REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress on implementation of article 6 of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Decision No 1313/2013/EU) Preventing and managing disaster risk in Europe
Date: 2024-03-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: aid to disaster victims, civil defence, disaster resilience, emergency aid, environmental risk prevention, investment, man-made disaster, natural disaster

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.3.2024  COM(2024) 130 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on progress on  implementation of article 6 of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Decision No 1313/2013/EU)                  Preventing and managing disaster risk in Europe                    
 
 
  INTRODUCTION  

We live in a new disaster risk management landscape. Over the last few years, the world has 
seen  record-breaking  temperatures  and  many  devastating  disaster  events.  The  European 
continent and its neighbourhood were hit by catastrophic heatwaves, wildfires, droughts and 
floods. With an unexpectedly fast onset of climate change, extreme weather events and threats 
to lives and livelihoods are highly likely to increase in the future. In addition, the worsening 
global security situation and the convergence of other threats and shocks, including health 
and hybrid threats, earthquakes, and disruptions to critical infrastructure, present growing risks 
to the European society. 

Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU) sets out that the EU 
must encourage co-operation between Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of 
systems for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disasters. EU action shall 
thereby  support  and  complement  actions  at  national  level  in  prevention,  preparedness  and 
response. In 2001, the EU established a Community civil protection mechanism, focussing on 
cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  on  disaster  response.  Since  then,  the  European 
Commission has coordinated mutual support between Member States. In 2013, the Union Civil 
Protection Mechanism (UCPM)1 Decision was adopted to consolidate this work and step up 
emergency  readiness  at  all  levels.  When  a  crisis,  of  any  sort,  overwhelms  the  capacity  of  a 
single  country,  this  Mechanism  provides  the  operational  backbone  for  Europe’s  collective 
response both within the EU (including the outermost regions), and outside the EU. The 24/7 
Emergency  Response  Coordination  Centre  (ERCC)  has  facilitated  large  and  very  different 
emergency response operations (e.g. wildfires, floods, pandemics, population displacement), 
sometimes simultaneously.  

As set out in the Commission Communication ‘Managing climate risks – protecting people and 
prosperity’2, climate risks will continue to increase in the coming decades, the global average 
temperatures are already close to 1.5 degrees centigrade above preindustrial levels and Europe 
is  heating  twice  the  global  rate.  The  need  to  further  strengthen  the  whole  disaster  risk 
management cycle has never been more urgent – from risk assessment and anticipatory actions, 
though prevention and preparedness, to response and recovery. 

Demand for assistance under the UCPM has increased dramatically over the past decade.  

1 Decision 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17.12.2013 on a Union Civil Protection 
Mechanism as amended, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924,  hereafter referred to as ‘the UCPM Decision’. The 27 
Member States and 10 Participating States are part of the UCPM (Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, 
Serbia and Türkiye; Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina joined in 2022; the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine joined 
in 2023).  
2 COM(2024)91 final of 12.3.2024 

1 

 
 
 
Figure 1. Number of requests for assistance (RFA) to the UCPM by EU Member States and Participating  States 
when national response capacities have been overwhelmed.  *In 2022, Ukraine submitted 126  requests and in 
2023 another 50 requests for assistance to the ERCC, after having activated the UCPM shortly before the start of 
the Russian invasion. Source: ERCC, January 2024. 

For over two decades this Mechanism has also supported and complemented Member States’ 
work  on  disaster  prevention  and  preparedness.  Given  the  increasing  risks  and  disaster 
management  challenges,  it  is  crucial  to  put  in  place  effective  and  coherent  disaster  risk 
management,  with  a  due  emphasis  on  prevention,  as  set  out  in  Article  6  of  the  UCPM 
Decision. This article introduces a general framework on disaster prevention with the aim of 
achieving a higher level of protection and resilience against disasters and at fostering a culture 
of prevention that also considers the likely impacts of climate change. 

Under  Article  5(1)(g)  of  the  UCPM  decision,  the  Commission  must  report  periodically  on 
progress in implementing Article 6. This first report to the European Parliament and the Council 
presents progress made in implementing of Article 63 and includes recommendations for a 
‘future-proofed’  disaster  risk  management.  A  supporting  staff  working  document4  provides 
more detailed information on the implementation of Article 6 and the Commission’s analysis 
of  disaster  risk  management  (DRM)  summary  reports  provided  by  Member  States  and 
Participating States between end 2020 and September 2022. 

  ACTIONS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE 6 

Article 6 focuses on risk management, with the overall objective to promote an effective and 
coherent approach to the prevention of and preparedness for disasters. It has been revised twice 
since 20135. This section provides an overview of the provisions of the Article and of the actions 

3 Under Article 5(1)(g) of the UCPM Decision, the Commission must ‘report periodically, in accordance with the 
deadlines set out in point (d) of article 6(1), to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress made 
in the implementation of Article 6’.  
4 SWD(2024)130 of 12.3.2024 
5  Amending  acts  :  Decision  (EU)  2019/420  (OJ  L  77,  20.3.2019,  p.  1);  Regulation  (EU)  2021/836  (OJ  L  77, 
26.5.2021, p. 1). 

2 

 
 
  
 
taken by the Commission, Member States and Participating States to implement it. It also puts 
forward recommendations for future action. 

Further  developing  effective  and  coherent  risk  management  practices  at  national  level 
(Article 6(1)(a-d), 6(3)) 

Article  6(1)(a-d)  states  that  Member  States  and  Participating  States6  must  develop  risk 
assessments and assessments of risk management capability at national or appropriate sub-
national level. Countries are required to make available to the Commission a summary of the 
relevant elements of these assessments every three years.. It also requires countries to further 
develop national disaster risk management planning.  

Countries shared reports on national risk assessments with the Commission for the 2015 and 
2018 reporting periods. They also submitted national reports on risk management capability 
assessment to the Commission in 2017. Findings from the reports submitted in 2015 and 2018 
were presented in the 2nd and 3rd reports entitled ‘Overview of natural and man-made disaster 
risks the EU may face’7.  

Under Article 6(3), the Commission together with Member States and Participating States, were 
required to develop guidelines to facilitate the submission of the summary reports on risk 
assessment and risk management capability assessment8. Article 6(1)(d) also requires countries 
to report on cross-border risks and low probability risks with high impacts.  

The  Commission  together  with  the  countries  developed  Reporting  Guidelines  on  Disaster 
Risk Management. The Guidelines were published in 2019.9 32 of the 33 countries submitted 
reports for the first reporting deadline under these guidelines (end 2020)10. Findings from these 
reports are set out in section 3.  

Peer reviews– strengthening national risk management capability (Article 6(1)(e)) 

The peer review framework is a tool for enhancing mutual learning between countries to build 
prevention and preparedness capacity. Peer reviews are voluntary and involve national experts 
from across the Member States and Participating States that carefully review national practices 
of the peer reviewed country.  

