COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strengthening EU Disaster Management: rescEU Solidarity with Responsibility Solidarity with Responsibility
Date: 2017-11-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, climate change, emergency aid, environmental risk prevention, fund (EU), natural disaster

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.11.2017  COM(2017) 773 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strengthening EU Disaster Management: rescEU Solidarity with Responsibility   
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Europe  is  increasingly  facing  the  dramatic  impacts  of  intense  and  unpredictable  extreme  weather 
events and earthquakes with ensuing loss of life, destruction of property and cultural heritage. This has 
had a tragic cost on lives and livelihoods. The nations of Europe decided to build the European Union 
(EU) to promote their common good and to face adversities together, each becoming stronger through 
unity and solidarity. A Europe that protects is one that has the means to respond in a decisive manner.  

Climate change is amplifying the impacts of extreme weather events in Europe and worldwide1. Key 
trends  show  how  climate  change  is  contributing  to  increased  intensity  of  forest  fires  and  a  longer 
forest  fire  season  in  Southern  Europe,  the  expansion  of  fire-prone  areas  northwards,  as  well  as 
increased storms and risk of flooding.2 Since 1980, as well as the human cost, EU Member States have 
lost over EUR 360 billion in weather and climate extreme events.3 At the same time, extreme events 
such as forest fires are also exacerbating climate change through increased Greenhouse gas emissions4. 

2017 has seen a wide range of disasters. In total, over 200 people were killed by natural disasters in 
Europe  in  20175.  Recently,  tropical  cyclones  severely  affected  the  EU  outermost  regions  and  the 
European overseas territories in the Caribbean. Hurricane Ophelia caused flash floods in Ireland and 
the  United  Kingdom  and  affected  large  parts  of  North-western  Europe.  Deadly  severe  storms 
following intense heat waves hit Central Europe earlier this summer.  

Above all, 2017 saw a disastrous series of forest fires. Over one million hectares of forest have been 
destroyed,  almost  three  times  the  five-year  EU  average,  half  of  which  was  in  Portugal  alone.  This 
represents  an  area  four  times  the  size  of  Luxembourg  or  over  ten  times  the  area  of  Berlin.  Many 
people  tragically  lost  their  lives.  Only  in  Portugal,  over  100  people  were  killed,  between  June  and 
October alone. Fires resulted in significant destruction of property and major impacts on the economy 
including to network infrastructure, businesses (commercial and industrial), agricultural and forestry 
activities.  In  Portugal  alone,  the  direct  economic  damage  of  forest  fire  events  between  June  and 
September is estimated at close to EUR 600 million, representing 0.34% of Portugal's Gross National 
Income. Forest fires are also becoming a reality in new locations, with the 2017 fires affecting parts of 
Ireland and Greenland. 

The last two years have also seen serious damage from earthquakes. The major earthquake hit Central 
Italy in August 2016 was followed by three major quakes in the following months. 290 people were 
reported to have been killed; towns and cultural heritage in the regions of Umbria, Lazio and Marche 
were devastated, and economic activity was severely affected by the shocks. Earlier this summer, the 
Greek  island  of  Kos,  as  well  as  neighbouring  Turkey,  were  hit  by  an  earthquake  that  resulted  in 
several deaths, hundreds of injuries and huge disruption to an economy heavily dependent on tourism. 

1 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of 
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014  
2 EEA Report No 1/2017, 25/01/2017, Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. 
3 Projections estimate a toll of 152,000 deaths a year in the EU alone between 2071 and 2100 (i.e. a 50-fold increase from 
current climate-related losses) as a direct result of extreme weather related hazards if no action is taken to protect citizens, 
with those living in southern Europe likely to be the hardest hit: See Forzieri, Giovanni et al., 'Increasing risk over time of 
weather-related hazards to the European population', 2017. 
4 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change  
5 EM-DAT, 2017 

1 

 
 
  
                                                 
As  well  as  these  environmental  disasters,  Europe  has  been  hit  by  terrorist  incidents  with  multiple 
casualties,  including  large  numbers  of  complex  burn  cases  needing  immediate  attention.  The  Ebola 
and Zika viruses also served as reminders of the risk from epidemics and health emergencies. 

