REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the ex-post evaluation of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism and Civil Protection Financial Instrument for the period 2007-2013
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, civil defence, emergency aid, enhanced cooperation, environmental risk prevention, exchange of information, man-made disaster, marine pollution, natural disaster, third country, transport of patients













EUR-Lex - 52015DC0061 - EN











|



52015DC0061

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the ex-post evaluation of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism and Civil Protection Financial Instrument for the period 2007-2013 /* COM/2015/061 final */










REPORT
FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on
the ex-post evaluation of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism and Civil
Protection Financial Instrument for the period 2007-2013


1.      SCOPE
AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The
European Civil Protection Mechanism (hereafter the Mechanism) was established
in 2001[1]
to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance
interventions. In January 2006, the Commission proposed to revise the Mechanism
on the basis of past experience and to provide a suitable legal basis for
future actions. Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom[2] (hereafter
the Mechanism Decision), was designed to deal with the increase in frequency
and seriousness of natural and man-made disasters. In addition, Council
Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom[3]
(hereafter the CPFI Decision) enabled the funding of activities aimed at
preventive, preparedness and more effective response actions, particularly
those taken by way of the cooperation between Member States and carried out
under the Mechanism. The total amount for the actions and measures to be financed
by the CPFI Decision was set at €189.8 million for the period 1 January 2007 –
31 December 2013. The Mechanism Decision and the CPFI Decision were repealed as
of entry into force on 1 January 2014 of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism
Decision[4]
(hereafter the 2013 Decision).
Article
15(2)(d) of the CPFI Decision requires the Commission to submit to the European
Parliament and the Council an ex-post evaluation report of Mechanism actions in
the field of civil protection that received financial assistance in the period
2007-2013. Furthermore, Article 14 of the Mechanism Decision requires the
Commission to evaluate its application and transmit the conclusions to the
European Parliament and the Council. The Commission already carried out an
interim evaluation of Mechanism actions that covered the period 2007-2009, the
results of which were transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council at
the end of 2011 by way of a Report from the Commission[5],
accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Paper[6]
(together hereafter the Interim evaluation report).
This
report presents the main findings of the ex-post evaluation of all Mechanism
actions during the full period 1 January 2007 – 31 December 2013. An external
consultancy was commissioned to independently evaluate the Mechanism actions,
relying on extensive and comprehensive document review, observation of actions,
case studies and a broad stakeholder consultation (Participating States,
international partners, Commission services) by means of interviews and online
surveys. 
Overall,
the design of the external evaluation was good and used a sound methodological
approach. The evaluation relied on a large quantity of data extrapolated from
reliable sources; however the use of quantitative data could have
been more extensive. On the whole, the combination of evidence provided by different
methodological tools was balanced. The observations of stakeholders other than
Participating States, which are able to benchmark the Mechanism against other
similar international systems (e.g. international partners, some Commission
services) are well represented, which adds to the credibility of the findings.
In some specific cases, the evaluation primarily relied on survey results and
interviews, resulting in judgements that appear somewhat subjective. Nevertheless
and within the limits of data and analysis, the findings are credible and the
conclusions are well balanced, logical consequences of findings and linkable
with the facts and data. The full external evaluation, with detailed qualitative
and quantitative evidence, can be obtained at http://ec.europa.eu/echo/en/funding-evaluations/evaluations/thematic-evaluations.

This
report puts forward the Commission's position on the main conclusions and recommendations
of the external evaluation. The following chapters outline the main evaluation findings
assessed in terms of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added
value of the Mechanism actions during the period 1 January 2007 – 31 December 2013,
followed by the conclusions of the Commission.

