REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the evaluation of the application of the Civil Protection Mechanism and the Civil Protection Financial Instrument for the years 2007-2009
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European cooperation, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, emergency aid, man-made disaster, natural disaster, transport economics, vocational training

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 10.11.2011 
COM(2011) 696 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report on the evaluation of the application of the Civil Protection Mechanism and the 
Civil Protection Financial Instrument for the years 2007-2009 

{SEC(2011) 1311 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Directorate-General  of  the  Commission  responsible  for  humanitarian  aid  and 
civil protection (DG ECHO) has carried out an evaluation of the following actions in 
the field of civil protection for the period 2007-2009: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil 
Protection Financial Instrument ('CPFI' or 'Financial Instrument'1);  

Council  Decision  2007/779/EC,  Euratom  of  8  November  2007  establishing  a 
Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast) ('Civil Protection Mechanism' 
or 'Mechanism Decision' or 'Mechanism Recast'2); 

A  preparatory  action,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  49(6)(b)  of  the  Financial 
Regulation3,  on  a  EU  rapid  response  capability  in  the  2008,  2009  and  2010 
budgets; 

Pilot  projects,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  49(6)(a)  of  the  Financial 
Regulation, on cross border cooperation in combating natural disasters and on 
forest fires, in the 2006 and 2008 budgets respectively. 

The  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  seeks  to  facilitate  reinforced  cooperation  in  civil 
protection assistance intervention in the event of major emergencies, or the imminent 
threat  thereof.  The  protection  to  be  ensured  by  the  Mechanism  covers  primarily 
people,  but  also  the  environment  and  property,  including  cultural  heritage,  in  the 
event  of  natural  and  man-made  disasters,  acts  of  terrorism  and  technological, 
radiological  or  environmental  accidents,  including  accidental  marine  pollution, 
occurring  within  or  outside  the  EU,  taking  also  into  account  the  specific  needs  of 
isolated, outermost and other regions or islands of the EU. 

There are currently 31 States participating in the Civil Protection Mechanism (which 
are  thus  also  eligible  under  the  Financial  Instrument):  the  27  EU  Member  States, 
Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Croatia ('Participating States')4.  

Article  14  of  the  Mechanism  Decision  requires  the  Commission  to  evaluate  the 
application of the Decision by the end of 2010 and to transmit the conclusions of that 
evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council. 

5. 

Financial assistance is provided under the CPFI for: 

(a) 

actions under the Mechanism; 

1 
2 
3 

4 

OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9. 
OJ L 314, 1.12.2007, p. 9. 
Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  of  25  June  2002  on  the  Financial  Regulation 
applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  European  Communities  (OJ  L  248,  16.9.2002,  p  .1)  as  last 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1525/2007 of 17 December 2007 (OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 9). 
Countries other than Participating States may request civil protection assistance intervention under the 
Mechanism, even though they are not eligible for financial support under the Financial Instrument. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(b)  measures to prevent or reduce the effects of an emergency; and 

(c) 

actions  designed  to  enhance  the  Community's  state  of  preparedness  for 
responses to emergencies, including actions enhancing EU citizens' awareness. 

In addition, the CPFI makes special provisions to fund certain transport resources in 
the event of a major emergency, in order to facilitate a rapid and effective response to 
such an emergency. 

Article 15(2)(b) CPFI requires the Commission to evaluate, on an interim basis, the 
results obtained and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of 
the CPFI5.  

The  preparatory  action  on  an  EU  rapid  response  capability,  which  was  launched  in 
2008, sought to improve the overall capacity of the EU to respond to disasters inside 
and  outside  the  EU  by  ensuring  that  Participating  States'  assets  are  available  on 
standby to be deployed in EU civil protection operations. The Commission/MIC was 
mandated to activate these standby assets to meet the needs on the ground. 

Furthermore, a pilot project on stepped-up cooperation between Participating States 
on  combating  forest  fires  was  initiated  in  2008  with  the  aim  of  improving  the 
mobilisation of operational resources and emergency support to assist a Participating 
State in coping with forest fires that are too numerous and too intense to be handled 
by its own logistical capacity and manpower. The objectives of the pilot project were 
integrated into the preparatory action on an EU rapid response capability as part of 
the 2009 call for proposals. In this form, the preparatory action was continued for a 
third  and  final  year  in  2010  (implementation  of  some  of  the  projects  is  continuing 
until mid-2012). 

Lastly,  a  pilot  project  on  cross-border  cooperation  in  the  fight  against  natural 
disasters provided grants to support actions for cooperation and the development of 
closer cooperation on civil protection measures with a view to raising awareness and 
preventing or minimising the consequences of natural disasters by developing cross-
border early warning tools, coordination tools and logistical tools.  

Article  21(2)  of  the  Implementing  Rules  of  the  Financial  Regulation6  requires  an 
evaluation  of  the  preparatory  actions  and  pilot  projects  in  terms  of  the  human  and 
financial resources allocated and the results obtained in order to verify that they were 
consistent with the objectives set. 

This  evaluation  will  cover  the  whole  of  the  CPFI,  including  its  transport  related  provisions.  A  first 
evaluation  of  the  transport  provisions  was  mandated  under  Article  15(2)(a)  CPFI,  but,  by  the  given 
deadline  (31  December  2008)  no  sufficient  practical  experience  had  been  gained  to  carry  out  a 
meaningful evaluation. 
Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules 
for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  on  the  Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1). 
Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  478/2007  of  23  April  2007  (OJ  L  111, 
28.4.2007, p. 13). 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

5 

6 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  provide  the  Commission  and  other  stakeholders  with 
key  findings  on  and  lessons  to  be  drawn  from  the  experience  gained  in  the 
implementation of the above-mentioned actions in the field of civil protection. These 
will  help  the  Commission  in  the  continued  effective  implementation  of  the 
Mechanism and the Financial Instrument.  