Europe is not alone. Incidents worldwide follow similar worsening trends: the State of California was 
hit  this  year  by  successive  forest  fires  of  major  intensity  burning  over  200  thousand  hectares,  over 
twice the national five-year average6; Brazil may see 2017 be the worst year on record for forest fires7; 
Over half a million hectares were destroyed by forest fires in Chile between July 2016 and February 
2017, in the fight against which the European Union provided active assistance8. 2017 also witnessed 
a number of devastating floods in Africa and Asia as well as destructive earthquakes worldwide, with 
deadly shocks in Mexico in September, which killed over 270 people, toppled dozens of buildings and 
tarnished hundreds of historical buildings. The earthquake that hit the border region of Iraq and Iran 
on  12  November  of  this  year  claimed  at  least  420  lives,  injured  over  7,000  people,  and  resulted  in 
thousands  of damaged  houses  and  cultural  heritage,  severely  disrupting  the provision  of basic  water 
and energy services. Chile and Turkey were also affected by earthquakes this year.  

As new challenges impose new ways of acting, this Communication sets out how the EU can respond 
to  the  essential  challenge  of  better  protecting  citizens  from  these  disasters.  It  explains  how  a  more 
ambitious  and  comprehensive  approach  can  use  the  EU's  scale  to  react  more  efficiently  and  more 
effectively,  whilst  at  the  same  time  ensuring  that  Member  States  use  all  the  instruments  at  their 
disposal to prevent, prepare and respond to disasters. 

2.  

EU RESPONSE TO DATE 

The European Union's Civil Protection Mechanism9 (UCPM) is at the disposal of Member States and 
third countries who can activate it when a disaster strikes and their national capacities are insufficient. 
It works on a voluntary basis whereby a Member State or third country issues a request for assistance 
via the European Commission's Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and other Member 
States decide to make an offer of assistance or not. In order to have some predictability, a "Voluntary 
Pool of Assets" was created. Member States provide assets that the Commission can request, but the 
Member  States  are  not  obliged  to  offer  assistance.  And  often  Member  States  have  not  been  able  to, 
especially when multiple Member States are facing the same disasters simultaneously. 

In recent years, climate and other phenomena have exacerbated the ability of Member States to help 
each other as each Member State's own capacities have often reached their limits.  

In  parallel,  the  incentives  for  Member  States  to  offer  assistance  via  the  Union's  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism  are  very  low  since  the  EU  budget  only  finances  a  share  of  transport  costs.  However,  in 
most operations getting from A to B is not the expensive part: operational costs are much higher than 
transport  costs.  For  instance,  the  costs  of  transporting  a  large  field  hospital  are  just  a  fraction  of  its 
running  costs  that  are  some  €6  million/month.  Flying  a  plane  from  France  to  Portugal  is  also  cheap 
when compared to the cost of operating it there for several days. The EU budget does not finance the 
cost of operating these assets. 

6 Statistics cover the period of 1 January 2017 to 22 October 2017. See State of California, CAL FIRE service,  
7 Brazil National Institute for Space Research, 
8 See ERCC Portal, Chile – Forest fires EU support, 02 February 2017 
9 Decision No. 1313/2013/EU.  This Communication is pursuant to Article 34 of the Decision.  

2 

 
 
                                                 
As a consequence, the Union's Civil Protection Mechanism often does not deliver the expected results. 
For example, in only 10 cases out of the 17 requests for forest fires this year, was assistance actually 
delivered.  At  times,  the  response  was  too  slow.  It  was  also  dramatically  impacted  by  the  limited 
availability of firefighting planes and the fleet, either  in numbers or in their  operational period, in a 
number of affected Member States. The limited availability of fire-fighting planes is also exacerbated 
by the fact that the specific nature of such planes and their high production cost means that they are 
not  easily  available  on  the  market.  These  circumstances  severely  impacted  the  effectiveness  of  the 
relevant  pre-committed  capacity  for  a  European  coordinated  response,  and  showed  the  shortfall  in 
means at an EU level. It also shows that the incentives today are not enough to build a strong EU civil 
protection capacity, and to be ready to use it to help in the disaster response in other Member States. In 
short,  this  year's  extensive  disasters  have  shown  that  we  have  now  clearly  reached  the  limits  of  the 
Union's Civil Protection Mechanism, as it is structured and functions today. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  clear  that  the  potential  impact  of  disasters  can  be  reduced  through  effective 
prevention:  the  substantial  reduction  of  the  economic  impacts  of  severe  floods  in  Central  Europe  in 
2013 as compared to similar 2002 events can be partly explained by effective flood protection and risk 
prevention measures introduced since 200210. 

