COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European cooperation, accident prevention, civil defence, economic situation, man-made disaster, natural disaster, transport planning

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1630 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 

on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism 

{COM(2011) 934 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1632 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission’s services involved in its preparation 
and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

EU  civil  protection  (CP)  legislation  consists  of  two  Council  Decisions  establishing  a 
Community  Mechanism1  and  a  Financial  Instrument  (CPFI),  respectively2.  The  Mechanism 
supports  and  coordinates  the  preparation  and  deployment  of  Member  States’  in-kind 
assistance  (teams,  experts  and  equipment)  to  countries  requesting  international  assistance  in 
major emergencies of all kinds, natural or man-made, within and outside the EU. 

Disasters are becoming more frequent, intense and complex. Current systems for prevention 
and protection against disasters and coordination at EU level need to be adapted to deal with 
such challenges effectively and efficiently. 

This impact assessment (IA) was carried out by the Commission to help guide that process. It 
examines EU CP cooperation policy options, including all aspects of an ex-ante evaluation for 
the future form of the CPFI. 

2. 

CONSULTATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The  IA  process  included  an  IA  Steering  Group  of  21  relevant  services3  and  an  extensive 
external study4. 

The main stakeholders are national CP authorities, international organisations, UN agencies, 
emergency  management  organisations,  and  the  humanitarian  community.  Three  targeted 
stakeholder  consultations5  and  a  series  of  stakeholder  events  were  held6.  Following  the  IA 
Board’s opinion, the IA report was revised to reflect all comments. 

3. 

THE PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED  

The current CPFI will expire at the end of 2013. The Mechanism Decision is closely linked to 
the CPFI but has  no  expiry date. EU CP actions under the Mechanism and CPFI  face three 
major  challenges:  1) the  continuous  increase  in  numbers,  intensity,  and  complexity  of 
disasters;  2) budgetary  constraints  given  the  current  economic  situation;  and  3) systemic 
limitations  inherent  to  the  current  mandate  of  the  Mechanism,  restricting  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence of EU disaster response. 

The Mechanism currently has a number of shortcomings related to the response, preparedness 
and prevention of disasters: 

(1) 

Reactive and ad hoc mechanics limit the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of 
European  disaster  response.  Currently  the  Mechanism  is  not  in  a  position  to 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

OJ L 314, 2007, p. 9. 
OJ L 71, 2007, p. 9. . 
SG,  SJ,  BUDG,  HOME,  ENV,  JUST,  CLIM,  RTD,  JRC,  MOVE,  ENER,  REGIO,  SANCO,  AGRI, 
ENTR, INFSO, ELARG, DEVCO, FPIS, EEAS. 
Annex C. 
Stakeholder meetings from 6 April and 17 June 2011 with 120 participants each. 
Meeting of CP Directors-General in Budapest on 23-25 May 2011. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

guarantee the availability of assistance when needed and does not allow meaningful 
contingency planning. 

Critical gaps in response assets due to insufficient quantities, problems of timing or 
sharing.  Gaps  occur  with  regard  to  assets  to  deal  with  low  probability/high  impact 
risks, specialised high-cost assets and 'horizontal' assets. 

Limited  transport solutions and heavy procedures hinder optimal  response: Lack  of 
good  access  to  transport  can  prevent  assistance  being  provided;  procedures  for 
requesting  EU  financial  support  for  transport  are  considered  administratively 
burdensome for quick response actions. 

Limited preparedness in training and exercises: Incompatibility problems have arisen 
for equipment, cooperation procedures, individual preparedness and trust in partners’ 
capabilities. Without EU assistance, Participating States (PS) will not be able to raise 
their preparedness levels for overwhelming and cross-border events.  

Lack of integration of prevention: Sector-based prevention policies lack a general EU 
risk management framework where the different elements can be brought together to 
link prevention with preparedness and response more effectively. 

3.1. 

Baseline 

In  the  baseline  scenario,  no  changes  to  the  Mechanism  Decision  are  made  and  the  CPFI  is 
renewed  in  its  current  form.  This  would  result  in  a  response  system  that  is  not  effective 
enough  to  meet  needs,  misses  the  opportunity  to  reap  economic  benefits  through  better 
pooling,  and  does  not  exploit  the  potential  of  cooperation  to  reinforce  prevention  and 
preparedness.  

The Commission considers that without further action: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

fewer assets would be available for EU cooperation; 

transport-related problems and delays would increase; 

individual Member States would not achieve sufficient preparedness; 

cooperation benefits in prevention would be suboptimal. 

3.2. 

Justification for EU action and subsidiarity 

Article 196 TFEU provides the specific legal basis for the Union’s civil protection actions to 
support  and  complement  Member  States’  action  at  national,  regional  and  local  level  in 
preventing,  preparing  for  and  responding  to  natural  or  man-made  disasters  and  to  promote 
consistency in international civil-protection work. 

