REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Capacity Progress Report on the Response Capacities of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism
Date: 2025-06-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: European cooperation, activity report, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, crisis management, disaster resilience, emergency aid, environmental risk prevention, man-made disaster, natural disaster

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.6.2025  COM(2025) 286 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Capacity Progress Report on the Response Capacities of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism {SWD(2025) 146 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 2 

List of acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 4 

2. 

3. 

a. 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Recommendations for UCPM response capacities ................................................................. 5 

Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP) ............................................ 5 

Closing of capacity gaps ................................................................................................. 5 

Strengthening coordination between MS/PS to actively pursue capacity goals ...................... 6 

Reinforcement of adaptation grants ................................................................................ 7 

Incentivising ECPP offers and deployments ....................................................................... 8 

b. 

Recommendations for rescEU ............................................................................................. 8 

i.  Multi-purpose and multi-use capacities and specialised support .......................................... 8 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

v. 

vi. 

Proactive reinforcement ................................................................................................. 9 

Replenishment post-deployment ....................................................................................10 

Temporary pre-positioning for effective deployment ........................................................ 11 

Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments ............................................................ 11 

Simplification of co-financing rates for rescEU ..................................................................12 

vii. 

Simplification of procurement ........................................................................................12 

c. 

Broader considerations for response capacity development ..................................................13 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

v. 

vi. 

Performance-based approach to capacity development ....................................................13 

UCPM capacities to complement national capacities across Europe ....................................14 

Vulnerable groups ........................................................................................................14 

Cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC .............................................................14 

Consideration of conflict/war scenarios ...........................................................................15 

Private sector partnerships ............................................................................................15 

vii.  Donation hubs .............................................................................................................16 

viii. 

Stockpiling ...............................................................................................................17 

4. 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................17 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Executive Summary 

This  capacity  progress  report  represents  the  forward-looking  portion  of  the  Article 34.2  reporting 
obligation on the response capacities of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) as established by 
Decision  No 1313/2013/EU.  It  outlines  a  series  of  recommendations  to  further 
increase  the 
effectiveness of the UCPM’s response capacities. The recommendations are based on the analysis of the 
current state of the UCPM response capacities as set out in the corresponding Staff Working Document 
‘Union Civil Protection Mechanism capacity development and gaps overview’. 

With the Preparedness Union Strategy, Europe is pivoting towards a Union-wide preparedness across all 
relevant sectors and stakeholders. As part of the response to changes in the risk and hazard landscape, 
the  response  capacities  of  the  UCPM  can  provide  a  concrete  and  operational  contribution  to  a  more 
proactive, better coordinated and upscaled European crisis management approach. 

Requests  for  assistance  are  not  only  being  addressed  to  the  UCPM  for  typical  civil  protection 
emergencies such as wildfires, earthquakes and floods, but also increasingly to assist in more complex 
emergencies  where  multiple  hazards  and  vulnerabilities  often  interact  to  create  protracted  crises.  To 
maintain  its  ability  to  support  Member  States  and  participating  States  (MS/PS)  in  times  of  need,  the 
UCPM  must  continue  to  develop  its  internal  structures  and  processes,  as  well  as  its  cooperation  with 
external partners. The 15 key recommendations outlined in this report aim to guide the evolution of the 
UCPM’s  response  capacities,  focusing  on  developing  its  abilities to  meet  the emerging  challenges  and 
advancing its preparedness efforts. 

Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP): 

i.  Work towards closing the ECPP capacity gaps identified in this report (e.g. in the areas of wildfire 
extinction,  emergency  medical  capacity,  maritime,  coastal  and  inland  water  pollution  incidents, 
bridges, electricity generation, and transport and logistics). 
Strengthen coordination with and between MS/PS in pursuit of capacity goals. 
Reinforce financing for adaptation grants. 
Incentivising for ECPP registrations by increasing financing during deployments. 

ii. 
iii. 
iv. 

Recommendations for rescEU: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

Focus  future  capacity  development  primarily  on  multi-purpose  and  multi-use  capacities  (e.g.  for 
shelter,  electricity,  telecommunication,  medical  care,  and  transport  and  logistics)  and,  where 
necessary, complementary specialised support capacities (e.g. in CBRN-related areas or specialised 
medical expertise for specific hazards). 
Enable  predictable  budget  reinforcement  for  replenishment  post-deployment,  pursuing  a  more 
proactive approach to capacity development. 
Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments through quicker deployment decisions and pre-
positioning options. 
Simplify  co-financing  rates  for  deployments  of  rescEU  capacities  and  streamline  the  process  of 
procurement. 

 
 
 
 
 
Broader considerations for response capacity development: 

i. 
ii. 

iii. 
iv. 
v. 
vi. 

vii. 

Pursue the use of performance-based goals for future UCPM capacity development. 
Consider better information exchange on the availability of specific national capacities to increase 
the overall efficiency of the UCPM. 
Improve understanding of the needs of vulnerable groups during emergency operations. 
Further enhance cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC. 
Consider conflict/war scenarios in further capacity development. 
Expand  private-sector  partnerships  where  appropriate,  including  the  development  of  donation 
hubs into a broader UCPM capability. 
Consider the stockpiling of a wider range of emergency response items. 

Overall,  the  UCPM’s  response  will  need  to  go  beyond  traditional  emergency  response  capacities, 
supporting  sector  stakeholders  to  contribute  their  specific  expertise  to  preparedness,  in  line  with  the 
Preparedness Union Strategy. 

 
 
 
 
List of acronyms 

CBRN - Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear 

CEMS - Copernicus Emergency Management Service 

COVID-19 - Coronavirus Disease 2019 

DRG - Disaster Resilience Goal 

ECPP - European Civil Protection Pool 

ERCC - Emergency Response Coordination Centre 

EU - European Union 

GSS - Global Situation System 

MEDEVAC - Medical Evacuation 

MFF - Multiannual Financial Framework 

MS - Member States 

PPE - Personal Protective Equipment 

PS - Participating States 

RfA – Request for Assistance 

SWD - Staff Working Document 

UCPM - Union Civil Protection Mechanism

 
 
 
 
 
2.  Introduction 

Under  Article 34(2)  of  Decision  No 1313/2013/EU  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  the 
Commission is required to report on progress made towards disaster resilience goals, capacity goals and 
remaining  gaps  in  the  European  Civil  Protection  Pool  (ECPP,  ‘the  Pool’)  taking  into  account  the 
establishment  of  rescEU  capacities.  This  should  also  include  an  overview  of  the  budgetary  and  cost 
developments  relating  to  response  capacities,  and  an  assessment  of  the  need  for  further  capacity 
developments at EU level. 

