where greater use of 
coherent  and  joint  action  could  be  made.  In  the  area  of  disaster  preparedness  in  developing 
countries, ISDR and the Hyogo framework for action provide the basic framework for action.  

Stakeholders  strongly  supported  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 Haiti earthquake, should involve NGOs and other stakeholders.  

Several  stakeholders  requested  further  consultation  opportunities.  It  was  clarified  that 
following the adoption of the Communication, currently foreseen for November 2010, there 
will be extensive consultations and political debates in the relevant fora. Legislative proposals 
will follow in 2011. 

EN 

   EN