REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress made and gaps remaining in the European Emergency Response Capacity
Date: 2017-02-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, aid evaluation, civil defence, cooperation policy, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, man-made disaster, natural disaster

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.2.2017  COM(2017) 78 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress made and gaps remaining in the European Emergency Response Capacity  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 3 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.  Resources available for EU missions ........................................................................................... 5 

3.  Potentially significant gaps in the EU's capacity to respond to disasters ................................. 5 

3.1 

3.2 

Forest fire fighting planes ..................................................................................................... 5 

Shelter and related assistance ............................................................................................... 6 

4.  Types of resources requiring further assessment ................................................................ 6 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

Resources needed in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear disasters ................. 7 

European Medical Corps ...................................................................................................... 7 

Remotely piloted aircraft systems ........................................................................................ 7 

4.4 

Communication teams ........................................................................................................ 8 

5.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 8 

Annex – Overview of resources and gaps in the EERC ................................................................... 10 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

The  European  Emergency  Response  Capacity  (EERC)  was  created  to  prepare  the  EU  for  a 
multitude  of  potential  disasters.  It  consists  of  various  civil  protection  resources,  which 
Participating  States  in  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  make  available  for  EU 
emergency response operations.  

Since  the  establishment  of  the  EERC,  16  Participating  States  have  committed  77  resources 
(e.g. search and rescue teams, medical teams, water purification systems, etc.) which are now 
available  for  EU  operations  worldwide.  Many  of  the  EERC's  targets,  or  “capacity  goals”, 
which are enshrined in EU legislation, have therefore been met. 

Gaps, or shortcomings, in terms of available resources still exist with regard to (1) forest fire 
fighting  planes  and  (2)  shelter.  Whether  some  other  types  of  resources  are  sufficiently 
available,  they  would  require  further  assessment.  This  would  be  the  case  for  (a)  resources 
needed in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear disasters, (b) big field hospitals and 
medical  evacuation  capacities  as  part  of  the  European  Medical  Corps,  (c)  remotely  piloted 
aircraft systems, and (d) communication teams. Some of the current capacity goals may also 
need  to  be  revised  in  order  to  take  account  of  changing  risk  assessments  and  operational 
experience. 

The Commission invites Participating States to address the remaining gaps in the EERC and 
to actively support the process of reviewing and possibly adapting and/or complementing the 
current EERC capacity goals in 2017.  

 3 

 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

In  a  world  of  increasing  risks,  the  EU  needs  to  be  prepared  to  respond  to  a  multitude  of 
potential  disasters.  The  European  Emergency  Response  Capacity  (EERC)  was  established 
under the framework of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) in 2013 in order to 
improve the level of preparedness of civil protection systems within the Union.1 For the first 
time,  Participating  States  of  the  UCPM  can  make  a  range  of  emergency  response  assets 
available for immediate deployment as part of EU operations. By registering national assets in 
the EERC, Participating States commit that they will be available for EU response operations 
following  a  request  for  assistance  through  the  Commission's  Emergency  Response 
Coordination Centre.  

The  EERC  is  one  of  the  main  innovations  of  the  last  revision  of  EU  civil  protection 
legislation. It has resulted in a shift from a rather reactive and ad hoc coordination system to a 
more  predictable,  pre-planned,  and  coherent  organization  of  EU  disaster  response.  In  this 
context,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  general  effectiveness  of  the  UCPM,  particularly  when  it 
comes to coordinating the response to disasters, was recently praised by the European Court 
of Auditors.2 

The EERC has been well received and has grown rapidly since its launch in October 2014. As 
of October 2016, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden 
(i.e. 16 Participating States in the UCPM) have all committed civil protection resources to the 
EERC.3  To  ensure  that  these  resources  are  of  a  high  quality,  the  Commission  manages  a 
dedicated certification process.4 The types and numbers of key response capacities which are, 
at  a  minimum,  required  for  the  EERC  to  be  able  to  function  effectively,  are  referred  to  as 
EERC  "capacity  goals".  They  have  been  determined  based  on  identified  disaster  risks  and 
their  suitability  is  periodically  assessed  by the Commission  and  Participating  States.5  Given 
that  capacity  goals  are  to  be  considered  minima,  a  higher  number  of  resources  may  be 
registered in the EERC.  