Furthermore,  the  results  of  the  evaluation  will  inform  the  preparation  of  a 
comprehensive  policy  package  under  preparation  in  2011,  which  will  review  EU 
disaster  management  cooperation  with  particular  regard  to  two  key  themes:  (1)  the 
responsibility of all actors to take adequate preventive and protection measures, and 
(2)  solidarity  and  assistance  within  the  EU  and  among  the  Participating  States  in 
times of need.  

Lastly,  the  evaluation  will  inform  the  preparation  of  the  communication  on  the 
continuation of the Financial Instrument to be presented no later than 31 December 
2011  (pursuant  to  Article  15(2)(c)  CPFI),  which  in  practice  will  be  part  of  the 
proposal for a new Civil Protection Financial Instrument. 

in-house.  Following 

The  Commission  services  prepared  preliminary  internal  review  papers  based  on 
information  and  experience  available 
this,  an  external 
consultancy  (COWI  A/S  in  collaboration  with  Aguaconsult)  was  commissioned  to 
independently  evaluate  the  European  Commission's  activities  in  the  field  of  civil 
protection  and  carry  out  a  broad  and  comprehensive  stakeholder  consultation7, 
including interviews and an internet-based eSurvey. The consultants have drafted an 
evaluation report which also takes into consideration the findings of the preliminary 
internal  review  papers.  The  report  is  available  on  the  Commission's  portal8.  All 
Commission departments interested in the evaluation have contributed to the process 
and participated in a dedicated Steering Group. In addition, the Commission services 
have consulted Participating States, including in a meeting of the Directors-General 
of national civil protection authorities, to gather their views on the functioning of the 
Mechanism, the Financial Instrument, and the preparatory and pilot actions.  

16. 

The  external  consultants  were  tasked  to independently  evaluate  the  implementation 
of  the  European  Commission's  actions  in  the  field  of  civil  protection  carried  out 
between 2007 and 2009 (inclusive)9, and in particular: 

• 

• 

The  functioning  of  and  the  services  delivered  by  the  Monitoring  and 
Information  Centre  ('MIC')  referred  to  in  Article  2(5)  of  the  Mechanism 
Decision; 

The  operation  of  the  transport  provisions  of  the  CPFI  (Article  4(2)  points  (b) 
and (c) and (3)); 

7 
8 
9 

The terms of reference for the external consultancy work are annexed to their report. 
See http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/evaluation/thematic_en.htm. 
Information related to 2010 is taken into account where appropriate. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

The implementation of the so-called "modular approach" and the arrangements 
tested under the pilot projects and preparatory action to enhance the availability 
of response assets; 

The training programme referred to in Article 5(5) of the Mechanism Decision 
(including the exercises programme and the exchange of experts programme). 

3. 

FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION 

3.1.  Monitoring and Information Centre 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

The  MIC  is  the  central  hub  of  the  EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  which  aims  to 
facilitate  strengthened  cooperation  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  in  civil 
protection assistance intervention in the event of major emergencies.  

The assessment of its operations in the years 2007-2009 shows clearly that the MIC 
has  fulfilled  its  purpose  of  serving  Member  States,  Commission  and  the  EU  in 
general, with its growing involvement in the civil protection activities inside Europe 
and around the world. The MIC has been accessible and able to react immediately 24 
hours a day as stipulated in Article 2(5) of the Mechanism Recast Decision. The MIC 
is  widely  acknowledged  for  providing  useful  services  that  are  relevant  to 
Participating  States  when  civil  protection  assistance  interventions  are  conducted 
within  or  outside  the  EU,  by  advising  on  the  needs  on  the  ground,  by  facilitating 
closer  cooperation  among  Participating  States  and  by  pooling  resources.  The 
hallmark of the MIC in that context is its nature of a “one-stop shop”. This has saved 
precious time for States who need to request international assistance, and also for the 
Participating States providing it. In assistance interventions outside the EU the MIC 
has carried out functions of operational coordination, and integration of the European 
response  within  the  UN  coordinated  efforts.  The  number  of  activations  of  the 
Mechanism has steadily increased over the years, which testifies to its added value. 

Enhanced  cooperation  between  the  MIC  and  other  international  relief  emergency 
responders,  in  particular  UN  agencies,  was  noted  and  commended  in  the  external 
evaluation, even though further efforts should be made with respect to other actors, 
such  as  the  humanitarian  NGO  community  and  military  actors  (such  as  NATO) 
insofar  as  the  involvement  of  the  latter  would  be  duly  justified  in  the  light  of  the 
relevant UN (Oslo and MCDA) guidelines.  

In  its  Communication  of  200810  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on 
Reinforcing  the  Union's  Disaster  Response  Capacity,  the  Commission  noted  some 
points where it saw room for further improvements:  

(1) 

Improving  the  effectiveness  of  its  action  in  cooperation  with  Member  States, 
international,  national  and  local  stakeholders,  in  particular  through  synergies 
and better coordination of training, needs assessment, planning and operations; 

(2)  Further  streamlining  'horizontal'  coordination  between  the  Commission,  the 
Presidency,  the  Member  States  and  the  High  Representative,  in  particular  for 

10 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0130:FIN:EN:PDF  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
larger  scale  natural  disasters,  both  in  Brussels  and  on  the  ground,  for  crises 
involving both the Civil Protection Mechanism and CFSP instruments.  

