COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Union Civil Protection Mechanism Capacity Development and Gaps Overview Accompanying the document 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  SWD(2025) 146 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Union Civil Protection Mechanism Capacity Development and Gaps Overview Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Capacity Progress Report on the Response Capacities of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism {COM(2025) 286 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1) 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 3 

List of acronyms ........................................................................................................................ 5 

2) 

3) 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 

Confronted with a changing risk and threat landscape ........................................................... 8 

a)  Overview of Risks: A Dynamic and Evolving Risk and threat landscape .................................. 8 

b) 

Scenarios: The reasonable worst case .............................................................................14 

4)  UCPM Activations: Learning from Experience .......................................................................15 

a) 

b) 

Emergencies 2017-2024 ................................................................................................16 

Lessons learned ...........................................................................................................18 

5) 

Evolution of the Legal and Policy Framework Regarding UCPM Capacities ...............................19 

a) 

b) 

c) 

Introduction of rescEU ..................................................................................................20 

Disaster Resilience Goals ...............................................................................................21 

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704 ..........................................................21 

6)  Measuring Progress: Disaster Resilience Goal No.4 and ECPP Capacity Goals ...........................22 

a) 

b) 

ECPP Capacity Goals .....................................................................................................22 

DRG Nr.4: Progress across all UCPM Capacities ................................................................23 

7)  Overview of Response Capacity Resources ..........................................................................29 

a) 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

b) 

c) 

i. 

ii. 

European Civil Response Capacity (ECPP).........................................................................29 

Status of ECPP ..............................................................................................................30 

Deployments ...............................................................................................................31 

Budget of ECPP ............................................................................................................33 

Experts ........................................................................................................................34 

rescEU ........................................................................................................................36 

Status of rescEU ...........................................................................................................37 

Deployments ...............................................................................................................39 

iii. 

Budget of rescEU ..........................................................................................................41 

8) 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................43 

Annex 1: Coverage of former and current capacity goals through Modules registered in the ECPP as of 
end 2024 .................................................................................................................................45 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1:  a) multi-hazard exposure ................................................................................................12 
Figure 2: b) absolute residential built-up exposure to multiple hazard hotspots ...................................13 
Figure 3: Sixteen hazards and threats covered in the 10 Europe-wide disaster scenarios, all designed as 
worst-case situations to challenge and strengthen preparedness and prevention under the UCPM .......14 
Figure 4: Emergencies per year measured by number of requests for assistance made to the UCPM 2007-
2024 ..........................................................................................................................................16 
Figure 5: Distribution of natural events by type measured in requests for assistance made to UCPM 2017-
2024 ..........................................................................................................................................17 
Figure 6: Type of health emergencies per year measured in requests for assistance made to UCPM 2017-
2024 ..........................................................................................................................................18 
Figure 7: Type of security crisis per year measured in requests for assistance made to UCPM 2017-2024
 .................................................................................................................................................18 
Figure 8: ECPP offers and registrations between 2021 and 2024 ........................................................30 
Figure 9: Geographical distribution of response capacities registered to the ECPP as of February 2025 ..31 
Figure 10: Distribution of deployed capacity categories 2014-2024 ....................................................32 
Figure 11: ECPP capacity deployments grouped by primary task/function 2017-2023 ..........................33 
Figure 12: Annual ECPP adaptation grants expenditure 2017-2024 ....................................................34 
Figure 13 Annually deployed experts through the UCPM ..................................................................35 
Figure 14: Distribution of roles for the 261 experts deployed through the UCPM 2017-2024 .................36 
Figure 15: Distribution of transition rescEU established for the 2024 forest fire season ........................37 
Figure 16: Illustrations of aerial extinction aircraft being procured under the rescEU initiative ..............38 
Figure 17: distribution of rescEU capacities available and under development as of 2024 .....................39 
Figure 18: rescEU activations by Capacity Type ...............................................................................40 
Figure 19: Distribution of EUR value of rescEU grant agreements signed 2019-2024 ............................42 
Figure 20: Distribution of approx. EUR 215 million in assistance delivered through rescEU 2019-2024 ...43 

2 

 
 
 
 
1)  Executive Summary 

This  Staff  Working  Document  represents  the  descriptive  portion  of  the  reporting  obligation  regarding 
the response capacities of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) foreseen under Article 34.2 of 
Decision No 1313/2013/EU. 

The  UCPM  faces  a  dynamic  and  evolving  risk  and  threat  landscape,  with  increasingly  frequent  and 
intense natural hazards, as well as new and protracted emergencies. The analysis of risk assessments1 
conducted by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre highlights the interconnected nature of 
risks, with climate change, technological instability and geopolitical tensions as key drivers. 

As part of its efforts to prepare for future emergencies, the UCPM has undertaken a scenario-building 
initiative,  analysing  the  consequences  of  16  key  hazards  and  threats  by  drawing  up  10  Europe-wide 
disaster  scenarios.  The  results  of  the  scenario-building  initiative  have  served  to  guide  UCPM  policy, 
particularly in its approach to response capacity development. The development of new European Civil 
Protection Pool capacity goals, as well as the broader Disaster Resilience Goals, was supported in part by 
the scenario work. In calling for the strengthening of capacities providing emergency medical support, 
critical  infrastructure  repair,  CBRN  response,  aerial  extinction  and  specialised  search  and  rescue,  the 
scenarios underlined the importance of ongoing capacity development initiatives and called for further 
reinforcement.  Taking  a  broader  view  of  how  Europe  can  tackle  changes  in  the  risk  and  threat 
landscape, the scenarios also highlighted the need for cross-sectoral coordination and the involvement 
of  a  wider  range  of  stakeholders,  including  critical  entities,  private  sector  actors,  and  security  and 
defence stakeholders. 

Since  2017,  the  legal  framework  of  the  UCPM  has  undergone  significant  changes,  including  the 
introduction  of  rescEU,  the  EU  strategic  reserve,  as  an  integral  part  of  the  UCPM.  Commission 
Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2025/704  has  introduced  new  capacity  goals  and  expanded  the  types  of 
capacities specified in the configuration of the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP). The Union Disaster 
Resilience  Goals  (DRG),  specifically  DRG  No 4  -  Respond  - Enhancing  the  Union  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism’s  response  capacity,  aim  to  reinforce  the  UCPM’s  response  capacity  in  key  areas,  such  as 
wildfires,  floods,  search  and  rescue,  CBRN  events  and  health  emergency  situations.  Combined,  DRG  4 
and  the  ECPP  capacity  goals  serve  as  a  benchmark  for  measuring  the  UCPM’s  response  capacity 
development. 

The ECPP is a key component of the UCPM, providing a standing response reserve of national capacities 
primed for coordinated and efficient UCPM deployments. As of the end of 2024, the ECPP has registered 
101 capacities, with an additional 47 capacities undergoing certification and registration. The ECPP has 
undergone  significant  developments,  with  the  introduction  of  new  capacity  goals  and  an  expanded 
configuration,  including  the  registration  of  experts  as  a  separate  capacity  type.  The  ECPP  has 
consistently contributed to UCPM deployments, with roughly 23% of deployed capacities between 2017 
and 2024 coming from the ECPP (excluding in-kind assistance). The Pool’s coverage of the new capacity 

1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, “Analysis of Risks Europe is facing. An analysis of 
current and emerging risks”, Publications Office of the European Union (Upcoming), Luxembourg, 2025, 
JRC14167 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
goals  is  still  evolving,  with  some  areas,  such  as  medical  or  specialised  search  and  rescue,  as  well  as 
logistics capacities, requiring further development to meet the desired configuration. Despite this, the 
ECPP remains a crucial element of the UCPM, providing a platform for Member States  to enhance the 
preparedness  and  performance  of  their  national  response  capacities,  and enhancing  the  Mechanism’s 
overall response capacity. 

The introduction of rescEU represents a major shift in how the UCPM supports Member States during 
large-scale emergencies. Established in 2019, rescEU is the UCPM’s own response capacity, providing a 
complementary  layer  of  response  capacities  at  EU  level  beyond  those  available  through  national 
systems and the ECPP. The rescEU strategic reserve consists of capacities that have emerged as critical 
needs in different crisis scenarios, including aerial forest firefighting, medical and CBRN stockpiles, and 
emergency energy generation. Every category of rescEU capacity has been deployed within one year of 
its  establishment,  providing  support  in  a  wide  range  of  emergencies,  including  wildfires,  earthquakes, 
the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. With a budget of approximately 
EUR 3.2 billion committed between 2019 and 2024, rescEU  represents a large investment  in collective 
preparedness across the EU. Its aerial forest firefighting capacities are consistently deployed during the 
European wildfire season, and its stockpiles of medical, shelter and emergency energy capacities have 
provided assistance totalling approximately EUR 215 million since it  was established. Ongoing capacity 
developments will expand the rescEU to also include a permanent aerial firefighting fleet, multi-purpose 
transport  and  logistics  capacities,  specialised  emergency  medical  teams,  and  CBRN  detection  and 
decontamination capacities. 

While  gaps  remain,  particularly  in  areas  such  as  multi-purpose  capacities  and  emergency  health 
response, the combined efforts of the ECPP and rescEU have brought the UCPM closer to achieving the 
targets  set  in  DRG  4  and  the  ECPP  capacity  goals.  Overall,  the  UCPM’s  response  capacity  has  evolved 
significantly, with a focus on enhancing its ability to respond to complex and high-impact emergencies. 

4 

 
 
 
 
List of acronyms 
AFFF - Aerial Forest Firefighting 

BAT - Burns Assessment Teams 

CBRN - Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear 

CBRNDET - CBRN Detection 

CBRNUSAR - Urban Search and Rescue in CBRN conditions 

CHP - Cultural Heritage Protection 

EES - Emergency Energy Supply 

EMT - Emergency Medical Team 

ERCC - Emergency Response Coordination Centre 

ES - Emergency Shelter 

ESTP - Earth System Tipping Points 

EU - European Union 

FC - Flood Containment 

FFFP - Aerial Forest Firefighting using Planes 

FFFH - Aerial Forest Firefighting using Helicopters 

FRB - Flood Rescue using Boats 

GFFF - Ground Forest Firefighting 

GFFF-V - Ground Forest Firefighting using Vehicles 

GSS - Global Situation System 

HCP - High-Capacity Pumping 

HUSAR - Heavy Urban Search and Rescue 

LUSAR - Light Urban Search and Rescue 

MEDEVAC - Medical Evacuation 

MFF - Multiannual Financial Framework 

MIRG - Maritime Incident Response Group 

MS - Member States 

MUSAR - Medium Urban Search and Rescue 

Natech - Natural-hazard triggered technological accident 

5 

 
 
 
 
NGEU - Next Generation 

EU PPE - Personal Protective Equipment 

PS - Participating States 

RPAS - Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems 

SAR - Search and Rescue 

SWD - Staff Working Document 

TAST - Technical Assistance and Support Team 

UCPM - Union Civil Protection Mechanism 

USAR - Urban Search and Rescue 

WP - Water Purification 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2)  Introduction 

Under  Article 34.2  of  Decision  No 1313/2013/EU  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  (UCPM),  the 
Commission is required to report on progress made towards disaster resilience goals and capacity goals 
considering the  development  of the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP) and the established rescEU 
capacities.  An  overview  of  budgetary  and  cost  developments  relating  to  response  capacities  and  an 
assessment of further capacity development needs also form part of the reporting obligation. 