The experience, so far, holds important lessons: 

In the event of multiple or frequently occurring extreme events like those of 2017, additional 

1. 
capacity is needed. Its use must also be as efficient as possible. 

A  functioning  solidarity  mechanism  must  have  a  sufficiently  robust  incentive  structure  that 

2. 
encourages sharing of response assets across borders.  

Proper  risk  analysis  and  targeted  short  and  longer-term  prevention  efforts,  with  effective 

3. 
monitoring are the bases for effective disaster preparedness and response.  

All  available  EU  instruments,  such  as  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESI),  
4.  
need to be used to their full extent, as far as disaster prevention and management are concerned, and 
the synergies amongst them used to the fullest. 

Strengthening EU disaster management also means taking a critical look at the prevention of disasters 
in  Member  States,  and  at  EU  measures  supporting  prevention.  A  fully  integrated  approach  to 
prevention,  preparedness  and  response  to  disasters  in  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  is  urgently 
needed. We know that investment in prevention saves lives and livelihoods; it needs therefore efficient 
targeting to disaster risks. 

3.  A EUROPE THAT PROTECTS: RESCEU 

The Union as a whole needs to anticipate the changing and emerging risks, whether natural or man-
made.  A  more  robust  and  comprehensive  EU  disaster  management  capacity  is  therefore  a  pre-
condition  for  offering  better  protection  to  people,  communities,  economic  interests  and  the 

10 See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-907_en.htm  

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
environment. The EU must improve the contributions  of all its policies and instruments to reinforce 
the  capacity  to  prevent,  prepare  for,  respond  to,  and  recover  from  disasters.  This  would  be  building 
European solidarity and responsibility at all levels. 

The proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and Council introduces changes to the current 
civil  protection  legislation  which  would  allow  Europe  to  take  a  leap  forward  in  its  aim  to  better 
prevent, prepare for and respond to natural and man-made disasters both within and outside the Union.  

The changes have the following objectives: 

a)  Reinforce  the  EU's  and  Member  States’  collective  ability  to  respond  to  disasters,  and  address 
recurrent  and  emerging  capacity  gaps,  by  putting  in  place  a  dual  system  of  response  capacity:  a 
dedicated  reserve  of  response  capacities  with  command  at  control  at  Union  level,  to  be  known  as 
rescEU; and a more effective and dynamic contribution from Member States through a European Civil 
Protection Pool. 

b) Strengthen the focus on prevention action as part of the disaster risk management cycle, as well as 
reinforce  coherence  with  other  key  EU  policies  acting,  inter  alia,  in  the  field  of  climate  change 
adaptation, disaster prevention and disaster response; 

c)  Ensure  the  Union's  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  is  agile  and  effective  in  its  administrative 
procedures in support of emergency operations. 

3.1. 

Reinforcing EU disaster response 

A common EU approach means more capacity can be ready for deployment at a given time. With this 
in mind, the proposal has two strands in respect to filling capacity gaps in order to allow the Union to 
collectively reinforce its disaster response. 

First, to provide a meaningful and coherent EU disaster response and overcome the shortcomings of 
the  current  voluntary  system  under  the  Union's  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  the  European 
Commission  will  urgently  establish  a  dedicated  reserve  of  EU  assets:  rescEU.  rescEU  will  be 
composed of capacities which would allow the EU to address the disasters that have, over the past few 
years, most commonly affected the social fabric of Europe. These are aerial forest firefighting planes, 
high capacity pumping, urban search and rescue and capacity building for public health risks, such as 
field  hospitals  and  emergency  medical  teams.  If  there  a  new  proven  capacity  gap  emerges,  the 
Commission,  via  a  delegated  act,  would  identify  additional  capacities  that  could  become  part  of 
rescEU.  