By  means  of  this  report  and  its  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  entitled  ‘Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism capacity development and gaps overview’, the Commission provides an analysis 
of  the  significant  response  capacity  developments  under  the  UCPM  from  2017  to  2024,  as  well  as 
forward-looking recommendations on further capacity and capability needs. The objective is to ensure 
that the UCPM continues to evolve and remains an efficient resource that national authorities can rely 
on in emergencies, while, in a broader context, contributing to the implementation of the Preparedness 
Union Strategy. 

The dynamic risk and threat landscape Europe is exposed to is already forcing the UCPM to adapt the 
tools  at  its  disposal  to  unforeseen  circumstances,  assisting  Member  States  and  UCPM  participating 
States (MS/PS) in ways that were considered unthinkable just a decade ago. Within the broader strategic 
framework of a Preparedness Union, the UCPM and, for the specific purpose of this report, the response 
capacities at its disposal, can make a concrete and operational contribution to a more proactive, better 
coordinated and upscaled European crisis management approach. 

To that end, this report lays out a series of recommendations for further progress on UCPM response 
capacities. The recommendations are based on the annexed SWD and its analysis of the current risk and 
threat  landscape;  agreed  planning  assumptions  under  the  Union-wide  disaster  scenarios  developed; 
lessons learnt from recent UCPM deployments;  and operational response  capacity developments over 
recent years. 

3.  Recommendations for UCPM response capacities 

The  first  set  of  recommendations  in  this  report  covers  the  ECPP,  the  second  set  addresses  response 
capacities under  rescEU,  and the third set looks  at broader recommendations that  help to strengthen 
the UCPM’s capacity to respond to disasters. Combined, these recommendations aim to further develop 
UCPM response capacities, contributing to the enhancement of the EU’s crisis response capability. The 
report’s conclusions contain a summary of its recommendations. 

a.  Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP) 

i.  Closing of capacity gaps 

The  ECPP  is  based  on  two  pillars:  i)  quality  assurance,  through  a  certification  scheme,  to  ensure 
compliance  with  UCPM  standards  in  response  operations;  ii)  more  predictability  as  regards  the 
availability  of  response  capacities  when  the  UCPM  is  activated.  The  ECPP  consists  of  modules,  other 
response  capacities  (including  relief  items)  and  categories  of  experts.  They  are  all  national  capacities 
that  are  committed  for  one  or  more  years  and  on  a  voluntary  basis  by  Member  States  and  UCPM 

5 

 
 
 
 
participating States to be deployed in the event of a UCPM activation. As one of the central pillars of the 
UCPM response capacity, the Pool represents MS commitment to solidarity in the event of disasters. On 
average,  ECPP  deployments make up  about  1/4 of the capacities deployed during UCPM activations 
(see Figure 10 in SWD, page 32). A stronger ECPP would ensure that in times of crisis, solidarity between 
MS/PS remains a source of strength for the EU. The recommendations below are intended to foster a 
coordinated approach to the pursuit of the newly revised ECPP capacity  goals, by further incentivising 
the commitment of MS capacities to the ECPP. 

A comparison of the capacities registered in the ECPP with the newly revised capacity goals presented in 
the  accompanying  SWD  (see  Annex  1  in  the  SWD,  page  45)  reveals  several  gaps.  Aerial  forest 
firefighting capacities are still underrepresented in terms of registered ECPP capacities, with helicopter-
based modules being completely absent. Certain types of medical capacities also present a challenge for 
the Pool. Mobile biosafety laboratories are particularly needed, as are specialised care teams, with only 
one  capacity  undergoing  certification  against  the  eight  capacities  stipulated  in  the  goal.  While  two 
medical evacuation capacities (MEDEVAC) are undergoing certification to meet the ECPP capacity goal, 
MEDEVAC  and  MEDEVAC of  highly  infectious  patients  continues  to  represent a  consistent  gap  for  the 
UCPM, as a combination of existing rescEU and planned ECPP capacities still fall short of the MEDEVAC 
capacity  outlined  in  the  broader  Disaster  Resilience  Goal  4  ‘Respond  –  To  enhance  the  EU  Civil 
Protection  Mechanism  response  capacity’,  which  sets  performance  targets  for  UCPM  response 
capabilities (SWD, pages 26-28). 

The most recent ECPP capacity goals have also added a series of unrepresented capacities to the ECPP. 
More response capacities should be committed to the ECPP to respond to maritime, coastal and inland 
waters pollution incidents. These new  gaps are in line  with the generally more  complex  disasters the 
UCPM  is  expected  to  respond  to.  They  include  response  capacities  such  as  bridges  and  electricity 
generation,  and  there  is  a  clear  need  for  logistics  and  transport  capacities.  Further  voluntary 
commitments from MS/PS should prioritise these identified gaps. 

ii.  Strengthening coordination between MS/PS to actively pursue capacity goals 

The decision to offer and register capacities in the ECPP is still left entirely to MS/PS to take internally. 
This voluntary process is inherent to the ECPP and should be maintained. However, coordinated efforts 
to  increase  capacity  goal  coverage  through  ECPP  resources  would  strengthen  the  UCPM  response 
capacity, while making the most efficient use of MS/PS and Commission resources that are required to 
offer, certify and register a capacity in the ECPP. 

As a result of the ambitious new capacity goals for the ECPP set in Commission Implementing Decision 
(EU) 2025/704, the current attainment level for the capacity goals has dropped to ~15% from ~31% of 
the stated capacity goals. This is largely due to an overall quantitative increase in the ECPP configuration 
as outlined in the new goals. The desired capacity goal has increased by an average of 160% per existing 
capacity  category.  The  number  of  different  capacity  types  listed  in  the  goals  has  also  increased 
significantly,  from  37  to  50  different  capacity  types.  This  gap  should  be  viewed  as  temporary  while 
MS/PS align their offers to the ECPP goals, and the capacities offered undergo the certification process. 

Coordination between and with MS/PS in the pursuit of these goals could yield significant benefits, by 
enabling MS/PS to make more informed decisions on which capacities to prioritise in their offers to the 
Pool.  Regional  discussions  about  planned  ECPP  offers  may  provide  opportunities  for  cost-sharing 

6 

 
 
through  the  development  of  multinational  modules  and  promote  a  more  balanced  geographical 
distribution  across  the  UCPM  area  of  relevant  capacity  types,  depending  on  the  local/regional  risk 
profile. 