Article 34.2 ties the reporting on response capacity gaps to the capacity goals described in Article11 and 
to the Disaster Resilience Goals described in Article 6 of the aforementioned Decision. While the ECPP 
capacity  goals  are  input-oriented,  the  Union Disaster  Resilience  Goals  (DRGs)  under  its  Goal  No 4  and 
thematic sub-goals take a performance-based approach, aimed at enhancing the overall UCPM response 
capability.  Combined,  these  two  sets  of  goals  provide  guidance  on  capacity  development  as  well  as  a 
starting point for assessing the progress made in closing UCPM capacity gaps. 

In  this  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD),  the  Commission  provides  an  overview  of  the  major 
developments  related  to UCPM response  capacities  since  2017,  including  an overview  of  the  current 
state of the Mechanism’s response capacities as of the end of 2024. This SWD accompanies the capacity 
progress  report,  which  provides  recommendations  for  further  capacity  development  based  on  the 
analysis in this document. Combined, the SWD and the progress report fulfil the reporting obligation on 
response capacities laid down in Article 34.2 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU. 

Since  its  last  publication  in  20172,  a multitude  of  factors  led  to  a  disruption  in the  periodic reporting 
cycle of the capacity progress report. The scheduled 2019 capacity progress report coincided with the 
introduction  of  rescEU  as  a  new  response  capacity  reserve  in  the  same  year.  Any  publication  on 
developments  in  UCPM  capacity  at  that  time  would  have  been  of  limited  informative  value,  as  the 
available data would have been insufficient to properly report on the newly established rescEU reserve. 
During the subsequent years, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine in 
2022  not  only  placed  an  unprecedented  operational  strain  on  the  UCPM,  but  also  advanced  the 
development  of  several  new  rescEU  capacities.  In  parallel,  the  Commission  launched  a  significant 
revision and expansion of the capacity options made available under the ECPP. In light of the progress 
achieved to date, it is now timely to present a comprehensive analysis of the capacity development that 
has taken place between 2017 and 2024. 

In  line  with  the  recently  adopted  cross-sectoral  preparedness  approach  via  the  Preparedness  Union 
Strategy34, the analysis below can also feed into the broader developments in EU-wide preparedness. 
In this context, it also explores how the UCPM can look beyond its own capacities and, by working with 
other sectors, harness capabilities and expertise outside of its realm to better support Member States 
(MS) in disaster management. 

2 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on 
progress made and gaps remaining in the European Emergency Response Capacity 
3  European Preparedness Union Strategy. 
4 Annex to the European Preparedness Union Strategy 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
To  provide  context  for  the  recommendations  made  in  the  related  capacity  progress  report,  this  SWD 
begins by reviewing the changes in the risk and threat landscape that Europe is currently facing. From 
the  overview  of  risks,  the  document  moves  to  the  more  concrete  implications  of  UCPM  response 
capacities. An exploration of the capacity-relevant outputs of the UCPM scenario-building initiative and 
a review of the recent history of UCPM activations, including the lessons drawn from them, provides the 
context  for  a  consideration  of  the  legal  developments  that  have  shaped  the  UCPM  response  capacity 
since 2017. Finally, a review of the status of each capacity type currently available to the UCPM provides 
the necessary background for the recommendations set out in the capacity progress report. 

3)  Confronted with a changing risk and threat landscape 

a)  Overview of Risks: A dynamic and evolving risk and threat landscape 

In today’s world, risks are complex and interconnected, with underlying risk drivers, cascading hazards 
and impacts, compound relationships and shared vulnerabilities. This is illustrated in the recent analysis5 
by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), which presents the diverse range of risks in 
the  EU,  from  natural  hazards  to  biological  risks,  armed  conflicts,  hybrid  threats  and  technological 
failures. 

The implications of these risks, which are often of a cross-border nature, and their connection to various 
risk drivers, such as climate change and technological and/or geopolitical instability, highlight the need 
for  a  comprehensive  and  coordinated  approach  to  risk management.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for 
the  UCPM,  which  is  most  likely  to  be  activated  in  response  to  large-scale,  cross-border  crises  with 
cascading impacts on health, infrastructure and essential services. 

Risk  drivers  are  precipitating  factors  for  several  disaster  types  and  may  aggravate  others  indirectly. 
According  to  the  study,  the  primary  risk  drivers  across  47  hazards  analysed  include  geopolitical 
instability,  which  is  linked to  21  hazards,  weak  governance  (19  hazards),  climate  change  (17  hazards), 
urbanisation (17 hazards), environmental degradation (14 hazards), and technological developments (10 
hazards).  Climate  change  emerges  as  a  cross-cutting  driver  and,  together  with  environmental 
degradation,  is  a  significant  factor  in  natural  hazards  such  as  heatwaves,  tropical  cyclones,  droughts, 
floods, wildfires, tsunamis and food insecurity. Urbanisation may increase vulnerability to earthquakes, 
air pollution, eutrophication and Natech, especially if poorly planned, due to possible increasing stress 
on infrastructure and the environment. Cities are hotspots for cascading disasters. Increased population 
density  and  reliance  on  interconnected  infrastructure  networks  in  hazard-prone  areas  means  that 
disasters  such  as  earthquakes,  floods  and  pandemics  have  more  severe  societal  and  economic 
consequences. 

Common drivers, such as weak governance and geopolitical instability, can exacerbate a range of risks, 
(cyber-attacks,  data  breaches,  algorithm  bias, 
including  artificial 
disinformation, etc.), risks triggered by natural hazards, and conflicts. Weak governance can also amplify 

intelligence,  cybersecurity 

5 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, “Analysis of Risks Europe is facing. An analysis of 
current and emerging risks”, Publications Office of the European Union (Upcoming), Luxembourg, 2025, 
JRC14167 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
crisis situations. Ineffective policy responses to early warning systems, poor infrastructure resilience and 
inadequate  emergency  planning  increase  the  likelihood  of  cascading  failures  in  disaster  response. 
Addressing these drivers through improved governance frameworks and institutional capacities, resilient 
structures,  industry  standards  and  strengthened  international  cooperation  can  mitigate  the  impact  of 
several risks arising simultaneously. 

By  using  foresight,  we  can  better  understand  what  triggers  the  above-mentioned  risk  drivers  and 
anticipate  and  prepare  for  future  risks  in  a  systemic  way.  Megatrends  analysis,  one  of  the  foresight 
methods, investigates the long-term driving forces of change that are already observable and can have a 
significant  influence  over  the  subsequent  decades.  The  Megatrends  Hub6  hosted  by  the  JRC  lists  and 
regularly updates 14 megatrends. Three of them are identified as the most prominent: climate change 
and  environmental  degradation,  accelerating  technological  change  and  hyperconnectivity,  and  the 
expanding influence shift from Western societies towards the East and South. 

When considering losses and impacts, the JRC’s scientific analysis provides a comprehensive view of past 
trends and future impact projections over a span of 10 years, looking both backward and forward. The 
analysis highlights a consistent trend of increasing potential impacts across all risk categories. Indirect 
or  cascading  consequences  (the  subsequent  or  secondary  results  of  the  initial  destruction,  such  as 
business  interruption  losses)  are  often  shown  to  have  a  wider  range  of  potential  impacts  than 
immediate  damages,  especially  in  cyber  threats,  biological,  environmental,  technological  and  extra-
terrestrial risks. This underscores the urgency of adapting current governance models to address not just 
traditional hazards, but also systemic and intangible risks that may manifest across borders and sectors. 
The  analysis  of  losses  and  potential  direct  and  indirect  impacts  produces  the  following  findings  for 
specific categories of risks and threats: 

•  Biological  risks,  including  pathogens,  antimicrobial  resistance  and  pollution-driven  health 
effects,  exhibit  sharp  increases  in  both  direct  and  indirect  potential  impacts,  with  distinct 
events,  such  as  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  having  exceptionally  high  direct  impacts,  while  the 
combined effect of the widespread societal consequences drives higher indirect impacts overall. 

•  Cyber  threat  impacts  are  expected  to  be  significantly  higher  than  past  losses,  with  indirect 

impacts being more pronounced due to cascading effects on technology-reliant systems. 

•  Environmental  risks,  such  as  air  pollution,  marine  pollution  and  eutrophication,  are  likely  to 
remain high, but stable in comparison with past events. The indirect impacts are dominant due 
to cascading effects on ecosystems and human health. 

•  Extra-terrestrial risks such as major meteorite impact and uncontrolled re-entry or launch, are 
not expected to increase significantly, while others, including damage from solar storms, space 
debris,  Kessler  Syndrome,  attacks  on  satellites,  attacks  on  space-related  ground  infrastructure 
and  technological over-dependence,  are  expected  to  rise  due  to various  factors,  including  the 
growing number of objects in orbit, geopolitical tensions and reliance on external technologies. 

6 The Megatrends Hub | Knowledge for policy 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  indirect  impacts  will  dominate  due  to  disruptions  to  global  communications  and  critical 
infrastructure. 

•  Geophysical  risks  such  as  earthquakes,  tsunamis  and  volcanoes  show  high  direct  potential 
impacts,  with  substantial  indirect  impacts  due  to  long-term  disruptions  to  economies  and 
societal stability. The impacts of these risks are localised in certain areas of Europe. 

•  Geopolitical and societal risks including armed conflicts, terrorism and food insecurity in Europe 
show  significant  increases in  terms of  both potential  direct  and indirect  impacts, with indirect 
impacts  being  more  substantial  due  to  long-term  effects  on  societal  stability  and  economic 
systems. Hybrid threats and illicit trafficking of nuclear/radiological material may also escalate, 
depending on global security dynamics. 

•  Hydrological risk impacts are expected to be significantly higher than past losses, with indirect 
impacts being particularly severe due to disruptions to critical infrastructure and communities. 

•  Meteorological and climatological risks such as heatwaves, cold waves and tropical cyclones are 
escalating due to factors driven by climate change, in terms of both direct and indirect potential 
impacts, with indirect impacts being more significant in the case of prolonged events. 

•  Technological  risks  such  as  nuclear/radiological  risks,  disruptions  of  essential  services  and 
Natech show notable rises in both their direct and indirect potential impacts, due to factors such 
as  technological  advancements  and  increased  demand  for  energy  and  materials.  The  indirect 
impacts are expected to be particularly severe due to their influence on interconnected systems. 

Most  risks  under  these  categories  have  the  potential  to  significantly  impact  the  UCPM  response, 
including  disruption  of  communication  and  coordination  systems,  impacts  on  transportation  and 
logistics, damage to critical infrastructure, and risks to human health and safety. 