2.      BACKGROUND
TO THE MECHANISM ACTIONS IN THE PERIOD 2007-2013

2.1.             
   EU
institutional changes 
Prior
to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, EU civil protection
actions and legislation, including the Mechanism and CPFI Decisions, were based
on the catch-all provision of Article 308 of the EC Treaty, authorising the
Council to act (by unanimity) where necessary to obtain a Treaty objective in
areas where there the EC Treaty provided no other legal base. When the new
Article 196 devoted to civil protection was introduced in the Lisbon Treaty,
civil protection was formally recognised as a self-standing policy. 
Until
early-2010, civil protection was under the responsibility of the Commissioner
responsible for Environment. It was then transferred to the Commission Directorate
General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (hereafter DG ECHO) in view
of better exploiting synergies and reinforcing the coherence of EU response
operations.
2.2.             
   Overview
of the Mechanism
The
Mechanism supports the mobilisation of emergency assistance in the event of
major disasters – any type of natural or man-made – inside and outside EU. At
the end of 2013, 32 countries participated in the Mechanism: all 28 Member
States of the European Union plus the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (hereafter together the Participating
States).
The
primary responsibility for dealing with the immediate effects of a disaster
lies with the Participating State or the country where the disaster has
occurred. Nevertheless, when the scale of an emergency overwhelms national
response capabilities, a disaster-stricken country can request and benefit from
the civil protection means and teams of the Participating States. By pooling
civil protection capabilities of the Participating States, the Mechanism can
ensure better protection, primarily of people, but also the environment and
property, including cultural heritage.
Another
main objective of the Mechanism was to support and complement the preparedness
efforts of the Participating States. This includes a wide range of preparedness
activities, such as training courses, exchanges of experts, simulation
exercises and different types of cooperation projects. The period 2007-2013 saw
also an increase in prevention activities.
2.3.             
   Main
Mechanism actions
In
the period 2007-2013 the Mechanism consisted of a number of elements, outlined
below, intended to facilitate adequate prevention and preparedness as well as
effective response to disasters at the EU level. The majority of these were
financed via the CPFI Decision. Some were financed through additional funds
granted by the European Parliament and Council[7]
or other EU Instruments, such as the European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument.
Monitoring
and Information Centre (hereafter MIC) was the operational
heart of the Mechanism and played three key roles: i) monitoring (exchange of alerts
and early warning information on upcoming disasters, facilitated by the Early
Warning Systems[8]
(hereafter EWS)); ii) information provision to the general public and to the
Participating States via the Common Emergency Communication and Information
System (hereafter CECIS); and iii) coordination of assistance provided through
the Mechanism[9].
As of 15 May 2013, MIC was replaced by the Emergency Response Coordination
Centre (hereafter ERCC), which since ensures 24/7 monitoring and immediate
reaction to disasters all over the world. Over the period 2007-2013, the
MIC/ERCC managed 223 Mechanism activations, of which 132 times outside the
Participating States in a total of 69 countries. It also coordinated a total of
72 missions and deployed 246 experts and 64 MIC/ERCC liaison officers during
these missions.
The
training programme, comprising training courses, simulation
exercises and an exchange of experts system, was designed to
establish a common understanding of cooperation in civil protection
interventions and to accelerate the response to major emergencies. In the
period 2007-2013, 4 657 experts attended training courses, 882 experts from 29
Participating States took part in the exchange of experts programme and 31
simulation exercises were selected under the 2007-2013 calls for proposals out
of the 58 proposals received.
Modules and Technical
Assistance and Support Teams (hereafter TAST) were pre-defined, specific
and interoperable emergency response units deployable at short notice. At the
end of 2013 Participating States registered 150 modules and ten TAST in CECIS. Also
funded were specific modules exercises, aimed at training modules likely to
meet in a real emergency.
Prevention
and preparedness projects were aimed at awareness raising and
closer cooperation of Participating States in the field of civil protection. In
the period 2007-2013 the priorities for prevention and preparedness projects
were defined and the objectives of the call for proposals set on an annual
basis (except in 2007 when there was no call for preparedness but only for prevention
projects). A total of 76 prevention and preparedness projects were selected
under the 2007-2013 calls for proposals out of the 371 proposals received.
A
prevention policy framework was developed to complement EU policies in
the areas of disaster response and preparedness. Various prevention activities
were initiated and implemented to address the actions stipulated in the 2009
Commission Communication on a Community approach on the prevention of natural
and man-made disasters.
Participating
States were able to request support and co-financing for the transport of
civil protection assistance to a country affected by an emergency. The Commission
was responsible for supporting Participating States in: i) sharing or pooling
of transport assets made available on a voluntary basis; ii) identification of
transport assets available on the commercial market or from other sources
(transport contractor); and iii) use of EU funding (grants or transport
contractor) to pay for the necessary transport assets. A total of 122 transport
grants were awarded in the period 2007-2013, resulting in total Commission net
contribution of c. €10.9 million. The transport broker was used twelve times
during the same period: nine times as a standalone solution and three times in
combination with a grant. 
Marine
pollution
related activities were also an important part of the overall Mechanism
actions. In this area the Commission cooperated closely with the European
Maritime Safety Agency (hereafter EMSA). During the period 2007-2013, the
MIC/ERCC was activated nine times for marine pollution, with four activations
leading to the deployment of a total of 13 experts and three MIC/ERCC liaison
officers; five preparedness and two prevention marine pollution projects were
co-financed, together with one marine pollution simulation exercise. 
Pilot
Project
and Preparatory Action programmes ran during 2008-2010 and were financed
through additional funds granted by the European Parliament and Council. Preparatory
Action was established in order to test new ways of improving the EU's disaster
response capacity: for the 2008 call for proposals 15 project proposals were
received and five chosen, with total co-financing of c. €3.1 million; the 2009
call for proposals led to 15 proposals, of which seven projects were approved
and received c. €6 million; the 2010 call for proposals resulted in 14
proposals, of which five projects were approved and received total funding of c.
€7 million. The Pilot Project – EU Forest Fire Tactical reserve (hereafter
EUFFTR) consisted of two fire-fighting planes – a supplementary resource
designed to reinforce the overall EU fire-fighting capacity – and intervened in
six of the total of nine 2009 forest fire emergencies.
Actions
with third countries were designed to ensure that actions between
  Participating States and third countries were better coordinated to prevent,
prepare and respond to disasters. These included: i) actions with candidate
countries and potential candidate countries, namely the IPA Civil Protection
Cooperation Programme I, which ran from December 2010 to November 2012 and
consisted of a trainings, exchange of experts, exercises and workshops; ii) actions
with European Neighbourhood countries, in which the EU cooperated with these
countries through the Prevention, Preparedness and Response to Natural and
Man-made Disasters Programme (PPRD South and PPRD East); and iii) actions with
other third countries such as those with which a cooperation agreement was
signed, as well as ASEAN and China.