The  Commission  can  also  actively  support  the  more  coordinated  pursuit  of  the  UCPM  capacity  goals 
through a variety of measures,  such as  incentivising the registration of  the capacity types  needed and 
using existing fora to foster coordination among MS/PS. The Commission could organise discussions in 
existing fora such as the Commission Expert Group on Capacities and other technical settings, as well as 
the  Civil  Protection  Committee,  in  order  to  foster  exchanges  on  the  ECPP  offers  planned.  These 
discussions  could  be  structured  either  by  capacity  category  or  by  hazard.  They  could  be  based  on 
existing policy objectives such as Union Disaster Resilience Goal (DRG) No 4, ‘Respond - enhancing the 
Union Civil Protection Mechanism response capacity’, which defines critical capacity categories, and the 
disaster  scenarios  developed,  which  provide  valuable  capacity-related  insights  (an  overview  of  the 
current DRG No 4 coverage is provided in the SWD, Section 3.b, page 23). 

Discussions  at  regional  level  on  possible  ECPP  registrations  would  also  enable  national  authorities  to 
pursue the sensible geographical distribution of Pool capacities, while identifying opportunities to form 
multinational  modules  that  divide  the  burden  of  maintaining  the  capacity  among  more  stakeholders. 
Kickstarting  and  furthering  the  discussions  would  be  a  low-cost  way  for  the  Commission  to  support  a 
more  coordinated  approach  to  achieving  the  capacity  goals  set  out  in  Commission  Implementing 
Decision (EU) 2025/7041. 

Coordination regarding ECPP registrations would also help to identify the limits of the ECPP approach. 
Goals that cannot be covered through the ECPP despite MS/PS coordination could be directly addressed 
using rescEU or other instruments, such as cooperation with the private sector or third countries. 

iii.  Reinforcement of adaptation grants 

A reinforced adaptation grant scheme for the ECPP could help to achieve unmet capacity goals. 

MS/PS  offering  national  capacities  to  the  ECPP  are  eligible  to  apply  for  ECPP  adaptation  grants  that 
provide  financial  support  for  repairs  and  upgrades,  improving  the  readiness  and  performance  of  the 
capacity offered during UCPM deployments. Since  their introduction, an average  of EUR 4-5 million in 
adaptation  grants  have  been  awarded  per year. While  national  authorities  remain  responsible  for  the 
cost of establishing and maintaining the national capacity they register in the Pool, the EU ensures that 
registered capacities can effectively be deployed and operate in international contexts. 

The current evaluation criteria for the award of ECPP adaptation grants take into consideration whether 
a proposal for an adaptation grant works toward achieving an unmet UCPM capacity goal. Increasing 
the emphasis on this criterion during the evaluation process would provide an incentive for MS seeking 
adaptation grants to prioritise unmet capacity goals in their offers to the ECPP. 

1Commission Recommendation of 8 February 2023 on Union disaster resilience goals 2023/C 
56/01 
C/2023/400 

7 

 
 
 
 
A  budgetary  reinforcement  of  the  adaptation  grant  programme  would  enable  the  Commission  to 
continue supporting MS/PS that are making national capacities available for UCPM deployments. 

iv.  Incentivising ECPP offers and deployments 

In the event of a UCPM activation, deployed ECPP capacities are eligible for a 75% co-funding rate for 
eligible  costs  related  to  the  transport  and  the  operation  of  the  capacity.  While  this  co-funding  rate  is 
advantageous compared to non-registered capacities, which only benefit from a 75% co-funding rate for 
the  transport  of  the  capacity  (and  not  the  operational  costs)  during  a  UCPM  deployment,  ECPP  co-
funding  rates  could  be  adapted  to  further  incentivise  the  registration  of  capacities.  Increasing  the 
funding  for  the  transport  and  operation  of  ECPP  capacities  to  up  to  100%  would  strengthen  MS/PS 
confidence to offer additional capacities to the ECPP by removing uncertainties related to the costs of 
future deployments of their committed capacities through the UCPM. This adaptation of the co-funding 
conditions would incentivise future Pool offers and deployments, encouraging MS to make more of their 
national capacities available to the Pool and to deploy them. 

b.  Recommendations for rescEU 

rescEU  is  the  other  pillar  of  the  UCPM  response  capacity.  It  has  quickly  established  itself  as  an 
operational  asset,  with  231  deployments  between  2019  and2024  (see  Figure  18  in  SWD,  page  40).  It 
provided  life-saving  support  in  a  wide  range  of  disaster  scenarios,  from  stockpile  releases  related  to 
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, to the 2023 earthquake in Türkiye and Syria and COVID-19, 
as well as regular deployments of aerial forest fire capacities during European wildfire seasons. 

i.  Multi-purpose and multi-use capacities and specialised support 

As  analysed  in  the  accompanying  SWD  (pages  8-15),  rescEU  can  be  expected  to  be  called  upon  for 
increasing types and numbers of emergencies in the future. While it may not be realistic to pursue the 
establishment  of  rescEU  capacities  for  the  quantities  stipulated  in  the  disaster  scenarios  developed 
under  the  UCPM,  this  scenario  analysis,  combined  with  operational  experience  of  recent  UCPM 
activations,  can  serve  to  guide  a  two-pronged  strategy  for  future  rescEU  development  specifically 
aimed at complementing registered ECPP capacities. 

First,  while  bearing  in  mind  the  strategic  importance  of  capacities  tailored  for  specific  emergencies, 
attention should be paid to multi-purpose and multi-use capacities that can provide support in a wide 
variety  of  scenarios.  Where  feasible,  capacities  that  can  be  loaned  and  returned  to  serve  for  other 
emergencies would be a preferable option. Capacities that provide affected populations with essential 
services  that  are  disrupted  due  to  an  emergency  consistently  offer  a  higher  degree  of  operational 
versatility, as they focus on providing the affected population with a relatively fixed set of needs, rather 
than  capacities  that  focus  on  a  particular  hazard.  Floods,  conflict  scenarios,  forest  fires,  earthquakes, 
large-scale  population  displacement  and  other  emergencies  all  result  in  large  numbers  of  people 
needing shelter, energy, telecommunications and adequate medical care, as well as transport related 
capacities for the movement of those goods or of the affected people themselves. Investing heavily in 
EU-level response capacities that meet these needs provides an assured value. 

Large-scale  emergencies,  such  as  a  major  earthquake,  can  quickly  exhaust  national  capacities  and 
deplete  the  relevant  stockpiles.  Experience  of  smaller-scale  emergencies  such  as  floods  also 
demonstrates  that  markets  in  surrounding  areas  can  quickly  become  exhausted,  complicating  the 

8 

 
 
 
provision  of  the  items  needed  to  the  population  affected.  Well  positioned  strategic  reserve  of  widely 
needed capacities  at  continental  level  can  help  leverage  Europe’s  size  against national-scale  disasters, 
allowing MS/PS to focus more of their resources on developing capacities specific to their particular risk 
profile. 