Several  recurring  patterns  of  potential  impacts  demonstrate  that  different  risks  –  whether  related  to 
natural, technological or societal hazards – often lead to similar disruptions. Economic disruption is a 
pervasive  consequence,  affecting  supply  chains,  industries  and  livelihoods  across  a  range  of  natural 
hazards,  technological  failures  and  geopolitical  risks.  Enhancing  financial  preparedness  and  fostering 
economic  resilience  is  therefore  essential  to  mitigating  the  impacts  of  such  disruptions.  Impacts  on 
human  health  and  overload  of  healthcare  systems  are  triggered  by  air  pollution,  pandemics, 
antimicrobial resistance, drug abuse and food insecurity, highlighting the need for stronger healthcare 
systems  and  environmental  health  policies.  Human  displacement  results  from  climate  disasters, 
conflicts  and  economic  crises,  emphasising  the  importance  of  disaster  risk  reduction  and  migration 
policies.  Disruption  of  essential  services,  including  energy  shortages  and  infrastructure  failures,  is 
caused  by  cybersecurity  threats,  extreme  weather  and  nuclear  risks,  stressing  the  need  for  resilient 
infrastructure  and  emergency  preparedness.  Since  these  impacts  cut  across  multiple  risks,  the  focus 
should be on solutions that address several threats at once, such as economic resilience, public health 
investments and infrastructure adaptation, to maximise risk reduction and optimise resources. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Understanding  how  the  potential  impacts  are  expected  to  evolve  over  time  can  help  with  risk 
comparability  and  prioritisation.  Effective  risk  management  and  resource  allocation  requires  the 
prioritisation of risks that have the potential to cause systemic disruption due to their frequency and the 
severity of the impacts they produce. It also helps to identify the sectors that are most vulnerable to the 
cascading effects of risks and require targeted risk management and mitigation efforts. 

It is also important to prioritise areas with higher compounded risks for targeted interventions. Multi-
hazard or overlapping exposure analysis captures the dynamics of one hazard triggering or exacerbating 
another (e.g. earthquakes causing dam failures, which lead to floods). It makes it possible to plan in a 
way that takes account of cascading impacts and identifies regions or assets simultaneously exposed to 
multiple hazards. 

A new methodology7 makes it possible to identify regions with multi-hazard exposure at pan-European 
level  (EU27+UK).  The  study  revealed  that  approximately  87  million  people,  or  almost  one  fifth  of  the 
European population, is exposed to multiple natural hazards, such as river flooding, landslides, wildfires, 
coastal inundation and earthquakes. Almost half of this population lives in ‘hotspots’ exposed to three 
or more hazards. Multi-hazard risk exposure is high in both urban and rural areas, indicating that there is 
a nearly even distribution of risk between these contrasting environments. 

These are identified by means of the meta-analysis approach to identifying regions with multi-hazard 
exposure. The graphic shows local administrative units with: 

a) absolute population exposure: 

7 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/around-87-million-europeans-are-
exposed-multiple-natural-hazards-2025-02-21_en 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: a) multi-hazard exposure 

b) absolute residential built-up exposure to multiple hazard hotspots: 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2: b) absolute residential built-up exposure to multiple hazard hotspots 

Earth System Tipping Points8 (ESTP) pose a further significant challenge. At least five of the 16 tipping 
points identified are at risk of crossing irreversible destabilising barriers at global mean temperatures 
above 1.5 °C. Therefore, these tipping points can no longer be considered as low-likelihood events and 
require targeted risk assessment. 
The  interconnected  nature  of  risks  and  impacts  requires  the  preparedness  of  the  UCPM  to  be  built 
according to an all-hazard approach, recognising the potential of compound relationships and cascading 
effects  across  sectors.  Moreover,  the  whole-of-society  approach  is  crucial,  involving  collaboration 
between  EU  institutions  and  services,  government  bodies  and  agencies,  industries,  communities  and 
individuals. The effective mitigation of risks requires shared information, resources and expertise. This 
can  be  best  achieved  by  means  of  multi-hazard  policies,  common  preparedness  measures  and  joint 
response mechanisms, as demonstrated in the scenarios discussed below. 

8 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/earth-system-tipping-points-are-threat-
europe-how-get-prepared-2025-02-28_en 
. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b)  Scenarios: The reasonable worst case 

Europe’s  rapidly  changing  risk  and  threat  landscape  needs  to  be  reflected  in  updated  planning 
assumptions under the UCPM in order to provide a better understanding and agreement on the evolving 
gaps  in  its  prevention,  preparedness  and  response  arrangements.  Under  Article 10  of  Decision 
No 1313/2013/EU9  the  Commission  therefore  launched  a  scenario-building  exercise  at  Union  level  to 
support disaster prevention, preparedness and response. This work specifically analysed cross-sectoral 
and  cross-border  disaster  scenarios  with  cascading  effects,  taking  into  account  the  increasingly 
interconnected nature of risks according to an all-hazard approach. 

The  development  of  Europe-wide  disaster  scenarios  involved  experts  from  Member  States  (MS), 
Participating  States  (PS),  the  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  and  a  broad  range  of  other 
Commission services. In 2024, this work resulted in the completion of 10 Europe-wide disaster scenarios 
combining the following 16 hazards and threats, all designed as worst-case situations to challenge and 
strengthen preparedness and prevention under the UCPM: 

Figure 3: 16 hazards and threats covered in the 10 Europe-wide disaster scenarios, all designed as worst-case situations to 
challenge and strengthen preparedness and prevention under the UCPM 

Based on their deterministic and exploratory nature, the relevance of these complex disaster scenarios 
to  capacity  development  at  UCPM  level  lies  primarily  in  the  identification  of  relevant  response 
capacities,  as  well  as  broad  estimated  ranges  for  the  quantities  required  to  respond  to  a  scenario 
occurring  under  the  assumptions  made  during  the  scenario  design.  To  be  generally  applicable,  the 
scenarios do not focus on national-level response, but focus instead on the response machinery put in 
motion at EU level to support affected MS. 

9 Regulation (EU) 2021/836 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 amending 
Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2021.185.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2021:185:T
OC. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On response capacities specifically, the scenario work has directly contributed to the formulation of the 
latest  ECPP  capacity  goals  published  with  the  most  recent  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU) 
2025/704.  The  scenarios  generated  a  list  of  the  response  capacities  relevant  to  the  large-scale 
emergencies explored in the 10 scenarios. In particular it highlights and confirms three main elements to 
be considered in further response capacity developments. 

First, several capacities can be considered ‘multi-purpose’, meaning that they are deemed relevant for 
response operations in the majority of the scenarios drawn up. These capacities consist of capabilities 
that  responders  can  deploy  in  their  response  operations  to  multiple  emergencies,  or  capabilities  that 
aim  to  support  affected  populations  whose  critical  services  have  been  disrupted.  The  capacities 
identified as ‘multi-purpose’ include emergency power supply, critical infrastructure repair, broadband 
and  secured  communication,  shelter,  transport-related  assets  (e.g.  bridges)  and  medical  support 
capabilities  such  as  emergency  medical  teams,  MEDEVAC  and  medical  stockpiles.  The  ability  of  these 
capacities to provide  support  during many  different disaster scenarios indicates that  developing  these 
types of capacities at EU level in preparation for large-scale events is a cause worth pursuing. 

Second,  while  broadly  deployable  ‘multi-purpose’  capacities  are  one  category  of  capacities  that  the 
scenario initiative highlights for further strengthening at EU level, the scenarios examined also revealed 
certain single-scenario capacities that are also of critical importance. While specialised capacities may 
only be useful during a specific scenario type, their relative specialisation, prohibitive cost or the level of 
preparedness  at  MS  level may  also warrant  the  development  of  single-purpose  capacities  at EU  level. 
The suitability of this development should be explored on a case-by-case basis, as was the case with the 
expansion of specialised medical and CBRN capacities currently under development through the rescEU 
initiative to strengthen the capacities provided by the modules already registered in the ECPP. 

Third,  the  10  disaster  scenarios  developed  also  broadly  highlight  the  need  for  cross-sectoral 
coordination throughout the prevention, preparedness and response phases, particularly in view of the 
increasingly  interconnected  nature  of  risks  and  impacts,  as  discussed  above.  More  specifically,  for 
response  capacities,  this  translates  into  the  need  to  involve  a  broader  range  of  stakeholders, 
particularly  critical  entities,  private  sector  actors,  security  and  defence  stakeholders,  vulnerable 
groups  and,  where  relevant,  non-EU  countries.  Ensuring  operators  of  critical  infrastructure  are  more 
closely  integrated  into  civil  protection  planning  will  encourage  an  increased  risk  awareness  and 
smoother integration into civil protection response measures. Strengthening partnerships with private-
sector actors is expected to support key tasks such as procurement, donations and logistical operations. 
Improved  coordination  between  civil,  security  and  defence  authorities  to  address  disaster  scenarios 
involving  security  or  defence  aspects,  such  as  armed  conflicts  or  terrorist  attacks,  will  be  essential  to 
enabling UCPM response operations to tackle the emerging set of challenges. 

4)  UCPM activations: Learning from experience 

This  document  will  next  analyse  the  operational  UCPM  experience  gathered  by  means  of  the  regular 
lessons-learnt  exercises  based  on  deployments  and  data  from  UCPM  activations  and  operations.  A 
review of the requests for assistance received by the UCPM between 2017 and 2024 confirms the trend 
observed in the overview of risks and the scenario initiative. While the UCPM continues to respond to 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the  types  of  emergencies  it  was  first  primarily  established  for,  the  frequency  and  intensity  of  these 
mostly  natural  events  is  typically  increasing.  However,  at  the  same  time  the  UCPM  has  been 
confronted with a new set of challenge due to additional longer and more complex emergencies such as 
the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. 

a)  Emergencies 2017-2024 

The  data  available  on  the  number  and  type  of  requests  for  assistance  made  to  the  UCPM  reveal  a 
general upward trend over the years. While the period 2017-2019 was roughly in line with the preceding 
years,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  2020  marks  a  significant  increase  in  requests  made  to  the  UCPM, 
which has continued until the present day. As the requests related to COVID-19, primarily consisting of 
medical  assistance  and  consular  support  to  repatriate  citizens  trapped  abroad  during  the  pandemic, 
gradually  decreased  in  2022,  Russia’s  unprovoked  full-scale  invasion  of  Ukraine  began,  with  medical 
assistance  security-related  requests  continuing  to  add  to  the  UCPM’s  workload,  in  addition  to  the 
persisting  challenges  and  requests  for  assistance  related  to  more  traditional  and  common  civil 
protection disaster events. 

Emegencies per Year

161

136

114

101

70

39

38

35

34

38

39

35

39

27

43

46

36

21

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Consular Support

Health emergency

Natural event

Other

Security crisis

Technological event

Figure 4: Emergencies per year measured by number of requests for assistance made to the UCPM 2007-202410 

Closer inspection of the requests for assistance made to the UCPM that relate to natural events reveals 
that  forest  fires  are  consistently  the  main  source  of  requests.  The  only  exception  to  this  trend  is  the 
relatively low number of forest fires experienced in 2020 due to the lockdown restrictions in place at the 
start  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Other  severe  weather  events  and  floods  (as  a  separate  category) 
occupy the second and third place, with earthquakes also remaining a consistent source of requests for 
assistance to the UCPM. 