This European civil protection capacity will complement existing national response capacities already 
contributing to European coordinated response.  

rescEU would be made up of capacities rented or leased via EU arrangements or acquired with full EU 
financing. All costs of these capacities would be fully covered by EU financing, with the Commission 
retaining the operational control of these assets and deciding on their deployment. During operations, 
the  requesting  State  would  ensure  that  activities  of  rescEU  capacities  and  teams  are  executed  in 
accordance with the operational deployment agreed with the Commission.  

4 

 
 
Second, it is proposed to strengthen and simplify the current incentive structure of the Union's Civil 
Protection  Mechanism.  The  EU  should  provide  increased  adaptation,  repair,  operational,  including 
transport  co-financing  (75%)  for  the  cost  of  pre-committed  Member  State  response  capacities  in  a 
European Civil Protection Pool of assets – assets that the EU crisis response can count on at any given 
point  in  time.  Given  the  increased  EU  financial  support  to  these  assets,  after  an  activation  of  the 
Union's Civil Protection Mechanism is received, these assets would be available for deployment at the 
request of the Commission, unless a Member State is faced with an exceptional situation substantially 
affecting  the  discharge  of  national  tasks.  This  would  constitute  a  significant  shift  compared  to  the 
situation today. 

At the same time, the  Union's Civil Protection Mechanism should stop co-financing the use of assets 
that are  provided on an ad-hoc basis without any possibility of predicting their actual availability in 
times of disaster.  

A  Europe  that  protects  must  also  be  able  to  react  promptly  to  disasters  without  a  long  chain  of 
bureaucratic procedures. rescEU will solve this problem by providing a robust and credible immediate 
response  capacity  that  can  be  used  on  request  of  states  that  cannot  cope  with  a  disaster  and  receive 
insufficient external assistance. rescEU will be available when national capacities are insufficient or 
overwhelmed. However, at the same time it will not be a substitute for efforts at national, regional and 
local level: all levels need to strengthen preparedness in times of a changing risk landscape.  

The proposal also includes provisions to ensure that the disbursement of EU funds through the Union's 
Civil Protection Mechanism is accompanied by adequate visibility to the Union.  

As  a  result,  the  European  Union  would  have  a  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  resting  on  two 
complementary pillars: a credible sharing of Member State assets in a European Civil Protection Pool 
and rescEU as a last resort capacity that can be mobilised immediately. The result would be a system 
that is characterised by simplification, significant reduction of red tape and, most importantly, a more 
rapid  and  appropriate  response.  A  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  that  would  provide  an  extra  safety 
valve for the protection of our citizens when disaster hits.  

3.2. 

Robust Prevention and Preparedness through Civil Protection 

Strengthening the Union's Civil Protection Mechanism places disaster prevention and the reduction of 
risks at the core of our disaster risk management efforts. Prevention actions are required to reduce the 
impacts  of  hazards  and  to  make  societies  stronger  for  when  the  next  disaster  strikes,  while  also 
reducing the response needs. Increasing the resilience of EU infrastructure, ecosystems and societies is 
an essential element of effective disaster prevention. 

Thorough  investment  by  Member  States  in  prevention  and  preparedness  monitoring  is  of  crucial 
importance  for  the  establishment  of  rescEU.  Disaster  prevention,  as  the  basis  for  effective  disaster 
management,  needs  to  be  strongly  linked  to  preparedness  and  response  activities,  and  more 
strategically integrated in the actions of the strengthened Union Civil Protection Mechanism. For this 
purpose, the current proposal includes a provision for the Commission to be able to request, monitor 
and report on the implementation of prevention and preparedness plans.  

The  proposal  for  new  legislation  also  strengthens  support  to  disaster  prevention  actions  through 
emphasising  the  importance  of  climate  change  adaptation,  early  warning  systems,  disaster 

5 

 
 
 
preparedness  (e.g. trainings and exercises), and knowledge  management initiatives, such as the ones 
undertaken  by  the  Disaster  Risk  Management  Knowledge  Centre  (DRMKC) 11  exchange  of  best 
practice, transfer of technology, and making sure that the use of different standards and protocols does 
not  hamper  effective  deployment.  It  also  allows  for  specific  consultation  mechanisms  so  that  the 
Commission  can  bring  together  Member  States  with  specific  common  interests  to  work  in  detail  on 
how to address specific issues like forest fires.  