3.      RELEVANCE
OF THE MECHANISM ACTIONS IN 2007-2013

The
independent external evaluation highlighted in particular the following points as
regards the relevance of the individual Mechanism actions:

 All
     stakeholders consulted in the external evaluation considered the MIC/ERCC
     and associated tools (CECIS and EWS) to be relevant and were satisfied
     with the monitoring, information management and coordination provided.
     Participating States considered the MIC/ERCC as crucial to ensuring: effective,
     efficient and rapid emergency response in the event of disasters; effective
     deployment of EU Civil Protection Teams; and complementarity of the EU
     interventions in disasters with Member States' and international response.
     One of the MIC's key shortcomings – lack of 24/7 coverage – highlighted
     also in the interim evaluation, was addressed by the transition from the
     MIC to the ERCC.
 The
     majority of Participating States considered the training courses to
     be relevant to the needs of their national civil protection authorities. The
     occupancy rates for the training courses were high throughout the 2007-2013
     period, with on average 88.6% of all available spaces taken. However, the external
     evaluation also pointed out that there was no assessment of the optimum
     number of experts needed to be trained to cope with the volume of
     deployments in the framework of the Mechanism. The percentage of trained
     experts actually deployed was estimated at just over 10%.
 The
     simulation exercises covered a wide variety of scenarios which were
     highly relevant to Participating States. The majority (all but four) of
     Participating States took part in the exercises – 18 as the lead organiser
     – which further illustrated their relevance. However, during the period
     2007-2013 the number of proposals received and simulation exercises co-financed
     varied and as a trend decreased: 2008 saw a record number of 18 proposals
     submitted, compared to 5 in 2013 (end of evaluation period); similarly 8
     simulation exercises were co-financed under the 2007 and 2008 calls for
     proposals, compared to 2 in 2013. 
 The
     results of the online survey of participants in the exchange of experts
     programme showed that 99% of those that partook in the survey were of the
     opinion that their competences and skills improved as a result of the
     exchange. A large majority of participants and hosts described the
     administration of the programmes as helpful, clear and competent in
     communicating details related to the organisation of the exchanges. Some stakeholders
     considered the volume of the exchanges as too limited and thought the
     programme should have the capacity to finance additional exchanges. In
     addition, there was a strong imbalance in Participating States'
     participation in the programme. 
 The
     modules and TAST were deployed in a number of disasters inside and
     outside the EU, with 12 modules deployed in 2013 alone. Whilst most Participating
     States agreed that relevant guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures for
     modules were developed and implemented during the period 2007-2013,
     consultation with other stakeholders and the case study showed a need for
     more international and unified guidelines and standards for establishment,
     operation and common procedures of modules. Module exercises were seen by
     many stakeholders as essential and relevant to identify and address gaps
     in the operation of modules, thereby increasing the level of cooperation
     with other modules and improving the coordination of assistance.
 The
     prevention and preparedness projects selected under the 2007-2013 calls
     for proposals were in line with the specific objectives defined in the
     calls for proposals and were considered relevant for the overall
     objectives of the Mechanism. The selection process was regarded as adequate,
     although it was noted that its duration could be reduced. Finally, the
     process of monitoring projects was thought to be transparent and
     straightforward. 
 Participating
     States, the European Parliament and the Council repeatedly called for
     action on prevention, hence the various activities undertaken to
     develop a prevention policy framework clearly responded to the needs of
     stakeholders. The interim report stipulated that the EU prevention policy
     framework should be able to address the various prevention aspects in
     different EU policy fields and facilitate further co-operation among
     Participating States. Evidence gathered suggested that civil protection
     has since been integrated with 13 other EU policies and that cooperation
     was aided through a number of expert meetings that resulted in the sharing
     of good practice. The recommendations have therefore been followed upon. However,
     prevention remained a high priority for stakeholders, as the development
     of a prevention policy framework was recent and therefore needs more time
     to mature.
 The
     development of the legal framework to enable transport support was
     highly relevant, as it answered a previously identified need. Although the
     uptake was slow at the start of the evaluation period, the increased use
     of the transport assistance during the evaluation period showed that by
     the end of the evaluation period it had become a well-established action. It
     also showed that the Commission has taken on board the recommendation of
     the interim evaluation to make the procedures and documentation
     requirements less cumbersome. The evidence suggested that the transport
     assistance positively contributed to the decision to provide civil
     protection assistance.
 The
     involvement of the Mechanism in marine pollution required close cooperation
     with EMSA. Marine pollution activities were found by the external
     evaluation to have contributed to three key Mechanism objectives: MIC/ERCC
     coordinated the EU responses to marine pollution responses nine times between
     2007-2013; MIC/ERCC also facilitated the support to the affected
     countries, often in cooperation with EMSA, which provided expertise and
     logistical support; these operations contributed to the protection of
     human lives and the environment.
 The
     pilot project and preparatory action projects contributed to
     a strengthened EU response capability, by responding to critical needs
     arising from major disasters. Consulted stakeholders reported that the
     availability and readiness of the Canadair aircrafts that were part of the
     pilot project was a real asset in fighting forest fires. Equally, the
     preparatory actions allowed for testing innovative arrangements and the
     development of new modules that were subsequently deployed under the
     Mechanism.
 Actions
     in third countries corresponded to the needs of both
     the beneficiary third countries and the Participating States. For third
     countries, the actions contributed to enhancing their capacity to respond
     to disasters and to a better understanding of the Mechanism and its capabilities.
     For Participating States, building capacity in third countries, in
     particular neighbouring countries, may have contributed to reducing the
     need for Mechanism assistance in the future, preventing certain types of
     disaster from spreading (cross-border), or increasing the speed of the
     response in cases disasters.