In order for the EU to be prepared to face disasters, it needs to critically evaluate its capacity 
to respond. The report at hand takes stock of progress made towards the achievement of the 
EERC  capacity  goals  and  assesses  the  significance  of  remaining  response  capacity  gaps. 
Besides performing a mere numerical comparison of goals and achievements, this report also 
draws on experience gained within the UCPM during the past two years. The latter suggests 
that revising or adapting capacity goals in the medium term is necessary.  

1  Decision  No  1313/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism, Article 11. 
2 See Special Report 33/2016 on "Union Civil Protection Mechanism" published on 18 January 2017. 
3 See the annex for details. 
4 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU, Article 16. 
5 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU, Article 14. 

 4 

 
 
 
                                                            
2.  Resources available for EU missions 

Between the launch of the EERC in October 2014 and the cut-off date agreed for the purposes 
of  this  report  (1  October  2016),  16  Participating  States  committed  a  total  of  77  response 
capacities  to  the  EERC.6  These  include  civil  protection  modules,  technical  assistance  and 
support teams, as well as other response capacities. With the commitment of these resources, 
many  of  the  EERC's  capacity  goals  have  been  met.  A  detailed  overview  is  provided  in  the 
annex (columns 2-3).  

To  determine  the  existence  of  any  gaps  in  the  EU's  capacity  to  respond  to  disasters  in  the 
areas  in  which  the  EERC's  capacity  goals  have  not  (yet)  been  met,  the  Commission  asked 
Participating States to identify any additional resources outside the EERC that may be readily 
available  for  EU  missions.  27  countries  provided  information7  and  a  detailed  overview  is 
provided in the annex (column 4).  

Whenever resources outside the EERC are available to fill gaps inside the EERC, this report 
concludes  that  there  is  no  gap  in  the  EU's  overall  capacity  to  respond.  It  is  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  resources  outside  the  EERC  provide  fewer  guarantees  as  to  their  availability 
and quality than resources registered in the EERC. Modules registered in the EERC must be 
available  for  departure/operations  in  the  affected  country  within  a  determined  number  of 
hours, and need to undergo a certification process that includes document reviews, training, 
and exercises. The same cannot be guaranteed for resources outside the EERC.  

3.  Potentially significant gaps in the EU's capacity to respond to disasters 

During its first two years of existence, the EERC has successfully been used to respond to the 
Ebola crisis in West Africa (2014), forest fires in Greece (2015), forest fires in Cyprus, France 
and  Portugal  (2016),  the  Ecuador  earthquake  (2016),  the  Yellow  Fever  outbreak  in  the 
Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo  (2016)  and  Hurricane  Matthew  in  Haiti  (2016). 
Nonetheless, certain shortcomings have become apparent. The Commission has identified two 
potentially  significant  gaps:  forest  fire  fighting  planes,  as  well  as  shelter  and  related 
assistance. 

3.1 

Forest fire fighting planes 

The  risk  of  forest  fires  depends  on  many  factors,  such  as  climatic  conditions,  vegetation, 
forest  management  practices  etc.  Within  the  EU,  south  and  southeast  Europe  are  generally 
most  at  risk,  although  other  regions  have  also  been  affected  in  the  last  years  (e.g. 
Västmanland, Sweden, 2014), and the number and extent of forest fires can vary considerably 
from one year to the next, depending on seasonal meteorological conditions.  

6  To  take  account  of  delays  in  finalising  the  registration  of  resources,  this  report  also  considers  as  'registered' 
those resources for which an application for registration was received by the Commission within the deadline, 
but for which the registration process has not yet been finalised. The underlying assumption is that all resources 
will eventually be registered, though some might need adaptation grants to comply with the quality criteria of 
Annex  II  of  the  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2014/762/EU.  Formally  registered  resources  currently 
account for only 20% of the 77 resources listed in the annex. The remaining 80% are resources for which the 
registration process has been initiated. Resources that have been politically committed by Participating States but 
for  which  no  application  form  was  submitted  by  1  October  2016  are  not  considered  in  the  current  gap 
identification  process,  as  there  is  no  information  available  on  their  technical  aspects,  conditions,  timing  and 
adequacy. 
7  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany, 
Greece,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  Malta,  Montenegro,  the  Netherlands, 
Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 

 5 

 
 
                                                            
The initial capacity goal in the EERC for forest fire fighting modules using planes was set at 
two.  France  subsequently  registered  one  module.  In  addition,  the  Commission  co-financed 
one fire-fighting aircraft operated by Italy as a “buffer capacity” during the 2016 forest fire 
season. This meant that the aircraft was part of the EERC during the summer of 2016 and the 
Commission  financed  its  standby  costs  in  order  to  ensure  its  availability  in  case  of  major 
disasters. Both assets proved highly useful.  

