REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Interim Evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism for the period 2014-2016
Date: 2017-08-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European cooperation, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, emergency aid, environmental risk prevention, man-made disaster, natural disaster, project evaluation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.8.2017  COM(2017) 460 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Interim Evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism for the period        2014-2016 {SWD(2017) 287 final}  
 
 
2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.  PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION .................................................. 3 

2.  MAIN FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 4 

3.  CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 7 

3.1.  Prevention .......................................................................................................... 7 

3.2.  Preparedness ...................................................................................................... 8 

3.3.  Response ............................................................................................................ 9 

3.4.  Cross-cutting .................................................................................................... 10 

3.5.  The Way Forward ............................................................................................ 11 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL 

on the Interim Evaluation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism for the period 
2014-2016 

1.  PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION 

1. The  Union's  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  (hereafter:  the  'UCPM')  constitutes  a 
visible  expression  of  European  solidarity  by  ensuring  a  practical  and  timely 
contribution  to  prevention,  preparedness  and  response  to  disasters  of  all  kinds 
occurring  inside  or  outside  the  Union.  The  UCPM  facilitates  the  mobilisation  and 
coordination of assistance provided by the Participating States1 with the overarching 
goal of protecting Europe's citizens, economy and the environment. The Emergency 
Response  Coordination  Centre  (ERCC)  and  the  European  Emergency  Response 
Capacities  (EERC,  also  referred  to  as  the  'Voluntary  Pool'  of  pre-committed 
capacities  and  trained  experts  from  Member  States)  are  core  elements  of  the 
functioning of the Mechanism.  

2. Under  Decision  No  1313/2013/EU  of  17  December  2013  on  a  Union  Civil 
Protection  Mechanism2  (hereafter  'the  Decision'),  the  Commission  is  required  to 
evaluate the performance of the UCPM and report to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  the  results  obtained  and  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of 
the  implementation  of  the  Decision  by  no  later  than  30  June  2017.  This  report 
presents  the  results  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  (hereafter  'the  Evaluation')  and  is 
accompanied  by  a  Staff  Working  Document  covering  the  detailed  findings  of  that 
evaluation. 

3. An  independent  evaluation  of  the  activities  implemented  under  the  Union 
Mechanism  was  carried  out  between  November  2016  and  June  20173.  The  fact-
finding  phase  included  a  comprehensive  document  review  and  a  targeted 
stakeholders' consultation involving, among others, civil protection authorities from 
26 Participating States, 14 international partners (e.g. UN agencies, OECD, World 
Bank, Red Cross and Red Crescent, NGOs etc.) and officials from 15 Directorates-
General  and  services  of  the  European  Commission.  Three  case  studies  were  also 
conducted  (two  in-country  and  one  desk  review).  In  addition,  an  Open  Public 
Consultation  (OPC)  was  carried  out  online  for  three  months  (November  2016  – 
February 2017), with some 130 responders from all over Europe providing feedback 

1   EU  Member  States  and  Iceland,  Montenegro,  Norway,  Serbia,  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 

Macedonia, Turkey 

2   Article 34(2)(a) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924 

3   Final report available at: https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/ucpm_final_report.pdf 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
on  the  UCPM.  A  report  on  the  outcome  of  the  OPC  was  published  at  the  end  of 
March 20174. 