16 countries have chosen to be peer reviewed, including eight current EU Member States, three 
Participating States, and several third countries11. The Commission brought in a strengthened 
and more flexible peer review framework in 2020. The Commission also drew up a targeted 
wildfire prevention peer review framework in 2023 in response to the severe wildfire seasons 
in  the  recent  years.  The  reinforced  peer  review  framework  complements  the  increase  in 

6  Under  article  28(1a)  of  the  UCPM,  the  Participating  States  shall  participate  in  the  activities  of  the  Union 
Mechanism,  according  to  the  objectives,  requirements,  criteria,  procedures,  and  deadlines  provided  for  in  the 
Decision. Both EU Member States and Participating States are for the purpose of this report hereafter referred to 
as ‘countries, unless otherwise indicated, i.e. as either EU Member States or as Participating States. 
7 SWD(2017)176 of 23.5.2017; SWD(2020)330 of 30.11.2020. 
8 The reporting must take place by end of December 2020 and every three years thereafter. 
9  COMMISSION  NOTICE  Reporting  Guidelines  on  Disaster  Risk  Management,  Art.  6(1)d  of  Decision  No 
1313/2013/EU (2019/C 428/07). OJ C 428 of 20.12.2019, p. 8. These guidelines, among other things, refer to a 
Commission  Staff  Working  document  (SEC(2010)1626  of  21.12.2010)  on  “Risk  Assessment  and  Mapping  of 
guidelines for Disaster Management” as a reference document.  
10 Iceland did not submit a report for the 2020 deadline. Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Moldova, 
and Ukraine were not yet Participating States in 2020 and were not subject to the reporting requirement. 
11  BG,  CY,  EE,  FI,  MN,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  RS,  TR,  as  well  as  Georgia,  Tunisia,  Algeria  and  the  Republic  of 
Moldova and the UK (as an EU Member State at the time).  

3 

 
 
 
response  capacities  at  the  EU  level  through  rescEU.  In  2024,  three  targeted  wildfire  peer 
reviews will be carried out in Greece, Italy and the Land of Brandenburg (Germany). 

Strengthening  understanding  of  disaster  by  improving  knowledge  of  disaster  events 
(Article 6(1)(f)) 

The UCPM Decision was also amended in 2021, to state in Article 6(1)(f) that Member States 
and  Participating  States  must  improve  the  collection  of  disaster  loss  data,  with  the  aim  of 
ensuring evidence-based scenario building.  

The Commission developed a Risk Data Hub12 to collect disaster risk data including disaster 
loss data from countries and other actors. The analysis of national practices on the collection of 
disaster loss data reported in the disaster risk management summary reports still shows many 
shortcomings13. 

Mechanisms to reinforce prevention and preparedness (Article 6.2 and 6.4) 

Article  6(2)  provides  for  a  specific  consultation  mechanism  to  enhance  prevention  and 
preparedness  among  Member  States  and  Participating  States  prone  to  similar  types  of 
disasters.  

This mechanism to consult some countries on specific risks has so far not been used, in favour 
of  regular  and  inclusive  exchanges  with  all  countries  on  disaster  risks.  Examples  of  such 
inclusive consultations on specific risks include lessons learnt meetings, preparedness for the 
wildfire  seasons,  exchanges  on  the  development  of  early  warning  systems  and  meetings  on 
disaster prevention with countries’ experts.  

Article  6(4)  lays  down  a  specific  mechanism  to  strengthen  the  level  of  prevention  and 
preparedness of Member States that frequently request the same type of assistance from the 
UCPM for the same type of disaster (Article 6(4)). In case of three requests for the same type 
of assistance for the same type of disaster within three consecutive years, the Commission must 
carry out a careful analysis of the reasons and circumstances of the activations. On the basis of 
the findings of this analysis, the Commission may propose the deployment of experts on site, 
provide  advice  or  make  recommendations.  It  may  also  decide  that  such  measures  are  not 
necessary. 

This threshold is designed to ensure that countries step up their prevention work in line with 
the risk intensity.  

The  Commission  is  carrying  out  a  careful  analysis  of  the  reasons  and  circumstances  of  the 
requests for assistance received between 2019 and 2023 for the same type of disaster to assess 
whether the conditions to apply the mechanism of Article 6(4) have been met. 

Union disaster resilience goals (Article 6(5)) 

The Union disaster resilience goals were included in Article 6(5) in the 2021 revision of the 
UCPM Decision  These goals  are non-binding objectives in  areas of civil  protection that are 
strategic to increase the resilience of the EU and its Member States and Participating States to 
provide  a  common  baseline  to  better  manage  the  risk  of  disasters  with  multi-country, 
transboundary impacts.  

12 DRMKC Risk Data Hub (europa.eu) 
13 See chapter 3. 

4 

 
 
 
The first Union disaster resilience goals were developed in cooperation with Member States 
and Participating States and adopted by the Commission in February 202314. They strengthen 
the disaster prevention-preparedness-response-recovery cycle, and their implementation by the 
Commission and by Member States is ongoing.  

In the light of the above developments, the following recommendations are put forward for the 
further implementation of Article 6: 

The Commission will: 

•  Continue  to  promote  the  uptake  of  the  Peer  review  framework  as  a  tool  to  allow 
countries  to  assess  their  risk  management  capability  to  ensure  their  approaches  to 
prevention of and preparedness for disasters are effective and coherent. 

•  Carefully analyse the reasons and circumstances behind activations for the same type 
of disaster to assess whether the conditions to apply the mechanism of Article 6 (4) 
have been met.  

•  Regularly monitor and analyse the reasons and circumstances of activations for the 
same type of hazard, with the purpose of supporting Member States and Participating 
States in their efforts to strengthen their level of prevention and preparedness.   

The Commission, together with the Member States and Participating States should:  

•  Revise the Reporting Guidelines for submitting disaster risk management summary 
reports to include implementation of the Union disaster resilience goals for the next 
reporting cycle and seek ways to simplify and streamline the reporting process. 

•  Take action to ensure the Union disaster resilience goals are reached.  
•  Take action to improve the systematic collection of disaster loss data.  

  KEY FINDINGS ON DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION 

The  Commission  has  identified  key  findings  on  disaster  risk  management  and  prevention 
based  on  the  analysis  of  Member  States  and  Participating  States  summary  reports  made 
available to the Commission15. Where relevant, they reflect the findings from previous national 
risk assessments submitted by countries under Article 6 (2015, 2018)16. The supporting staff 
working document17 includes further details on the findings of these reports18. 