(3) 

Improving the 'vertical' coordination between the EU level and Member States. 
This coordination should be optimised because the differences in the respective 
mandates  of  the  various  Member  States  and  humanitarian  services/agencies 
have an impact on the Commission's response. 

On the basis of these findings the Commission has started to look at how to improve 
the functioning of the MIC. The Communication on Reinforcing the Union's Disaster 
Response  Capacity  advocates  the  following11:  building  up  of  the  Monitoring  and 
Information  Centre  so  that  it  can  play  the  role  of  operational  centre  for 
European  civil  protection  intervention.  This  requires  a  qualitative  shift  from 
information sharing/reacting to emergencies towards proactive anticipation/real time 
monitoring  of  emergencies  and  operational  engagement/coordination.  This  includes 
early  warning  systems,  performing  needs  assessments,  identifying  matching 
resources,  and  providing  technical  advice  on  response  resources  to  the  Member 
States;  developing  scenarios,  standard  operating  procedures  and  lessons  learned 
assessments; implementing the Commission competencies to pool available transport 
and provide co-financing for transport; increasing training and exercise activities for 
Member States and other experts; and helping the Member States to set up common 
resources.  On  the  basis  of  these  elements  from  its  internal  review,  the  external 
evaluation  and  the  statements  of  stakeholders,  the  Commission  concludes  that  the 
MIC  has  successfully,  proactively,  and  in  an  effective  way  fulfilled  its  role  at  the 
heart of the Civil Protection Mechanism. While cooperation among European actors 
has continuously progressed as is evidenced e.g. by the European Earth monitoring 
programme and its Emergency Response Service, as well as synergies with all health 
related  Commission  activities,  there  are  remaining  challenges  to  ensure  that  all 
activities  are  coherent,  well  coordinated  with,  and  complementary  to  interventions 
and  actions  implemented  under  other  EU  and  international  (in  particular  UN 
sponsored) disaster management capabilities (including those available in the field of 
humanitarian aid, but also longer-term development assistance) and the interventions 
of  Participating  States.  The  European  cooperation  and  coordination  in  the  field  of 
civil  protection  would  however  appear  to  have  still  unused  potential  which  can  be 
further facilitated by the future MIC.  

21. 

In  addition,  in  its  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
"Towards  a  stronger  European  disaster  response:  the  role  of  civil  protection  and 
humanitarian  assistance"12,  the  Commission  outlined  further  actions  to  achieve  a 
more effective, efficient, coherent and visible European response. This includes the 
merger of the MIC and DG ECHO's crisis room to create a genuine 24/7 European 
Emergency  Response  Centre  as  one  of  the  cornerstones  of  its  vision.  The  Centre 
should  develop  into  a  platform  providing  full  support  to  Participating  States,  other 
EU services and international organisations during emergency relief operations, and 
also  playing  a  pivotal  role  in  the  planning  of  EU  operations  (including  scenario 

11 

12 

Brussels, 5.3.2008, COM(2008) 130 final, pages 6, 7; accessible at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0130:FIN:EN:PDF 
COM (2010) 600 final  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
development  and  contingency  planning),  as  well  as  coordination  of  the  resources 
made available for European response.  

3.2. 

Training Programme 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

The internal desk study, the statements of stakeholders, the external evaluation, and 
the Commission’s experience from the training practice all indicate that the training 
programme is a highly valued asset of EU civil protection co-operation. The training 
courses have proved to be an asset in preparing national experts for civil protection 
assistance  interventions  and  have  significantly  improved  the  response  capability  of 
the  EU  civil  protection  system.  The  Commission  concludes  that  the  training 
programme should remain an important component of preparedness in the context of 
the EU civil protection co-operation. 

From  the  evaluations  it  is  clear  that  the  course  contents  are  considered  fully 
complementary to other training events provided at national and international level. 
The Commission concludes that future developments of the EU training system must 
continue  to  ensure  consistency  among  the  different  programmes  at  different  levels, 
which  would  seem  to  require  continued  or  enhanced  coordination  between  all 
training providers, in particular if any further integration of programmes were to be 
envisaged in the future. 

A  Training  Policy  Group  was  formed  in  2009  (first  meeting  in  September  2009). 
This  is  a  first  step  towards  establishing  European  Disaster  Management  Training 
Arrangements (DMTA). In addition to this, course directors meet up to seven times 
per  cycle;  three  of  these  meetings  are  evaluation  meetings.  An  annual  meeting  of 
training coordinators is held at the end of each year. In this framework, discussions 
have  also  touched  upon  the  aspects  of  comparability  of  national  training 
programmes,  governance  and  quality  topics,  as  well  as  on  possibilities  to  devise 
trainings on prevention and preparedness matters. 

In  the  past  years,  the  training  programme  has  managed  to  keep  pace  with  the 
developments  of  an  enhanced  civil  protection  Mechanism,  which  has  significantly 
extended  its  activities  and  expertise  over  the  years.  The  evaluation  has  clearly 
highlighted the widening of the scope of training activities, including new types and 
more numerous courses. Considering these developments in the context of increased 
pressures on public financing possibilities leads on to the question of how to provide 
for  a  more  efficient  civil  protection  training  programme,  which  may  not  be  able  to 
rely  entirely  on  the  central  organisation  of  training  on  international  coordination  in 
the future. 