4. The  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on  the  evaluation  builds  on  the 
evidence  provided  therein  as  well  as  feedback  received  during  discussions  with 
Participating  States  and  the  OPC.  It  also  takes  into  account  the  results  of  the 
European Court of Auditors' (ECA) review of the UCPM5, the Commission's Report 
on  progress  made  and  gaps  remaining  in  the  Voluntary  Pool6,  as  well  as  other 
reports publicly available. Overall, the Commission finds the design of the external 
evaluation  adequate  to  the  research  questions  and  based  on  a  satisfactory 
methodological  approach.  One  limitation  should  be  noted,  namely  the  limited 
statistical  base  of  the  external  evaluation.  Most  of  the  data  gathered  by  the 
contractor  during  the  independent  evaluation's  timeframe  are  of  qualitative  nature 
and  refer  to  "perceptions"  of  stakeholders  on  the  UCPM  performance.  This 
limitation points also to the need to strengthen the monitoring system of the UCPM 
in  particular 
indicators  of 
performance (as highlighted by the recent ECA report). The external evaluation has 
not proposed specific additional indicators to fill this gap. Nevertheless, within the 
limits  of  data-gathering  and  analysis,  the  evaluation  findings  are  credible.  The 
conclusions are well balanced and logical consequences of findings are linked to the 
available evidence. 

including  additional  quantitative 

in  relation 

to 

2.  MAIN FINDINGS 

5. The evaluation addresses the five mandatory criteria set out in the Commission's 
Better Regulation Guidelines: (i) Relevance; (ii) Effectiveness; (iii) Efficiency; (iv) 
Coherence; and (v) EU added value. An additional criterion, (vi) Sustainability, was 
added  to  the  scope  of  this  evaluation.  The  main  findings  are  summarized  in  the 
paragraphs below. 

6. There  is  sufficient  evidence  to  demonstrate  the  continued  relevance  of  UCPM 
objectives  to  Europe's  needs.  The  2017  Eurobarometer  survey  on  civil  protection 
shows that a vast majority of European citizens support a common EU policy in the 
field  of  civil  protection  and  agree  that  the  EU  should  lead  the  coordination  of 
disaster response to affected countries, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. 
Recent resolutions of the European Parliament7 have also called on the Commission 
to  further  support  cooperation  among  European  civil  protection  authorities.  The 

4   The report is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/EUCPM-consult_en 

5   European  Court  of  Auditors,  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism:  the  coordination  of  responses  to 

disasters outside the EU has been broadly effective, Special report No 33/2016, January 2017 

6   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress made and gaps 

remaining in the European Emergency Response Capacity, COM(2017) 78 final, 17.02.2017 

7   Among others, European Parliament Resolution of 1 December 2016 on the situation in Italy after the 

earthquakes (2016/2988(RSP)). 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
stakeholders consulted also highlighted the flexibility of the UCPM to rapidly adapt 
and  address  newly  emerging  crises  which  were  not  "traditional"  civil  protection 
emergencies  (e.g.  the  Ebola  outbreak  in  West  Africa  and  the  migrant  crisis  in 
Europe). The increasing number and scope of UCPM activations outside of Europe 
pose,  however,  the  challenge  of  finding  the  right  balance  between  being  a 
framework  of  mutual  assistance  between  European  countries  in  the  aftermath  of 
natural  and  man-made  disasters  and  evolving  towards  a  more  complex  instrument 
capable of addressing crises of a multiple nature and with a global reach. 

7. An analysis of the UCPM effectiveness showed encouraging progress under each 
of  the  specific  objectives.  The  UCPM  is  fully  on  track  to  achieve  objectives 
pertaining to disaster prevention framework (objective 1) and readiness for disasters 
(objective 2), based on the indicators set by the legislation and on feedback received 
by key stakeholders consulted. The UCPM's response to disasters (objective 3) has 
been timely and effective according to the vast majority of stakeholders consulted. 
Confirming  one  of  the  findings  of  the  ECA  review  of  the  UCPM,  the  external 
evaluation  found  limitations  in  respect  of  consistent  and  robust  quantitative  data 
(e.g.  speed, cost,  needs assessments)  to  corroborate  the  stakeholders'  very  positive 
views  on  UCPM  disaster  response.  Lastly,  public  awareness  and  preparedness  to 
disasters  (objective  4)  have  received  slightly  less  satisfactory  views  from 
stakeholders  when  compared  to  the  other  objectives.  In  this  respect,  a  directly 
attributable link between awareness of Union citizens of risks in their regions as the 
objective  set  by  the  Decision  and  activities  carried  out  by  the  UCPM  would  be 
difficult  to  establish.  Nonetheless,  the  Commission  recognises  that  given  the 
changing  risk  landscape  in  Europe,  reinforcement  of  action  related  to  citizen 
awareness would be relevant and timely. 