14  Recommendation  establishing  Union  disaster  resilience  goals  OJ  C  56,  15.2.2023,  p.  1.  Communication  on 
“European Union Disaster Resilience Goals: Acting together to deal with future emergencies”, COM(2023) 61 
final of 8.2.2023. 
15 When national reports and findings are referred to in this report, it refers to reports submitted to the Commission 
under Article 6(1)(d) by the 27 EU Member States and the 6 countries that were Participating States at the end of 
December 2020 (Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Türkiye).  
16 As set out in the previous reports on Overview of risk reports, SWD(2017)176; SWD(2020)330.  
17 See above. 
18  At  the  time  of  publication  of  this  report,  the  reporting  for  the  2023  deadline  was  still  ongoing  and  reports 
submitted have not yet been analysed. The findings do not necessary reflect recent developments at national level.  
5 

 
 
 
 
 
National reports on disaster  risk management, are due to be 
submitted  to  the  Commission  every  three  years  under  Article 
6(1)(d).  The  reporting  rate  since  2013  remains  relatively  stable 
and high, albeit incomplete. The Commission received 31(of 34) 
reports  in  2015,  30(of  34)  in  2018  and  32(of  33)  for  the  2020 
deadline19.  

30

20

10

0

Figure  2.  Thee  UCPM  indicator20  to  monitor,  evaluate  and  assess  the 
application of the UCPM legislation concerns Article 6, tracks the “progress in 
implementing the disaster prevention framework: measured by the number of 
Member States that have made available to the Commission the information 
referred to in point (d) of Article 6(1)”.    

100
80
60
40
20
0

2015

2018

2020

Number of reports
received
%

The following sections summarise the key findings based on the Commission’s analysis of the 
responses to the 24 questions on risk assessment (Questions 1-8), risk management capability 
assessment (Questions 9-20) and priority preparedness and prevention measures (Questions 21-
24) in the reporting guidelines.  

These  findings  are  summarised  according  to  eight  different  components  of  disaster  risk 
management, which underpin the Union disaster resilience goals. Based on these findings, this 
report puts forward recommendations to address gaps and shortcomings, improve disaster risk 
management and foster a culture of prevention. 

4.1 

Understanding and anticipating risk 

A. Identification of key disaster risks21 

The most commonly reported key risks of concern since 2015 are confirmed. For at least two-
thirds of Member States and Participating States, the natural and human health related key risks 
are  floods,  extreme  weather,  human  health/pandemics,  droughts,  and  wildfires.  The  most 
common  human-induced  or  technological  risks  are  nuclear  and  radiological  risks,  industrial 
risks, critical infrastructure disruptions.  

19  Reports  were  not  submitted  by  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia  and  Türkiye  (for  the  2015  deadline),  Latvia, 
Malta, Montenegro, Türkiye (for the 2018 deadline), and Iceland (for the 2020 deadline). 
20 Article 3(2)(a) (UCPM). 
21 Staff working document, questions Q3 and Q4. 

6 

 
 
 
Evolution of risks identified by countries in 2015, 2018 and 2020 

Flooding
Nuclear/radiological accident
Extreme weather
Epidemics/health risks
Industrial risk
Wildfires
Drought
Critical infrastructure disruption
Earthquake
Solid mass risks
Cyber threats
Political and geopolitical risks
Animal/plant diseases
Other environmental and chemical risks
Terrorist attack
Transport risks
Sudden influx of refugees/migrants
Tsunami
Volcano eruption

2015 reporting cycle (31 reports)

2018 reporting cycle (30 reports)

2020 reporting cycle (32 reports)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 3. Number of countries that identified a specific disaster risk as relevant in 2015, 2018 and 2020 reports. 
Sources: 2015 reports (2017 Overview), 2018 reports (2020 Overview), 2020 reports (DRM summary reports, Q3).  

Concern is growing across Europe for certain disaster risks. Drought is the risk for which 
concern has increased the most. Twice as many EU Member States identified droughts as a 
relevant  risk  in  2020  than  in  2015.  Concern  has  also  grown  over  the  risk  of  nuclear  and 
radiological accidents, human health-related risks, cyber threat, tsunamis and population 
movements, solid mass risks (landslides, avalanches, rockfall and subsidence), geopolitical 
and societal risks, transport-related risks and environmental and chemical risks22. 

Most  countries  now  also  identify  less  probable  but  very  severe  disaster  risks,  alongside 
emerging risks. Since 2019, countries need to identify high-impact low probability (HILP) 
risks. The reported HILP risks vary by country. The most frequently identified HILP risks are 
nuclear/radiological risks, industrial risks and earthquakes due to their potentially very severe 
impacts.  Two  thirds  of  countries  also  identify  emerging  risks  (newly  identified  threats  or 
hazards,  or  known  risks  that  are  expected  to  increase  over  time).  The  most  often  reported 
emerging  risks  are  extreme  weather,  floods,  wildfires,  pandemics,  political  and  geopolitical 
risks, cyber risks  and critical infrastructure disruptions. The emergence of a certain risk can 
reflect the intensification of certain drivers, for instance related to climate change or increased 
vulnerabilities. It can also reflect changed risk perceptions and risk assessment approaches. It 
is also important to be vigilant to risks identified by only a few countries. For example, a few 
countries identify solar storms, which could cause major disruptions to IT systems, as well as 
certain environmental and chemical risks, such as new invasive species and biodiversity loss. 

Only  a  few  countries  covered  complex  interactions  between  ‘natural’  and  ‘man-made’ 
disaster risks by taking complex, compound and cascading effects into account in their risk 
assessment. Almost all countries covered a range of ‘natural and man-made’ disasters. Many 
countries also recognise impacts and cascading effects across society, in that they reported risks 
that include a wide range of disrupted critical services or supply disruptions, such as energy, 

22 See Annex II to the supporting staff working document, and the report “Overview of natural and man-made 
disaster risks that the EU may face”, SWD(2020)3030, Figure 21. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
water  supply,  and  financial  systems.  Not  all  countries  refer  explicitly  to  an  analysis  of  the 
interactions of such risks, notably in terms of complex, compound and cascading effects.  

Countries mostly focus on short term risks; the extent and magnitude of man-made climate 
change  and  environmental  degradation  however  requires  a  sharper  focus  on  long-term 
changes in risk assessments. Countries mainly identify acute (short-term) risks such as floods, 
wildfires, and extreme weather, rather than chronic (long-term) hazards23. For instance, only a 
few coastal states reported increased vulnerability of coastal communities or infrastructure due 
to  sea-level  rise  or  coastal  erosion,  which  in  combination  with  more  extreme  coastal  storm 
surges will increase coastal flood risk.  Water-related acute hazards (floods, droughts,  heavy 
precipitation) are most commonly reported as climate-related risks, but also hazards related to 
temperature (wildfires, heatwaves), wind (storms) and solid mass (landslides). Of the secondary 
effects of climate change, about half of the countries reported human health-related risks (e.g. 
epidemics and pandemics) and a few identified greater threats of vector-borne diseases due to 
climate change. About a third referred to different forms of supply chain disruptions. A few 
countries referred to impacts on specific economic sectors such as agriculture, energy, forestry, 
livestock, water, fisheries, healthcare and transport.  