EU action in this field involves managing situations with a strong multinational component, 
requiring overall coordination and concerted action beyond the national level. EU added value 
would  result  from  economies  of  scale,  such  as  logistics,  transport,  voluntary  pool  of  assets, 
better  use  of  scarce  resources  and  economies  of  preventive  action  instead  of  post  factum 
response to disasters. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW 

General objectives 

Response 

(1) More effective and efficient response 
through planning and enhanced 
availability of assistance 

Specific objectives 

Shift from a reactive and ad hoc coordination to a pre-
planned, pre-arranged and predictable system 

(2) Address critical gaps in response 
capacity 

Identify and fill critical gaps in disaster response 
capacity in a cost-effective way 

Transport 

(3) Improve the response to major 
emergencies through better transport 
solutions 

Preparedness 

(4) Support and complement PS 
preparedness actions with a coherent 
EU preparedness policy framework 

Prevention 

(5) Support and complement PS disaster 
risk management actions by a coherent 
EU prevention policy framework 

(A) Reduce bottlenecks posed by limited logistical and 
financial transport resources. 

(B) Simplify the transport provisions and streamline 
administrative procedures 

(1) Better link national preparedness systems by 
creating more consistency. 

(2) Enlarge the scope of current EU preparedness 
actions and link them better with national programmes. 

(3) Define preparedness explicitly as one objective of 
the EU CP cooperation and provide sufficient funding.  

(1) Support national disaster risk management planning. 

(2) Improve the sharing of experience by promoting a 
common understanding of disaster risk management 
practices and provide funding for reaching a high level 
of protection. 

(3) Integrate disaster prevention policies  

(4) Strengthen prevention awareness raising  

5. 

THE OPTIONS ASSESSED AND THEIR IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Availability of assistance 

In  the  2010  Response  Communication7,  the  Commission  proposes  a  European  Emergency 
Response  Capacity  (a  voluntary  pool  of  pre-committed  PS  assets),  an  Emergency  Response 
Centre, facilitating transportation and EU-funded assets filling capacity gaps. All stakeholders 
strongly support more planning, pre-arrangements and predictability. 

Policy  options  for  availability  of  assistance:  (1)  Voluntary  pool  without  EU  co-financing; 
(2) Voluntary  pool  with  a  limited  EU  co-financing  (only  deployment  costs);  (3) Voluntary 
pool  with  a  higher  degree  of  EU  co-financing  (some  development,  including  equipment), 
standby costs and deployment. 

Option 1 would not affect the EU budget or entail any legislative modifications. It would be a 
purely political commitment, and would not ensure the reliable availability of sufficient assets 
in  a  sustainable  way.  Option  2  would  reduce  the  financial  constraints  on  PS  to  contribute 
assets  to  the  pool  and  make  the  EU  response  more  coherent  and  needs-based.  This  would 
avoid  duplication,  boost  complementarities  and  speed  up  the  delivery  of  assistance  with 
overall  efficiency  gains.  The  administrative  burden  on  PS  and  the  EU  would  be  low.  The 
estimated budgetary shift is EUR 9 million a year. The impact of Option 3 is comparable to 

7 

COM(2010) 600. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 2 and would further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of EU disaster response, 
as it would result more quickly in a functional pool.  

Overall, Options 2 and 3 are superior in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, with benefits 
under Option 3 even more pronounced. 

5.2. 

Identifying and filling critical gaps  

The 2010 Communication mentions different ways of filling response gaps with the option of 
EU-funded assets to be shared across the EU and deployed in ways similar to those from the 
voluntary  pool.  When  not  required  for  EU  operations,  the  managing  PS  could  use  assets 
domestically. 

Policy  options  for  critical  gaps:  (1): filling  gaps  by  PS  without  EU  co-financing;  (2) filling 
gaps by PS with EU co-financing; (3) filling gaps with EU-level assets. 

Option  1  would  be  without  significant  costs  to  the  EU  budget  but  also  with  limited 
effectiveness.  The  financial  burdens  and  benefits  unevenly  spread  among  PS  are  likely  to 
create  tension.  Option  2  would  effectively  and  efficiently  fill  gaps  and  share  assets, 
introducing  a  more  equitable  and  coherent  model  through  (partial)  burden-sharing  and 
reducing financial constraints on PS. Option 3 is highly effective, allowing the EU to address 
identified gaps in a timely and cost-effective manner — subject to budget availability. Higher 
implications for the EU budget could be questioned for reasons of subsidiarity. 

Option 2 seems particularly appropriate for assets responding to low probability/high impact 
risks, Option 3 for horizontal assets benefiting all actors, especially if budgetary implications 
are low. 

5.3. 

Transport  

Policy options for limited logistical and financial resources for transport: (1) discontinuation 
of the scheme; (2) no policy change; (3) increase the maximum EU co-financing for transport 
for  top  priority  needs;  (4)  increase  the  maximum  EU  co-financing  for  transport  across  the 
board. 

Option  1  would  undermine  the  achievement  of  CP  objectives  and  is  therefore  discarded. 
Option  2  relies  on  private  cost-free  solutions  and  on  PS  offering  transport  to  each  other. 
Options  3  and  4  would  reduce  the  barriers  related  to  financing  transport.  Option  3  would 
make  the  overall  response  needs-based.  The  administrative  burden  of  Options  3  and  4  on 
external partners is likely to remain the same. Option 4 carries the risk that low transport costs 
could encourage deployment of non-essential goods, so Option 3 is preferred. 