The training courses have provided an excellent platform for experience sharing and 
networking among civil protection experts of the Participating States as well as with 
other  partners,  such  as  members  of  the  UNDAC  (United  Nations  Disaster 
Assessment and Coordination) teams and other Commission services. The costs and 
benefits of such formal and informal contacts are generally difficult to evaluate with 
objective  indicators.  The  Commission  considers  that,  in  the  event  of  a  large  scale 
emergency  situation,  such  contacts  and  networks  can  make  the  crucial  difference 
between  the  best  possible  relief  intervention  and  a  less  optimal  scenario,  where 
critical time is lost in inefficient coordination and organisational actions. Obviously, 
experience  sharing  and  the  creation  of  networks  also  come  at  a  cost  to  the  system. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
27. 

28. 

However, such network effects can be generated as a side-effect while pursuing the 
main training objectives mentioned above. 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  is  also  reflecting  on  how  to  better  organise  the 
exchange of field, exercise and training experiences and the sharing of lessons to be 
learnt in a more structured way.13 

The review of the Civil Protection legislation in 2011 will provide an opportunity to 
consider these various aspects further. It will also raise the question of whether larger 
amounts can be provided for training actions under the new Financial Instrument, or 
whether other ways must be found to further enhance the benefits of closer EU co-
operation on disaster preparedness. 

3.3. 

Exercise programme 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

13 
14 

As  established  by  the  Commission  internal  review,  the  findings  and  conclusions  of 
the external evaluators, and the views of Participating States and other stakeholders, 
exercises have proved to be an effective action to boost European preparedness for 
natural  and  man-made  disasters.  They  have  helped  in  refining  procedures  and 
practical  arrangements  that  have  to  be  established  for  civil  protection  interventions 
and  co-operation,  including  the  opportunity  to  start  exercising  host  nation  support 
arrangements. In particular, it emerges clearly that the aims set out in Article 24 of 
the  Mechanism  Implementing  Decision14  are  met:  i.e.  improving  the  response 
capacity  and  providing  the  necessary  practice  of  teams,  improving  and  verifying 
procedures, establishing a common language for the coordination of civil protection 
assistance interventions, reducing the response time in major emergencies, enhancing 
operational  cooperation  between  the  civil  protection  services  of  the  Participating 
States, and sharing lessons learned.  

The  Commission  concludes  that  full-scale  exercises  in  the  field  of  the  Civil 
Protection Mechanism co-funded by the EU have proved to be an essential element 
in  improving  the  preparedness  level  of  all  components  of  the  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism. 

While overall the exercises conducted during this period have provided fertile ground 
to achieve the declared aims, they have also suffered from the fact that they are not 
integrated into a more comprehensive exercise programme and mainly form a series 
of proposals put forward by Participating States. This assessment was highlighted by 
many stakeholders when asked to consider the overall effectiveness, coherence, co-
operation and complementarity of the exercise programme. Some interviewees stated 
that  the  EU  should  provide  guidelines  to  ensure  comparable  levels  and  procedures 
for exercises, e.g. a minimum standard.  

The  Commission  concludes  that  the  exercises  programme  has  matured  to  a  point 
where  it  is  now  time  to  review  the  concrete  priorities  and  objectives  of  the  policy 
with  a  view  to  enhanced  EU  preparedness,  starting  in  particular  by  assessing  the 

In the future, an annual meeting will be organised to facilitate these exchanges of experiences. 
Commission  Decision  of  29  December  2003  laying  down  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council 
Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom establishing a Community Mechanism; 2004/277/EC, Euratom 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
33. 

34. 

currently  agreed  minimum  requirements  for  EU  funding  and  developing  improved 
requirements. 

Full scale exercises train at the national and the European coordination levels. This 
characteristic  has  been  posing  significant  challenges  at  all  stages  of  the  exercise 
cycle,  not  least  because  Participating  States  have  arrived  at  different  levels  in  their 
civil protection systems and in their approach to planning, conducting and evaluating 
exercises.  This  raises  the  question  as  to  whether  closer  cooperation  between  the 
European  exercises  programme  and  national  exercises  programmes  is  beneficial. 
Closer cooperation could further enhance the effectiveness, coherence, co-operation 
and complementarity of the exercise programme, as well as its efficiency, but may in 
return  mean  that  additional  resources  have  to  be  earmarked  for  planning  and 
coordination efforts and the setting up of an EU exercises framework. 

From  the  above  elements,  the  Commission  acknowledges  that,  in  order  to  better 
serve  the  ultimate  aim  of  improving  operations  through  better  preparedness,  the 
establishment  of  an  integrated  and  comprehensive  exercise  programme/  framework 
needs to be considered. This would require several steps, starting from the drawing 
up  of  a  common  glossary  and  agreed  minimum  requirements  of  an  exercise 
methodology  (evaluation  and  improvement  plan  programme,  exercise  control, 
common safety rules, etc), and including setting out a vision on the disaster scenarios 
to be practised. The focus here should be on using the results of the risk assessments 
and scenarios developed in the Participating States and on the overview scenarios to 
be  developed  at  EU  level  in  the  coming  years.  In  addition,  such  an  exercise  policy 
framework  could  also  consider  important  deployment  scenarios  for  assistance 
interventions outside the EU.  