Overall,
taking into account its collective operational experience with the Mechanism
and its positive evolution, the Commission agrees with the results of the independent
evaluation that all Mechanism actions were relevant elements to an overall
policy contributing to improved national systems for civil protection disaster
management inside Europe and beyond. These conclusions are further supported by
quantitative data[10]
confirming, for example, the increase in the numbers of Mechanism activations,
transport co-financing requests, module deployments and high levels of
participation in exercises, trainings and exchange of experts.    

4.      COHERENCE
OF THE MECHANISM ACTIONS IN 2007-2013

The
independent external evaluation highlighted in particular the following points:

 94%
     of Participating States that responded to the online survey considered
     that the MIC/ERCC improved the coordination between the EU and the Member States with regard to civil protection assistance during interventions. This is a
     clear signal that the Commission has followed up on the recommendations of
     the interim evaluation that improvements in coordination between the
     MIC/ERCC and Participating States and international partners would be
     desirable. At the EU level, the MIC/ERCC was involved in the coordination
     of all types of disaster response and ensured full coherence amongst
     Commission services and other EU institutions in case of disasters (e.g. cooperation
     with DG SANCO in Haiti, DG ENER in Japan, EEAS in Pakistan, and EMSA in USA). All international partners interviewed considered the MIC/ERCC as a
     reliable partner and able to provide information and channel support. The
     MIC/ERCC collaborated extensively with other Commission services and
     international partners: more than 60 times during the period 2007-2013.
 The
     linkages between training courses were coherent by design, as the
     courses covered introductory, operational and management subjects and were
     interlinked with each other. A few minor remarks concerned specific areas
     (e.g. media management) that could be introduced in a coherent way throughout
     the different courses.
 The
     simulation exercises were coherent with other Mechanism actions, in
     particular with the training courses and module exercises, whose focus and
     modus operandi was different and generated complementary outcomes. Depending
     on the exercise scenario, a number of simulation exercises also allowed
     for the integration of third countries, which further enhanced the
     external coherence of the Mechanism. However, it was argued already in the
     interim evaluation that the coherence of simulation exercises could be
     improved if an overarching strategy or framework for the simulation exercise
     programme would be established. This recommendation is currently being
     implemented as a result of requirements introduced in the 2013 Decision.
 The
     exchange of expert programme was sometimes perceived by
     Participating States as an alternative to training courses rather than a
     complementing action and a forum for the exchange of knowledge and good practices.
     The programme was however perceived as creating opportunities to learn
     more about the role of the Mechanism and providing networking opportunities
     that can prove to be essential in an actual disaster.
 The
     pre-defined and interoperable modules represented additional
     capabilities that could be deployed at short notice and were thus important
     for achieving the Mechanism’s objective to facilitate cooperation in the
     field of civil protection. The module exercises were coherent in so far as
     they provided essential training and testing of capabilities and
     procedures with very realistic emergency scenarios.
 Prevention
     and preparedness projects selected were in line with
     the priorities established annually in the call for proposals. Actions
     implemented by the selected projects were also coherent with those funded
     through other EU instruments. However, it was suggested that the
     priorities for prevention and preparedness projects defined in the call
     for proposals were quite broad: defining more precise priorities could
     contribute more effectively to the Mechanism and to avoiding any potential
     risk of duplication of efforts with related EU funding instruments.
 The
     prevention policy framework was further integrated into other EU policies
     and was also coherent with international disaster risk management policies
     and agenda. In addition to existing efforts, it was suggested that further
     actions could be envisaged to further integrate prevention activities into
     national civil protection policies, linking prevention to preparedness and
     response.
 The
     different components of the transport assistance process (i.e. the pooling
     phase; identification of transport options on the commercial market; and
     co-financing) directly contributed to the key objectives of the Mechanism,
     which were to coordinate the provision of assistance and the deployment of
     this assistance when required.
 With
     regards to marine pollution, a series of common objectives were set
     for the cooperation between EMSA and the Commission (DG ECHO) and different
     mechanisms put in place to ensure a clear division of tasks and good
     coordination. The Commission also actively cooperated with four regional agreements
     developed in the EU sea-basins, a collaboration that was assessed as very
     strong and well organised by the external evaluation. In addition, the
     Commission participated in the Inter-Secretariat Meeting between regional agreements,
     the Commission and EMSA. These findings also confirm that the Commission
     has been successful in taking appropriate steps to implement the
     recommendations raised by the interim evaluation, namely that an
     improvement in the coordination with EMSA was required.
 One
     of the main objectives of preparatory action projects was to make
     equipment and other resources available to be deployed to respond to
     disasters, which was the case in a number of instances (e.g. Haiti earthquake). As for the pilot project, it contributed to reinforcing the
     overall EU fire-fighting capacity. Results achieved through the pilot project
     and preparatory actions were therefore considered by the external
     evaluation to be in line with their objectives, i.e. filling existing gaps
     in a coherent manner.
 The
     desk research and stakeholder interviews conducted as part of the external
     evaluation of actions with third countries concluded that the
     successful implementation of activities under the IPA, PPRD South and East
     programmes contributed to increased cooperation between candidate and
     potential candidate countries as well as neighbouring countries and the EU,
     thus fostering more coherent collaboration in prevention, preparedness and
     response actions. 