Policy options for achieving streamlined administrative procedures: (1) no policy change; (2) 
simplification. 

Option  1  includes  simplification  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Commission  without  legislative 
revision.  Option  2  includes  legislative  revision  and  is  expected  to  further  reduce 
administrative  costs  for  the  EU  and  the  PS  and  significantly  contribute  to  achieving  the 
objectives. As Option 1 is not considered sufficient to yield significant improvements, Option 
2 is preferred. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
5.4. 

Preparedness  

Stakeholders expressed general satisfaction with current training and exercise arrangements. 
Some requested broadening of their scope. Options to introduce binding legislation, binding 
standards or quality labels were discarded at an early stage, as the legal basis of Article 196 
TFEU excludes harmonisation.  

Policy  options:  1)  Non-binding  guidelines  on  training  and  exercises  and  no  change  in  CPFI 
spending  levels;  2)  General  EU  preparedness  policy  framework  without  legally  binding 
provisions  plus  supplementary  EU  funding  for  the  establishment  of  a  training  network  and 
other actions; 3) EU support for CP training made conditional on PS training centres meeting 
certain minimum requirements. 

Option 1: Non-binding EU guidelines likely to lead to variations in preparedness levels in PS 
would  not  be  effective.  Economic,  environmental  and  social  impacts,  including  the 
administrative burden, would be limited, as PS would implement only their own standards. 

Option 2: Given that PS are at different levels as regards preparedness, the implementation of 
non-binding  EU  guidelines  would  have  varying  implications  in  terms  of  costs  and 
effectiveness. If EU financial support were provided, the cost would (partly) be incurred by 
the EU budget. 

Option 3: Enhanced effectiveness and efficiency in response operations involving more than 
one  PS  is  achieved  through  common  principles,  knowledge,  better  interoperability  and  a 
bigger resource pool. Costs at EU level are limited with regard to the setting-up of a training 
network. Implementation costs in PS relate to i.e. standards for curricula. The administrative 
burden for public and private operators may be significant as the adherence to the standards 
and the fulfilment of the requirements are likely to entail considerable extra reporting costs. 

Options  2  and  3  would  provide  better  benefits  in  terms  of  efficiency  and  EU  added-value, 
compared to Option 1. Option 3 would likely be superior to Option 2 in terms of effectiveness 
and coherence, but met with reservations from stakeholders. 

5.5. 

Prevention  

Stakeholders  agree  that  prevention  actions  need  to  become  an  integral  part  of  a  balanced 
approach moving EU civil protection forward.  

Policy  options:  1)  No  new  EU  legislation,  but  guidelines  on  minimum  national  prevention 
standards and on national disaster risk management plans (RMPs) and same co-funding levels 
as at present; 2) General EU prevention policy framework with non-binding guidelines plus 
supplementary  EU  funding  for  RMPs;  3)  setting  a  date  for  completion  of  RMPs  by  MS 
accompanied by Commission guidelines  

Option 1 might lead to varying implementation of RMPs and minimum prevention standards, 
and would fail to achieve a higher overall prevention standard in the EU. 

Option  2  would  lead  to  faster  implementation of  guidelines,  provided  that  PS  apply  for  EU 
funding.  The  costs  would  depend  on  the  advancement  of  each  national  system.  The 
administrative  costs  of  additional  reporting  would  be  low  or  insignificant.  Economic, 
environmental and social impacts would be superior to Option 1. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Option 3 entails a consistent, equitable approach throughout the EU, though implementation 
might be delayed due to the length of the legislative processes. Low administrative burden. 

While Option 1 provides insufficient effectiveness and coherence, Options 2 and 3 would be 
beneficial  for  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  Option  2  would  allow  faster 
implementation,  while  Option  3  might  lead  in  the  medium-term  to  more  coherent 
implementation  of  disaster  risk  management  plans,  but  met  with  reservations  from  key 
stakeholders. 

6. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  

The IA proposes the following be included in the legislative proposal: On response, essential 
elements and principles on the voluntary pool of assets (Availability of assistance Option 3), 
and  on  EU-funded  assets  (Critical  gaps  Option  2),  with  a  reference  to  the  implementation 
rules.  On  transport,  the  IA  proposes  revision  of  some  of  the  current  legal  provisions  to 
increase the maximum EU financing rate for transport operations, and simplify administrative 
procedures.  On  prevention  and  preparedness,  a  general  EU  policy  framework  and 
Commission  guidelines  are  proposed.  A  deadline  should  be  considered  for  MS  to  develop 
RMPs  (Prevention  Option  3).  Supplementary  EU  financial  assistance  would  support  the 
development  of  RMPs  and  meeting  minimum  standards,  the  training  network  and  other 
actions (Preparedness Option 2). 

Additional funding to support actions would require corresponding changes to the CPFI. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  will  evaluate  and  benchmark  the  implementation  of  the  legislation  not 
earlier  than  three  years  after  its  coming  into  force  on  the  basis  of  inter  alia  monitoring 
information, such as results indicators and baselines such as response times and preparedness 
measures. 

EN 

6 

   EN