10 Internal reporting tool: Civil Protection Data repository (CPDR) accessed 02 April 2025. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Events by Type 2017-2024

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2023

2024

2022

Figure 5: Distribution of natural events by type measured in requests for assistance made to UCPM 2017-202411 

A  review  of  the  health-related  requests  to  the  Mechanism  highlights  the  multi-year  strain  that  a 
pandemic such as COVID-19 can place on the UCPM and its stakeholders. These types of emergencies 
are marked by a prolonged timeline spanning several years. Their timelines are in stark contrast to the 
typical  operational  timeline  of  responses  related  to  natural  events  such  as  earthquakes,  floods  and 
forest  fires,  where  the  duration  of  the  typical  response  phase  is  well  below  one  month.  From  an 
operational standpoint, these developments are significant as they  require response mechanisms and 
capacities that can sustain prolonged  engagement during protracted emergencies at times occurring 
concurrently.  With  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  entering  its  fourth  year,  scenarios 
demanding prolonged UCPM engagement are becoming a separate category of activation rather than an 
exception. In line with the above analysis of Europe’s increasingly complex risk and threat landscape and 
the UCPM’s recent operational experiences in complex response scenarios, more comprehensive and/or 
flexible response modalities need to be considered in order to remain effective in offering support and 
at the same time sustain the functioning of the UCPM over longer activation periods in such scenarios. 

11 Internal reporting tool: CPDR accessed 02 April 2025. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Health Emergencies by Type and Year

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Armed conflict

Other

Repatriation

Explosion

Outbreak

Medevac

Pandemic

Shortage of medical supplies

Figure 6: Type of health emergencies per year measured in requests for assistance made to UCPM 2017-202412 

Security Crisis by Type and Year

25

20

15

10

5

0

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Armed conflict

Civil unrest

Medevac

Other

Population displacement

Repatriation

Figure 7: Type of security crisis per year measured in requests for assistance made to UCPM 2017-202413 

b)  Lessons learned 

The  activation  of  the  UCPM  leads  to  a  process of  reviewing  and  learning  from  past  operations,  which 
occurs  either  annually  or  on  specific  subjects,  such  as  the  review  of  the  European  forest  fire  season. 
These  lessons  learned  are  crucial  to  refining  operational  processes  and  enhancing  future  response 
efforts. While many of the lessons are specific to certain capacities, hazards or activations, an analysis of 
existing  lessons-learned documentation also reveals recurring themes that are broadly applicable to 

12 Internal reporting tool: CPDR accessed 02 April 2025. 
13 Internal reporting tool: CPDR accessed 02 April 2025. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the UCPM and could be used to inform capacity development. The period between 2017 and 2024 has 
highlighted certain key policy and strategic insights, particularly focusing on harmonisation, integration 
and flexibility, which could enhance the efficiency of UCPM responses. 

On a policy and strategic level, the improvement of the operational framework is a critical outcome of 
these lessons. Simplifying existing procedures and arrangements for activating and deploying capacities 
while  strengthening  current  initiatives  are  seen  as  essential  steps  towards  increasing  the  overall 
effectiveness of the UCPM. 

At  operational  level,  lessons  suggest  that  self-sufficiency  in  response  capacities  should  be  further 
developed,  particularly  regarding  medical  care  and  communication  tools,  to  ensure  that  response 
teams  are  well-equipped  and  can  operate  seamlessly  and  safely  in  remote  and  difficult  conditions. 
These lessons also underline the importance of strengthening the capabilities of new teams working in 
challenging environments, such as high-temperature conditions. Harmonisation of response capacities, 
such as fire response team sizes and improvements in equipment compatibility, are other examples of 
operational-level recommendations for improved effectiveness. 

Finally, the lessons learned also point to the benefits of remote support and expert deployments when 
direct on-the-ground operations are not feasible. The integration of private capacities into operations 
in specific cases, and the importance of quickly deploying trained personnel for situational assessments 
(e.g.  bridge  inspections  or  wildfire  assessments)  have  also  been  identified  as  potential  avenues  for 
strengthening response operations. 

Other insights include the need for dedicated points for private donations and a focus on anticipation, 
business continuity and prepositioning of resources in order to ensure rapid and efficient responses in 
future  operations.  The  lessons  from  the  ongoing  war  in  Ukraine,  for  instance,  have  increased  the 
understanding of new threats and the need to adapt response capabilities accordingly. 

5)  Evolution of the legal and policy framework regarding UCPM capacities 
Since the publication of the previous capacity gaps report in 2017, the UCPM has undergone a series of 
changes  in  the  form of  legal  revisions  and  updated  implementing  acts.  These  changes  reflect  a  UCPM 
adapting  to  the  changing  risk  and  threat  landscape  and  the  insights  gained  through  activations  and 
initiatives  such  as  the  scenario  work,  as  discussed  above.  The  most  impactful  changes  in  terms  of 
shaping the Mechanism’s response capacity include: 

• 
• 

• 

the introduction of rescEU as the UCPM’s strategic reserve of response capacities; 
the most  recent consolidation of  Implementing Decisions with a  significantly enlarged 
ECPP, including new types of ECPP capacities, revised capacity goals and the inclusion of 
experts as part of the Pool; 
the  definition  of  the  Union  Disaster  Resilience  Goals,  DRG  No 4  specifically  aimed  at 
reinforcing the UCPM’s response capacity in five key areas. 

These  changes  create  new  capabilities  for  the  UCPM  to  deploy  in  support  of MS  and  also  expand the 
mechanism’s  ability  to  follow  an  agreed  path  when  strengthening  its  response  capacity,  while  at  the 
same time tracking its progress. 

19 

 
 
 
 
a)  Introduction of rescEU 

In  its  communication  of  November  201714  following  a  devastating  European  wildfire  season,  the 
Commission  made  the  case  for  an  additional  response  tool  to  strengthen  the  readiness  of  the  UCPM 
when  responding  to  overwhelming  situations.  The  deadly  2017  forest  fires  in  Portugal,  for  which  the 
necessary aerial forest firefighting capacities were not available in time via the ECPP, served as a trigger 
for  developing  EU-level  response  capacities  which  are  not  subject  to  the  availability  of  national 
capacities. 

Decision No 1313/2013/EU was amended in 2019 by Decision (EU) 2019/42015, which introduced rescEU 
as  an  additional  tool  in  the  UCPM’s  response  quiver,  providing  an  additional  layer  of  capacities 
established  at  EU  level.  These  capacities  are  deployed  in  cases  where  existing  capacities  at  national 
level and those pre-committed by MS to the ECPP are not able to respond effectively to a MS/PS request 
for assistance. While hosted within MS/PS, the rescEU capacities are not part of the national response 
capacity and must be available for deployment within the EU upon activation by the Commission. 

Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2019/570  introduced  aerial  forest  firefighting  as  the  first 
rescEU  capacity  to  be  established16.  Additional  capacity  categories  were  introduced  by  means  of 
subsequent  amendments,  resulting  in  13  capacity categories  being  foreseen17  as  of  the  end  of  2024. 
The capacity types provided for in the legislation include: 

•  aerial forest firefighting capacities using airplanes or helicopters; 
•  medical aerial evacuation capacities for disaster victims18 and highly infectious disease patients; 
•  emergency  medical  teams  type  2  (inpatient  surgical  emergency  care)  and  emergency  medical 

• 

• 

team type 3 (inpatient referral care) capacities19; 
stockpiling  of  medical  countermeasures  and/or  personal  protective  equipment  aimed  at 
combating serious cross-border threats to health20; 
chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear  (CBRN)  detection21,  decontamination  and 
stockpiling capacities2223; 
temporary shelter capacities24; 
transport and logistics capacity25; 

• 
• 
•  mobile laboratory capacities26; 
•  emergency energy supply capacities27. 

14 COM/2017/0773 final 
15 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2019/420/OJ 
16 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2019/570/OJ 
17 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2019/570/2022-07-12. 
18 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2019/1930/OJ. 
19 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2022/461/OJ 
20 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2020/414/OJ 
21 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2022/465/OJ 
22 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2021/1886/OJ. 
23 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2022/288/OJ. 
24 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2022/288/OJ 
25 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2022/461/OJ. 
26 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2019/570/2022-07-12 
27 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2022/1198/OJ 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
In  support  of  the  rescEU  capacity  described  above,  Regulation  (EU)  2021/836  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 May  2021  amending  Decision  No 1313/2013/EU  enabled  the 
Commission,  in  extreme  cases  of  urgency,  also  to  directly  acquire  rent,  lease  or  otherwise  contract 
capacities or equipment  by means of implementing acts  adopted under an urgency procedure. While 
the  primary  intention  has  been  to  support  UCPM  deployments  through  the  facilitation  of  pooled 
transport and logistics services, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how the MS could benefit from 
pooled  procurement  of  critical  items  such  as  vaccines  in  times  of  high  global  demand.  This  direct 
procurement  clause  established  the  legal  framework  for  the  Commission  to  act  faster  and  respond 
better to the needs of the MS/PS in times of need. In practice, this mechanism has not been used, as the 
complicated  implementation  procedure  requiring  an  implementing  decision  to  be  adopted  before 
procurement can take place undermines the objective of direct procurement in urgent situations. 

b)  Disaster Resilience Goals 

The  political  commitment  to  further  strengthen  the  UCPM  response  capacity  in  selected  critical  areas 
was further reflected in the new UCPM resilience agenda – the Union Disaster Resilience Goals, adopted 
in 202328. Among these voluntary goals, Goal No 4 ‘Respond’ focuses specifically on the following key 
areas of response capacities29: 

•  Wildfires 
•  Floods 
•  Search and rescue 
•  CBRN events 
•  Emergency health situations. 

The definition of specific objectives under each of these thematic response areas represents a shift from 
the goals defined under the ECPP, focused on the number of response capacities to be available, to an 
overall  performance-based  approach  for  all  response  capacities  available  to  both  ECPP  and  rescEU 
(according  to  their  operational  readiness  at  the  time).  This  performance-based  approach  reflects  the 
progress in capacity development under the UCPM. It was defined as a target for joint capabilities to be 
reached by ECPP and rescEU capacities in each of the above areas to address needs in this specific area 
(e.g. number of patients with basic needs to be treated by emergency medical response capacities under 
the ECPP and rescEU). 

c)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704 

In  parallel  with  building  up  the  new  type  of  rescEU  response  capacities  and  the  work  towards  the 
achieving  the  Disaster  Resilience  Goals  in  the  area  of  civil  protection,  work  was  also  undertaken  to 
considerably  strengthen  the  ECPP.  Adopted  on  10 April  2025,  the  new  Commission  Implementing 
Decision  (EU)  2025/704  introduced  the  first  significant  overhaul  of  the  ECPP  capacity  types  and  the 
corresponding capacity goals since the establishment of the Pool.  

Between  the  previous  report  ‘on  progress  made  and  gaps  remaining  in  the  European  Emergency 
Response  Capacity’  published in February 201730  and the adoption of new Commission Implementing 

28 C (2023) 400 final. 
29 Additionally, temporary shelter, emergency energy supplies and transport were highlighted as areas for 
future attention. 
30 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2017:78:FIN. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Decision  (EU)  2025/704,  the  UCPM  capacity  goals  were  defined  in  Annex  III  of  EU  Implementing 
Decision  2014/762/EU31.  The  annex  entitled  ‘startup  configuration  of  the  EERC  (European  Emergency 
Response  Capacity)’  set  out  the  capacity  goals  for  establishing  a  pre-committed  pool  of  MS  and  PS 
‘Modules and Other Response Capacities’ foreseen for deployment under the UCPM. 