8. Generally  speaking,  the  stakeholders'  perception  of  the  UCPM's  efficiency  is 
positive.  Emergency  response  and administrative  costs  associated  to  implementing 
the  UCPM  decision  are  considered  acceptable  by  most  Participating  States.  The 
external evaluation attempted to carry out analyses of costs for comparable response 
missions  (e.g.  aerial  forest  fires  missions;  transport  of  modules  and  in-kind 
assistance;  etc.).  The  evidence  cannot  be  considered  fully  sufficient  to  draw 
definitive  conclusions.  However,  this  confirmed  the  desirability  of  carrying  out 
more  detailed  cost  analyses  and,  possibly,  determining  benchmarks  (or  range  of 
costs) for deployment and transport of assistance provided under the UCPM.  

9. Internal  coherence,  that  is  coherence  within  the  different  pillars  of  the 
Mechanism, is deemed satisfactory by the external evaluation. Several cross-cutting 
activities  of  the  UCPM  (e.g.  lessons  learned,  advisory  missions,  peer  reviews, 
exchange  of  experts,  etc.)  provide  for  an  integrated  prevention-preparedness-
response approach. External coherence, that is the linkages between the UCPM and 
other  Union  policy  areas,  has  increased  as  compared  to  the  previous  framework 
(2007-2013). This was confirmed by interviews with a large number of Commission 
services. Focusing on a result-based agenda and milestones is seen as conducive to a 
more  effective  cooperation  and  it  is  felt  that  enhanced  coordination  mechanisms 
need  to  be  considered  in  order  to  improve  synergies  between  instruments  funding 
prevention and preparedness activities, for instance in the Neighbourhood and Pre-

5 

 
 
 
Accession  countries8.  As  far  as  response  outside  of  Europe  is  concerned,  the 
comparative  advantage  of  civil  protection  intervention  vis-a-vis  humanitarian 
assistance  needs  to  be  carefully  considered  as  the  UCPM  becomes  increasingly 
activated for dealing with humanitarian and complex emergencies. In the same vein, 
a better articulation with other EU external policies (e.g. development aid) and tools 
is deemed necessary considering that the UCPM is increasingly intervening outside 
the  EU  (e.g.  Ebola  outbreak,  Nepal  earthquake,  migration  crisis)  where  recurrent 
disasters might interact with other risk drivers, such as conflict and fragility.  

10.  The  existence  of  a  single  European  "hub"  for  information  sharing  and 
operational  coordination,  the  introduction  of  common  European  standards  for 
disaster  response  capacities  and  common  guidelines  on  risk  assessments,  which 
have  contributed  to  the  development  of  an  overview  of  risks  in  the  EU  in  the 
framework  of  the  UCPM  legislation9,  are  perceived  as  having  delivered  high  EU 
added  value  in  the  areas  of  disaster  response,  preparedness  and  prevention, 
respectively.  Increased  capacity  and  predictability  of  the  EERC  provided  by  the 
UCPM  in  the  form  of  the  'Voluntary  Pool'  would  not  have  been  possible  without 
coordinated  effort  at  EU  level.  Over  the  next  years,  introducing  indicators  to 
monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the UCPM more adequately may provide 
additional  evidence  to  appreciate  (and  communicate)  the  added  value  of  EU-level 
action in civil protection. 