The
Commission's experience with Mechanism operations and the conclusions of the
feedback and information sessions with all relevant parties post operations /
exercises / trainings, support the results of the external evaluation, which
found that Mechanism actions were complementary to each other and other actions
at national, EU and the international level. Nevertheless, the Commission
considers that there is further scope for a more comprehensive framing of all
Mechanism actions and for enhancing opportunities for cross-action learning and
will aim to address this by setting an overall strategic framework for trainings,
exercises and lessons learned. Results of the Commission's on-going internal
coordination between different services, as well as contacts with relevant
external stakeholders, support the external evaluation conclusion that the overall
Mechanism implementation was consistent with related EU and international
actions and programmes. 

5.      EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE MECHANISM ACTIONS IN 2007-2013

The
independent external evaluation highlighted in particular the following points:

 The
     MIC/ERCC was considered an effective platform with the appropriate
     features and adequate resources to achieve its objectives and to fulfil
     its functions. All Participating States responding to the online survey considered
     that the MIC/ERCC successfully ensured communication between the EU level
     and the Participating States and almost all considered that the MIC/ERCC
     was accessible and able to react immediately 24/7. Different stakeholders
     remarked that the time needed by the MIC/ERCC to coordinate and deploy the
     EU assistance decreased over the years. Some criticisms came from a
     smaller group of Participating States and other stakeholders concerning: i)
     the selection of national experts to be deployed to emergencies (the view
     was that the MIC/ERCC should have a greater role in selecting experts in
     order to better align the skills with the actual needs in the field); and
     ii) lack of field experience of MIC/ERCC staff.
 The
     training courses achieved their objectives to improve the
     individual skills and competences of the experts and to establish a common
     understanding for cooperation in civil protection interventions. The
     evaluation suggests that the link between the skills required on the field
     and lessons learned from deployments and the training courses could be
     strengthened and that this process could be made more systematic.
 The
     simulation exercises have broadly achieved their objectives, in
     particular promoting better coordination and faster response times, and
     contributed to the overall Mechanism. A number of broader goals were also achieved
     by simulation exercises, such as exploring possibilities for collaboration
     between UNDAC and EU Civil Protection Teams, and further developing the
     operational and strategic collaboration between the humanitarian aid and
     civil protection on national and EU level.
 The
     exchange of expert programme was considered effective to the extent
     it fulfilled the objectives of the participants. Many experts reported
     that they had developed directly applicable specialist skills. However,
     their expectation to be deployed in EU CP teams following the exchange was
     not met for many of them. While the programme was overall highly valued by
     both participants and host organisations, the feedback process could be
     improved as it is pivotal to measuring its effectiveness.
 The
     interim evaluation recommended that the modules concept should be
     further developed, including through specialised exercises and developing
     standard operating procedures. These recommendations were fully
     implemented. The number of modules and TAST registered in the CECIS
     database increased over the period 2007-2013, reaching a total of 150
     modules at the end of 2013. 16 different types of modules were registered,
     out of 17 defined. In order to increase the effectiveness of registered modules,
     stakeholders suggested further developing the minimum requirements and
     guidelines for modules. Most surveyed Participating States considered that
     the module exercises met their objectives to the extent they encouraged
     civil protection staff to take account of lessons learned and to introduce
     improvements to the operation of modules. However, it was suggested that
     more frequent opportunities to exercise modules, even on a smaller scale
     and with less complex exercises, would contribute to their sustainability
     in terms of skills gained.
 The
     results of prevention and preparedness projects met the objectives
     set in the annual work programmes and resulted in concrete actions, such
     as supporting the development of disaster prevention strategies and raising
     awareness on specific issues. Nevertheless, the impact and sustainability
     of prevention and preparedness projects stayed too limited: in particular,
     the implementation of results at national level was somewhat lacking, the results
     were not systematically promoted and made visible, and the transfer to
     other Participating States lagged behind expectations.
 The
     various prevention activities developed and implemented contributed
     to achieving the objectives stipulated in the 2009 Commission
     Communication and the Council Conclusions on prevention. Notably the activities
     contributed to more knowledge-based disaster prevention policies, to linking
     prevention actors and policies to the relevant preparedness and response
     actors, and to the mainstreaming of disaster prevention considerations into
     existing EU financial and legislative instruments.
 77%
     of Participating States surveyed considered that the provision of transport
     support through grants effectively contributed to improving the
     response to emergencies. A number of stakeholders stated that the
     transport broker was adapted to situations requiring high levels of
     flexibility and that there is potential for considerable improvement in its
     use. Finally, experience from certain disasters suggested that EU co-financing
     limited to 50% significantly reduced the effectiveness of the instrument.
     This echoes one of the recommendations of the interim evaluation, which
     was to investigate the potential for different levels of co-financing. The
     Commission has since made progress in that respect, with the introduction
     of new, higher rates of co-financing in the 2013 Decision. 
 The
     effectiveness of marine pollution actions depended directly on the good
     cooperation with EMSA. In all the operations involving EMSA this cooperation
     was considered effective. Equally, marine pollution prevention and
     preparedness projects were considered highly effective, delivering results
     otherwise not possible without the financial support of the Commission (DG
     ECHO). The evaluation of the marine pollution simulation exercise came out
     inconclusive, as the Commission and EMSA had different perspectives on its
     effectiveness.
 Most
     Participating States surveyed considered that the pilot project and
     preparatory actions contributed to more effective disaster response by
     complementing existing capacities rather than duplicating previous efforts
     and results. For example, compared to individual Participating States'
     solutions the pilot project offered crucial support in the rare but severe
     events of several simultaneous large forest fires. The effectiveness of
     preparatory action projects was limited to the extent that the
     dissemination of results could have been broader.
 Overall,
     collected evidence indicated that the objectives of the actions with
     third countries, namely IPA Programme and PPRD South and East Programmes,
     were achieved. Some stakeholders highlighted the need to focus more on
     prevention actions in the future, in line with the developments of the
     Mechanism.