The  revised  capacity  goals  and  the  expansion  of  the  types  of  capacities  specified  in  the  new  ECPP 
configuration  introduced  by  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2025/704  are  the  product  of  a 
several-year-long  consultation  process  between  the  Commission,  MS  and  PS  that  was  enriched  with 
diverse  input,  including  lessons  learned,  the  scenario-building  initiative,  and  broader  risk  assessments 
conducted  at  EU  level.  Changes  to  the  ECCP  include  a  net  increase  from  37  to  50  different  types  of 
response capacities defined, including an increase from 18 to 29 types of modules, a change reflecting 
the  increased  need  for  specialised  response  capacities  during  UCPM  activations.  For  the  majority  of 
existing  modules  defined  in  the  previous  legislation,  the  new  capacity  goals  reflect  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  capacities  to  be  registered  to  the  Pool32.  The  newly-revised  Implementing  Decision  also 
defines how experts can be registered in the ECPP. 

6)  Measuring Progress: Disaster Resilience Goal No 4 and ECPP Capacity Goals 
With  the  common  objective  of  strengthening  the  UCPM’s  response  capacity,  both  DRG  No 4  and  the 
ECPP capacity goals aim to provide  guidance on the capacity gaps to be  addressed by the UPCM. The 
capacity  goals  lay  out  an  ideal  configuration  for  the  ECPP,  composed  of  MS  response  capacities  and 
experts,  which  are  established  according  to  the  minimum  requirements  specified  in  the  relevant 
legislation. DRG No 4 provides overall capability targets across all UCPM capacities and provides areas to 
focus  capacity  development  on  collectively.  Both  sets  of  goals  are  closely  linked,  with  the  capacities 
registered in the ECPP directly counting towards the performance targets laid out in DRG No 4. 

a)  ECPP Capacity Goals 

The table in annex 1 compares the currently (as of the end of 2024) registered Modules in the ECPP to 
the former Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU and current capacity goals Commission Implementing 
Decision (EU) 2025/704, while indicating the level of completion of the respective capacity goal in per 
cent. 

For each type of ECPP capacity, the capacity gap is defined as the difference between Member States’ 
registered capacities in the ECPP and the capacity goal33. However, in the assessment, it can be relevant 
to factor in response capacities that have been formally committed to the ECPP, but not  yet certified, 
and hence not yet registered in the ECPP. 

As a result of the recent modifications to the ECPP capacity goals, the Pool coverage of the goals must 
be viewed within the correct context, comparing current goal gaps with previous goal gaps and taking 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  ECPP  is  now  in  a  catch-up  phase  in  terms  of  meeting  the  newly-agreed 
capacity goals. 

Despite this state of flux, persistent trends in capacity gaps can be identified where individual capacity 
did not meet the capacity gaps of the old and new capacity goals. 

31 http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2014/762/OJ 
32 Annex III, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704. 
33 Article 21, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Wildfire  extinction  capacities  involving  ground  teams  are  well  represented  in  the  ECPP,  while  in  the 
case of aerial extinction, helicopter-based modules are still completely absent. Certain types of medical 
capacities  pose  a  particular  challenge  for  the  Pool.  Of  the  four  EMT  categories  specified  in  the  goals, 
currently  only  the  EMT  two  capacity  surpasses  the  30%  completion  mark  (83.3%).  MEDEVAC  and 
MEDEVAC of highly infectious patients also represents a consistent gap for the ECPP. For CBRN response 
capacities,  taking  account of  those  under  certification,  and while  the  need  for  specialised  capacity  for 
CBRN  scenarios  has  increased  following  the  results  of  the  scenario  initiative,  the  capacity  goals  are 
broadly  met.  The  ECPP  is  well-equipped  with  water-related  response  capacities  to  respond  to  floods. 
This  is  also  the  case  with  search  and  rescue  (SAR)  capacities,  though  more  CBRN,  mountain,  cave  or 
water SAR teams are needed. More response capacities should be committed to the ECPP to respond to 
maritime,  coastal  and  inland  waters  pollution  incidents.  The  ECPP  has  enough  registered  TASTs 
(technical  assistance  and  support  teams)  to  support  the  operations  of  EU  Civil  Protection  Teams 
(EUCPTs). 

The definition of new module types and the increased quantities for many of the existing module types 
highlight the newly identified needs for infrastructure-related capacities such as bridges and electricity 
generation, as well as the clear need for logistics and transport capacities. 

Search  and  rescue  capacity  needs  are  undergoing  a  fundamental  shift.  While  Heavy  USAR  teams 
continue to be featured in the Pool as a standard response capacity in large earthquakes, the previous 
MUSAR capacity  goal  has been  cut  back  in  favour  of  lighter  and  more  easily  deployed  LUSAR  teams. 
The  new  capacity  goals  also  highlight  the  need  to  have  specialised  SAR  capacities  available  for 
deployments. 

b)  DRG Nr.4: Progress across all UCPM Capacities 

The  DRGs  were  introduced  during  a  very  dynamic  time  for  the  UCPM,  when  it  was  grappling 
simultaneously  with  the  aftermath  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine. These factors contributed significantly to the UCPM’s ability to reinforce its response capacities 
using the existing legal framework provided by Decision No 1313/2013/EU. Additional funding to finance 
this expansion was made available due to the large-scale crises to be addressed in Europe. As a result, a 
significant portion of the capability goals contained in the DRG are in the process of being covered by 
capacities that are currently under development, as indicated in the table below. 

Goals 

DRG Status 

Disaster Resilience Goal 
No 4 
4.1 Wildfire response34 
Aerial Forest 
Firefighting (A-FFF): 
Simultaneously respond 
to needs in 5 MS 
(duration 1-7 days) 

Annually procured 
transition rescEU 
covered goal during 
2024 fire season 

ECPP 

Capacities 
rescEU 

2 A-FFF Planes 
registered 

2024 FF season: 4x A-
FFF Helicopters, 24 
AFFF Planes 

34 EUR-Lex - 32023.0215(01) - EN - EUR-Lex 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ground Forest 
Firefighting (GFFF): 
Simultaneously respond 
to  
needs 4 MS 
Firefighting advisory 
and  
assessment teams: 2 
simultaneous requests 
for assistance 

Simultaneous 
deployment covered 
through ECPP 

5 GFFF, 9 GFFF-
Vehicle Modules 
registered 

1 FAST registered 
in ECPP 

1 FAST registered, 
forest fire expert 
profile created 

There  has been an intense focus on wildfire  response  within the UCPM. The annually reoccurring and 
persistent threat of wildfire is no longer a subject of concern reserved for the traditionally dryer regions 
of Europe. As Europe grapples with the changing climate, wildfire response has become the posterchild 
of the UCPM’s response capacity. Ground-based wildfire capacity and a portion of the aerial component 
of DRG 4.1 has been covered through MS/PS commitments to the ECPP. The bulk of aerial extinction has 
most  recently been covered through heavy EU investment in transition rescEU capacities to cover the 
annual wildfire season (green cells under ECPP column heading). rescEU made 24 aircraft available for 
MS to call upon during the 2024 wildfire season, the majority of which were deployed to MS/PS (green 
cell  under  rescEU  column heading).  Contingent  on  the  continued  availability of  transition  rescEU  for 
future seasons until the permanent fleet is established, the UCPM has been able to meet the bulk of 
DRG 4.1. 

The  UCPM  is  still  lagging  behind  in  achieving  the  capability  to  simultaneously  deploy  two  firefighting 
advisory teams, with only one being registered in the ECPP (orange cell under ECPP column heading) and 
rescEU not contributing any (grey cells under rescEU column heading). 

Goals 

Disaster Resilience Goal 
No 4 
4.2 Flood response35 
High-Capacity Pumps 
(HCP): Simultaneously 
respond to  
needs in 3 MS 
HCP: total capability to 
pump at least 20 000 
m3 water/hour 
Capable of ensuring 
flood containment, 
waste management, 
dam assessment and 
search and rescue 

DRG Status 

Capacities 
ECPP 

rescEU 

Simultaneous 
deployment 
covered through 
ECPP 
Pumping capacity 
95% reached 
through the ECPP 
Capacities except 
for dedicated waste 
management, dam 
assessment 
capacities available 

16 registered HCP 
Modules + 1 extreme 
HCP registered 

16 registered HCP 
Modules + 1 extreme 
HCP registered 
4 flood rescue 
modules using boats, 
2 Flood containment, 
1 structural 
engineering team 

35 EUR-Lex - 32023.0215(01) - EN - EUR-Lex 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
operations in a flood 
situation 

through ECPP 

registered, waste 
management, dam 
assessment expert 
profile created 

Of natural hazards, floods are the second most frequent source of requests for assistance to the UCPM. 
Sufficient  countries  have  registered  high-capacity  pumping  (HCP)  Modules  with  the  ECPP  to  cover  the 
theoretical pumping needs of DRG 4.2. (green cells under ECPP). An increase in pluvial flooding tied to 
severe  weather  events  is  changing  the  picture  for  floods  in  Europe,  with  a  corresponding  impact  on 
flood  response  capacity  needs.  While  high-capacity  pump  (HCP)  Modules  remain  an  important  asset 
during fluvial flooding that affects slower-moving larger rivers, the intensity and speed associated with 
flash floods leaves responders with no means to effectively combat the flood itself. Response operations 
tend to focus on search and rescue, as well as recovery operations, after the flood wave has passed. The 
ECPP is still lacking several of the relevant capacities for these types of operations, although the need 
for expertise has clearly been identified in the new capacity goals (orange cells under ECPP). No rescEU 
capacities are foreseen for flood response (grey cells). 

Goals 

DRG Status 

Disaster Resilience 
Goal No 4 
4.3 Search and Rescue response36 
Goal covered 
Search and Rescue 
through ECPP 
response (SAR): 
registrations 
Simultaneously 
respond to  
needs in 4 MS 
including Medium 
Urban Search and 
Rescue (USAR) and 
Heavy Search and 
Rescue (HUSAR) 
in different 
environments and 
types of  
disasters 

1 MUSAR module 
for cold conditions, 
0 Modules for 
CBRN conditions 
registered 
2 mountain SAR 
module, 2 cave 
SAR Modules 
registered in ECPP 
1 structural 
engineering team 
registered in ECPP 

specific mountain and 
cave search and 
rescue operations 

experts in the areas of 
volcanology, 
seismology, dam 

Capacities 
ECPP 

rescEU 

17 USAR Modules 
registered 

1 MUSAR module for 
cold conditions  

1 mountain SAR 
module, 2 cave SAR 
Modules registered in 
ECPP 
1 structural 
engineering team 
registered, 

36 EUR-Lex - 32023.0215(01) - EN - EUR-Lex 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
assessment and 
structural engineering 

vulcanology, 
structural engineering 
and dam assessment 
expert profile created  

Urban  search  and  rescue  (USAR)  capacities  are  typically  one  of  the  first  capacities  national  systems 
develop  for  international deployment.  As  a  result,  USAR  capacities  have  been well  represented  in  the 
ECPP. A total of 17 light, heavy and medium USAR capacities registered to the Pool enable the UCPM to 
cover  the  several  simultaneous  deployments  foreseen  by  DRG  4.3  (green  cells  under  ECPP  column). 
Specialised  search  and  rescue  capacities  are  underrepresented  in  the  ECPP.  One  registered  medium 
search and rescue (MUSAR) team in cold conditions, two cave SAR teams and one mountain SAR team 
make  up  the  entirety  of  the  specialised  SAR  capacities  in  the  Pool.  The  other  listed  capacities  and 
expertise are completely vacant (orange cells under ECPP column). No rescEU capacities are foreseen for 
SAR response (grey cells). 