Future proofing of risk assessments requires a more thorough analysis of underlying drivers 
of  the  disaster  risk  and  their  potential  interactions,  but  only  a  few  countries  reported  on 
‘dynamic’  risk  drivers  other  than  climate  change.  The  key  drivers  reported  that  influence 
hazards, vulnerability and exposure to risks include climate change for which the impacts are 
well  documented.  Only  a  few  countries  referred  to  other  drivers  such  as  urbanisation, 
demographical developments and environmental degradation. They also reported globalisation 
and  international  and  geopolitical  developments,  alongside  developments  in  information 
technology and digitalisation. 

B.  

National risk assessment methodologies and practices24 

National  risk  identification  and  assessment  methodologies  vary  in  terms  of  their 
comprehensiveness.  Greater  coherence  and  consistency  would  make  it  easier  to  compare 
reports  across  countries,  and  risk  assessments  at  European  level,  building  on  a  solid  set  of 
national risk assessments. 

To understand the future, we need to know the past. However, national practices to collect 
data on consequences of past disaster events are not systematic and are very incomplete. Data 
collection  on  disaster  losses  is  essential  to  ensure  evidence-based  scenario  building  and  to 
improve  quantitative  risk  analysis.  However,  national  reports  reveal  that  disaster  loss  data 
collection  is  highly  fragmented  and  unstructured  in  almost  all  countries,  with  only  one 
country reporting of a coherent approach at national level. No country refers to the reporting of 
risk data to the European Commission’s Risk Data Hub25, which merits further examination. 

The methodologies for risk identification and risk analysis vary across countries, and by type 
of  risk.  About  a  third  of  the  countries  report  of  single  hazard  scenario  analysis  for  risk 
identification,  with  multi-hazard  scenarios  less  frequently  mentioned.  Only  a  few  countries 
provided information on the criteria they used for identifying high-impact low probability 
risks. Countries also use different systems to classify risks. Whilst disaster risks from natural 
hazards are more clearly classified, the labelling of human-induced, technological, and societal 

23  Classification  provided  in  implementing  act  for  reporting  Climate  law  reporting  on  adaptation.  OJ  L278, 
26.8.2020, p.1 
24 Supporting staff working document, questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18. 
25 Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre Risk Data Hub: https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/risk-data-hub. 

8 

 
 
 
risks varies to a larger extent. Only a handful of countries mention to temporal horizon for 
scenarios. This limits the understanding of how and to what degree important drivers such as 
climate change are being taken into account. 

Some reports provide examples of scenario building, and some make references to the climate 
change scenarios identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, this 
is  not  done  consistently  which  can  lead  to  an  underestimation  of  risks.  Explaining 
uncertainties is important in terms of transparency on the uncertainties associated with the risk 
analysis, for instance regarding the limitations of data and the models used. Just over a quarter 
of countries mention that they factor in uncertainties. Applying the precautionary principle 
can help justifying the assessment of a potentially serious disaster risk, for which the likelihood 
cannot  not  be  accurately  assessed;  but  less  than  a  quarter  of  the  countries  referred  to  such 
considerations.  

The methodologies used to determine the level of risk differ. When a risk cannot be assessed 
with probabilistic and quantitative means, other qualitative approaches are used. About half of 
countries applied semi-quantitative approaches or qualitative approaches to determine the level 
of  impacts.  When  impacts  are  considered,  fewer  than  half  of  the  countries  show  they  cover 
human, economic, environmental and political/societal impacts. However, some countries 
reported  good  examples  of  a  wider  range  of  impacts  such  as  societal,  financial  impacts  or 
impacts on critical infrastructure. More than two thirds of countries presented the significance 
of each risk using a risk matrix.26 

Not all countries report of regular review mechanisms, even though regular reviews of the 
risk assessments are needed to capture changes to the risk landscape. Some countries state 
they review risk assessments regularly, and most commonly every 3 years. In some countries 
reviews are triggered by specific disaster events or updates of risk specific assessments27; others 
monitoring of developments related to the risk landscape continuously. In some countries, the 
frequency risk assessment reviews are laid down by law. 

The public availability of the findings of risk assessments is patchy. Public transparency helps 
raise risk awareness and stimulates action to secure disaster resilience. However, only half of 
the countries make the risk assessments available to the public and a quarter provide links to 
publicly available risk maps. Most countries provided information on risk mapping practices. 
The most commonly reported risk maps cover floods28, followed by wildfire, earthquakes and 
nuclear/radiological. Information on maps on cross-border risks is not provided. 

There are some good examples of involvement of key stakeholders in the process to draw up 
risk  assessments.  Risk  assessment  governance  frameworks  are  laid  down  in  national 
legislation in most countries. They are most frequently led by ministries or agencies responsible 
for civil protection. Stakeholders include a wide range of authorities at national and subnational 
levels from different specialised sectors (such as critical infrastructure and transport), academia, 
private  sector  bodies  (such  as  operators  of  critical  infrastructure)  and  civil  society.  The  risk 
assessment process itself plays a key role in increasing the risk awareness of key societal actors, 

26 Reporting guidelines, Q5, C428, 20.12.2019, p8 ff. 
27 Directive 2007/60/EC requires regular reviews of preliminary flood risk assessments and flood risk 
management plans; likewise river basin management plans need to be updated every 6 years according to 
Directive 2000/60/EC.  
28 Although flood hazard and risk mapping is required for all EU Member States under Directive 2007/60/EC on 
the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p 186), not all reported of the availability of 
flood mapping in the DRM summary reports.    

9 

 
 
 
but also in some cases appears that the civil protection risk assessment process linked to the 
UCPM obligations operate in isolation.  

In the light of the above, the following recommendations on Understanding and anticipating 
risk are put forward. 

The Commission, together with the Member States and Participating States should:  
•  Revise the 2010 Commission staff working document ‘Risk Assessment and Mapping 
Guidelines for Disaster Management’29 with the aim of further developing anticipatory 
risk  assessment  at  national  level  and  maximising  synergies  with  the  risk  assessment 
processes required by other strands of EU legislation (e.g. critical infrastructure, health, 
climate and flood risk management). 
Increase knowledge exchanges between countries and experts on how to further improve 
risk assessment practices, including through the Knowledge Network.  

• 

Member States and Participating States are invited to: 
•  Step  up  exchanges  and  cooperation  between  Member  and  Participating  States  on 
identifying  and  anticipating  risk,  including  on  high-impact  low-probability  and 
emerging risks.  