Nevertheless, events during the summer of 2016 – and in particular the forest fires in Portugal 
–  showed  the  operational  necessity  and  political  significance  of  having  more  forest  fire 
fighting planes available in the EERC. Portugal requested assistance through the UCPM at a 
time  when  the  entire  French  fleet  of  forest  fire  fighting  planes  (including  the  one  module 
registered in the EERC) was out of service for technical reasons and the EERC buffer aircraft 
was deployed in Corsica. Although the EERC buffer aircraft was redirected from Corsica to 
Portugal, the general shortage of fire-fighting planes via the UCPM pushed Portugal to accept 
assistance from Morocco (two Canadairs) and Russia (two Berievs). 

Therefore forest fire fighting modules using planes is identified as a potential significant gap 
and the Commission encourages Participating States to take steps to cover it. 

3.2 

Shelter and related assistance 

The  EERC  capacity  goal  for  shelter  is  two  emergency  temporary  camps  and  100  units  of 
additional  shelter  capacity,  as  well  as  6  additional  shelter-kits.  Yet  there  is  currently  no 
emergency temporary camp and only one unit of additional shelter capacity registered in the 
EERC. Outside the EERC, there also seems to be little shelter-related assistance available (see 
annex).  

Moreover,  during  the  refugee/migration  crisis  in  Europe  it  quickly  became  apparent  that 
shelter is difficult to provide when all Participating States are under pressure at the same time. 
Governmental  stocks  were  quickly  exhausted  and  at  the  peak  of  the  crisis,  the  European 
commercial market went under severe pressure, resulting in significant delays in the delivery 
of  containers  and  an  increase  in  prices.  Cooperation  with  the  military  only  brought  partial 
relief.  

The capacity to rapidly mobilise massive shelter assistance is critical in a variety of scenarios 
that  feature  in  Participating  States'  risk  profiles.  Voluntary  mutual  assistance  on  an  ad  hoc 
basis may not be the most effective and cost-efficient way to ensure access to these capacities, 
particularly when these are required by several Participating States at the same time. 

The  Commission  has  therefore  identified  shelter  and  related  assistance  as  being  a  potential 
significant gap and Participating States are invited to initiate discussions on the best way to 
address it. 

4.  Types of resources requiring further assessment 

In  certain  cases,  whether  some  types  of  resources  are  sufficiently  available  would  require 
further assessment. This is the case for resources needed in chemical, biological, radiological 
and nuclear (CBRN) disasters; big field hospitals and medical evacuation capacities as part of 
the European Medical Corps; remotely piloted aircraft systems; and communication teams. 

 6 

 
 
4.1 

Resources needed in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear disasters 

The EU needs to be sufficiently equipped to deal with chemical, biological, radiological and 
nuclear disasters. The recent escalation of terrorist activities in and around Europe may justify 
a future review of the capacity goals in the field of CBRN disasters. 

There  is  presently  not  enough  capacity  registered  within  the  EERC  to  sustain  a  search  and 
rescue  operation  in  a  contaminated  environment,  nor  to  respond  to  incidents  requiring  the 
decontamination  of  patients  exposed  to  CBRN  agents.  However,  Participating  States  have 
informed the Commission that sufficient resources are available outside the EERC.  

The  Commission  invites  Participating  States  to  further  register  these  types  of  assets  in  the 
EERC and to engage in discussions on the adequacy of the current capacity goals.  

4.2 

European Medical Corps 

The  Ebola  crisis  has  been  a  reminder  of  the  need  to  further  develop  European  capacities  to 
address  disease  outbreaks  and  the  health  consequences  of  disasters.  Work  in  this  regard  is 
ongoing in the context of the European Medical Corps, which brings together all the medical 
and public health teams and modules within the EERC.  

Capacity  goals  for  the  European  Medical  Corps  have  not  yet  been  sufficiently  defined.  For 
instance,  there  are  still  no  clear  targets  for  emergency  medical  teams  as  the  EU  is  in  the 
process  of  transiting  towards  the  World  Health  Organization's  classification  of  emergency 
medical teams in types 1, 2 and 3. Nonetheless, there are indications that Participating States 
could  face  capacity  gaps  with  respect  to  big  field  hospitals  (i.e.  emergency  medical  teams, 
type 3).  