Goals 

Disaster Resilience Goal 
No 4 
4.4 CBRN response37 
CBRN 
Decontamination: 
Simultaneously respond 
to needs in 3 MS to 
decontaminate; 
500 persons, 

50 injured persons,  

15 000 m2 of outdoor 
surfaces, and 200 m2 of 
indoor surfaces per 
hour 

DRG Status 

Capacities 
ECPP 

rescEU 

3 CRBN 
decontamination 
capacities under 
development 

Currently only one 
capacity can be 
deployed  

overall 
decontamination 
capacity covered by 
ECPP registered 
module, but limited 
to single response 
unit  

1 CBRN 
decontamination 
module registered, 
CBRN expert 
profile created 
registered module 
decontamination 
capacity 11 760 
(70/hr.*7days)  
registered module 
decontamination 
capacity 
(10/hr.*7days)  
registered module: 
16 000 m² terrain or 
roads per hour 
1 000 m²  

CBRN  is  another  area  where  a  blended  approach  between  national capacities committed to the  ECPP 
and EU-funded rescEU capacities will cover the performance goals set in DRG 4.4. While the registered 
CBRN capacity in the ECPP can theoretically cover the overall decontamination targets (green cells under 
ECPP), a single capacity cannot be expected to deploy to multiple MS simultaneously, limiting the impact 

37 EUR-Lex - 32023.0215(01) - EN - EUR-Lex 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
of  the  available  CBRN  capacities  in  the  UCPM  (orange  cells  under  ECPP).  A  significant  investment  in 
CBRN decontamination capacities is underway through the rescEU initiative (yellow cells under rescEU). 
After its completion, rescEU with 3 CBRN decontamination capacities and the existing ECPP capacity 
combined will meet the minimum requirements established under DRG 4.4. to address defined basic 
CBRN needs in three countries simultaneously. 

Goals 

Goal covered 
trough ECPP 
registrations  

Goal covered 
trough ECPP 
registrations  

Goal covered 
trough ECPP 
registrations  

DRG Status 

Disaster Resilience Goal 
No 4 
4.5 emergency health response38 
Simultaneously respond 
to  
needs in 3 MS: treat 
total of 800 outpatients 
per day 
via Emergency medical 
team type 1 (EMT1): 
Outpatient emergency 
care Modules, establish 
operating theatres for a 
total of 60 inpatients, 
via Emergency medical 
team type 2 (EMT2): 
Inpatient surgical 
emergency Modules 
including minimum 45 
minor surgical 
operations a day for two 
weeks 
Medical Evacuation 
(MEDEVAC): 
Simultaneously respond 
to  
needs in 5 MS 
including; 
total capacity of 24 
intensive care patients, 
200 non-intensive care 
patients a day 
6 highly infectious 
disease patients a day 
Mobile Laboratory: 
Simultaneously respond 
to  
needs in 3 MS 

Goals only partially 
covered through a 
combination of 
ECPP and rescEU 
capacity available 
and foreseen 

ECPP can cover the 
sampling capacity, 
single capacity 
cannot deploy to 

Capacities 
ECPP 

rescEU 

3 EMT 2s + 18 
specialised care team 
capacity under 
development for 
modular deployment of 
specific capabilities such 
as burn rapid response 
teams, dialysis for 
chronic care patients 
and a specialised cell for 
oxygen supply  

9 EMT Modules 
registered in ECPP 

4 EMT 1 Modules 
registered 

5 EMT 2 Modules 
registered with a 
daily surgical 
capacity of 35/day 

1 Medical evacuation 
capacity available 

2 Medical 
evacuation 
capacities 
undergoing 
certification process 

1 Mobile biosafety 
laboratory capacity 
registered 

3 CBRN detection 
capacities under 
development with 
laboratory components  

38 EUR-Lex - 32023.0215(01) - EN - EUR-Lex 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
including; with a total 
capacity of 150 samples 
a day for a maximum 
period of 14 days 
Access to critical 
medical 
countermeasures 
Experts/reach back 
expertise: provide 
specific public health  
and epidemiological 
advice  

three requests 
simultaneously 

Goal covered 
through rescEU 

Existing pool of 
health experts 
reinforced through 
the establishment of 
EUHTF with ECDC. 

New expert 
category of health 
experts defined 
under the revised 
ECPP 

Stockpiles of medical 
devices, therapeutics 
and PPE established 
3 EMT 2s + 18 
specialised care teams 
(including public health) 
capacity under 
development for 
modular deployment 

Health coordinator, 
epidemiology/public 
health expert 
profiles created, EU 
Health Task Force 
established in 
conjunction with 
ECDC 

The  UCPM’s  capability  to  support  emergency  health  response  operations  is  provided  through  a 
combination of MS capacities registered to the ECPP and existing rescEU capacities. A significant portion 
of the envisioned capacities under rescEU are still under development. While the EMTs registered in the 
ECPP  are  able  to  cover  the  number  of  simultaneous  deployments  and  the  associated  performance 
targets  under  DRG  4.5  (green  cells  under  ECPP),  scenario  initiative  outputs  and  experiences  gained 
during recent activations have not only demonstrated a need for a further increase  in EMT capacities, 
but also the need for specialised care teams that can be deployed in conjunction with EMTs to provide 
more specialised care corresponding to the disaster scenario in question. These expanded needs will be 
covered through the 3 EMT2 and the specialised care teams under development within rescEU (yellow 
cells under rescEU). 

MEDEVAC  and  MEDEVAC  of  highly  infectious  patients  represent  a  key  capacity  gap  in  the  UCPM. 
Without any completed registration of relevant capacities in the ECPP (orange cell under ECPP), only the 
single MEDEVAC capacity established under rescEU currently contributes towards meeting this aspect of 
DRG  4.5  (orange  cell  under  rescEU).  The  UCPM  is  not  currently  developing  any  additional  MEDEVAC 
capacities through rescEU to close the persistent gap in MEDEVAC capability. Even counting the 2 ECPP 
Modules undergoing the certification process, the UCPM falls short of the MEDEVAC capacity deemed 
necessary by the DRG. 

A further gap in the medical response capacity are the mobile laboratories, of which there is only one 
registered  to  the  ECPP  (orange  cell  under  ECPP).  While  the  CBRN  detection  capacities  under 
development  under  rescEU  will  be  able  to  contribute  some  laboratory  capacity  towards  this 
performance  goal,  these  laboratory  components  are  not  specialised  for  medical  response  operations 
(yellow cell under rescEU). 

Medical stockpiles are entirely covered by rescEU (green cell under rescEU), with experiences during the 
COVID-19 pandemic resulting in significant budgetary resources (EUR 1.65 billion) being made available 
for relevant stockpiling. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Access  to  health  experts  is  being  mainly  provided  through  cooperation  between  the  UCPM  and  the 
ECDC within the EU Health Task Force, which enables health experts from across the EU to be deployed 
using  the  UCPM’s  expert  deployment  infrastructure  (green  cell  under  ECPP),  while  the  newly  defined 
health expert categories under the ECPP and the public health component of the specialised care teams 
under  development  through  the  rescEU  EMT  are  also  expected  to  facilitate  access  to  appropriate 
expertise (yellow cell under rescEU). 

7)  Overview of response capacity resources 
a)  European civil response capacity (ECPP) 

As of the end of 2024, a total of 101 capacities have been registered in the Pool, with an additional 47 
capacities offered but still undergoing the certification and registration procedure to be fully committed 
to the ECPP. This snapshot is  in line with the overall positive trend  in  ECPP registrations  over recent 
years. 

At any given point, there is a stock of capacities formally offered to the Pool but not yet registered, as 
the  time  needed  to  complete  the  certification  and  registration  procedure  depends  on  a  multitude  of 
factors. The certification procedure is regulated by the  ‘Certification and Registration guidelines’ and 
includes  the  formal  application,  a  consultative  visit  by  Commission  experts,  and  participation  in 
exercises39.  The  average  duration  of  the  certification  procedure  cannot  be  used  as  a  metric  to  define 
registration  efficiency  as  the  completion  of  the  procedure  depends  on  numerous  factors  and  varies 
significantly between capacity types. The current number of offered capacities undergoing certification 
does  not  differ  significantly  from  that  of  previous  years  and  reflects  the  status  quo  of  a  functioning 
system over the years. 

109

78

110

78

124

86

139

98

129

93

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
01-01-21

01-01-22

01-01-23

01-01-24

Offered

Registered

Figure 8: ECPP offers and registrations between 2021 and 2024 

After the 5-year certification period, the first batch of 23 ECPP capacities were due for re-certification in 
2023. All 23 capacities complied with the re-certification requirements and were issued with a renewed 

39 Certification Guidelines - November 2023.pdf 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5-year ECPP certificate enabling them to remain registered in the ECPP. If the currently registered ECPP 
capacities  extend  their  status,  the  ECPP  planning  indicates  a  significant  increase  in  re-certifications 
over the coming years, with a peak in re-certification requests expected in 2028. These procedures will 
have  implications  on  the  continued  need  for  UCPM  exercises  to  support  the  certification  process.  An 
efficient  certification  and  re-certification  process  fine-tuned  to  ensure  quality  while  minimising  the 
administrative burden for the capacities offered is also essential to maintaining a deployable ECPP. 

i.  Status of ECPP 

With the recent adoption of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704 and the included update 
of  the  ECPP  capacity  goals,  a  significant  number  of  the  capacity  goals  currently  not  covered  by 
corresponding ECPP registrations are related to the overall expansion of the desired ECPP configuration. 
MS/PS  are  still  in  the  process  of  offering  and  registering  capacities  in  accordance  with  the  previous 
capacity  goals.  With  the  process  from  offering  to  registration  taking  between  several  months  and 
multiple  years,  the  newly  created  goals  will  take  time  to  be  achieved.  Nonetheless,  a  consistent 
imbalance  in  registered  capacities  could  already  be  observed  before  the  new  implementing  act,  with 
some  persistent  shortages  and  over-representations  of  registered  capacities  in  the  pool.  The 
introduction  of  the  ECPP  in  its  initial  configuration  in  2014,  and  the  subsequent  commitment  of 
capacities by MS/PS, have served to create a standing response reserve primed for a coordinated and 
efficient  UCPM  deployment,  while  also  strengthening  national  preparedness. These  systemic  benefits 
also  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  individual  capacities  and  their  staff  through  opportunities  to  work 
together  with  other  modules,  while  exchanging  good  practices  and  experiences.  Participation  in 
exercises,  workshops,  training  courses  and  exchanges  have  contributed  to  the  interoperability  of 
capacities, while establishing a network of response personnel from throughout the MS/PS who have a 
common understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the context of UCPM deployment. This has 
profound implications for the interoperability of UCPM deployed response capacities beyond the ECPP, 
as well as a net positive effect on the national preparedness of the offering country. This effect has been 
documented  via  the  interviews  conducted  in  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  UCPM  2017-202240. 
Registered ECPP capacities often act  as a reference  capacity specialised for international  deployments 
within a given national civil protection system. 