•  Strengthen  disaster  risk  assessment  procedures  to  better  anticipate  and  mitigate  the 
impact of chronic (long-term) risks, e.g. climate change and geopolitical risks, alongside 
the impact of acute (short-term) risks.  

•  Maximise synergies  with  the risk assessment  processes required by EU  legislation in 

• 

other policy areas (e.g. critical infrastructure, health, flood risk, climate policies). 
Improve the systematic collection of data on losses and damages of past disaster events, 
to improve the understanding of future risk, and make this data available through the 
Risk Data Hub.  

4.2 

Improving disaster risk governance  

C.  

Disaster risk management planning30  

Three quarters of Member States and Participating States report having comprehensive legal 
frameworks in place for disaster risk management. The frameworks are often complemented 
by legislation establishing sub-national and sectoral responsibilities. The reports show that 
specific frameworks for disaster risk management (e.g. civil protection acts) are complemented 
by other laws, such as sectoral or sub-national legislation. Just under half of the countries also 
report having soft law measures and policies to complement the legal frameworks. For most 
countries,  the  main  civil  protection  acts  also  cover  the  assessment  of  risk  management 
capability including other disaster risk management phases.  

Disaster risks are managed at national level in all countries, with the involvement of regional 
and  local  authorities  to  a  varying  degree.  Most  countries  report  having  different  vertical 
levels,  and  horizontal 
cooperation  mechanisms  between  national  and  sub-national 
coordination mechanisms that effectively involve a wide variety of stakeholder in disaster risk 
management.  Although  civil  protection-related  ministries  and  authorities  have  the  prime 
responsibility for carrying out risk assessments, only a third of countries report involving a wide 

29 Commission staff working document (SEC(2010)1626 of 21.12.2010). 
30 Supporting staff working document, questions Q3, Q 13, Q15, Q16, Q21 and Q22. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
range of other authorities responsible for other policies or private sector stakeholders. However, 
broad sectoral involvement in this process can raise risk awareness and improve the process.  

In two-thirds of the countries, public authorities with civil protection responsibility coordinate 
the process of risk assessment, preparedness and response. About a third of the countries report 
that  other  sectoral  authorities  and  private  sector  are  actors  responsible  for  different  form  of 
prevention  (such  as  ministries  of  environment,  energy,  economy,  health,  agriculture  and 
forestry). Examples of private sector bodies responsible for specific forms of prevention are 
those responsible for industrial accident risk management and nuclear safety.  

Over one third of countries report having some form of risk management planning document 
in place. About a quarter of countries mention some form of comprehensive national disaster 
or security strategy31. Most also report prevention and preparedness measures for the cross-
border  and  high-impact  low-probability  (HILP)  risks  they  identified  but  none  provided 
measures  to  tackle  all  HILP  risks  they  had  identified.  The  measures  primarily  address 
preparedness, for example early warning systems,  with  fewer prevention measures reported. 
For instance, prevention measures related to land-use and spatial planning for managing floods, 
industrial, earthquake and volcanic risks were only reported by a few countries. 

Whilst  most  countries  report  some  prevention  and  preparedness  measures,  limited 
information  is  provided  on  how  these  measures  were  prioritised  and  when  they  will  be 
implemented.  National  reports  play  a  fundamental  role  in  providing  information  on  risk 
identification and thereby form the basis for decisions to invest in prevention. Risk management 
also  entails  prioritising,  planning  and  funding  preparedness  and  prevention  measures  and 
identifying the lead authorities. Although countries report measures for cross-border and high-
impact low-probability risks, very few report the timeline for implementation of the measures 
and the related funding arrangements. 

D. Cross-border risk management32  

All Member States and Participating States systematically identify key risks that have a cross-
border nature. This is essential for managing risks across highly interconnected European 
countries.  The  most  commonly  identified  cross-border  risks  are  nuclear  and  radiological 
accidents, floods, wildfires and pandemic/epidemic. For the first time, countries were asked to 
identify procedures and measures at cross-border, inter-regional and international level 
as well as measures to address the cross-border risks. The reports provide insights to risk 
management governance, including for cross-border cooperation to manage cross-border risks 
and risks with transboundary impacts.  

Although the country reports reflect prioritisation of procedures and measures to manage 
the identified risks, there appear to be either implementation or reporting gaps concerning 
these procedures and measures. Most cross-border measures reported concern nuclear and 
radiological  risks,  floods,  industrial  accidents,  wildfire  and  infrastructure  disruption.  About 
70% of countries that identify certain cross-border risks, also provide information on measures 
to manage those cross-border risks. No country reports measures to manage all cross-border 
risks they identified. Cross-border cooperation focuses mostly on preparedness, and to a lesser 
extent  on  prevention  and  cross-border  risk  assessments.  Most  measures  reported  for  cross-

31 Countries are not required to make available risk management plans to the Commission, nor to provide summary 
information  on  them.  A  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  progress  on  ‘further  development  and  refinement  of 
disaster risk management planning’ has therefore not been possible. 
32 Supporting staff working document, questions 3, 13, 16, 21 and 22. 

11 

 
 
 
border are ‘non-structural’, such as training and education, early warning systems and public 
awareness raising.  

International  and  European  frameworks  are  widely  reported.  Some  countries  refer  to 
important sectoral EU legislation that enhances cross-border cooperation to manage some some 
risks, notably for floods33, major industrial accidents34 and critical infrastructure35. Countries 
also  report  on  a  wide  range  of  cross-border  cooperation  in  international  processes  or 
organisations  such  as  the  United  Nations  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction, 
(UNDRR), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 
(NATO), referred to by about one third of countries. Only a few refer to the Organisation for 
Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD)  or  to  macro-regional  (e.g.  Danube  and 
Baltic  Sea)  frameworks  or  organisations.  A  third  of  countries  note  that  the  UCPM  itself 
enhances cross border work according. A few examples of bilateral cooperation agreements are 
reported in border regions, for instance on early warnings and notification risks, cooperation on 
risk assessments and protocols for preparedness, information exchange on early warnings and 
subsequent response.  

E.  

Risk awareness raising and alert systems36 

Not all Member States and Participating States report thoroughly on risk awareness, even 
though  adverse  consequences  of  disasters  can  be  reduced  through  preparedness  of  the 
population on how to act in case of an emergency. About three quarters of countries report 
some  activities  carried  out  by  civil  protection  authorities  and  other  key  bodies  to  deliver 
disaster risk information and raise risk awareness of the population, but specific information 
is scarce. Outreach campaigns use different communication tools (TV and radio advertising, 
social media, short animated films, leaflets and brochures) and webpages providing information 
on risks. There are some good examples of education campaigns.  