It  also  opens  the  door  to  the  development  of  a  dedicated  European  Civil  Protection  Knowledge 
Network,  collaborating  with  initiatives  such  as  the  Disaster  Risk  Management  Knowledge  Centre, 
which  should  reinforce  the  training  component  of  the  Union's  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  based 
around  close  cooperation  with  the  relevant  national  structures  on  the  matter.  The  Knowledge 
Network's  objective  would  be  to  strengthen  the  efficiency  of  common  EU  disaster  management.  It 
should be constituted as a pan-European network of specialised training and exercise centers, in which 
European  and  international  best  practice  would  be  disseminated,  inter-operability  and  host  nation 
support  measures  reinforced  and  joint  EU  exercises  undertaken.  Ultimately,  this  European  Civil 
Protection  Knowledge  Network  will  help  foster  co-operation  and  mutual  understanding,  and  help  to 
build  a  common  Union  disaster  preparedness  culture.  Through  increased  co-operation,  joint  training 
and scenario-based exercises the efficiency of common EU disaster preparedness and response will be 
increased. 

3.3  Simplification 

The  proposal  seeks  to  streamline  administrative  procedures  in  order  to  reduce  delays  in  the 
deployment of assistance. It simplifies the current system by: 

 

 

introducing only one category of response assets whose use requires co-financing by Member 
States and the EU budget, i.e. the European Civil Protection Pool.  

Introducing  a  single  co-financing  rate  (75%)  in  relation  to  adaptation,  repair,  transport  and 
operational costs for assets that are in the European Civil Protection Pool. 

  A specific reference to the use of unit sums, lump sums and flat rates is introduced in relation 

to the co-financing of transport costs to improve both consistency and efficiency.  

 

specific provisions limiting activations of the Union's Civil Protection Mechanism to a 90 day 
period (unless otherwise justified) have been included in order to clarify scope and incentivise 
use of assets in the immediate response phase. 

KEY ACTIONS: 

Member States in Council and the European Parliament to adopt the legislation amending the Union's 
Civil Protection Mechanism. 

Member States to take preparatory measures in order to be ready to commit additional capacities to the 
European Civil Protection Pool as soon as the legislation is adopted. 

11 Examples  of  such  DRMKC  initiatives  include  the  continuous  development  and  incorporation  of  the  most  innovative 
research results 

6 

 
 
                                                 
As  a  first  example  of  a  specific  consultation  mechanism,  Commission  to  put  in  place  a  structure  to 
allow  for  a  systematic,  regular  and  close  coordination  and  cooperation  between  affected  Member 
States before and during each fire season.  

Commission  to  take  all  preparatory  measures  in  order  to  put  in  place  a  leasing  or  rental  contract  to 
endow rescEU with the capacities foreseen. 

Commission will facilitate discussions with industry so as to accelerate production of capacities, that 
are not readily available on the market, such as firefighting planes. 

Member States to prepare prevention and preparedness plans and send to Commission at the latest by 
31 January 2019, so that the Commission is in a position to review and help those Member States that 
may require additional support. 

Commission  to  coordinate  exchange  of  information  with  Member  States  on  cross-sectoral 
preparedness and response to large-scale disasters, including terrorist attacks within the field of civil 
protection. 

4. 

COMPLEMENTARITY WITH OTHER EU POLICIES ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT 

A higher level of solidarity and responsibility in response and preparedness must be accompanied by 
the  necessary  prevention  measures  to  reduce  the  risks  in  the  longer  run.  This  will  inevitably  mean 
greater  coordination  of  EU  policies  but  also  greater  coordination  at  national  level,  including  with 
regional and local actors, and between the various tools and instruments that Member States have at 
their disposal. 