35. 

As regards the EU exercises programme, the Commission concludes that while it is 
overall successful it may be necessary to develop a strengthened exercise framework 
in  order  to  further  enhance  the  level  of  preparedness  and  cooperation  among 
European countries and to optimise the benefits for all Participating States. 

3.4. 

Exchange of experts programme 

36. 

37. 

In a European and international context of EU civil protection activities, developing 
a direct knowledge of the working methods and procedures of partners, such as the 
relevant authorities and entities of other Member States, generates many benefits.  

The  Commission  concludes  that  the  exchange  of  experts  programme  has  met  its 
objectives  as  set  out  in  Article  25  of  the  Mechanism  Implementing  Decision15,  i.e. 
enabling experts to: (1) gain experience in other fields; (2) become acquainted with 
various techniques and operational procedures used; and (3) study approaches taken 
by  other  participating  emergency  services  and  institutions.  Generally,  meeting 
colleagues working in other Member States on the same issues greatly contributes to 
streamlining and easing communication in case of emergencies where time is critical. 

15 

Commission  Decision  of  29  December  2003  laying  down  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council 
Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom establishing a Community Mechanism; 2004/277/EC, Euratom 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
38. 

39. 

As only a limited number of experts have been trained so far and there appears to be 
an ongoing need, it would seem useful to continue this scheme, and even considering 
making it more widely known. 

The  Commission  notes  that  the  programme  is  primarily  organised  as  a  learning 
opportunity  for  the  experts  sent  abroad.  In  the  context  of  enhancing  cooperation 
among  Participating  States,  it  is  worthwhile  considering  organising  exchanges  in 
such  a  way  that  experts  on  particular  subjects  are  made  available  to  other 
Participating States on request.  

3.5.  Modules 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

The  modular  approach  is  now  firmly  established  in  the  European  civil  protection 
world  as  a  means  of  enhancing  the  interoperability,  the  speed  of  deployment,  the 
predictability of response, the support that is needed from the affected state (for the 
module to be able to perform its tasks), and the overall quality and effectiveness of 
European civil protection interventions. The establishment of modules and the setting 
up of the modules database in CECIS16 also facilitated the process of requesting and 
delivering  assistance  inside  EU,  as  it  improved  the  planning  at  both  donor  and 
recipient ends (i.e. in the case of floods, when the request refers to a certain number 
of high capacity pumping modules, it clearly specifies the capacity of the module, the 
location  where  the  module  could  be  used,  the  support  it  needs,  etc.).  The 
Commission believes that the modular approach has clearly proved its added value.  

The  Commission  internal  review,  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  external 
evaluators,  and  feedback  by  Participating  States  stakeholders  have  established  that 
the  civil  protection  modules  are  generally  considered  to  be  effective  ways  to  boost 
European preparedness for natural and man-made disasters.  

The  concept  of  modules  needs  to  be  further  strengthened  by  involving  them  in 
specific exercises. Work in this direction was initiated in 2010, when the first cycle 
of  six  modules  exercises  started.  The  modules  exercises  are specific  field exercises 
for training the cooperation and coordination between different modules and an EU 
Civil  Protection  coordination  team  during  an  emergency.  Although  the  modules 
exercises  are  not  part  of  this  evaluation  report  (due  to  the  fact  that  progress  only 
started  at  the  end  of  2010),  the  initial  feedback  from  Participating  States  on  this 
component is very positive. 

In  addition,  work  is  progressing  on  developing  standard  operating  procedures  for 
modules,  aimed  at  further  improving  interoperability  and  coordination  on  site  and 
with  headquarters.  Guidelines  on  host  nation  support  are  also  under  development. 
Both  initiatives  are  coordinated  by  the  Commission,  with  the  Participating  States 
being involved in the framework of the Modules working group.  

3.6. 

Pilot projects and preparatory actions 

44. 

16 

EN 

A number of projects aimed at ensuring the availability of response assets were co-
financed  by  the  EU  through  pilot  projects  and  preparatory  actions.  These  projects 

CECIS  –  Common  Emergency  Communication  and  Information  System,  to  which  all  national  civil 
protection authorities of the Participating States and the MIC are connected.  

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

17 

sought to test innovative governance arrangements on managing Participating States 
assets  (mostly  modules)  that  are  put  on  standby  for  EU  operations  in  a  mutual 
arrangement between the Commission and the Participating States concerned, as well 
as supplementary EU-level assets/services. 

A  significant  number  of  standby  assets  of  Participating  States,  as  well  as 
supplementary  capacities/services,  have  been  deployed  in  actual  emergencies  with 
encouraging results as part of preparatory action and pilot projects, indicating that the 
models tested are viable. While the external evaluation concludes that it would seem 
to  be  too  early  to  draw  definitive  conclusions  from  the  limited  number  of 
deployments on whether a more effective EU disaster response has been achieved, it 
is  acknowledged  that  these  facilities  have  contributed  to  a  more  adequate  EU 
response to disasters.  

As  part  of  the  Preparatory  Action  on  an  EU  Rapid  Response  Capability,  the 
Commission  has  co-financed  around  20  projects  involving  more  than  half  of  all 
Participating  States  to  develop  standby  arrangements  for  key  resources.  Through 
these projects  a  series of intervention assets (mostly modules,  including search  and 
rescue, water purification, medical teams, forest fire fighting17, CBRN detection and 
decontamination, temporary shelter, technical assistance and support teams (TAST)) 
were put on standby for EU civil protection operations by Participating States. These 
assets have been tested in exercises and have been used in real-time operations (for 
instance,  in  response  to  the  Haiti  earthquake  and  floods  in  Poland),  effectively 
adding  to  the  overall  EU  response.  The  mobilisation  and  deployment  of  these 
modules at the request of the Commission/MIC has been smooth. Some projects are 
still ongoing and will continue until mid-2012.  