11. Knowledge-sharing, expert exchange and training activities are seen as essential 
to creating a community of European civil protection practitioners and, ultimately, 
to ensuring sustainability of the UCPM's contribution to supporting safer and more 
resilient societies. The Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre, an online hub 
launched  at  the  end  of  2015,  is  providing  services  to  enhance  knowledge  sharing 
and capacity building across the UCPM Participating States. However, at a system 
level,  several  issues  are  considered  key  to  the  future  sustainability  of  the  UCPM 
contribution.  The  financial  model  needs  re-examining  to  ensure  availability  of 
capacities in the Voluntary Pool adapted to risk-based needs; an efficient strategy to 
build the European civil protection human resource capacity needs to be rolled out; 
and the role of the private sector in the implementation of UCPM activities should 
be  clarified.  In  order  to  maximize  the  impact  of  prevention  and  preparedness 
projects  financed  by  the  UCPM,  end-users'  needs  should  inform  design  and 
monitoring of the projects. Further consideration should be given to evaluating their 
impact over a longer timeframe. Finally, recognising the importance of the role of 
regional and local authorities in disaster management, the work of the UCPM needs 
to  be  brought  closer  to  local  actors,  while  primarily  supporting  the  role  of  the 
national  civil  protection  authorities.  Due  attention  would  also  need  to  be  given  to 
cross-border  prevention  and  preparedness, 
risk 
management governance along the European-national-regional-local chain. 

thereby  strengthening 

the 

8   This  emerges  as  the  main  findings  of  recent  evaluations,  including:  ROM  Review  of  PPRD-East 

(2017); Evaluation of PPRD-South (2017); Evaluation of IPA II (2015). 

9   Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Overview  of  Natural  and  Man-made  Disaster  Risks  the 

European Union may face, SWD(2017) 176 final, 23.5.2017 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.  CONCLUSIONS 

12.  Taking  into  account  the  findings  of  the  external  evaluation  report,  its  own 
assessment  of  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  evidence  provided  as  well  as 
operational experience and lessons learned, the Commission's overall conclusion is 
that  the  Mechanism  is  on  a  solid  footing  to  achieve  the  specific  and  general 
objectives  of  the  Decision.  For  the  period  2014-2016  under  evaluation,  the 
performance  of  the  UCPM  has  showed  encouraging  results  in  each  of  the  three 
pillars  (prevention/preparedness/response)  and  overall  is  viewed  positively  by  the 
Participating States and the main stakeholders. At the same time, the evaluation also 
highlighted a number of challenges that, if addressed promptly, could increase even 
further the impact of UCPM supported action. These aspects are further highlighted 
in the accompanying Staff Working Document with recommendations (summarized 
below)  encompassing  the  prevention,  preparedness  and  response  pillars  of  the 
UCPM.  A  general  area  identified  for  improvement  is  the  strengthening  of  the 
UCPM  results  monitoring  framework,  including  better  measurability  through  the 
possible  introduction  of  quantitative  indicators  and  baselines,  in  support  of  a 
stronger focus on impact over time. 

3.1. 

Prevention 

13. Increase the focus of the annual prevention (and preparedness) projects that the 
UCPM  finances  every  year.  The  programme,  which  has  been  running  since  2000, 
has financed a large number of projects without always capitalising on their results. 
Given  the  relatively  small  size  of  financing  (between  2014  and  2016  average  EU 
funding  was  EUR  470  000),  projects  need  to:  target  the  needs  of  the  end-users, 
incorporate  measures  for  scaling  up  their  results  and  achieve  bigger  impact. 
Cooperation  between  the  UCPM  and  the  EU  climate  change  adaptation  agenda 
should be enhanced. 

14. Better articulate the linkages between the UCPM prevention (and preparedness) 
projects  and  broader  EU  programmes  (e.g.  Cohesion/European  Regional 
Development Fund, European Investment Bank, etc.) building on work started with 
support of the Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre. A more strategic link 
with  such  programmes  could  help  maximize  the  uptake  of  project  results  and 
leverage additional technical and financial resources for achieving more significant 
results in prevention.  