Disaster risk management considerations are increasingly integrated in a number of EU policies. The 
EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for instance supports climate-proofing of EU action by 
promoting  adaptation  in  key vulnerable  sectors  and  in  synergy  with  disaster  risk  management.  Such 
considerations  are  also  integrated  into  financial  instruments,  including  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds,  the  Solidarity  Fund,  environmental  legislation  (e.g.  flood  management  plans  and 
eco-system  based  solutions),  research  and  innovation12,  climate  change  adaptation  strategy,  serious 
cross-border threats to health and more13. Similarly, more disaster risk-proofing of investments in the 
EU contribute to strengthened resilience and sustainable growth. 

Most of EU funds supporting disaster prevention and management activities are currently programmed 
through the European Structural and Investment Funds: 

12 Horizon  2020  has  already  financed  over  EUR  20  million  in  research  projects  related  to  forest  fires.  Future  research 
foreseen for 2020 will address respectively: "New Ecosystem-based adapted management, including nature-based solutions, 
for  forest  fires  risk  reduction  in  the  EU"  (EUR  15  million)  and  “Resilient  Forests”  in  view  of  developing  new  guiding 
references  for  forest  fires  risk  prevention  and  risk-informed  decisions  on  the  best  adaptation  options  (EUR  10  million).  In 
2018 a strategic research and innovation agenda on forest fire risk management in the EU will be developed based on needs 
identified in a science-policy review of EU-funded forest fire research projects and the recommendations resulting from the 
multi-stakeholder workshop “How to face mega-fires in Europe”, to be held in Lisbon, in January/February 2018. 
13 Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Action  Plan  on  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030, 
SWD(2016)205 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Over the period of 2014-2020, almost EUR 8 billion have been allocated by 20 Member States 
for  climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  prevention  and  management  through  Cohesion 
Policy funds, making them the largest source of EU funding in this area14. 

  The  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  includes  a  focus  area  on 
supporting  farm  risk  prevention  and  management  under  its  priority  for  rural  development. 
This  fund  also  supports  forestry  measures  which  include  specific  forest  fire  prevention  and 
restoration measures. Some EUR 2,3 billion have been specifically earmarked over the period 
of  2014-2020  for  this  purpose.  A  vast  majority  of  the  planned  measures  to  support 
investments 15  in  prevention  action  to  reduce  the  consequences  of  natural  disasters  and 
catastrophic  events 16  as  well  as  for  the  restoration  of  agricultural  land  and  production 
potential17 are yet to be executed in the current programming period.  

Moreover,  since  the  creation  of  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund  in  2002  as  a  (re-)financing  instrument  for 
emergency  and  recovery  operations  following  severe  natural  disasters,  the  Commission  awarded  a 
total amount of over EUR 5 billion in EU financial assistance for post-disaster interventions.  

Preconditions  on  disaster  risk  prevention  and  management  and  climate  change  adaptation  for  the 
attribution  of  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  are  also  in  place  to  ensure  effective  and 
efficient  spending:  national  or  regional  risk  assessments,  need  to  be  in  place  for  investments  in  risk 
prevention,  including  climate  change  adaptation  and  management.  Conditionality  has  provided  an 
incentive  for  Member  States  to  implement  structural  changes  in  their  disaster  risk  management 
systems and to strengthen their administrative capacity, and improve the quality of their investments.  

Strengthening  prevention  in  the  EU  relies  also  on  a  strong  knowledge  base  backed  by  scientific 
support,  and  the  effective  dissemination  of  extensive  evidence,  lessons  learnt,  good  practices  and 
project  results.  Understanding  disaster  risks  is  a  prerequisite  for  the  awareness  of  risks  and  the 
development of a risk culture in the EU.  

A number of other EU policies and funds can support response and recovery efforts, including through 
restoration  actions  under  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development,  flexibility  of 
Cohesion  Policy  funded  programmes,  and  the  activation  of  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund.  Moreover,  the 
European Solidarity Corps enables young people to support communities working to prevent disasters 
or to help them recover, in a powerful expression of EU solidarity.  

In  general,  the  importance  of  contributing  to  disaster  prevention  and  response  should  also  be  taken 
into account when relevant areas of the EU acquis are being updated.  