The  full  benefits  of  standby  assets  would  materialise  in  a  coherent  system 
encompassing  an  adequate  number  of  assets  of  various  types,  coupled  with  an 
advance planning (including reference scenarios and contingency plans). This could 
be done in particular by developing the European Emergency Response Capacity in 
the form of a pool of Member States' assets that are pre-committed on a voluntarily 
basis  for  EU  disaster  relief  operations,  as  outlined 
the  Commission 
Communication of October 2010 (COM (2010) 600 final).  

in 

A  pilot  project  on  stepped-up  cooperation  between  Participating  States  to  combat 
forest fires (EU Forest Fire Tactical Reserve - EUFFTR) was initiated in 2008 with 
the aim of improving mobilisation of operational resources and emergency support to 
assist a Participating State in coping with forest fires which are too numerous and too 
intense  to  be  handled  by  its  own  logistical  capacity  and  manpower.  The  EUFFTR 
project  consisted  of  two  fire-fighting  planes  (Canadair  CL-215)  that were  leased 

As regards forest fire fighting and relevant activities supported by the EC, according to Article 4 of the 
LIFE+  Regulation  (EC)  No  614/2007  the  specific  objectives  of  the  LIFE+  Programme's  component 
"LIFE+  Information  and  Communication"  include  activities  targeted  on  forest  fire  prevention  and 
training on forest fire prevention. Currently there are three ongoing projects from the Call for proposals 
2008. FORESTFIRE (PL) aims to reduce the risk of forest fire caused by human activities by raising 
awareness of forest fire prevention. EEFOREST (PT) expecting to reduce the number of forest fires in 
Tavira municipality by increasing the efficiency of forest awareness campaigns. FFPE (EE) focuses on 
enhancing  implementation  of  forest  fire  prevention  measurements  and  increasing  awareness  of 
protection against forest fires at a national level. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
49. 

50. 

51. 

52. 

53. 

from the commercial market and available to fly 150 hours each during 1 July - 30 
September  2009.  The  planes were  a  supplementary  European  resource  designed  to 
reinforce  the  overall  EU  fire-fighting  capacity.  They  were  available  to  assist  EU 
Member States requesting aerial fire fighting assistance through the Civil Protection 
Mechanism. 

The decision to deploy the EUFFTR was taken by the Commission after consultation 
on  the  forest  fires  situation  with  all  the  Southern  Member  States.  Following  the 
decision,  the  French  Ministry  of  the  Interior  (the  project  beneficiary)  ensured  the 
deployment  of  the  planes,  stationed  in  Bastia  (Corsica).  The  EUFFTR  intervened 
in six of  the  total  of  nine forest  fire  emergencies  for  which  the  Mechanism  was 
activated  in  2009:  twice  in  France-Corsica  and  Portugal,  once  in  Italy,  and  once  in 
Greece.  In  the  remaining three  Mechanism  activations  (Albania,  Greece  and 
Portugal) sufficient  and  timely  assistance  was  provided  by  the  Member  States  and 
the EUFFTR was not mobilised. 

As noted also by the external evaluation, the complementarity of the actions is more 
difficult to assess. Would some of the actions have been carried out without the co-
funding  provided  at  the  EU  level?  The  eSurvey  is  indicating  quite  clearly  that 
complementarity  was  fully  achieved  (80%  versus  10%  of  respondents,  see  above). 
However, it is noted that some of the results may also be biased to a certain extent, as 
the beneficiaries of the co-financed projects made up a large proportion of the group 
of  respondents.  The  evaluators  found  concerns  that  the  funding  of  pilot  projects  or 
preparatory actions is not fully complementary but rather a stop-gap for incomplete 
prevention/preparedness  activity 
the 
interviewees  raised  some  concern  that  there  might  be  some  kind  of  ‘unintended 
disincentive’, whereby some Participating States may rely on assistance through the 
Mechanism  instead  of  making  the  investments  themselves  (e.g.  for  preventive 
measures). An objective evaluation would have to rely on a counterfactual baseline 
scenario describing what would have happened in the absence of EU co-financing. In 
the specific context of the various Participating States, such an analysis is difficult to 
make and will produce only uncertain results.  

in  a  country  or  region.  Furthermore, 

Given  these  difficulties,  the  Commission  is  not  in  a  position  to  fully  ascertain 
complementarity  or  the  lack  thereof.  As  regards  the  possible  "crowding-out"  or 
replacement of national prevention measures, such a judgement would need to refer 
to an assumed minimum standard of what level of prevention would be appropriate. 

It  may  be  discussed  in  an  evaluation  whether  any  of  the  results,  in  particular  the 
achieved  enhanced  rapid  response  capability,  could  have  been  achieved  at  a  lower 
cost.  With  the  data  currently  at  its  disposal,  the  Commission  is  unable  to  reach 
definitive  conclusions  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  approach.  This  being  said,  a 
number of eSurvey respondents and interviewees in the external evaluation pointed 
out the need for more control and evaluation. 