These measures ensure that a larger proportion of the affected population quickly receives assistance, 
and free up coordination capacity during an emergency. Freed coordination capacity at EU and MS level 
could be better focused on deploying specialist capacities specific to the type of emergency, which may 
be more difficult to identify and deploy from within national systems. 

Second,  the  scenarios  developed  under  the UCPM  also  indicate  a  need  to  simultaneously  pursue  the 
identification and development of key specialised capacities which are not cost-effective to develop in 
the necessary quantities at national level. Aerial forest firefighting capacities and CBRN-related capacity 
developments being the most notable examples  that have been successfully pursued according to this 
approach  in  recent  years,  in  close  coordination  between  MS/PS  and  the  Commission.  The  potential 
future development of such capacities will continue to make use of that close coordination. The UCPM 
scenario-building  initiative  provides  various  indications  of  potential  future  needs  in  further  CBRN-
related  areas  or  in  specialised  medical  expertise  for  specific  hazards,  including  the  treatment  of  war 
wounds and/or mass casualty events. 

ii.  Proactive reinforcement 

The UCPM has invested a significant portion of its budget (EUR 3.2 billion in 2019-2024) on developing 
capacities that were considered by MS/PS and the Commission to be sufficiently critical to warrant EU-
level  reinforcement  beyond  individual  MS  preparedness.  In  light  of  the  evolving  risk  and  hazard 
landscape, these investments in rescEU should continue and be reinforced where possible in order for 
the  UCPM  to  be  able  to  support  MS/PS  during  large-scale  emergencies  that  overwhelm  national 
capacities in the future.  

Current grants to establish and maintain rescEU capacities are set to expire by 2027, when the current 
2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) period ends. If funding to sustain the existing rescEU 
capacities  is  not  made  available,  the  established  capacities  would  expire  or  be  discontinued,  and  the 
significant investments made during their development would be lost. This includes strategic stockpiles 
for shelter, emergency power generation and CBRN and medical items, as well as the aerial firefighting 
capacities made available each year since 2019. 

Forest  firefighting  aircraft  made  available  under  the  transition  rescEU  capacity  are  particularly 
dependent on predictable funding as these aircraft made available annually for the wildfire season until 
the permanent fleet of rescEU firefighting aircraft becomes available. 

The  capacities  in  the  current  line-up  have  been  established  in  a  largely  reactive  manner,  to  deal  with 
ongoing or imminent emergencies in one or several MS/PS. Consequently, they have mostly been drawn 
upon  either  straight  away,  at  the  time  of  their  establishment,  or  within  a  one-year  period  thereafter. 
The UCPM’s capacity to quickly adopt implementing acts, award grants, and then procure material and 
equipment  for  MS  to  establish  rescEU  capacities,  demonstrates  the  system’s  adaptability.  While 
adaptability  is  key  to  a  functioning  disaster  management  system,  a  reactive  approach  needs  to  be 
complemented  by  better  forward-thinking  and  a  culture  of  proactive  preparedness  to  meet  the 
challenges of Europe’s new risk and threat landscape. 

9 

 
 
While  the  UCPM  and  its  stakeholders  understood  the  need  for  EU-level  response  capacities  beyond 
those  provided  by  national  systems,  a  consensus  on  the  concept  of  strategic  EU-level  response 
capacities  was  only  reached  after  the  tragic  forest  fires  in  Portugal  in  2017  and  the  2018  forest  fire 
season affecting northern Europe. For additional capacities such as medical/CBRN and shelter stockpiles, 
the pattern was repeated twice, with additional funding from the European Union Recovery Instrument 
becoming available during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and after the return of war in Europe in 2022 
to enable legal acts to be adopted reactively, allowing for the development of rescEU capacities to cover 
urgent  needs.  This  approach  is  costly  and  less  effective  as  it  requires  materials  and  expertise  to  be 
procured  under  time  pressure  or  during  a  period  of  high  global  demand,  as  was  the  case  during  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. 

Proactively strengthening rescEU as an EU-level reserve of response capacity is directly in line with key 
action  26  of  the  Preparedness  Union  Strategy,  which  calls  for  the  boosting  of  the  existing  rescEU 
capacities in combination with the identification of additional key capacities for possible development at 
EU  level.  To  effectively  boost  the  rescEU  capacities,  development  should  occur  in  a  complementary 
manner with the development of other initiatives such as the ECPP, leveraging respective advantages for 
the most effective use of resources. 

The challenges  ahead in terms of climate change  and geopolitical developments  require the UCPM to 
learn  from  the  experiences  gained  in  establishing  rescEU.  To  live  up  to  its  potential  as  a  strategic 
response  capacity,  rescEU  needs  to  be  developed  before  emergencies  unfold.  As  highlighted  in  the 
accompanying SWD, through the output provided by the scenario-building initiative in consultation with 
MS, the UCPM has provided an informed overview of the capacities needed to respond to the 16 most 
pressing hazards analysed. 

iii.  Replenishment post-deployment 

A significant  portion of rescEU  stockpiles have  already been deployed in the context of COVID-19, the 
2023  earthquake  in  Türkiye  and  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine.  While  the  high  demand 
underscores  the  importance  of  EU-level  rescEU  capacities,  a  lack  of  funding  and  of  streamlined 
mechanisms  to  replenish  exhausted  stockpiles  diminish  the  future  reliability  of  the  stockpiling 
endeavour under rescEU. 

With the high rate of deployment of stockpiles illustrated in the SWD (page 39-41), several of the key 
stockpiles  created  in  response  to  needs  arising  from  COVID-19  or  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine do not have sufficient funding to restore them to their full operational value. The total number 
of generators still available under the established ‘emergency energy supply capacities’ in rescEU shows 
that,  as  of  February  2025,  2 564  generators  are  still  in  stock  out  of  a  total  5 630  initially  procured. 
Despite the significant number of rescEU generators still available, further analysis reveals that 98% of 
those  are  of  small  capacity,  able  to  provide  electricity  to  individual  households.  There  is  currently  no 
stock  of  medium-sized  generators  able  to  provide  sufficient  energy  to  critical  infrastructure  such  as 
hospitals. Until further funds are made available, and generator stocks are replenished, deployments of 
rescEU energy capacity to support relevant infrastructure are virtually impossible. 

The  temporary  shelter  capacity  stocks  under  rescEU  face  similar  challenges.  The  capacities  currently 
available  and  those  still  under  procurement  have  the  capacity  to  house  9 000  persons,  which  is  one 

10 

 
 
order of magnitude smaller than the lower end of the necessary shelter capacity range stipulated by the 
scenario-building initiative. 