In addition to the above, it is worth noting that substantial operational costs can be incurred 
during long-term deployments of heavy response capacities such as emergency medical teams 
(types 2 and 3), mobile laboratory facilities, and the engineering capacities required to support 
field  hospitals. These costs are currently not  eligible for EU co-financing under the UCPM, 
and  some  Participating  States  have  consequently  been  hesitant  to  register  their  assets  in  the 
EERC.  

As regards resources for medical evacuation, a number of planes and helicopters are available 
inside  and  outside  the  EERC.  However,  the  risk  of  mass  casualty  events  advocates  for  an 
increased  number  of  available  assets.  The  diversity  of  situations  where  medical  evacuation 
assets  may be  needed also  calls  for a revision of the types of  medical evacuation capacities 
defined  under  the  UCPM.  The  medical  evacuation  system  for  Ebola  patients,  for  example, 
was only developed at the peak of the emergency.  

The  Commission  therefore  invites  Participating  States  to  support  the  revision  of  the 
requirements and capacity goals for MEVAC8 modules and medical evacuation assets. 

4.3 

Remotely piloted aircraft systems 

Technological  innovation  can  increase  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  civil  protection 
operations,  including  under  the  UCPM.  One  such  innovation  is  drones,  also  known  as 
Remotely  Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).  Some Participating States already use RPAS in 
domestic and international civil protection operations, yet there have only been few instances 
of RPAS being used in UCPM missions so far, and no RPAS units have been registered in the 
EERC. RPAS units can, among other things, support assessment missions, search and rescue 

8 Mevac: Medical aerial evacuation of disaster victims. 

 7 

 
                                                            
operations,  as  well  as  forest  fire  fighting.9  Each  of  these  mission  types  requires  the  RPAS 
units to have specific capabilities and to fulfil distinct sets of quality criteria.  

The  Commission  therefore  invites  Participating  States  to  support  the  revision  of  the  entry 
"Teams with unmanned aerial vehicles" and to reflect on the appropriateness of developing it 
into a number of different RPAS modules with distinct capacity goals.  

4.4 

Communication teams 

The  EERC  presents  a  numerical  gap  (-2)  concerning  communication  teams  or  platforms  to 
quickly  re-establish  communications  in  remote  areas.  The  Commission,  however,  has 
information  that  some  Participating  States  possess  such  resources  without  having  explicitly 
indicated  so  for  the  purpose  of  this  report.  As  a  consequence,  further information  would  be 
needed regarding the availability of this type of resource.  

The Commission invites Participating States to either register additional assets in the EERC 
or to reflect on the adequacy of this capacity goal. 

5.  Conclusion 

Good  progress  has  been  made  towards  achieving  the  EERC's  initial  capacity  goals,  but  this 
report highlights that the EU’s capacity to respond to disasters may still be insufficient with 
regard to (1) forest fire fighting planes and (2) shelter and related assistance. 

In  addition,  a  more  in-depth  analysis  is  needed  in  certain  areas  to  assess  whether  there  are 
potentially significant gaps in the EU's capacity to respond, or whether certain capacity goals 
as  defined  in  the  current  legislation  need  to  be  reviewed.  This  would  be  the  case  for  the 
following  types  of  resources: (a)  teams  for  urban  search and  rescue in  CBRN  conditions  as 
well as CBRN decontamination teams, (b) field hospitals and medical evacuation capacities 
(c) remotely piloted aircraft systems, and (d) communication teams.  

To help ensure the sufficient availability of key resources, the Commission has issued another 
call for proposals for buffer capacities in 2017. It covers response capacities in the fields of 
forest  fire  fighting  using  planes,  shelter  capacities,  unmanned  ground  vehicles  for  CBRN 
disasters,  emergency  medical  services,  remotely  piloted  aerial  systems,  as  well  as  flood 
containment10. 

