COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT   Accompanying document to the  Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance   COM(2010) 600 SEC(2010) 1242
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) 1243 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and 
humanitarian assistance 

COM(2010) 600 
SEC(2010) 1242 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and 
humanitarian assistance 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
A. Introduction 

The impact assessment report aims to provide the Commission with the information 
necessary in order to develop the Communication on EU Disaster Response Capacity 
planned  for  adoption  in  November  2010.  In  particular,  the  report  is  intended  to 
inform  the  Commission  of  the  viability  of  a  range  of  policy  options  that  may  be 
further explored for developing EU's response to disasters inside and outside the EU. 

The  assessment  carried  out  in  the  report  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. 
The 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. 

B. Problem Definition and Objectives 

i. Problem Definition 

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.  That  being  so,  a  series  of 
external  factors  have  raised  concerns  as  to  whether,  and  how,  the  system's  current 
mandate  should  be  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. 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. 

The key shortcoming inherent in the EU Civil Protection Mechanism 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, it is not in a position to 
guarantee the availability of assistance in the event of a major disaster. 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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
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. 
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  for  the  MIC  to  find  that  assistance 
provided  by  Member  States  caters  abundantly  for  some  of  the  needs  of  the  State 
requesting  assistance  whilst  overlooking  others.  A  more  robust  system  ensuring  a 
coherent EU response and which maximises the synergies between the various actors 
involved  would  certainly  ensure  benefits  in  terms  of  consistency  and  cost-
effectiveness. 

ii. 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.  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. 

C. Subsidiarity 

Disaster  management is mainly  a responsibility of the Member States. 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 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
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. 
In order to solve the problems presented in the 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  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.  EU  action  in  this  field  clearly  involves  managing 
situations  with  a  strong  trans-/multinational  component,  where  there  is  a  need  for 
overall coordination and concerted action above national level. 
Purely  domestic  action  can  not  guarantee  a  coherent,  efficient  and  effective  EU 
response to disasters. Improving the predictability, efficiency and visibility 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.  
In light of the above, one must conclude that the subsidiarity principle is respected 
since  the  policy  objectives discussed can not be achieved  by Member  States acting 
alone but require the involvement of all Member States via action at EU level. 

D. Options Identified and Options Assessed in Detail 

i. Policy Options identified 

The Commission has identified the following policy options: 

•  Option 1: Discontinuing existing policies  

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. 

•  Option 2: Maintaining the status quo 

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

•  Option  3:  Developing  an  EU  Disaster  Response  Capacity  based  on  a 
voluntary  pool  of  Member  States'  standby  capacities  (human  resources  and 
assets) 

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 in order 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. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
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 (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. 
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  of  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  to  guarantee  the  effectiveness  and 
coherence of the system. 

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

Complementary EU-funded assets could be developed 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. 
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  size  of  the  pool  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. 

•  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  of 
the system explained in Option 4. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
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. 

ii. Policy Options analysed 

Following  a  preliminary  screening  of  the  options,  it  was  concluded  that  the  social, 
economic and political drawbacks stemming from Options 1 and 5 were untenable. 
Moreover,  given  that  Option  2  represents  the  continuation  of  existing  EU  policies 
and  therefore  mirrors  the  baseline  scenario  against  which  other  options  must  be 
compared, the proportionate impact analysis focused on Options 3 and 4. 

E. Main Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of the Options Selected 

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  hour  basis  and 
responsible for the coordination of the EU's civilian disaster response. 

•  Economic impacts 

i. Economic impacts of Option 3 

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. 

Once fully developed and operational this type of arrangement may reduce the need 
for additional investments in new response capacities at Member State level. 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  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 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
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.  

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.  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  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.  

ii. Economic impacts of Option 4 

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 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. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
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 Union. 

Insofar as costs are concerned, the development of EU-level capacities will require 
some form of tendering and management.  

•  Social Impacts 

The options considered in the report did not trigger social impacts in the traditional 
sense of the word but had important societal impacts. 
The  possibility  of  reacting  promptly  and  incisively  via  a  pool  of  Member  States 
(Option  3)  or  EU-level  assets  (Option  4)  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.  
It  should  be  noted  that  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.  

•  Environmental Impacts 

Both the voluntary pool of standby assets (Option 3) and the 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). 

F. Comparison of Options 

The following criteria were used to compare the options: 

•  Effectiveness of the option in relation to the objectives; 

•  Cost-effectiveness of the option; 

•  Coherence of the option with overarching EU objectives, strategies and priorities. 

Options were compared against the baseline scenario (status quo – Option 2). Charts 
and graphs were used to sum up and graphically represent conclusions.  

Compared  to  the  baseline,  both  Options  3  and  4  showed  clear  advantages, 
outweighing  the  disadvantages  of  the  status  quo  with  regard  to  all  criteria.  It  was 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
concluded that these Options should therefore be preferred to the baseline scenario. 
In particular, the comparison highlighted 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  capacities  performing  horizontal  tasks  and 
specific  high-value  assets).  The  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  two  options 
were  balanced  amongst  themselves  with  the  aim  of  designing  a  system  that 
maximises  effectiveness  and  coherence,  simultaneously  ensuring  minimal  negative 
impacts and costs. 

In merging the two most attractive options, preference was given to Option 3 insofar 
as  it  demonstrated  the  highest  degree  of  compatibility  with  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity  and  proportionality.  However,  certain  elements  of  Option  4,  which 
ensured  significant  economic  gains  for  the  EU  as  a  whole,  were  also  taken  into 
account. 

The  relative  strengths  of  the  options  considered  pointed  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  system  could  be  further  reinforced  by  continued  support  to  humanitarian 
organisations  that  develop  and  manage  the  prepositioning  of  relief  items  for 
international  humanitarian  operations,  and  backed  by  military  assets  in  specific 
cases.  

EN 

10 

   EN