Despite  having  recognised  the  importance  of  keeping  strategic  stockpiles  of  critical  items  ready  to 
support  MS/PS  during  large  emergencies,  budget  limitations  are  impacting  the  availability  of  these 
stockpiles.  Due  to  previous  deployments,  the  status  of  the  emergency  power  generators  and  shelter 
stockpiles would be of limited benefit to a MS/PS requiring assistance in the next big emergency. 

If stockpiles, and rescEU capacities more broadly, are expected to provide fast relief when called upon, 
their  operational  readiness  should  be  quickly  restored  after  their  deployment.  This  includes  the 
budgetary  commitment  to  regularly  restore  damaged  equipment  and  the  replenishment of  exhausted 
stockpiles.  This  would  strengthen  the  strategic  role  of  rescEU  as  a  pillar  of  UCPM  preparedness  and 
avoid the risk of reactive ad hoc EU-level purchases. 

iv.  Temporary pre-positioning for effective deployment 

Member States may request assistance in the form of temporary pre-positioning of response capacities. 
This  possibility  is  all  the  more  important  given  the  challenges  posed  by  the  dynamic  risk  and  threat 
landscape  Europe  is  obliged  to  confront.  Increased  flexibility  around  the  pre-positioning  of  response 
capacities would strengthen the preparedness efforts of the UCPM. 

While it may not  always be  possible to accurately predict  capacity  deployments due  to the  inherently 
unpredictable nature of the emergencies they are established for, there are capacities for which a more 
agile use of pre-deployment arrangements may significantly increase the effectiveness of assets. 

Among others, wildfires offer a particular opportunity to combine UCPM capacities and  capabilities to 
the  benefit  of  the  MS/PS,  before  a  disaster  occurs.  The  UCPM  possesses  the  response  capacities  to 
support  an  MS/PS  battling  forest  fires,  and  the  corresponding  situational  awareness  and  analytical 
capacity to  predict  which  regions  in  Europe  are most  likely  to  experience  wildfires  on  a  regular  basis. 
When  needed,  the  MS/PS  could  pursue,  through  the  UCPM,  a  more  proactive  use  of  temporary 
prepositioning to improve the effectiveness of capacity deployments. The pre-deployment of capacities 
would be in close coordination with the relevant civil protection authorities and based on a request for 
assistance. This could also take into account the proportionality of the associated operational costs. 

v.  Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments 

rescEU was conceived to assist an affected MS/PS when national capacities are unable to offer sufficient 
or effective assistance. The main principle applied is that the primary mechanism  for action under the 
UCPM remains the  national expression of solidarity. rescEU provides  assistance  where overall existing 
capacities  at  national  level  and  those  pre-committed  by  Member  States  to  the  ECPP  are  not  able  to 
ensure an effective response. 

In  practice,  this  means  that  the  availability  of  MS/PS  national  capacities  to  respond  to  a  request  for 
assistance needs to be determined before available rescEU  capacities  are considered. This can lead to 
unnecessary delays in providing assistance to affected populations. In the aftermath of storm Éowyn in 
January  2025,  an  estimated  710 000  households  were  affected  by  power  outages,  with  over  133 000 
premises  in  the  country  still  affected  by  blackouts  five  days  after  the  storm.  While  Denmark  and 
Luxembourg  were  able  to  respond  to  the  request  for  assistance  with  five  generators,  the  eventual 

11 

 
 
mobilisation of available generators from rescEU stockpiles to match the needs did not occur until after 
the MS/PS declared a deficit of expendable national capacities to meet Ireland’s request. 

In pursuit of a more efficient UCPM, the ERCC should therefore be able to choose the fastest available 
and  most  effective  response  capacity.  The  simplification  of  processes  saves  time,  in  particular  for 
capacity types that respond to disasters that evolve rapidly, such as CBRN scenarios or wildfires. 

vi.  Simplification of co-financing rates for rescEU 

Current co-funding rates for rescEU deployments differentiate between transport costs and operational 
costs, with 100% of transport costs being recoverable through EU funding and 75% of the operational 
costs of aerial extinction capacities being eligible for rescEU. The remaining 25% of operational costs for 
the deployment of aerial forest fire extinction capacities within the EU are to be covered by the hosting 
or requesting MS/PS. In two cases, up to 100% of the operational costs are eligible for EU funding. These 
include the costs for capacities established to respond to ‘low probability risks with a high impact’ (Lo-
Hi) and cases in which rescEU is deployed outside of the EU. 

In  practice,  the  differentiation  of  co-funding  rates  according  to  the  type  of  emergency  makes  the 
administrative procedures behind an emergency unnecessarily complex when compared to the costs in 
question.  A  review  of  rescEU  grants  shows  that  the  hiring  of  an  aerial  forest  firefighting  (AFF)  rescEU 
capacity for the 2024 fire season is in the range of EUR 1-1.5 million, with the grants for establishing a 
proper  corresponding  rescEU  capacity  estimated  to  be  EUR 100  million.  The  costs  of  deploying  and 
operating an AFFF capacity during the  2024 fire  season can be estimated  at EUR 400 000 per week of 
operation.  Applying  the  respective  co-funding  rates  for  transport  and  operation  means  leaving  an 
average of EUR 64 000 (16%) in deployment costs for the hosting or requesting country to cover on their 
own. The  bulk of the  cost  of making  a  capacity  available  at EU  level  lies  in  the  initial  provision  of  the 
capacity, not its operation. 

In practice, the differing funding rates for operational costs do not impact the decision to activate the 
UCPM  and  rescEU.  In  the  context  of  an  ongoing  emergency  that  threatens  to  overwhelm  national 
capacities,  the  focus  is  on  quickly  limiting  the  impact  of  the  hazard  by  activating  available  resources, 
regardless of funding rates. Compared to the initial cost of establishing a capacity and the total cost of 
deploying the capacity in an emergency, the non-co-funded portion of the operational costs is marginal 
and serves no practical purpose. 

Consolidating the eligible funding rates for the transport and operation of rescEU capacities to 100%, 
and  eliminating  different  rules  for  Lo-Hi  capacities,  would  simplify  the  administrative  burden  on  all 
parties involved in the emergency, streamlining the support the UCPM provides to MS/PS. 

vii.  Simplification of procurement 

Article 12(3b) of Decision No 13132 enables the Commission to directly acquire, rent, lease or otherwise 
contract capacity directly, if necessary, but requires the adoption of a corresponding implementing act 
to lay down the capacity and quantity to be procured. Despite being able to pass an implementing act 
under  an  urgency  procedure,  this  administrative  step  has  the  potential  to  significantly  delay 
procurement by several weeks, with operational consequences. 