The Commission proposes that Participating States address the remaining gaps for which no 
capacity is available at national level in several ways, for example by: 

 

forming consortia and developing joint modules,  

  exploring contractual arrangements that give access to such resources,  

9 The Commission organized an expert workshop on the use of RPAS in civil protection operations in January 
2016.  This  workshop  concluded  that  RPAS  technology  could  prove  useful  to  support  various  disaster 
management missions. In June 2016, the expert group on civil protection modules (set up by the Civil Protection 
Committee)  concluded  that  three  mission-types  would  be  a  priority  for  the  UCPM:  RPAS  in  support  of 
assessment  missions,  RPAS  in  support  of  search  and  rescue  operations,  and  RPAS  in  support  of  forest  fire 
fighting. The group also agreed on a list of quality requirements for RPAS units to be registered in the EERC. 
10  The  response  capacity  available  to  address  the  flood  risk  in  Europe  is  generally  good.  However,  flood  risk 
must also be considered through the lens of geographical location and risk category. Despite general availability, 
capacity to respond to floods may actually be unavailable in certain areas. Moreover, there is no information on 
the  availability  of  more  sophisticated  or  innovative  flood  containment  equipment,  such  as  tube-based  systems 
and component-based systems, which could improve the EERC's response capacity. In terms of risk category, it 
should  be  noted  that  flash  floods  usually  have  shorter  response  times  than  river  floods.  This  makes  it  more 
difficult to predict them and to provide residents and first responders with advanced warnings. 

 8 

 
 
                                                            
  stimulating further research on the topic,  

 

filling the gaps through existing national and EU capacity building programmes11, e.g. 
under the umbrella of the EU structural funds. 

Finally, the assessment of progress made and gaps remaining in the EERC is a dynamic and 
continuous  process.  The  EERC  capacity  goals  need  to  be  reviewed  at  least  every  second 
year12 and the first review will already start in 2017. It may result in new capacity goals being 
defined, based on national risk assessments, experience from recent disasters, general trends, 
and other appropriate sources of information.  

11 It is to be noted that funding through the UCPM to address capacity gaps will remain limited to seed funding 
of a maximum of 20% of the eligible costs and is only possible in a very restricted number of cases, see Decision 
1313/2013/EU, Article 21(1)(j) and Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU, Article 22. 
12 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU, Article 14(2). 

 9 

 
 
                                                            
Annex – Overview of resources and gaps in the EERC 

The first two columns of the table list the 'modules', 'technical assistance and support teams', and 'other response capacities', and report the capacity goals 
for the EERC's start-up configuration as  defined in  Annex III  of the Commission Implementing  Decision. The table also lists the components of the 
European Medical Corps, which are not officially part of the EERC and for which capacity goals have not been set yet. The third and fourth columns 
report, respectively, the resources currently registered in the EERC and those that are not registered in the EERC but that Participating States can readily 
make available in the required quantities, at the required location, within the required timeframe, and for the required duration. The last column presents 
the  difference  between  the  goals  and  the  overall  capacity  at  the  level  of  Participating  States  and  summarises  the  relevance  of  the  identified  gaps.  It 
provides the basis for a colour-coding of green (goal achieved), orange (see specific comments) and red (potentially significant capacity gap). 

= Goal achieved 

= See specific comments 

= Potentially significant capacity gap 

1 
Type of resource 

2 
EERC 
initial 
target13 

3 
Resources registered 
(or in the process of 
being registered) in 
the EERC 

4 
Resources that can be 
made available 
outside the EERC14 

5 

Assessment of potentially significant response 
capacity gaps 

Modules 
High Capacity Pumping module 

1 

2  Medium Urban Search And 

Rescue (MUSAR) module –  
1 for cold conditions 

6 

6 

BE x1; DE x3; DK x1; 
FR x2; IT x1; PL x2; 
SE x1; SK x1; RO x2 

FI x1; GR x2; IT x1; 
RO x1 

No gap (+24) 

No gap (+17)  

AT x2; Baltic x1; BE 
x1; BG x1; CZ x1; DE 
x5; FR x2; HU x1; IT 
x1; SI x1 
AT x2; BE x1; BG x1; 
EE x1; ES x2; FR x5; 
HR x1; HU x2; IS x1; 
LI x1; SI x1. 

13 As defined in Annex III of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU. 
14 Note that the UK can make a range of resources available for which it has not been possible to estimate the national capacity. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the resources are 
not considered. This includes fire-fighting expertise, heavy urban search and rescue capacities, as well as specialized search and rescue equipment available through the UK Fire and Rescue 
Service  and  its  operational  partners,  MEVAC  capacities  available  through  the  UK  Armed  Forces,  a  range  of  maritime  response  capacities  available  through  the  UK  Maritime  and 
Coastguard  Agency  and  its  operational  partners,  a  wide  range of  engineering  expertise  available  both  through  public sector  agencies  (such  as  the  Health  and Safety  Executive,  and  the 
Environment Agency) and the private sector. The UK also has a large stockpile of shelter capacity held by the Department for International Development. 