The
Commission's view is that, as evidenced by the Commission's operational
experience and extensive feedback in carrying out or supporting many successful
prevention actions, preparedness activities such as exercises, and response
operations carried out in 2007-2013 period, the overarching policy objective of
the Mechanism as a whole, i.e. facilitating reinforced cooperation, was fully
achieved. The success of these actions is in some cases immediately visible,
such as for example in the case of the pilot project that was able to support
Participating States in fighting forest fires in the absence of other available
response capacities, whilst at other times the results are less tangible
immediately, and consist for example, of teams learning to work with each other
in view of possible cooperation in a real life emergency. The Commission's view
is supported by the results of the external evaluation, which concluded that the
implementation of Mechanism actions was effective insofar as all individual
Mechanism actions achieved their specific policy objectives.

6.      EFFICIENCY
OF THE MECHANISM ACTIONS IN 2007-2013

The
independent external evaluation highlighted in particular the following points:
1.      A
total of some €20 million was allocated in the 2007-2013 annual work programmes
to fund the different functions of the MIC/ERCC, including maintenance
and further development of MIC/ERCC, CECIS and EWS and deployments. The evaluation
noted that the MIC/ERCC was particularly efficient in facilitating the
provision of assistance in a coordinated way which allowed an efficient usage
of resources. The switch from MIC to ERCC, which was staffed and hence better accessible
24/7, was another important factor of efficiency gains, especially with regard
to planning and responding quickly to emergencies. One of the findings of the
interim evaluation was that there was scope for operational improvements in
EWS. Since then, there was considerable investment in EWS. The budget allocated
to EWS increased from €0.7 million in 2009 to €1.6 million in 2013 and was used
to develop a full multi-hazard coverage of near-real time EWS.
2.      A
total of some €29 million was allocated to training courses in the
2007-2013 annual work programmes. Between 2009 and 2010, the number of offered training
courses doubled from six to twelve. Between 2010 and 2013 the training courses
witnessed a steady increase of participants, while the amount of financial
resources invested remained constant. Training participants confirmed that the
participation in trainings created a common understanding of the Mechanism,
which in turn generated efficiencies by providing a coordinated and thus more
effective response.
3.      The
overall size of the budget allocated to simulation exercises in the
2007-2013 annual work programmes was over €20 million. Depending on the scope
and complexity of the scenario the individual budgets varied greatly. Due to
the specific characteristics of each scenario an efficiency comparison between
simulation exercises was difficult. However, according to third-party financial
and audit reports examined during the external evaluation, the budget of each
simulation exercise was considered appropriate and proportionate to their
individual objectives.
4.      The
total amount dedicated to the exchange of experts programme in the
2007-2013 annual work programmes amounted to €1.75 million. The results of the
external evaluation show that some Participating States considered the overall
capacity of the programme limited, commenting on the long waiting times for
experts to be assigned to exchanges. The actual administration of the exchanges
was described by experts as good and the selection process as appropriate and
conducive to achieving the aims of the programme.
5.      The
2007-2013 annual work programmes allocated a total of over €13 million to modules
exercises. According to the external evaluation, whilst overall module
exercises were perceived very positively, some stakeholders were not sure
whether it was efficient to invest in preparing such a significant number of
modules whilst the share of actually deployed modules under the Mechanism remained
relatively small in recent years. In addition, module exercises were thought not
to have included equally all types of modules, but mainly focused on a few.
6.      The
overall budget available for prevention projects was about €14 million
and for preparedness projects some €10.5 million in the period 2007-2013.
The majority of Participating States surveyed considered the size of the budget
appropriate and proportionate to what the projects were set out to achieve. Most
budgets of completed projects were proportionate with regard to the concrete
outputs produced.
7.      The consensus
among the Participating States was that prevention is a cost-effective
and legitimate way to reduce human and economic costs of disasters. However, it
was noted that it was unclear whether the prevention activities had fully
contributed to an enhanced capability manage disasters at EU level, and how
prevention activities interacted with other Mechanism actions.
8.      The
2007-2013 annual work programmes allocated a total of €62.9 million to transport
assistance, resulting in Commission’s net contribution to transport
assistance of around €11 million during this period. Two main observations came
out of the external evaluation: the transport pooling phase mandated by the
legal framework was thought to ensure the efficient pooling and combined
transport operations, however, in view of the limited actual outcomes of
pooling, the necessity of the pooling phase was not certain; and although the
use of the transport broker was designed in a way which ensured
cost-effectiveness its use was nevertheless minimal.
9.      The
2007-2013 annual work programmes did not allocate separate funding for marine
pollution actions. As accidental marine pollution was mainstreamed through the
different actions of the Mechanism, it was integrated in the different budget
lines and assessed as part of those.
10.  The EU Budgetary
Authority earmarked a total of €22.5 million for pilot project and
preparatory actions for the period 2008-2010. The external evaluation noted
that the budget available was adequate to achieve planned activities and that
it was used to deliver concrete outputs, including enhanced response capacity, design
of exercises and/or modules, training programmes and communication activities.
11.  Actions with
third countries were funded through different financial
instruments. The IPA Civil Protection Cooperation Programme I was funded under
the Instrument for pre-accession Assistance (IPA) for the period 2010-2012.
PPRD South ran between 2009 and 2012 with a budget of €5 million, whereas PPRD
East covered the period 2010-2014 with a budget of €6 million. In addition, the
EU-China Disaster Risk Management project was launched in 2012 and was funded
through the Development Cooperation Instrument, with the total budget amounting
to €6 million. The external evaluation noted that due to the diversity of the
actions with third countries and different funding mechanism, the overall
efficiency of actions with third countries was potentially reduced due to the
lack of an overarching framework for these actions.
Overall,
the Commission agrees with the results of the external evaluation that
Mechanism actions were designed to be cost-effective (e.g. in the case of
training courses, the budget remained stable in the period 2010-2013 yet the
number of participants benefiting from the courses increased) and were broadly implemented
efficiently. Beyond the external examination of the quantitative and
qualitative data, the Commission's operational experience with the Mechanism reveals
a more nuanced picture. For example, the increased investment in EWS was
relatively small compared to the budget allocated to other Mechanism actions,
but resulted in a significant operational benefit for the Mechanism. Equally,
the investment in training resulted in a large number of experts trained but
not necessarily deployed on Mechanism operations; this finding underestimates
the significant benefit of having Mechanism trained experts in national
operations and their potential to spread the knowledge. 