15.  Strengthen  the  link  between  prevention  and  preparedness/response  activities. 
This  recommendation,  which  had  already  been  highlighted  in  2014  by  the  ex-post 
evaluation  of  the  previous  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  (2007-2013),  remains 
relevant  at  the  mid-term  mark  of  the  2014-2020  Mechanism.  The  need  to  match 
response  capacities  with  the  major  risks  in  Europe  and  global  emergencies  will 
represent the key challenge to ensure continued relevance of UCPM. The 'Overview 
of  Risks  in  the  EU'10  underscored  that  forward  looking  assessments  will  need  to 
increasingly  take  into  account  "emerging"  risks  (e.g.  cascading  risks,  such  as 

10   Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2017) 176 final 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
technological  accidents  resulting  from  natural  events  as  well  as  the loss  of  critical 
infrastructure, nuclear and industrial accidents due to the increased risks of terrorism 
and cyber-attacks). A performance-based approach to risk assessment could help go 
beyond  the  estimated  physical  damage  to  infrastructure  and  focus  on  the  level  of 
vital  services  required  in  the  aftermath  of  a  disaster,  enhancing  contingency 
planning and response operations by civil protection authorities. 

3.2. 

Preparedness 

16.  Revise  the  capacity  goals  for  the  Voluntary  Pool  with  an  evidence-based 
approach. The capacity goals for modules and other response assets are defined by 
the  UCPM  Implementing  Decision  and  should  be  revised  against  the  main/critical 
risks Europe or other beneficiary countries are facing and prioritized accordingly11. 
Capacity  goals  for  different  profiles  of  individual  experts  (currently  not  set  by  the 
Decision)  would  be  required  in  order  to  map  out  more  clearly  technical  resources 
and  gaps  in  Europe.  A  closer  dialogue  with  the  Participating  States  is  critical  in 
order to capture all national capacities, including those which are not registered in 
the Voluntary Pool but may still be deployable via the UCPM. Similarly, the spatial 
distribution  of  (natural  and  man-made)  risks  across  and  beyond  Europe  should 
inform the geographical distribution of certain response capacities, whilst ensuring 
the ability to provide adequate assistance under the auspices of the UCPM wherever 
it is needed. 

17. Re-assess the system of incentives for pooling assets in the Voluntary Pool based 
on lessons learnt and other knowledge emerging from operations. The level of co-
financing  for  the  deployment  of  Voluntary  Pool  capacities  or  the  mobilisation  of 
buffer capacities (particularly outside of the EU); support to multi-national modules 
and  response  capacities;  insurance  coverage  for  health  and  third-party  liability  for 
experts  deployed  are,  among  others,  incentives  needed  to  strengthen  the  UCPM 
capacity  to  respond.  The  administrative  burden  involved  in  registering  and 
certifying  modules  also  requires  further  improvement,  although  this  is  being 
addressed  by  the  Commission  with  a  more  streamlined  and  coherent  planning 
process for exercises, certification and registration of assets in the Voluntary Pool. 

18.  Develop  a  more  need-based,  efficient  approach  for  the  training  and  exercise 
programmes. Shifting the focus of training from outputs (i.e. number of individuals 
trained) to competences allows to address needs that stem from operations. This is 
currently  being  addressed  by  the  Commission  with  the  forthcoming  'Strategic 
Framework  for  Training  and  Exercises',  which  is  built  around  competences. 
Furthermore, a robust framework for evaluating the training courses administered as 
well as the individuals trained is considered as a priority in order to match the needs 
on  the  ground  with  the  best  technical  resources  available.  Similar  considerations 
were  raised  with  regards  to  the  exercises.  In  addition,  considering  different 

11   This is in line with Article 14(2) of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU, which requires 
the Commission to regularly assess and revise the suitability of capacity goals "on the basis of risks 
identified  in  national  risk  assessments  or  other  appropriate  national  or  international  source  of 
information". 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
implementation  models  for  the  UCPM  "basic"  courses,  such  as  the  Union  Civil 
Protection  Mechanism  Introduction  Course  (CMI)  targeting  large  audiences  and 
specialized/advanced  training  (e.g.  training  for  deployment;  assessments;  medical 
teams  etc.),  which  are  delivered  to  well-identified  groups  of  experts,  could  help 
increase  value  for  money.  Finally,  the  Strategic  Framework  for  Training  and 
Exercises  should  also  take  into  account  needs  stemming  from  emerging  and 
evolving threats, such as CBRN and critical infrastructure risks or terrorist attacks, 
while avoiding duplication with existing training initiatives supported by the EU. 