The  Commission  concludes  that  the  development  of  the  concept  of  civil  protection 
modules, preparatory actions and pilot projects has raised Europe to a higher level of 
preparedness.  Any  major  disaster  will  be  met  with  an  enhanced  rapid  response 
capability  and  thus  help  to  save  lives,  protect  property  and  the  environment  both 
within  Europe,  and  outside.  However,  it  is  also  clear  that  the  benefits  of  this 
enhanced preparedness will need to be preserved in the medium and longer term by 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
maintaining and developing the modules already in operation. The Commission notes 
in  this  respect  that  the  evaluators  found  a  strong  interest  on  the  part  of  almost  all 
respondents in maintaining the system of preparatory actions after it expires in 2010 
(20 out of 25 responses are positive).  

3.7. 

Transport assistance provisions 

54. 

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

18 
19 

The transport provisions have been in place since 2007, and they were implemented 
in  order  to  address  an  observed  transport  deficit.  The  Commission  is  contributing 
either through: (1) the award of direct grants to the Participating States (all transport 
means  are  eligible:  civilian  or  military  assets  as  appropriate  provided  that  the 
relevant international/UN guidelines are fully complied with18) or (2) through using 
the services of a transport contractor ("broker") to lease transport assets. A maximum 
of  €  90  million  can  be  used  for  transpor t  under  the  Civil  Protection  Financial 
Instrument  during  the  period  2007  to  2013.  The  Participating  State  requesting 
financial  support  has  to  reimburse  at  least  50%  of  the  EU  funds  received  within  6 
months of the intervention. 

It  took  some  time  before  Participating  States  could  make  full  use  of  the  transport 
provision.  The  total  of  CPFI  co-financing  used  since  the  start  of  the  transport 
provisions  up  to  the  end  of  2010  amounts  to  around  €  7.5  million,  with  2010  and 
2011 showing a marked increase in the number of requests for pooling and financial 
assistance.19.  

The  evaluation  found  that  the  transport  provisions  have  contributed  to  an  overall 
improvement  in  the  delivery  of  assistance  and  led  to  a  more  effective  disaster 
response. The transport provisions also provide a valuable contribution by allowing 
for  the  presence  and  visibility  of  all  Participating  States  in  international  disaster 
situations. Overall the transport arrangements have proved to be useful both in terms 
of  supporting  Participating  States  in  pooling  and  sharing  their  transport  assets  and 
enabling  additional  offers  by  tackling  the  transport  deficit  problem  (either  through 
transport  services  provided  by  the  "broker"  or  through  financial  assistance).  In  the 
eSurvey,  40%  of  the  interviewees  indicated  that  the  transport  provisions  have  a 
decisive impact on the decision to offer assistance. 

The  procedures  put  in  place  in  order  to  manage  the  financial  assistance  via  direct 
grants  awarded  to  Participating  States  have  proved  to  be  useful  by  contributing  to 
closing  a  major  gap.  At  the  same  time  it  is  universally  acknowledged  that  the 
procedures are complicated and burdensome and should be streamlined; plus, there 
needs to be more flexibility.  

Important  considerations  arising  from  the  evaluation  lead  to  the  need  to  further 
investigate  different  levels  of  co-financing  transport  operations,  depending  on  the 
urgency  or  priority  of  delivery  for  certain  relief  resources,  as  well  as  improving 
access to transport assets/options. 

In particular the so-called 'Oslo' and 'MCDA' guidelines. 
In 2007, there was one request for transport financing of a total value of around € 0.03 million; the total 
value of the transport co-financing during 2008 and 2009 stayed at around € 0.4 million yearly; in 2010, 
it reached around € 6.6 million (for  55 requests), and in 2011 it has increased to € 10.8 million (for 35 
requests) so far.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.8. 

Cooperation projects 

59. 

60. 

61. 

62. 

63. 

64. 

The  Commission  has  carried  out  its  evaluation  of  this  segment  without  the  help  of 
the external evaluation. The consultants were not tasked to evaluate the cooperation 
projects on prevention and preparedness, mainly because the eSurvey and interview 
methodology  would  not  have  been  appropriate  for  this  purpose,  as  the  individual 
results are not known in detail to a wider group of people.  

Cooperation projects co-financed by the Civil Protection Financial Instrument in the 
field  of  prevention  and  preparedness  would  seem  to  have  reached  their  intended 
objectives.  The  completed  projects  under  the  2007  call  resulted  in  a  number  of 
interesting  guidelines,  conferences  and  reports.  In  the  interests  of  transparency,  the 
final  reports  are  published  and  the  individual  merits  of  each  project  have  been 
acknowledged by the Commission by its acceptance of the final reports. An increase 
in the number of proposals and number of projects receiving financial support over 
the  years  can  also  be  noted,  which  tends  to  suggest  that  there  are  needs  to  be  met. 
Although  many  of  the  projects  cannot  be  assessed  with  simple  financial  indicators, 
much  like  research  and  development  projects  in  general,  each  of  the  projects  is 
nevertheless  considered  a  useful  addition  to  European  prevention  and  preparedness 
efforts, which may suddenly have to rely on the developed projects in the event of a 
major emergency.  

The  Commission  concludes  that  the  prevention  and  preparedness  projects  have 
contributed significantly to a number of improvements in the EU civil protection and 
disaster management system, and the funding possibility should also be maintained 
in the future. 