Countries inform the public about the risks to raise general risk awareness, but only half of 
the  countries  report  that  their  risk  assessments  are  publicly  available.  Recurring  risk 
awareness campaigns often address all aspects of resilience and self-protection relating to risks 
and emergencies, but only a few countries share details of these campaign strategies. Floods 
and wildfire awareness raising campaigns are the most cited risk specific campaigns. A third of 
countries report that the education systems are important channels for raising risk awareness.  

Alerting and warning the population are key to emergency and crisis communication, but 
just over half of the countries report using a range of ways to alert the population in the event 
of  an  emergency.  Examples  of  tools  reported  are  sirens,  mobile  phone  messages,  special 
smartphone  apps  and  the  use  of  traditional  media  (radio/TV).  The  scope  to  provide  early 
warning and the lead time that can be given to the population and responsible authorities to act 
depends  on  the  type  of  disaster  risk.  Some  countries  refer  to  the  implementation  of  EU 
legislation requiring public warnings by mobile phones by 202237.  

It is essential to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups when managing risks, but few 
countries  report  such  activities.  A  handful  of  countries  report  guidelines  on  how  to  take  
account of the needs of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups in the event of an 

33 OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p 186 
34 Directive 2021/18/EU, OJ L197, 24.7.2012, p.1. 
35 Directive (EU)2022/2557. OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164. 
36 Supporting staff working document, questions 8, 17, 19 and 20. 
37 Directive (EU) 2018/1972 on a European Electronic Communications Code (EECC). OJ L321, 17.12.2018, 
p.36. 

12 

 
 
 
emergency.  A  few  countries  report  specific  risk  awareness  initiatives  to  support  vulnerable 
groups. 

F. Early warning systems and response capacities  

Early identification of impending disaster events is crucial to reduce adverse consequences. 
Most Member States and Participating States report having systems in place. However, only 
about half of the countries that identify certain risks as relevant, report having early warning 
systems  in  place  for  those  risks.  Early  warning  systems  are  in  place  for  a  wide  range  of 
disasters,  primarily  related  to  natural  hazards,  with  extreme  weather  and  floods  most  often 
covered, followed by earthquakes and wildfires. For technological risks, early warning systems 
for  nuclear  and  radiological  accidents  are  the  most  commonly  reported,  followed  by  early 
warning systems for cyber risks, critical infrastructure disruption and industrial accidents. It is 
therefore  important  to  set  up  real-time  monitoring  of  contributing  factors  (such  as  dry 
vegetation conditions raising the wildfire risk, soil saturation for increased flood risk, seismic 
movement, propagation of viral outbreaks).  

Many countries use  international or European early warning systems, notably on seismic 
risk, nuclear and radiological monitoring and health threat monitoring, but only a few refer 
to Copernicus services. Countries report some examples of targeted cross-border early warning 
systems with notification of disaster events. Private sector actors are reported to be responsible 
for monitoring, detection and forecasting of risks related to their economic activities.  

It  is  essential  to  have  well  prepared  and  equipped  public  and  private  actors  tasked  with 
response to emergencies. However, only a few countries report on critical infrastructure for 
emergency response being in place. To manage the changing risk landscape with intensified 
climate related hazards such as floods and wildfires, countries need to improve their national 
response capacity. About half of the countries report of systems to ensure assets are adequately 
maintained.  Some  limited  information  was  provided  on  specific  capacities  for  wildfire 
response, flood response, CBRN38 and emergency health response.  

In light of the above, the following recommendations on improving disaster risks governance 
are put forward. 

The Commission, together with the Member States and Participating States, should :  

•  Further develop the sharing of good practices among countries and experts, including 
under the Knowledge Network, with the objective of improving planning tools and 
decision-making structures to support effective risk governance39.  

•  Further  improve  pan-European  early  warning  tools  and  services.  Where  relevant, 
increase the use of tools such as the ‘Copernicus Emergency Management Services’ 
and the 24/7  scientific emergency reporting service  provided by the Scientific and 
Technical  Advisory  Facility  covering  natural  as  well  as  nuclear  and  radiological 
hazards. 

Member States and Participating States are invited to: 

•  Foster a whole-of-society approach in all stages of the DRM process, involving all 
stakeholders:  public  institutions,  academic  and  research  bodies,  the  private  sector, 
civil society and communities.40 

38 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear. 
39 In line with the recommendations and follow-up actions of the Spanish Presidency Civil Protection workshop 
on ‘Strengthening Governance for Disaster Risk Management in Europe’ on 5-6 July 2023.  
40  See above..  

13 

 
 
 
•  Strengthen  disaster  risk  management,  including  actions  to  manage  key  risks  with 
cross-border impacts and risks related to disasters that cause or are capable of causing 
multi-country transboundary effects. 

•  Further develop early warning systems for relevant risks, and where possible draw on 
the transboundary systems developed by the EU, such as the Copernicus’ European 
Flood  Awareness  System,  the  European  Forest  Fire  Information  System  and  the 
European Drought Observatory.  

•  Promote stronger actions at national level to take the needs of vulnerable people when 

managing risks.  

4.3  Mainstreaming and investing in disaster risk management 

G.  

Cross sectoral disaster risk management41 

Good examples have been reported on how disaster risk management is carried out under 
policies other than civil protection and by other relevant government departments and bodies. 
However, improvements in cross- sectoral risk management are still needed to achieve whole-
of-society  resilience.  National  reports  provide  good  examples  of  horizontal  coordination 
mechanisms  where  national  governance  structures  involve  bodies  from  different  sectors 
throughout the disaster risk management cycle, notably public authorities, the private sector, 
local  authorities,  civil  society,  academic  and  research  institutions.  With  some  gaps  in  the 
reporting on horizontal coordination and cross-sectoral coordination and with very few reported 
comprehensive risk management strategies, more can be done to raise the profile of disaster 
risk management tools, for instance ensuring risk assessments are relevant to other sectors.  

Other EU policies also contribute to disaster resilience. Disaster risk management needs to 
regularly integrate new policy tools developed at EU level, including those developed under 
the  European  Green  Deal42.  Some  countries  report  on  other  EU  policies  and  laws  that 
enhance disaster resilience and cross-border cooperation, such as critical infrastructure, cyber 
security, climate change adaptation, drought and flood risk management, industrial accidents 
and cooperation on nuclear safety. These examples show that disaster risk management must 
be  coherent  and  find  synergies  with  other  policies,  notably  climate  change,  critical 
infrastructure protection and sustainable finance policies.  