19.  Expand  the  end-user  side  of  trans-national  early  warning  systems  platforms, 
such  as  the  European  Forest  Fire  Information  System  (EFFIS)  and  the  European 
Flood Awareness System (EFAS). These systems bring a very high EU added value 
by  consolidating  national  data  into  Europe-wide  forecasting  tools  that  provides 
support  to  decision-making  of  emergency  managers  in  the  ERCC  and  in  the 
Participating States.  Developing  the community of end-users would help complete 
the technology platform, allowing experts from Participating States to evaluate the 
performance of early warning systems and response operations with the objective of 
improving the practice. Such a development would make the tools more relevant for 
all countries within Europe, regardless of their level of preparedness. 

3.3.  Response 

20.  Promote  a  consistent  collection  of  quantitative  data  and  produce  systematic 
analysis  of  response  missions  to  improve  future  performance.  This  could  help 
establish baselines/benchmarks (lower/higher bounds or a range) for speed and cost, 
allowing  comparisons  between  emergency  responses  and  contributing  to  enhance 
the  efficiency  of  response  missions.  Needs  assessments  in  the  Requests  for 
Assistance also need to be made available on regular basis and provided in a more 
standardised format. 

21. Consider the pre-deployment of a small UCPM team ahead of the formal UCPM 
activation  when  facing  imminent  disasters  (e.g.  cyclones,  river  floods,  etc.).  This 
would help gain a better understanding of the needs on the ground and prepare the 
following deployment of the EU Civil Protection (EU CP) Team, increasing speed 
and effectiveness of UCPM response. 

22.  Further  simplify  the  administrative  and  financial  procedures  for  engaging 
response  capacities  under  the  UCPM.  A  number  of  operational  'quick  fixes'  (e.g. 
integrating in CECIS the transport co-financing request form; revising the minimum 
threshold  for  individual  transport  grant  applications;  etc.)  have  been  identified  by 
the  users  and  could  be  addressed  rapidly.  This  would  be  helpful  to  further  reduce 
response  times,  while  increasing  the  incentive  for  ensuring  well-coordinated 
deployment under the UCPM, rather than through bilateral channels. 

23.  Ensure  the  best  match  between  operational  needs  and  experts  deployed  in  the 
EU CP Teams. Consulted civil protection authorities found the Terms of Reference 
produced  by  the  ERCC  for  selecting  experts  (their  use  became  increasingly 
systematic since 2015) helpful but raised some concerns on the selection process of 
the experts, which should be more competence-based. 

9 

 
 
 
3.4.  Cross-cutting 

24.  There  needs  to  be  a  continuous  feedback  loop  between  lessons  learnt  and  the 
implementation  of  activities  (including  prevention  and  preparedness  ones,  in 
addition  to  response).  Participating  States  have  highlighted  that  some  specific 
activities  (e.g.  training  and  exercises)  would  benefit  from  a  stronger  link  with 
UCPM  operations,  for  instance  focusing  on  specific  challenges  arisen  from  the 
deployment  of  modules  in  the  field  (e.g.  custom  clearance  in  fragile  and  conflict-
affected states; cooperation with host countries; integration in broader international 
frameworks for disaster response and recovery planning; etc.). To this end, there is a 
shared  feeling  that  the  lessons  learnt  process  of  the  UCPM  needs  to  be  more 
structured  and  systematic  from  identification  and  throughout  implementation  (on 
both  the  Commission  and  Participating  States  sides),  with  regular  monitoring  and 
transparent reporting on the progress. 