The map below illustrates the geographical distribution of the capacities registered to the ECPP, showing 
broad MS engagement in the initiative, with only very few countries not participating. 

40 Interim Evaluation of the implementation of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection 
Mechanism, 2017-2022 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Geographical distribution of response capacities registered to the ECPP as of February 2025 

ii.  Deployments 

Since its introduction, the ECPP has constituted a significant portion of the capacities deployed through 
the  Mechanism.  Between  2017  and  2024,  ECPP  deployments  represented  roughly  23%  of  deployed 
capacities (excluding in-kind assistance), despite rescEU being introduced as a new capacity type within 
the time period. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Deployments of capacites by type

18

62

32

38

21

47

13

15

1

40

7

8

15

11
9

6
8

4
9
8

29

10

18

26

7
8

63

9
11

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Classic

ECPP

rescEU

Prepositionned GFFF/V

Figure 10: Distribution of deployed capacity categories 2014-202441 

Although  the  overall  quantities  are  too  small  to  infer  statistical  trends,  an  overview  of  the  deployed 
ECPP  capacities  between  2017  and  2023  provides  a  snapshot  of  the  most  frequently  deployed 
capacities.  Grouping  the  deployed  capacities  by  primary  purpose  shows  that  certain  capacities, 
especially those focusing on forest fire response, are generally deployed each year. This correlates with 
the reoccurring forest fire season experienced in Europe and the significant commitment in specialised 
resources a response requires. 

Numerical analysis of capacity deployments in response to reoccurring events is not a reliable predictor 
of  future  needs.  The  2020  port  explosion  in  Beirut  and  the  earthquake  in  Türkiye  and  Syria  in  2023 
demonstrated how sudden-onset non-seasonal events can dramatically alter the deployment statistics 
for  a  given  period.  While  wildfire-related  capacity  made  up  the  majority  of  the  ECPP  deployments 
between 2017 and 2024, in part due to one of the worst wildfire seasons in Europe42, SAR deployments 
come  in  a  close  second  as  a  result  of  two  singular  events.  This  highlights  the  need  for  systems  to 
prepare both for seasonal hazards and for infrequent sudden-onset events. 

41 Internal reporting document European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP) Snapshot report 2023. 
42 JRC Publications Repository - Advance Report on Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 
2022 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ECPP Deployment per Capacity Area 2017-2024

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Forest Fires

Floods

Medical

USAR

Mission Support

Population Support

Figure 11: ECPP capacity deployments grouped by primary task/function 2017-2023 

iii.  Budget of ECPP 

While the financial burden of establishing and maintaining an ECPP capacity falls on the MS/PS offering 
the capacity, MS/PS can apply for adaptation grants that support their efforts in upgrading or repairing 
existing national capacities to enhance their readiness for international response operations. 

From 2017 to 2024, approximately EUR 33 million have been awarded to MS/PS in the  form of ECPP 
adaptation  grants  for  the  adaptation  of  response  capacities,  the  average  annual  expenditure  being 
around  EUR 4  million.  To  improve  transparency  and  optimise  grant  management,  in  2019  the 
Commission moved from a rolling call for grant proposals to a single annual call for adaptation grants. 
This  approach  requires  all  proposals  for  a  given  year  to  be  submitted  by  one  deadline,  enabling  the 
award  process  to  better  allocate  budget  to  the  ECPP’s  priority  areas.  There  was  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  requests  for  adaptation  grants  during  the  year  following  this  change  to  the  application 
procedure. 

The  value  of  these  grants  does  not  represent  the  full  amount  actually  committed  to  the  response 
capacity offered to the UCPM. Each grant only accounts for a fraction of the actual cost of developing 
and maintaining an ECPP capacity, with the bulk of the cost being borne by the MS/PS committing the 
capacity  to  the  ECPP.  In  accordance  with  Decision  No 1313/2013/EU,  75%  of  the  costs  related  to 
adaptation,  such  as  interoperability,  self-sufficiency  and  transportability,  are  eligible  for  adaptation 
grants  and,  in  the  case  of  an  upgrade,  the  EU  contribution  cannot  exceed  50%  of  the  capacity’s 
development costs. Every euro spent on strengthening the ECPP through adaptation grants generates a 
higher net benefit for the UCPM, as it is backed by a much larger MS/PS commitment to EU solidarity. 

During UCPM activations, capacities registered to the ECPP can benefit from a co-financing rate of up to 
75%  for  their  transport  and  operations,  while  non-registered  capacities  can  only  co-finance  their 
transport through the UCPM. The costs associated with the co-financing of ECPP capacity operations 
form part of the response costs covered by the European Commission under the UCPM response. The 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
expansion of eligible co-financing to include operational costs for ECPP capacities encourages MS/PS to 
register capacities in the ECPP, thereby strengthening the UCPM’s overall response capacity. 

Total amounts of ECPP adaptation grants 2017-2024

6,40     

5,20     

4,80     

5,30     

3,60     

3,60     

3,10     

0,60     

 7,00

 6,00

 5,00

 4,00

 3,00

 2,00

 1,00

 -

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Figure 12: Annual ECPP adaptation grants expenditure 2017-2024 

b)  Experts 

Experts deployed by MS/PS to provide a country with expertise before, during or after an emergency are 
another  capacity type  the UCPM  can  deploy  upon  request.  As  a  result  of the  latest  Implementing  Act 
passed in April 2025, it will be possible to register experts as a separate capacity type in the ECPP. 

Expert teams are typically deployed as ‘EU Civil Protection Teams’ to liaise between the authorities of 
the affected countries and the UCPM response capacities arriving to assist them. However, experts are 
also increasingly deployed on their own in the form of advisory missions, with technical experts being 
selected  for  deployments  due  to  their  subject-specific  knowledge.  Missions  focusing  on  technical 
expertise rather than the coordination of incoming assistance lend themselves for deployment during all 
phases of the disaster management cycle. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l

s
t
r
e
p
x
e
d
e
y
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Number of deployed experts by year

138

76

83

72

47

33

40

15

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Year

Figure 13 Annually deployed experts through the UCPM 

The  demand  for  experts  is  closely  linked  to  broader  deployments  of  UCPM  capacities  and  shows  a 
generally  upwards  trend,  as  illustrated  in  the  graph  above,  while  the  versatility  of  additional  advisory 
missions contributes to the overall demand for UCPM experts. 

An  analysis  of  the  distribution  of  the  roles  of  deployed  expert  reveals  that  well  over  half  of  the 
deployed experts are technical experts, with requests for forest fire, CBRN, USAR and geological experts 
being particularly frequent. Roles such as team leader, operations, safety and security and information 
management  experts  fall  into  the  category  of  experts  typically  deployed  to  coordinate  larger  UCPM 
deployments. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UCPM Experts by role 2017-2024 

12

30

84

13

6

8

6

24

8

8

3

10

22

5

22

Civil engineer

Environmental

Forest fire behaviour

Geologist/volcanologist

Health coordination

Logistics

Nuclear expert/CBRN

Operations

Safety and security

TAST

USAR

WASH

Waste management

Other technical expert

Core EUCPT function

Figure 14: Distribution of roles for the 261 experts deployed through the UCPM 2017-2024 

As a result of this demand for technical experts that can  be deployed in support of UPCM activations, 
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704 not only expands the Pool of experts as a separate 
capacity type, but also identifies 16 types of technical experts, enabling MS to register technical expert 
capacity, resulting in greater efficiency during future deployments. The 16 expert types are grouped into 
five  clusters:  environmental  cluster,  health/CBRN  cluster,  horizontal  cluster,  geological  cluster  and 
shelter cluster 

c)  rescEU 

rescEU  represents  a major  shift  in  how  the  UCPM supports MS  during  large-scale  emergencies.  While 
the  basis  of  the  UCPM  response  is  still  based  on  MS  solidarity,  with  national-level  capacities  being 
offered  to  help  neighbouring  countries  in  need,  the  UCPM  and  its  stakeholders  have  recognised  the 
added  value  of  strategic-level  capacities  that  can  provide  assistance  to  MS  on  a  scale  that  surpasses 
reasonable national preparedness measures. 

The  deployment  history  of  established  rescEU  capacities  confirms  the  need  for  EU-level  capacities, 
with every rescEU capacity created being deployed within one year of its establishment. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
i.  Status of rescEU 

Aerial  forest  firefighting  was  the  first  rescEU  capacity  to  be  established.  While  negotiations  began  to 
purchase  12  Canadair  515  aircraft  as  part  of  a  permanent  aerial  firefighting  fleet,  transition  rescEU 
capacities were established to meet the immediate seasonal needs of the UCPM until the establishment 
of  the  permanent  fleet  was  completed.  Since  2019,  preparations  for  the  annual  forest  fire  season  in 
Europe  include  making  aerial  extinction  means  available  through  a  transitional  rescEU  capacity.  The 
number of  fixed-wing  and rotary  aircraft  foreseen  for  the  fire  season  began  with  two  aircraft  in 2019 
and  most  recently  increased  to  a  total  of  28  aircraft  hired  for  the  2024  season.  This  arrangement 
enabled the UCPM to fully meet the performance targets set in DRG Nr. 4 for the duration of the 2024 
forest fire season. 

Figure 15: Distribution of transition rescEU established for the 2024 forest fire season 

Further progress on the establishment of rescEU capacities was driven in particular by the recent large-
scale  crises  affecting  Europe.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  finally  resulted  in  budgetary  allocations  being 
made available to establish medical and CBRN capacities. Funding  for the UCPM enabled the strategic 
CBRN and medical stockpiles to be established, including PPE, therapeutics, medical devices, and CBRN 
decontamination and monitoring supplies. The medical response capacity of the UCPM has been further 
reinforced through the creation of one MEDEVAC capacity able to transport highly infectious patients. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  had  a  similar  effect  on  the  funding  and  establishment  of 
rescEU capacities. The acquisition of shelter stockpiles, including tents, beds and other related items to 
support  displaced  persons  was  reinforced.  Two  stockpiles  of  generators  for  emergency  energy 
generation were also established, ranging from a large number of household-sized generators to large 
generators with capacities above 100kVA to supply electricity to critical infrastructure such as hospitals 
and pumping stations. 

The  ongoing  development  of  additional  rescEU  capacities  includes  the  establishment  of  permanent 
aerial  firefighting  capacities  to  replace  the  transition  rescEU  arrangements,  with  a  total  of  19  aircraft 
being financed through the EU. 

Figure 16: Illustrations of aerial extinction aircraft being procured under the rescEU initiative 

The medical and CBRN capacity  and the shelter capacity of the  UCPM is being  further  reinforced with 
additional  stockpiles,  particularly  focusing  on  water  sanitation  and  hygiene  (WASH),  CBRN  detection, 
monitoring  and  decontamination  supplies,  and  PPE  and  therapeutics.  Beyond  stockpiles,  the 
establishment of three EMT2 teams with additional specialised care teams will provide the capability to 
simultaneously deploy medical care to multiple emergencies using a modular approach to supplement 
EMT2  deployments  with  key  specialisations  including  burn  rapid  response  teams,  mother  and  child 
specialised care  teams,  and  a  specialised  ICU  cell.  CBRN  detection,  sampling  and  monitoring  response 
capacities  will  also  provide  the  capability  to  deploy  technical  expertise  and  equipment  as  a  rescEU 
capacity,  beyond  simple  access  to  stockpiled  materials.  The  UCPM’s  response  capacity  will  be  further 
reinforced  through  the  acquisition  of  two  aircraft  to  support  transport  and  logistics,  as  well  as  a 
dedicated medical evacuation plane, during a variety of UCPM activation scenarios. 