Though  disaster  risks  go  beyond  the  climate-related  hazards  and  climate  adaptation 
measures cover many areas beyond disaster risk management, the synergies between the two 
processes are substantial. Two thirds of countries report that adaptation plans are available at 
national level. Examples of areas common to disaster risk management and climate adaptation 
measures are the monitoring, collection, and processing of information  and data on climate-
related disaster risks. To enable synergies and to avoid underestimation of disaster risks, it is 
also essential that disaster risk assessments include climate change projections and scenarios.  

Critical  infrastructure  disruptions  feature  strongly  among  key  disaster  risks,  notably 
disruption  of  energy  networks,  water  services,  telecommunication,  transport  networks, 
financial  structures,  food  supply  and  healthcare.  These  have  high  potential  to  cascade  to 
further  sectors.  Some  maritime  critical  infrastructure  like  ports  may  risk  becoming  more 
vulnerable with climate change impacts, notably sea level rise. Just over half of the countries 

41 Supporting staff working document, questions 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. 
42 Annex to the Reporting guidelines shows the pre-European Green Deal EU policy landscape.  

14 

 
 
 
 
report having policies in place to protect critical infrastructure. A third of the countries report 
having  specific  measures  in  place,  such  as  planning  for  civil  protection,  risk  and  threat 
assessments and analysis, authorities-operators cooperation, procedural and technical aspects 
and risk-specific measures.  

Sustainable finance policies provide opportunities for climate adaptation and risk prevention 
measures. Disaster insurance supporting the recovery from a disaster can also play a role in 
incentivising prevention and ‘building back smarter’. A few countries mention in the national 
reports  insurance  as  a  private-sector  source  of  disaster  risk  financing.  A  survey  on  disaster 
insurance carried out among national disaster prevention experts shows that insurance covers 
many  disasters  from  natural  hazards  across  the  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a 
considerable  climate  protection  gap  due  to  various  obstacles  such  as  the  cost  of  insurance, 
limiting conditions, caps on compensation a lack of insurance available in high-risk areas43.  

H.  

National public and private finance mechanisms44  

Disaster  risk  management  investments  require  adequate  funding.  Robust  national  public 
finances are need to cater for both response to and recovery from increasing climate-related 
impacts  and  for  preparedness,  prevention  and  climate  adaptation  measures.  Examples  of 
national  disaster  risk  financing  mechanisms  are  provided  in  many  reports.  They  include 
contingency reserves or specific disaster funds (reported to be available in a few countries) and 
transfer  of  financial  risk  of  disasters  with  the  help  of  private  actors  notably  in  the  form  of 
disaster  insurance.  Just over  half  the  countries  report  of  flexible  budget  provisions,  in  the 
form of reserve budgets and contingency funds to cater for emergencies. Few countries reported 
of dedicated funding  for prevention  to  meet growing need  for investment  in  prevention to 
reduce losses through strengthened resilience. More often, countries reported that budgets are 
available for preparedness and emergency response45.   

While EU funding is available for disaster risk management, including for prevention, the 
reported  uptake  is  however  limited.  Although  two  thirds  of  countries  mentioned  some  EU 
funds, the reporting is neither coherent nor comprehensive. For example, only about a quarter 
mentioned the use of structural  and  cohesion  policy funds (2014-2020),  although  about  two 
thirds of EU Member States used these funds for disaster risk management expenditure46. 

For each country, the approval of disaster risk management expenditures under the cohesion 
policy  funds  in  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  is  conditional  on  the  submission  of 
Article 6 reports (enabling conditions47). The DRM summary reports received include the key 
risks  relevant  to  the  country,  but  only  very  limited  information  was  provided  on  funding 
sources, prioritisation and timeframe to implement such measures. The Commission therefore 
drew  upon  additional  and  complementary  sources  of  information  submitted  by  the  Member 
States,  such  as  adaptation  strategies  and  other  national  planning  tools  and  strategies,  for 

43 Climate protection gap SWD(2021)123 final of 27.5.2021. 
44 Supporting staff working document, questions 8, 17, 19 and 20 
45 SWD(2021)123 final of 27.5.2021 ‘Closing the climate protection gap- Scoping policy and data gaps’. 
46 18 current EU Member States made use of Structural and cohesion policy funds for disaster risk management 
(2014-2020).  
47 To enable Member States to access EU Cohesion policy funds, Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Annex IV (OJ L231, 
30.6.2021, p. 159) sets out the conditions linked to compliance by EU Member States with EU Law. For disaster 
risk management, these conditions include the submission of article 6 reports and providing information on risk 
identification, prioritisation of measures, funding mechanisms and planning. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
assessing compliance by EU Member States with these conditions for accessing EU cohesion 
policy funding. 

In the light of the above, the following recommendations on mainstreaming and investing in 
disaster risk management are put forward. 

The Commission, will:  

•  Encourage Member States and Participating States to make more systematic use of 
the  EU  funds  available  for  investment  in  prevention,  preparedness  and  climate 
adaptation. 

•  Consider  options  for  stronger  cross-sectoral  approach  to  incentivise  disaster  risk 

prevention in key policies and funds.  

Member States and Participating States are invited to: 

•  Take into account the need for cross-sectoral disaster risk management strategies to 
further develop national disaster risk financing options, also for the prevention.  
•  Consider  increasing  funding  for  disaster  risk  management  and  climate  change 

adaptation in the current programming periods.  

  PROGRESS ON EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RESILIENCE 

A  wide  range  of  EU  sectoral  legislation  and  policies  contribute  to  strengthening  disaster 
resilience.  The  legal  and  policy  framework  for  managing  disaster  risk  goes  beyond  civil 
protection.  This  was  already  mentioned  in  the  Annex  to  the  2019  Reporting  Guidelines  for 
Disaster  Risk  Management,  which  refer  to  the  EU  policies  that  cover  multiple  aspects  of 
disaster risk management. Since December 2019, the EU has further developed its policy and 
legal framework, linked to the European Green Deal, the measures taken to tackle the COVID-
19  pandemic  and  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine.  Examples  of  more  recent 
developments  that  merit  further  consideration  in  the  efforts  to  boost  prevention  and 
preparedness in the Member States and, where applicable, Participant States include:  

•  EU Climate Law48 which includes the objectives on climate change adaptation. The 
EU  Climate  Risk  Assessment  (EUCRA)49,  an  [upcoming]  European  Environment 
Agency report, should inform future climate and disaster risk assessments. Information 
on key climate related hazards and impacts reported by countries in the DRM summary 
reports have contributed to the EUCRA. 