However,  the  question  is  whether  adding  individual  ad-hoc  projects  whose  actual 
objectives, intended beneficiaries and deliverables are very diverse, can sufficiently 
contribute to achieving the underlying policy objectives if there is no overall policy 
framework  which  could  be  used  for  benchmarking  purposes.  Giving  financial 
support to a selection of unrelated projects on the basis of successive annual calls for 
proposals is arguably not an appropriate substitute for a policy framework. 

The  situation  differs  slightly  in  the  area  of  preparedness,  as  the  Mechanism  deals 
extensively with this issue. However, the question of a overall policy framework is 
still relevant insofar as the Mechanism focuses on civil protection actors in the strict 
sense,  while  preparedness  under  the  Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument  also 
considers  other  beneficiaries,  such  as  the  public  at  large  and  general  preparedness 
and awareness-raising actions. Issues of ensuring greater complementarities between 
projects,  minimising  overlapping  and  enhancing  the  sustainability  of  the  project 
outcomes would seem to warrant further consideration. 

Even  though  this  goes  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  evaluation,  attention  could 
also possibly be directed to examining the potential for possible synergies with EU 
programmes  and  policies  with  instruments  able  to  support  certain  aspects  of 
prevention and preparedness activities.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
4. 

65. 

66. 

67. 

68. 

69. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  notes  that  the  conclusions  of  the  external  evaluators  are  positive 
overall,  in  that  they  recognise  and  emphasise  the  usefulness  and  relevance  of  EU 
Civil  Protection  activities  during the period under review. In particular, it has been 
widely  acknowledged  that  the  Monitoring  and  Information  Centre  provides  useful 
services  that  are  relevant  to  Participating  States  when  civil  protection  assistance 
interventions are deployed within or outside the EU.  

The  Commission  also  noted  the  concerns  and  ideas  for  possible  improvements  that 
stakeholders  have  passed  on  to  the  evaluators.  The  preparation  of  the  legislative 
proposals  in  2011  provides  opportunities  to  consider  all  relevant  issues.  Moreover, 
the  merging  of  the  Civil  Protection  Units  with  the  Directorate-General  for 
Humanitarian  Aid  (DG  ECHO),  which  was  decided  at  the  beginning  of  2010, 
together with the establishment of a new Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid 
and  Civil  Protection20,  will  produce  further  synergies  and  complementarities,  in 
particular with regard to relief operations in third countries.  

The  Commission  also  noted  the  ad  hoc  nature  of  the  current  EU  disaster  response 
and the need to move to a system where advance planning allows core assets to be 
available for immediate deployment. The planning of EU civil protection operations 
will be improved by developing reference scenarios, mapping Member States' assets 
and drawing up contingency plans, establishing a pool of Member States' assets pre-
committed  on  a  voluntary  basis  to  the  EU  operations,  streamlining  and  reinforcing 
provisions  on  transport  support,  as  well  as  other  measures  outlined  in  the  October 
2010 Communication on disaster response. 

The training courses have proved to be a valuable asset in terms of preparing national 
experts  for  civil  protection  assistance  interventions,  thus  improving  the  overall 
response capability of the Mechanism. Nonetheless, the evaluation also showed that 
the  further  evolution  of  the  training  arrangements  is  limited  due  to  the  lack  of  an 
overall  policy  framework.  Similar  conclusions  have  been  drawn  in  respect  of  the 
exercises  programme,  which  has  received  overall  support  but  has  been  affected  by 
the lack of a general policy framework. To better serve their ultimate purpose, i.e. the 
improvement of operations, the establishment of an integrated training and exercises 
policy will need to be considered. 

The  transport  assistance  provisions  now  seem  to  be  firmly  embedded  in  the 
Mechanism,  and  a  highly  significant  use  of  the  pooling  and  co-financing 
arrangements  has  been  noticed  in  the  last  two  years,  even  though  calls  for 
streamlining  the  procedures  have  been  voiced  and  duly  noted.  Beyond  the  mere 
simplification  of  rules  and  administrative  procedures,  important  considerations 
arising  from  the  evaluation  lead  to  a  need  to  investigate  different  levels  of  co-
financing  depending  on  the  urgency  or  priority  of  delivery  for  certain  relief 
resources, as well as improving access to transport assets/options. 

20 

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
70. 

71. 

72. 

The  modular  approach  met  with  great  interest  and  success  among  Participating 
States, and should be further developed, including through specialised exercises and 
the development of standard operating procedures (SOPs).  

Innovative  arrangements  seeking  to  enhance  the  availability  of  key  relief  assets 
tested through pilot projects and preparatory actions proved to be viable and should 
be built upon. It is to be noted, however, that pilot projects and preparatory actions 
are time-limited by their very nature and cannot be a substitute for a more permanent 
policy  and  regulatory  framework.  The  experience  gained  in  the  design  and 
implementation of these projects is informing the preparation of the 2011 legislative 
review. 

The Commission concludes that European cooperation and coordination in the field 
of  civil  protection  has  made  substantial  progress,  but  there  is  still  also  unused 
potential.  One  important  area  which  has  attracted  increasing  awareness  and 
acknowledgment  is  the  policy  need  in  the  field  of  disaster  prevention  and  disaster 
management.  An  enhanced  EU  prevention  policy  framework  would  be  able  to 
address  the  various  prevention  aspects  in  different  EU  policy  fields  (environment, 
security,  health  and  regional  policies)  and  facilitate  further  co-operation  among 
Participating States. 

73. 

The  Commission  invites  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  take  note  of 
these evaluation findings. 

EN 

16 

   EN