2 Decision - 2013/1313 - EN - EUR-Lex 

12 

 
 
 
During  large-scale  emergencies,  such  as  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine,  or  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, the UCPM offers the opportunity for MS/PS to combine their procurement needs for critical 
capacities into larger lots that can be purchased faster than individual MS/PS would be able to do alone. 
This  serves  to  insulate  MS/PS  from  global  shortages  and  dynamic  price  fluctuations  by  combining 
purchasing  power  and  avoiding  inter-MS/PS  competition.  The  shortages  of  large-scale  generators  and 
personal  protective  equipment  (PPE)  during  the  initial  stages  of  Russia’s  war  against  Ukraine  and  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  demonstrate  the  dynamic  nature  of  the  global  marketplace  during  large-scale 
emergencies.  Removing  the  requirement  for  an  implementing  act  during  direct  procurement  would 
enable  the  Commission  to  act  quickly  to  secure  the  capacity  needed  before  global  demand  outstrips 
supply  or  prices  increase  dramatically.  A  simplification  of  the  direct  procurement  procedure  would 
allow this UCPM tool to be utilised to its full potential. 

The  Commission  could  also  make  use  of  the  broader  joint  procurement  possibilities  afforded  under 
paragraph 3 of Article 1683  of the revised EU Financial Regulation adopted in September 2024. Under 
the new Regulation, the Commission could support multiple MS by acting as a central purchasing body 
for MS wishing to procure similar equipment, thereby leveraging the economy of scale to obtain better 
pricing for MS, while supporting the procurement of compatible equipment. 

c.  Broader considerations for response capacity development 

While  the  above-mentioned  recommendations  are  specific  to  either  the  ECPP  or  rescEU  capacities, 
these recommendations cut across response capacity instruments and aim to foster the development of 
UCPM  response  capacities  from  a  systemic  perspective.  This  includes  a  focus  on  changes  relevant  to 
both rescEU and the ECPP, as well as a closer connection with stakeholders currently on the periphery of 
UCPM activities or beyond. 

i. 

Performance-based approach to capacity development 

As the capacity instruments available for deployment under the UCPM have expanded, the UCPM has 
begun to measure its progress in meeting capacity needs through performance-based targets. While the 
capacity-based  goals  of  the  ECPP  continue  to  be  a  relevant  tool  for  shaping  the  configuration  of  the 
ECPP,  the  Disaster  Resilience  Goals  under  DRG  No 4  (‘Respond  –  To  enhance  the  EU  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism  response  capacity’)  introduced  performance  targets  that  encompass  all  the  deployment 
possibilities under the mechanism. This provides a more holistic overview of the UCPM‘s overall level of 
preparedness  in  key  domains.  An  approach  measuring  capacity  development  progress  through 
performance indicators should be continued and expanded. Future efforts to cover capacity gaps should 
focus on the combined effect of all UCPM instruments, including the ECPP, rescEU, the private market 
and,  where  necessary,  direct  procurement  in  a  given  preparedness  domain.  Continuously  monitoring 
and analysing the capabilities of the UCPM as a whole and comparing them to the context the UCPM 
finds itself in, will ensure that it leverages the most appropriate response capacity to effectively support 
MS/PS during emergencies. 

3 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 
2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) 

13 

 
 
 
ii.  UCPM capacities to complement national capacities across Europe 

The  capacities  and  gaps  discussed  in  this  report  are  limited  solely  to  capacities  under  the  ECPP  and 
rescEU. There is no EU overview of other existing national capacities across the MS and PS. The lack of 
an  EU-wide  overview  of  national  capacities  is  inherent  to  a  domain  in  which  the  EU  only  has  a 
supporting competence. Large-scale emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that, in 
specific instances, an overview of specific national capacities can play a significant  role in increasing 
the  overall  efficiency  of  the  UCPM  (such  as  for  intensive  care  beds  or  burn  ward  availability).  While 
respecting the primary role of national authorities in disaster management, the UCPM’s ability to quickly 
support MS/PS when needed could benefit from increased information-sharing on the availability of key 
national  capacities,  including  stockpiles.  An  EU-wide  awareness  of  key  stockpiles  is  particularly 
important  for  the  implementation  of  an  EU-wide  Stockpiling  Strategy,  as  foreseen  by  key  action  No 9 
under Section 2 - Resilience of Vital Societal Functions - of the Preparedness Union Strategy. While the 
information-sharing  could  be  limited  to  specific  circumstances,  methodologies  and  processes  for  this 
data-sharing  prepared  ahead  of  time  would  enable  the  UCPM  to  quickly  upscale  data-sharing  when 
necessary and respond accordingly. 

iii. 

Vulnerable groups 

The  DRGs,  supported  by  one  of  the  key  horizontal  recommendations  from  the  scenario-building 
initiative  under  the  UCPM,  emphasise  the  need  for  an  inclusive  approach  to  civil  protection, ensuring 
that no one is left behind in an emergency. Capacities rendering services to affected populations must 
systematically consider how the needs of vulnerable populations, such as specific age groups or people 
with disabilities, will be met. Capacities deployed in the context of a UCPM activation are by definition 
acting in a large-scale emergency that is affecting a large number of people, including those with special 
needs.  Meeting  these  needs  should  continue  to  be  addressed  when  developing  response  capacities, 
including  in  their  SOPs  and  in  training  and  exercises,  in  an  appropriate  manner.  The  UCPM  has  an 
obligation  and  is  committed  to  considering  the  needs  of  vulnerable  groups  during  emergency 
operations, ensuring that capacities are adapted to cater for the diverse needs of affected populations, 
including people with disabilities. 

iv. 

Cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC 

The  UCPM  has  a  wide  array  of  situational  awareness  tools  at  its  disposal  to  monitor  and  anticipate 
global developments and to generate information products for its stakeholders during emergencies. One 
of the most recent developments is the creation of the Global Situation System (GSS), which compiles 
multiple information sources into one interactive GIS-based dashboard. Combined with the Copernicus 
Emergency  Management  Service  (CEMS)  and  its  hazard-specific  monitoring  platforms  which  can 
monitor, for example, floods, wildfires and droughts, the ERCC already harnesses a considerable amount 
of information. These capabilities provide helpful resources for UCPM stakeholders and contribute to its 
operational efficiency. 