14 European Regional Development Fund: EUR 4.2 billion; Cohesion Fund: EUR 3.7 billion. 
15 Co-financing rates can go up to 80% for individual investments and up to 100% for collective investments 
16 Under  the  2014-2020  period,  including:  of  the  planned  EUR  3.8  billion  for  investments  improving  the  resilience  and 
environmental  value  of  forest  ecosystems,  13.4%  are  currently  executed;  Of  the  planned  EUR  354  million  for  forest-
environmental  and  climate  services,  promoting  preventive  ecosystem-based  approaches,  7.2%  have  been  executed;  of  the 
planned EUR 2.7 billion for risk management tools, such as insurance, mutual funds, and income stabilisation support, 7.2% 
have been executed. 
17 Planned EUR 2.1 billion for 2014-2020, of which 10.4% currently executed 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
KEY ACTIONS 

Member  States  to  make  use  of  all  funding  possibilities  under  existing  EU  legislation  in  order  to 
acquire, adapt and refurbish capacities. 

Commission to consider for post-2020 making use of risk assessments and risk management planning 
provisions 18 as  ex-ante  conditionality,  both  under  Cohesion  Policy  and  the  European  Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development. 

Commission  to  consider  how  rules  for  post-2020  could  facilitate  co-financed  disaster  response 
capacities  developed  through  Cohesion  Policy  funds  used  in  the  context  of  the  European  Civil 
Protection pool of response assets. 

Commission, by the summer of 2018, to screen planned investments in all relevant programmes and 
discuss  possible  changes  with  Member  States.  Member  States  should  target  implementation  of 
remaining funds for specific projects and, where needed, the Commission will modify the programmes 
swiftly.  

Member  States  to  use  the  possibility  of  increased  co-financing  rates  or  recovery/restoration  actions 
following natural disasters under European Structural and Investment Funds.  

Commission  to  consider,  for  post-2020  how  to  accelerate  procedures  to  amend  relevant  European 
Structural and Investment Funds' programmes, in particular following a disaster19.  

Commission  to  capitalise  on  the  revisions  of  relevant  EU  legislations  and  processes  to  strongly 
reinforce disaster prevention considerations, at all relevant levels of governance.  

Commission  to  launch  a  Communication  and  Advocacy  Campaign  on  disaster  prevention  with  a 
particular  focus  on  forest  fires,  heat  waves  and  other  climate-induced  extreme  weather  events,  to 
improve awareness of preventive action.  

Member States and Commission to promote more systematic collection and dissemination of loss data, 
to enhance the collection of loss data and make use of loss data for optimised prevention and climate 
adaptation planning. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The sequence of destructive disasters in 2017, resulting in severe human, environmental and economic 
cost, demonstrated the need to reinforce European solidarity and the responsibility of the EU and its 
Member  States  in  preventing,  preparing  and  responding  to  disasters.  Climate  change  is  playing  an 
important  role  in  exacerbating  the  challenges  and  has  contributed  to  the  increased  frequency  and 
intensity  of  natural  disasters.  A  Europe  that  protects  must  be  also  able  to  prevent,  prepare  for  and 

18 Provisions such as the existence of disaster risk management plans required under the Civil Protection legislation; flood 
risk management plans based on the EU Floods Directive; or ecosystem-based measures to increase the resilience of forests 
against fires could be considered 
19 Following the 2017 forest fires in Portugal, accelerated procedures were used to amend operational programmes. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
respond to challenges that affect the fabric of our societies. rescEU is a leap forward in providing the 
Union and its Member States with the capacity to do so.  

Building  on  the  principle  that  prevention  of  identified  risks,  and  adapting  to  these  risks  where  full 
prevention is impossible, must be a duty, not a choice to be made, and combined with the capacity to 
react as quickly and efficiently as is humanly possible, rescEU will substantially reinforce disaster risk 
management capacities in the EU.  

rescEU  will  lead  to  a  situation  in  which  all  countries  have  integrated  disaster  prevention  in all  their 
policies, have made arrangements guaranteeing a satisfactory level of response capacity and can safely 
rely  on  EU  assistance  in  case  of  disasters  that  are  exceptional  in  scope  or  nature,  and  where  EU 
intervention is justified. Looking ahead, the European Union and the states participating in the Union's 
Civil  Protection  Mechanism  will  be  in  a  position  to  concentrate  fully  on  developing  its  response 
capacities based on the risks of the future. 

10