 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3 

Heavy Urban Search And 
Rescue (HUSAR) module 

4  Water Purification module 
Aerial Forest Fire Fighting 
5 
module using Planes 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Advanced Medical Post 

Emergency Temporary Camp 

CBRN detection and sampling 
module 
Ground Forest Fire Fighting 
module 

10  Ground Forest Fire Fighting 

using Vehicles 

11  Urban Search And Rescue in 

CBRN conditions 
(CBRNUSAR) 

12  Advanced Medical Post with 

Surgery 
Flood Containment module 
Flood Rescue using Boats 

13 
14 

15  Medical aerial evacuation of 

disaster victims (MEVAC) 

16 

Field hospital 

2 

2 
2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 
2 

1 

2 

AT x1; ES x1; FR x2; 
HU x1; IT x1; NL x1 

CZ x 1; DE x1; DK 
x1; FR x2; NL x1; PL 
x1 
DE x1; DK x1; FR x2  AT x1; BE x1; DE x2  No gap (+6) 
FR x1; IT x1 
FR x1 

No gap (+8) 

CZ x1; RO x1 

DK x1; FR x2; IT x1 

FR x3; GR x1 

FR x3 

AT x1; BE x1; ES x1; 
FR x8 
ES x1 

BE x1; CZ x1; ES x1; 
FR x8; LU x1; PL x2 
BG x1; DK x1; ES x1; 
FR x3 
AT x3; DK x1; ES x1; 
FR x13; PL x3 
AT x2; BG x1; DK 
x1; ES x1; FR x215 

No numerical gap (+1), however there were 
critical shortages experienced during the forest 
fire season of 2016 – see comments in section 3.1 
above. 
No gap (+11) 

Gap of 1, critical in a number of scenarios – see 
section 3.2 above. 
No gap (+16) 

No gap (+8) 

No gap (+22) 

No gap (+6) 

IT x1; RO x1 

EE x1; IT x 3 

No gap (+5) 

DK x1; FR x2; SE x1  AT x2; ES x1; FR x2  No gap (+7) 
No gap (+8) 
CZ x1; FR x2 

AT x3; ES x1; FR x2; 
LU x1; SI x1 
DE x1; ES x1; FR x1; 
GR x1 

DK x116 

No numerical gap (+4), yet Implementing 
Decision 2014/762/EU, Annex II, point 10, needs 
to be reviewed – see section 4.2 above. 
Gap of 1. Developments in the context of the 

15 The two French HUSAR modules can be deployed as CBRNUSAR as well. However, the HUSAR modules have not been registered as CBRNUSAR modules and their compliance with 
the respective quality criteria can therefore not be guaranteed at this stage. 

 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
17  Aerial Forest Fire Fighting using 

2 

Helicopters (FFFH) 

Technical Assistance and Support Teams 
2 

18  Technical Assistance and 

Support Team (TAST) 

AT x1; DE x1; EE x1; 
IS x1; IT x1; LT/LV 
x1; LU x1; NO x1 
Other response capacities (listed in Annex III of the Commission Implementing Decision) 

DK x1; DE x1; FI x1; 
NL x1; SE x1 

European Medical Corps to be considered – see 
section 4.2 above, as well as line 43. 
Numerical gap of 2, yet low strategic relevance: 
FFFH are mostly mobilized for cross-border 
deployments at short distance, upon bilateral 
requests. They are generally not used to provide 
international assistance in far-away disasters. 

No gap (+11) 

19  Teams for mountain search and 

rescue 

20  Teams for water search and 

rescue 

21  Teams for cave search and 

rescue 

22  Teams with specialized search 
and rescue equipment, e.g. 
search robots 

23  Teams with unmanned aerial 

vehicles/ Remotely Piloted 
Aircraft Systems 

24  Teams for maritime incident 

25 

response 
Structural engineering teams, to 
carry out damage and safety 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

No gap (+2) 

AT x1; ES x1; ME x1; 
SI x1 
AT x1; DK x1; ME 
x1; SI x1 
AT x1; ME x1; SI x1  No gap (+2) 

No gap (+2) 

SI x1 

DK x117 

DK x118 

Gap of 1, yet see footnote 12. Potentially 
significant for complex search and rescue 
operations, including in CBRN conditions – see 
section 4.1 above, as well as line 11. 
Gap of 1, requires further assessment – see section 
4.3 above. 