While sector-specific monitoring takes place  at EU or national  level for critical services such as energy 
and  transport,  there  is  currently  no  common  situational  awareness  that  combines  multiple  sectoral 
overviews  with  hazards  in  real  time  to  help  assess  potential  impacts  at  European  level.  News  of  a 
major infrastructure-related disruption only reaches the ERCC through the civil protection authorities of 
the  affected  country  or  through  public  media  reports.  The  ERCC  should  continue  and  further  upscale 
support to Member States in managing the cross-sectoral consequences of crises, based on reinforced 

14 

 
 
planning and more comprehensive analysis and situational awareness. This would be in direct support of 
the Preparedness Union Strategy key action 3 - Strengthen the ERCC - and key action 25 - Set up an EU 
crisis  coordination  hub.  A  first  step  towards  a  more  integrated  approach  would  be  embedding  non-
classified,  up-to-date  data  from  the  national  civil  protection  authorities  into  the  GSS.  This  integration 
would mutually benefit ERCC and national civil protection authorities alike, and provide the UCPM with 
a  common  situational  picture  at  European  level.  As  a  result,  a  strengthened  ERCC  would  be 
systematically plugged into existing sectoral monitoring systems, to increase its situational awareness, 
while it could provide information on potential disruptions in critical services to MS/PS. 

v. 

Consideration of conflict/war scenarios 

The primary purpose of the UCPM has been to mitigate the effects of natural or accidental hazards on 
human  populations  and  the  environment.  However,  the  risk  and  threat  landscape  has  been 
fundamentally altered by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. While the frequency of traditional 
UCPM activations is expected to continue due to increasing climate change impacts, as discussed in the 
accompanying  SWD,  there  is  also  a  need  for  the  UCPM  to  further  develop  its  role  in  protecting  the 
citizens in Europe during conflict and defence scenarios. 

There is a need to strengthen civil and military coordination, beyond coordination of separate activities 
in  an  emergency  and  towards  a  holistic  approach  establishing  comprehensive  civil-military 
preparedness  arrangements  as  foreseen  under  key  action  22  under  the  Civil-military  cooperation 
section  of  the  Preparedness  Union  Strategy.  The  scenario  initiative  underlined  the  importance  of 
developing this relationship and tackling the remaining coordination challenges to ensure that separate 
strands of government work to keep the population out of harm’s way, particularly in conflict scenarios. 

The  consideration  of  conflict  and  war  scenarios  to  foster  closer  civil-military  coordination  in  crisis 
management  can  serve  as  a  starting  point  for  the  broader  development  of  dual-use  standards  in 
technologies, providing a return on investment for both sectors where feasible. 

The UCPM should systematically draw lessons from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, including 
through its UCPM ‘lessons learnt’ process. It could support preparatory actions within national disaster 
management  systems  for  potential  similar  future  scenarios.  This  includes  lessons  identified  by  the 
Ukrainian  disaster  management  and  civil  protection  authorities  on  how  to  best  prepare  a  national 
system and the UCPM for a conflict scenario. 

Existing  response  capacities  and  their  deployment  options  need  to  be  re-examined  and  reviewed  to 
determine  their  potential  contributions  to  supporting  civilian  populations  during  conflicts  or  war. 
Capacities relying on military staff or equipment may have to contend with deployment restrictions or 
key capacity elements not being available. Many capacities aimed at supporting affected persons (e.g. 
search and rescue, shelter, emergency power, logistics and wildfire extinction) will continue to play an 
important  role  in  their  capabilities,  possibly  benefiting  from  additional  conflict  awareness  training  or 
personal protective or other  supplementary equipment relevant  to the particular conflict scenario.  EU 
crisis  response  and  preparedness  exercises,  as  well  as  scenario-based  exchanges,  are  essential  to 
strengthening the UCPM capacity in a situation of conflict or war. 

vi. Private sector partnerships 

As one of society’s main stakeholder groups, the private sector should be viewed as a strong potential 
partner  for  the  UCPM  and  EU  preparedness  in  a  broader  sense.  The  adopted EU  Preparedness  Union 

15 

 
 
Strategy underlines the need to include private stakeholders in preparedness across all relevant sectors. 
For  the  UCPM  and  civil  protection  actions  in  particular,  the  relevance  of  this  sector  was  already 
recognised by DRG No 5 ‘Secure – To ensure a robust civil protection system’, which calls for fostering 
partnerships  with  private  sector  stakeholders  at  EU  and  national  levels.  Entities  belonging  to  the 
private sector intersect with the activities of governmental emergency management during every phase 
in the disaster management cycle. 

The diverse spectrum of stakeholders grouped into ‘the private sector’ translates into a nearly endless 
number  of  mutually  beneficial  relationships  at  operational  and  strategic  levels.  The  exploration  and 
development of these relationships into a permanent feature of EU-wide preparedness cannot be left to 
ad hoc solutions developed during an emergency. Several initiatives that could be explored to broaden 
the interface between public disaster management and the private sector include: 

•  Formalisation and expansion of the possibilities afforded by private donation hubs hosted and 
managed by MS that will undertake the quality check of donated items, as a UCPM capacity to 
channel  privately  donated  assistance  to  the  authorities  of  an  affected  country,  developed  to 
include donation agreements for pre-defined goods and quantities, reducing reaction time and 
pre-empting administrative work ahead of an actual donation during an emergency. 

• 

•  Development  of  emergency  arrangements  with  relevant  industrial  partners  for  large-scale 
emergencies such as pandemics or conflict scenarios, but also in cases of atypical needs, such as 
requests for the use of excavators, containers or dump trucks, in support of Preparedness Union 
key action 19 in Section 4 - Develop public-private emergency protocols 
Increased two-way information sharing on hazards and risks between institutions,  academia 
and  private  businesses,  including  the  insurance  sector,  to  support  analysis  in  disaster 
management and increase risk awareness among the civilian population and the private sector, 
in alignment with Preparedness Union key action 21 in Section 4 - Establish a European centre of 
expertise on research security. 
Improved  access  to  technical  experts  from  the  private  sector  to  support  preparedness  and 
response initiatives, including the UCPMs training and exercise programme. 

• 

The  increased  integration of  private  sector  stakeholders  into  disaster management  activities  does  not 
mean  a  diminished  role  for  government.  The  purpose  of  working  closer  with  the  private  sector  is  to 
avoid  the  establishment  of  parallel  preparedness  and  response  activities  and  to  harness  all  available 
resources to work together in preventing disasters and mitigating their consequences when they occur. 

vii. Donation hubs 
Donation hubs that enable the channelling of private or third-country in-kind assistance to an affected 
population  via  the  UCPM pipeline  have  proven  effective  in  increasing the  added  value  of  the UCPM, 
while keeping the extra costs to a minimum and providing administrative relief to the authorities of the 
recipient county. Between the start of the war against Ukraine and April 2025, the UCPM was able to 
channel nearly EUR 15 million in goods from private companies and third countries to Ukraine and the 
region affected by the war. This was achieved through the  involvement of Belgium and Poland as hub 
host countries and grants for the operation of the hubs, totalling EUR 3.5 million. 