25.  Ensure  a  good  match  between  peer  reviewers  and  the  needs  of  reviewed 
countries (i.e. between profile/competences of the reviewer and specificities of the 
country/sector  to  be  reviewed).  Additional  linkages  could  be  explored  between 
training and the deployment of experts on peer review missions. This may include a 
process to certify experts' technical and operational competences in order to better 
address the needs of the reviewed countries. 

26.  Prevention  and  preparedness  ("advisory")  missions  should  build  on  a  well-
formulated, result-oriented approach. A structured process needs to be put in place 
to prepare and implement these missions, be it in preparation for potential disasters 
(e.g.  assessment  of  national  emergency  management  capacity)  or,  in  the  aftermath 
of  a  disaster,  to  inform  recovery  and  reconstruction  strategies.  Complementarity 
with  other  EU-funded  programmes  (in  particular  the  Prevention  Preparedness  and 
Response  to  Natural  and  man-made  Disasters  (PPRD)  and  the  Instrument  for  Pre-
Accession (IPA) programmes) and/or Participating States engaged in third countries 
should  be  strategically  considered,  with  a  view  to  provide  additional  resources 
(technical and financial) needed for implementing recommendations. 

27.  Further  increase  the  coherence  between  the  UCPM  and  the  neighbourhood 
policy  instruments.  At  the  policy  level,  Commission  is  committed  to  ensure 
coherence and consistency of its activities in the field of civil protection, in line with 
the  international  agreements  (e.g.  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  2015-2030,  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals  and  the  Paris 
Agreement).  The  Evaluation  highlighted  the  need  for  increased  coordination 
between 
the  Enlargement  and 
Neighbourhood countries. In particular, the yearly Prevention and Preparedness Call 
for  Proposals  of  the  UCPM  could  take  into  account  the  disaster  risk  management 
activities  financed  under  the  PPRD-  East  and  -South  programmes.  The  IPA 
programme  would  benefit  from  further  integration  of  its  multi-countries  response 
modules  in  the  UCPM's  Voluntary  Pool  and  from  joint  efforts  to  strengthen  the 
governance  of  the  prevention  activities  (e.g.  on  the  Disaster  Risk  Assessment  and 
Mapping initiative). 

the  UCPM  and  Commission's  activities  in 

10 

 
 
 
3.5.  The Way Forward 

28. The Evaluation provides useful analyses and insights on the implementation of 
UCPM  legislation,  including  on  existing  shortcomings  and  areas  for  further 
improvement.  The  Commission  will  start  a 
the 
recommendations  highlighted  above,  particularly  on 
that  could  be 
implemented  in  the  short  to  medium-term,  as  well  as  on  those  aspects  that  would 
require a modification of the UCPM framework in the future. 

reflection  process  on 

those 

29. The UCPM will need to get closer to regional and local actors while continuing 
to  strengthen,  through  the  national  civil  protection  authorities,  the  governance  for 
disaster  risk  management  both  cross-border  and  along  the  European-national-
regional-local  chain.  A  new  approach  based  on  a  'network  of  European  hubs  for 
civil protection' (and/or 'centres of excellence') could be explored. 

30.  In  addition  to  the  interim  evaluation  a  number  of  key  reports  and  documents 
have  now  been  produced  assessing  different  aspects  of  UCPM  performance, 
including the abovementioned Court of Auditors report, the capacity gaps report and 
the EU overview of risks. These documents provide useful analysis and insight on 
implementation of UCPM legislation, on possible ways to strengthen it as well as on 
existing  shortcomings  and  weaknesses.  On  that  basis,  the  Commission  will  assess 
the appropriateness of making changes to the provisions of Decision 1313/2013/EU 
with a view to: 

(a) 

Strengthening  effectiveness  by  providing  realistic  incentives,  attaining 
simplifications and reducing administrative burden; 

(b)  Matching current/emerging risks with response capacities; 

(c)  Making  full  use  of  Europe's  expertise  and  assets  for  preparedness  and 

response. 

11