7.      EU
ADDED VALUE OF THE MECHANISM ACTIONS IN 2007-2013

The
independent external evaluation highlighted in particular the following points:

 The
     added value of MIC/ERCC was manifold. For Participating States the
     MIC/ERCC represented a ‘one-stop-shop’ for responding to disasters, with
     clear added value over bilateral response. CECIS was considered by all
     stakeholders as a useful centralised information sharing platform with
     clear EU added value. For third countries and international partners, the
     MIC/ERCC enabled them to reach out and to request assistance through one
     single platform, making cooperation easier. EWS enabled Participating
     States access to state-of-the-art alert systems covering the full spectrum
     of hazards, as well as a stronger science/operational interface to enable
     innovation.
 The
     training courses demonstrated strong EU added value, resulting in participants
     not only gaining skills and knowledge about the Mechanism but also
     strengthening the network of civil protection professionals. It was argued
     by the external evaluation that this networking effect rendered
     cooperation and interventions easier.
 Based
     on the interviews, in at least five out of six cases the simulation
     exercises would not have taken place without EU co-funding. Exchange
     of experience and learning from best practices was one of the key results
     and also provided strong EU added value. In addition, exercises allowed
     for a re-creation of emergency scenarios and were considered by stakeholders
     as complementary to training courses.
 The
     exchange of experience and learning from best practices was one of the key
     results of the exchange of experts programme. The programme
     resulted in strong connections being fostered at national and European
     level, which made cooperation much easier. Without EU financial
     assistance, it was considered unlikely that such exchanges would have
     taken place.
 The
     EU added value from modules and modules exercises is obvious insofar
     as they directly supported the national response to disasters in affected
     countries. The testing of skills and procedures during module exercise
     created a common understanding for coordinated assistance.
 The
     prevention and preparedness projects achieved results which could
     not have been achieved by Participating States individually. Most projects
     involved several partners from different Participating States, thereby improving mutual knowledge and contributing to building trust across
     Participating States.
 The
     prevention activities demonstrated EU added value: prior to the
     development of a prevention policy at EU level, not all Participating
     States had well-developed policies aimed at prevention of disasters – the
     activities undertaken at EU level incentivised those Participating States
     to undertake additional efforts to develop such policies. Participating
     States also benefited from the exchange of practices and expert meetings
     at EU level.
 The
     transport assistance proposed by the Mechanism brought EU added
     value by directly supporting the deployment of disaster support assistance
     in affected countries. Concrete examples included cost-savings at Participating State and EU level by supporting the pooling of transport assets and
     flexibility when warranted by the situation in the field.
 The
     Mechanism was found to have delivered EU added value in marine
     pollution, primarily through bringing the marine pollution and civil
     protection communities closer together and supporting cooperation and
     collaboration where needed. Marine pollution prevention and preparedness
     projects were highlighted as a key value adding initiative.
 The
     pilot project and preparatory actions contributed to the development/availability
     of additional capacities which otherwise might not have been developed/made
     available by Participating States individually. In addition, cooperation
     between Participating States was strengthened. In some cases, the results
     of preparatory actions led to an overall assessment of capacity needs and to
     the use of standard procedures.
 All
     stakeholders confirmed the EU added-value of actions with third
     countries. The most important reported result was the reduction of the
     impact of disasters brought about by improving the civil protection capacities.
     Participation in the third country actions was also thought to have a
     positive impact on national policies. Most third country stakeholders
     interviewed also had first-hand experience with Mechanism activations and
     acknowledged their EU added value in third countries.