NL x1 

IT x1 

BE x1; FR x2 

No gap (+2) 

AT x1; ES x1; SI x1 

No gap (+2) 

16 The Danish capacity consists of one modular/scalable mobile hospital, which can function as an Advanced Medical Post, an Advanced Medical Post with Surgery, and as a Field Hospital. 
For the purpose of this analysis it has been counted only once as a Field Hospital. 
17 Teams equipped with search cameras, thermal cameras, acoustic search equipment and rescue dogs. 
18 The Danish team is equipped with an unmanned aerial vehicle that can take motion pictures in daylight and in low-wind. 

 12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
assessments, appraisal of 
buildings to be demolished/ 
repaired, assessment of 
infrastructure, short-term 
shoring 

26  Evacuation support: including 
teams for information 
management and logistics 
Fire-fighting: advisory/ 
assessment teams 

27 

28  CBRN decontamination teams 
29  Mobile laboratories for 

environmental emergencies 

30  Communication teams or 

platforms to quickly re-establish 
communications in remote areas 

31  Medical Evacuation Jets Air 
Ambulance and Medical 
Evacuation Helicopter separately 
for inside Europe or worldwide 

2 

2 

2 
2 

2 

2 

DE x1; DK x1, GR x1  No gap (+1) 

AT x1; DK x1; GR x1  No gap (+1) 

DK x 1 
NL x1 

AT x1; FR x1 
No gap (+1) 
BE x1; DE x1; FR x2  No gap (+3) 

LU x1; NL x1; SE x1  Helicopters inside 

Europe: AT x1; ME 
x1 
Helicopters and jets 
for both inside and 
outside Europe: LU x1 
AT x5; BE x1 

Gap of 2. Significance of gap to be assessed – see 
section 4.4 above. 

No numerical gap (+4), yet potentially significant 
shortage for mass casualty events in specific 
situations. General requirements to be reviewed in 
light of the ones for MEVAC modules – see 
section 4.2 above, as well as line 15. 

32  Additional Shelter Capacity: 

100 

SE x1 

units for 250 persons (50 tents); 
incl. self-sufficiency unit for the 
handling staff 

33  Additional Capacity Shelter-kit: 
units for 2 500 persons (500 
tarpaulins); with toolkit possibly 
to be procured locally 

6 

AT x1 

Potentially significant gap as no sufficient 
capacity available at Participating States' level – 
see section 3.2 above, as well as line 7. 

 13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34  Water pumps with minimum 

100 

capacity to pump 800 l/min 

DK x20; ME x5; NL19  Numerical gap of 75, yet the high number of high-

35 

Power generators of 5-150 kW  

100 

Power generators above 150 kW  

36 
37  Marine Pollution Capacities 

10 

as 
necessary 

SE x121 

Other response capacities necessary to address identified risks 

AT x20; DK x10; ME 
x5; SE x15; NL20 
AT x5; DK x1 
DK x1 

38  Extreme HCP (≥ 50.000 l/m) 
39 
40 
41  Emergency Medical Team 

N/A 
N/A 
ICT Help Desk 
Standing Engineering Capacity  N/A 
N/A 

(EMT) Type 1 

BE x1; NL x1 
SE x 1  
DE x 1  

DK x1 

42  Emergency Medical Team 

N/A 

ES x1; FR x1; BE x1 

(EMT) Type 2 

43  Emergency Medical Team 

N/A 

44 

(EMT) Type 3 
Isolation hospital for infectious 
diseases 

N/A 

DE x1 

45  Mobile bio-safety laboratories 

N/A 

BE x1; DE x1 

capacity pumping modules and existence of two 
extreme high capacity pumping teams in the 
EERC is considered to compensate for the lack of 
assets registered under this category.  
Numerical gap, yet there is information that 
Participating States have more resources available 
than indicated for the purpose of this report. 

Goal non-set yet – see section 4.2 above. 

19 The Netherlands can make water pumps with a minimum capacity to pump 800 l/min available on a case-by-case basis. However, it is not possible to estimate the national capacity, so for 
the purpose of this analysis it is not considered. 
20  The  Netherlands  can  make  power  generators  of  5-150  kW  available  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  However,  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  national  capacity,  so  for  the  purpose  of  this 
analysis it is not considered. 
21 Shoreline response. 

 14