To better leverage the UCPM logistics and administrative operations and procedures pipelines and the 
potential of external donations in the future, obstacles to the current hub approach should be removed, 
increasing operational flexibility. By forming hubs under the rescEU framework, established hubs must 

16 

 
 
currently  be  thematically  tied  to  existing  rescEU  capacities.  For the  response  to  Ukraine,  this  restricts 
the items channelled through the  hubs to capacities defined under rescEU, despite the much broader 
needs  of  the  Ukrainian  authorities  being  known.  The  established  sector-specific  hubs  represent 
successful pilot projects. Developing the hubs initiative into a broader capacity that establishes generic 
hubs would allow the UCPM to better meet the needs of an affected country, while also opening the 
door  to  new  ways  of  collaborating  with  the  private  sector  and  like-minded  partners  during  future 
emergencies. 

It  is  important  that  MS/PS  hosting  and  managing  the  hubs  carry  out  quality  checks  of  donations  and 
manage  their delivery,  and carry  out  quality checks of donated items, thereby  ensuring  governmental 
oversight of donations, which is a cornerstone of the UCPM. 

viii. Stockpiling 
Stockpiling ensures immediate access to critical goods in the event of an emergency. This approach can 
be particularly beneficial for items that are subject to spiking global demand, as in the case for PPE and 
therapeutics during a global pandemic. The same can be true for larger items with long lead times and a 
limited selection of suppliers, such as large generators. Since its establishment, rescEU stockpiles have 
benefited  MS/PS  in  a  variety  of  contexts,  providing  essential  items  in  quantities  that  exceed  what  is 
typically available at national level. 

The  versatility  of  current  rescEU  stockpiles  further  underlines  their  value  in  the  face  of  an  uncertain 
future, with past activations showing that even a limited selection of stockpile categories can contribute 
to response operations during natural disasters, epidemics and conflict scenarios. 

Current  rescEU  stockpiles  are  limited  to  essential  items  for  medical  and  CBRN  responses,  emergency 
electricity generation and shelter capabilities, and their extension to include other items that can help 
disaster  management  actors/authorities  provide  immediate  relief  during  emergencies  should  be 
considered.  Ideally,  stockpiling  should  focus  on  non-perishable  items  that  can  be  loaned  and  used  in 
various emergencies. 

The  stockpiling  efforts  of  the  UCPM  represent  the  crisis  management  sector’s  contribution  to  the 
broader EU stockpiling strategy currently being developed for adoption in June 2025. 

4.  Conclusion 

The UCPM represents the EU-level response capacity of Europe’s disaster management sector. Since its 
inception, its response capacities have grown and adapted to the needs of the MS/PS it is designed to 
support.  This  continuous  evolution  requires  commitment  from  the  Commission  and  national  civil 
protection authorities to a UCPM that is based on solidarity between the participating countries. 

The  implications  of  the  dynamic  risk  and  threat  landscape,  set  out  in  various  risk  overviews  and  the 
UCPM’s  scenario-building  initiative,  confirm  a  trend  that  is  already  being  experienced  during  UCPM 
activations.  In  addition  to  the  single  hazard  activations  with  short  response  times  that  traditionally 
occupied civil protection authorities, the UCPM is being called upon to provide support in more complex 
emergencies.  Constellations  of  hazards  and  vulnerabilities  result  in  protracted  emergencies  that  are 
significantly more complex and often have far-reaching effects. 

17 

 
 
 
By  combining  an  understanding  of  the  challenges  that  lie  ahead  for  the  UCPM  and  an  analysis  of  the 
existing  response  capacities  available  to  the  Mechanism,  this  document  provides  a  series  of 
recommendations aimed at further developing the UCPM’s response capacity. 

The 15 recommendations in this report are grouped into ECPP- and rescEU-specific recommendations, 
as  the  two  pillars  of  the  UCPM’s  response  capacity,  with  a  third  category  encompassing 
recommendations  that  are  not  directly  tied  to  a  capacity  type  and  instead  support  response  capacity 
development in a broader sense. 

Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP): 

i.  Work towards closing the ECPP capacity gaps identified in this report (e.g. in the areas of wildfire 
extinction,  emergency  medical  capacity,  maritime,  coastal  and  inland  water  pollution  incidents, 
bridges, electricity generation, and transport and logistics). 
Strengthen coordination with and between MS/PS in pursuit of capacity goals. 
Reinforce financing for adaptation grants. 
Incentivising for ECPP registrations by increasing financing during deployments. 

ii. 
iii. 
iv. 

Recommendations for rescEU: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

Focus  future  capacity  development  primarily  on  multi-purpose  and  multi-use  capacities  (e.g.  for 
shelter,  electricity,  telecommunication,  medical  care,  and  transport  and  logistics)  and,  where 
necessary, complementary specialised support capacities (e.g. in CBRN-related areas or specialised 
medical expertise for specific hazards). 
Enable  predictable  budget  reinforcement  for  replenishment  post-deployment,  pursuing  a  more 
proactive approach to capacity development. 
Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments through quicker deployment decisions and pre-
positioning options. 
Simplify  co-financing  rates  for  deployments  of  rescEU  capacities  and  streamline  the  process  of 
procurement. 

Broader considerations for response capacity development: 

i. 
ii. 

iii. 
iv. 
v. 
vi. 

vii. 

Pursue the use of performance-based goals for future UCPM capacity development. 
Consider better information exchange on the availability of specific national capacities to increase 
the overall efficiency of the UCPM. 
Improve understanding of the needs of vulnerable groups during emergency operations. 
Further enhance cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC. 
Consider conflict/war scenarios in further capacity development. 
Expand  private-sector  partnerships  where  appropriate,  including  the  development  of  donation 
hubs into a broader UCPM capability. 
Consider the stockpiling of a wider range of emergency response items. 

Beyond these recommendations, as preparedness moves from being solely the responsibility of disaster 
management actors/authorities to becoming a cross-cutting societal matter, the UCPM can encourage 
this  evolution  towards  an  all-of-society  approach  by  contributing  its  expertise  on  preparedness  to 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
sectors that have begun to engage with the topic more recently. To cope with the increasing complexity 
of the challenges ahead, the UCPM’s response will need to go beyond traditional emergency response 
capacities, in line with the objectives of the EU Preparedness Union Strategy. 

19