The
Commission concludes, based on the results of the external evaluation, lessons
learned from the large number of Mechanism operations in Europe and beyond, and
feedback from countries requesting Mechanism assistance, that he Mechanism demonstrated
EU added value on multiple levels, including by strengthening the cooperation
between Participating States, addressing the need for appropriate prevention
activities, facilitating the deployment of teams and assistance and offering a
single ‘package’ of support, including civil protection experts and modules and
TAST. Overall, the Mechanism constitutes a successful EU policy area with a
growing demand from Member States and other stakeholders. 

8.      CONCLUSIONS

Considering
the findings of the external evaluation report and taking into account its own operational
experience and lessons learned, as well as its own assessment of the
qualitative and quantitative evidence and data, the Commission's overall conclusion
is that the Mechanism actions that received financial assistance in the period
2007-2013 have performed very satisfactory and achieved their objectives. The overall
evaluation of the implementation of the Mechanism observed generally very good
results and clearly demonstrated the relevance, coherence, effectiveness,
efficiency and EU added value of the Mechanism as a whole and of its individual
actions. The Mechanism actions were successful in many respects, not least in
improving coordination and cooperation and enhancing the Participating States'
preparedness and response capacities; providing an efficient, rapid and
effective response to emergencies; and providing access to transport resources
for ensuring rapid response. 
The
Commission notes the significant progress the Mechanism underwent between 2007
and 2013, not least the move from the MIC to the ERCC, the increased focus on prevention
policy and actions, and increased cooperation with third countries. Many of the
ideas that were nascent at the start of the evaluation period are now fully
fledged Mechanism actions delivering significant benefits to the Participating
States, such as the transport assistance and the modules concept. The
Commission also highlights the substantial progress made by the Mechanism since
the Interim evaluation report with regards to its recommendations, all of which
have been taken into account by the end of the evaluation period and have been
or are in the process of being implemented, including as a result of the 2013
Decision. 
In
the light of the above, the Commission concludes that European cooperation and
coordination in the field of civil protection made substantial progress since
2007 and established a good basis for continuing these positive developments.
The external evaluation offers a number of positive examples that demonstrate
the extent to which the Mechanism and the EU's disaster response coordination
evolved and became better at achieving objectives. The CPFI financing used for
this purpose has generated substantial EU value added. 
The
external evaluation, despite its positive assessment of the performance of the Mechanism
and all of its actions, also highlighted some potential for additional
improvements. Most significant recommendations included creating a more
coherent framework for Mechanism preparedness actions, including exercises,
training, projects, exchange of experts, and better planning, as well as more
streamlined response procedures and higher transport EU co-financing rates. The
Commission agrees that in a number of areas there is scope to further enhance
and develop the Mechanism and welcomes the external evaluation recommendations.

The
2013 Decision provides the legal foundation for further significant progress in
prevention, preparedness and response, and specifically addresses many of the
issues identified in the external evaluation (e.g. the 2013 Decision calls for a
strategic framework for simulation exercises). The Commission will therefore
aim to take the majority of these recommendations into account in the already ongoing
implementation of the 2013 Decision. Recommendations related to operations will
be taken into account as part of the on-going work on improving the procedures
(e.g. calls for proposals) or the running of programmes.
The
Commission invites the European Parliament and the Council to take note of these
evaluation findings.
[1] Council Decision
2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to
facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions
(link)
[2] Council Decision
2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil
Protection Mechanism (recast) (link)
[3] Council Decision
2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial
Instrument (CPFI) (link)
[4] Decision 1313/2013/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on a Union
Civil Protection Mechanism (link)

[5] COM(2011) 696 final (link)
[6] SEC(2011) 1311 final (link)
[7] Pilot projects and
preparatory actions in accordance with Art 49(6)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 1605/2002 (Financial Regulation); 2008 EU budget line 07 04 04 and
07 04 05; Commission Decision C(2008)1740; 2009 EU budget line 07 04 05;
Commission Decision C(2009)3356; 2010 EU budget line 07 04 05; Commission Decision
C(2010)1206   
[8] EWS developed by the
Joint Research Centre (JRC) include Global Disaster Alerts and Coordination
System (GDACS), European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) and European
Flood Alert System (EFAS)
[9] MIC/ERCC also ensures
the operational coordination of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service, initiated
in 2012, including its mapping component and interaction with authorised users 
[10] MIC/ ERCC official
statistics; see also external evaluation report pages 32-34, 53-56; 69-71, 77-78,
114-116