•  The Directive on the resilience of critical entities50 covers preparedness, response and 
international cooperation on a wider range of sectors that were identified as vulnerable 
according to the Article 6 risk assessment. It also covers public administrations such as 
those in charge of civil protection. EU Member States  need to carry out risk assessments 
taking UCPM Risk assessments into account. Operators of critical entities also need to 
develop  risk  assessment  and  implement  prevention  and  protection  measures.  The 
Directive51  on  measures  for  a  high  common  level  of  cybersecurity  establishes  a 
mechanism  for  cyber  crisis  management  in  full  coherence  with  horizontal  and 

48 European Climate Law (europa.eu) OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1 
49 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/eu-adaptation-policy/key-eu-
actions/climate_risk_assessment/index_html/ 
50 OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 164. 
51  OJ L 333, 27.12.2022, p. 80 

16 

 
 
 
 
• 

sectoral mechanisms, including the UCPM. The Directive requires the carrying out of 
coordinated security risk assessments of critical supply chains.  
Implementation of the Floods and the Water Framework Directives is important for 
disaster risk management52. Some EU water laws have been amended or introduced to 
address disaster resilience aspects, notably risks in the drinking water supply chain 
and access to safe drinking water53 and wastewater reuse for the agriculture sector 
to address increasing water scarcity and droughts54.   

•  The  EU  Forest  Strategy  for  203055  calls  for  more  resilient  forests  and  properly 
managed  in  the  fire  risk  zones.  It  calls  for  landscape  management  and  planning, 
ecosystem restoration, fuel management through grazing and controlled fires, and that 
integrated wildfire risk management shall involve the expertise and resources available 
in all relevant policy fields. 

•  Preparedness for future pandemics and other health threats requiring attention at Union 
level has increased with the adoption of the EU Health Union and the establishment of 
the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA).  

•  The European Electronic Communication Code required that the MS establish public 

warning systems to alert the population by mobile phones by 202256.  

•  The taxonomy for sustainable investments57  can help  attracting private  finance  for 
disaster risk awareness raising and adaptation measures for a wide range of economic 
activities. The EU Sustainable finance strategy58 called for the need to raise climate 
risk  literacy  levels  of  financial  actors  to  enhance  the  understanding  high-risk 
investments in view of climate related risks. Disaster risk awareness raising activities 
can contribute to such literacy. 

•  EU funding is available for disaster risk management under several EU instruments, 
such as Cohesion policy funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, 
the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility.  From  2021  to  2027,  the  total  amount  of  EU 
support  earmarked  for  DRM  and  climate  change  adaptation  under  these  three 
instruments  reaches  nearly  EUR  26  billion.  The  Horizon  Europe  programme  for 
research  and  innovation  also  supports  disaster  risk  management.  The  EU  Solidarity 
Fund  furthermore  covers  damage  from  disasters  to  some  extent.  With  a  trend  of 
increased economic damage suffered as a result of disasters in Europe, consideration 
should be given to further reinforcing the Fund.  

•  Tailor-made technical expertise is available to Member States through the European 
Commission’s  Technical  Support  Instrument  (TSI),  and  it  can  help  Member  States 
design  and  implement  reforms,  including  in  the  area  of  disaster  risk  management59. 
Under the UCPM, technical assistance and projects at national level and cross-border 
projects aiming at strengthening disaster risk management are also supported60.  
In  the  context  of  the  Economic  Governance  Reform,  the  Commission  has  actively 
engaged with stakeholders (Ministries of Finance of Member States, independent fiscal 
institutions, non-governmental organisations, and insurers) on how to reflect the fiscal 
cost of climate change in the national budgetary frameworks. The review of main 

• 

52 Directives 2007/60/EC and 2000/60/EC. Implementation Reports - European Commission (europa.eu) 
53 Directive (EU) 2020/2184, OJ L435, 23.12.2020,p.1.  
54 Regulation (EU) 2020/741. OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p.32. 
55 COM(2021)572 
56 OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p.36. 
57 Regulation (EU) 2020/852. O JL 198, 22.6.2020, p.13. 
58 COM(2021)390 final 
59 Technical Support Instrument (TSI) (europa.eu) 
60 Prevention and Preparedness Projects in Civil Protection - European Commission (europa.eu) 

17 

 
 
 
concepts of disaster risk financing, evidence from Member States, and the key elements 
of a disaster risk financing strategy to limit the fiscal cost of climate-related disasters 
aim to raise awareness and promote exchange of best practices among Member States.61 

Effective and coherent cross-sectoral risk management must take into account these and future 
developments in the evolving risk management policy landscape. The mid-term review of the 
Sendai framework62 noted that a multitude of policies contribute to disaster risk reduction such 
as  floods  and  drought  risk  management  in  water  policy,  cyber  security  policy,  forestry  and 
biodiversity polices, health policies, research and tools for disaster risk management  such as 
earth observations.  

  THE WAY FORWARD TO A DISASTER RESILIENT EUROPE 

Disaster  risk  management  benefits  society  as  a  whole  and  plays  a  pivotal  role  in  building 
resilient societies. The numerous lives claimed by disasters in recent years’ extreme weather 
events remind us that, no matter how fast the response is, prevention will provide the greatest 
benefits over the long term. Preventing and preparing for the next disaster is essential if we 
want  to  protect  our  society,  nature  and  cultural  heritage.  Civil  protection  cannot  work  in 
isolation;  it  is  essential  to  work  together  across  sectors  throughout  the  full  disaster  risk 
management cycle.  

The UCPM was set up to create an EU framework for assistance to respond to disasters when 
national capacities were overwhelmed. Over the years, revisions of the UCPM have expanded 
this framework to go beyond disaster response and encompass a broader spectrum of disaster 
preparedness and prevention. Article 6 sets up a framework for risk management. This report 
shows  that,  while  considerable  progress  has  been  made,  there  is  still  scope  to  do  more  on 
different levels.  

The  Union  disaster  resilience  goals  adopted  in  February  2023,  raise  the  stakes  of  disaster 
prevention  and  risk  management  action  at  the  EU  and  national  levels  and  set  an  ambitious 
common agenda going forward. In line with the actions set out in the Communication on the 
Union disaster resilience goals, this Report has identified a number of complementary actions 
and  recommendations  that  are  needed  to  achieve  these  goals  in  the  UCPM  countries.  The 
Union disaster resilience goals are a concrete contribution from the civil protection community 
to build our overall resilience to disasters in Europe. Member States and Participating States 
are invited to take action to implement and make progress on achieving these goals, including 
in the context of the different activities under Article 6.  

Damage from catastrophic events is rising enormously, but our overall capacity to absorb and 
recover from such shocks is limited. More and better prevention investment in a ‘whole of EU 
approach’ is therefore needed. As the disaster risk landscape continues to evolve and we face 
the  consequences  of  climate  change,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  work  relentlessly  to 
further reinforce the EU’s resilience to future risks.  

61 Disaster Risk Financing: Main Concepts and Evidence from EU Member States (europa.eu), 2021 and 
Disaster Risk Financing: Limiting the Fiscal Cost of Disasters (europa.eu), (2022) 
62 SWD(2023) 151 final 

18