As  of  2024,  the  majority  of  MS/PS  have  participated  in  the  rescEU  initiative,  in  most  cases  hosting 
several capacities. This broad approach aims to establish a geographical distribution providing regional 
coverage by the most relevant response capacities, where possible. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17: distribution of rescEU capacities available and under development as of 2024 

ii.  Deployments 

The deployment of every rescEU capacity within one year of its establishment highlights the added value 
of  investing  in  EU-level  response  capacities  to  support  MS  during  extreme  emergencies.  These 
investments  do  not  call  into  question  the  level  of  national  preparedness  in  MS,  but  rather  provide  a 
complement to national preparedness in instances where the relevant type of capacity or the scale of 
the need is more efficiently covered at European level. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
rescEU Activations per Capacity Type 2019-2024

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aerial Forest Fire Capacites
Energy Capacites
Strategic Stockpiles
Transport and Logistics

Figure 18: rescEU activations by Capacity Type 

Energy and Medical Donation Hubs
MEDEVAC
Shelter Capabilites

Aerial forest fire extinction has been the most consistently and significantly deployed rescue capacity 
in  the  231  rescEU  activations  that  took  place  between  2019  and  2024.  This  regularity  is  due  to  the 
seasonally reoccurring forest fire risk in Europe. While most of the deployments occur in the dryer and 
warmer parts of Europe where forest fires have traditionally been a problem, it is notable that countries 
outside of those areas have  also drawn upon EU-level capacity in times of need  as the  risk  threat has 
shifted towards other areas of the continent. 

Strategic  stockpiles  were  heavily  drawn  upon  during  both  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  Russia’s 
continued  war  of  aggression  against  the  Ukraine.  The  items  released  included  PPE,  medical  devices, 
therapeutics,  and  shelter  items  and  generators.  The  earthquake  in  Türkiye  and  Syria  in  2023  and  the 
storm endured by Ireland in 2025 also highlighted the versatility of the stockpiles, as shelter materials 
were distributed to Türkiye and generators to Ireland following requests for assistance to complement 
national  response  efforts.  While  Figure  18  shows  a  relatively  high  number  of  strategic  stockpile 
activations, it should  be noted that the  graph  shows the number of instances of deployment, without 
considering  the  value  or  size  of  each  activation.  This  partially  accounts  for  the  overall  over-
representation of stockpile deployments when compared to other more  complex rescEU deployments, 
such as the deployment of aerial forest fire capacities. 

To support the ‘Stand Up for Ukraine’ campaign in March 2022, the UCPM, via rescEU, strengthened its 
cooperation with the private sector and third countries to deliver additional donations from across the 
EU  and  abroad.  In  March  2022,  the  EU  established  a  ‘rescEU  medical  hub’,  tasked  with  channelling 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
donations of medicines, medical equipment and CBRN assistance. In December of the same year, the EU 
established a ‘rescEU energy hub’ to support Ukraine in delivering critical energy assistance to provide 
basic energy supplies and to help the country repair its energy infrastructure. The hub channels energy 
items such as generators and high-voltage equipment from private donors and third countries, but also 
serves to streamline the delivery of thousands of generators from the rescEU strategic energy reserves 
developed  to  support  Ukraine’s  energy  sector. These  hubs  are  in  addition  to the  UCPM  logistics  hubs 
that centralise the national assistance sent by MS and PS. 

As of the end of 2024, the donation hubs have served to channel over EUR 10 million in assistance to the 
authorities  in  Ukraine.  Over  90%  of  this  aid  originated  from  the  private  sector,  demonstrating  the 
potential  of  the  hubs  to  expand  aid  beyond  in-kind  assistance  made  available  through  MS 
governments. The establishment of the donation hubs opened the door for the private sector to  help 
meet the needs in Ukraine, while avoiding the establishment of parallel channels. The hubs also support 
donating entities with vetted information on needs, existing logistics channels, as well as the assurance 
that aid will reach the relevant authorities in Ukraine. MS/PS can choose to reduce their involvement in 
private donations originating from their own country by directing private donors directly to dedicated 
UCPM hubs, thereby reducing their own workload. 

iii.  Budget of rescEU 

The rescEU strategic reserve consists of capacities that have emerged as critical needs in different crisis 
scenarios,  including,  but  not  limited  to,  wildfires,  floods,  earthquakes,  conflicts,  critical  infrastructure 
failures and hybrid threats. As the EU’s own capacities to supplement national response capacities, the 
budget  for  the  establishment  of  rescEU  has  been  provided  exclusively  from  EU  funding  sources. 
Between  2019  and  2024,  approximately  EUR 3.2  billion  in  EU  funding  has  been  committed  to  rescEU 
capacities. 

Between  2019  and  2024,  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  provided  approximately  EUR 800 
million  in  funding  that  has  been  committed  for  the  provision  of  aerial  extinction  means.  From  this 
budget, approximately EUR 700 million has been committed for the purchase of aircraft, i.e. planes and 
helicopters, for the permanent rescEU fleet, while approximately EUR 100 million has been allocated to 
the provision of a transitional fleet until the completion of the permanent fleet. 

As  the  COVID-19  pandemic  raged  on,  rescEU  was  provided  with  a  reinforcement  of  approximately 
EUR 380 million to establish medical stockpiles for MS and  PS to draw upon in their efforts to combat 
the  pandemic.  In  this  case,  the  legal  framework  initially  established  to  enable  the  creation  of  aerial 
extinction capacities at EU level proved useful for the establishment of EU-level medical stockpiles. 

Further  capacities  were  procured  using  approximately  EUR 2  billion  of  Next  Generation  EU  funding 
with the intention of increasing Europe’s preparedness against  future  health-related crises. The NGEU 
funding  was  split  between  the  establishment  of  further  stockpiles,  including  medical  devices, 
therapeutics,  shelter  items,  generators  and  CBRN,  and  the  establishment  of  response  capacities  that 
include  CBRN  detection,  sampling  and  monitoring  as  well  as  decontamination  capacities.  Additionally, 
EMTs  and  logistical  transport  support  in  the  form of  multi-purpose  aircraft  are  being  funded with the 
available NGEU funding. 

41 

 
 
 
 
An  overview  of  the  rescEU  grants  awarded  reveals  that  slightly  over  50%  of  the  budget  committed 
through  the  award  of  rescEU  grants  has  gone  towards  the  establishment  of  medical  and  CBRN 
stockpiles, while 25% of the budget awarded has been committed to aerial wildfire extinction. 

Distribution of EUR 3.2 billion  in awarded rescEU grants 
2019-2024

25,01%

CBRN Decontamination

AFF

51,44%

2,11%
2,18%
0,11%
3,76%

6,13%

3,38%

1,65%

4,24%

CBRN DSIM

Donation hub

Energy supply

Shelters

EMT-2

MEDEVAC HID

Transport

Medical/CBRN Stockpile

Figure 19: Distribution of EUR value of rescEU grant agreements signed 2019-2024 

Since its establishment, rescEU has provided assistance totalling approximately EUR 215 million from 
its stockpiles and donation hubs. Close to three quarters of this assistance has been in the form of items 
originating  from  the  medical/CBRN  and  energy  stockpiles.  The  overall  figure  of  assistance  excludes 
deployments of aerial forest firefighting capacities through rescEU, which are the most deployed rescEU 
capacity. Quantifying the value of assistance provided through aerial forest firefighting means provided 
by rescEU poses  a challenge  due  to the difficulties  in determining the value of  the  land, property and 
lives saved as a result of a rescEU deployment. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution of of assistance provided by rescEU 2019-2024

10%

4%

17%

28%

Donations

Energy

41%

Medical and CBRN

Shelter

Transport and
logistics

Figure 20: Distribution of approx. EUR 215 million in assistance delivered through rescEU 2019-202443 

8)  Conclusion 

Since  2017,  the  response  capacities  of  the  UCPM  have  undergone  significant  changes  that  were 
triggered by a dynamic risk and threat landscape and a corresponding evolution of needs within MS and 
PS.  These  changes  are  reflected  in  a  series  of  revisions  of  the  legislation  governing  the  establishment 
and management of UCPM capacities, new budget allocations to response capacity development,  and 
updated goals that are used to direct this capacity development. 

The  ECPP continues to embody MS and PS commitment  to solidarity during disasters, with an ever-
increasing  number  of  national  response  capacities  configured  for  international  deployment  and 
registered  to  the  pool.  With  the  introduction  of  new  types  of  response  capacities  and  some  revised 
capacity goals under Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704, the intended configuration of 
the  pool  has  undergone  a  significant  development  that  aligns  with  the  overall  increase  in  UCPM 
activations and the increasing complexity of the missions that the UCPM is requested to fulfil. Despite 
the introduction of rescEU as the EU’s own response capacity, ECPP deployments have not declined and 
have remained closely tied to the frequency of UCPM activations. 

43 This graph excludes the assistance delivered through the aerial forest firefighting capacities deployed 
through transition rescEU within the given timeframe. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
rescEU introduced an additional layer of response capacities at EU level beyond those available through 
national systems and the ECPP. rescEU represents an unprecedented level of commitment on behalf of 
MS/PS  and  the  Commission  to  collectively  tackling  large-scale  disasters  in  Europe.  Since  its 
establishment, rescEU has consistently delivered a return on investment, from making specialised aerial 
extinction capacities available during annual fire seasons to providing access to critical equipment from 
its stockpiles of generators, shelter components  and medical/CBRN items. There is an evident need to 
leverage  the  potential  of  a  strategic  European  relief  capacity  given  its  particular  value  in  increasingly 
likely  complex  high-impact  emergencies,  the  frequent  rescEU  deployments  since  its  creation,  and  the 
related high number of MS and PS actively developing and hosting this type of response capacity. 

The  progress  made  under  the  ECPP  and  rescEU  does  not  only  concern  direct  response  capacity 
developments and deployments but also the evolution of modalities enabling the effective and efficient 
use and functioning of these capacities. During the period analysed, 2017 to 2024, the UCPM continued 
to live up to its reputation as a well-functioning and flexible emergency management instrument made 
possible by committed engagement from MS/PS and the Commission. It is characterised by pragmatism 
and  innovation,  introducing  new  approaches  when  needed  to  tackle  unprecedented  challenges  in  the 
highly  volatile  crisis  management  environment  that  Europe  is  facing.  While  the  UCPM’s  response 
capacities have grown considerably in strength and adaptability since their respective introduction, the 
above  analysis  shows  that  the  UCPM  will  need  to  continue  to  evolve.  Up-to-date  risk  and  threat 
analysis, reviewed planning assumptions based on disaster scenarios,  as well as  analysis of  systematic 
gaps analysis and the learning of lessons from every deployment of response capacities must therefore 
continue to feed this analysis of capacity progress under the UCPM. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Coverage of former and current capacity goals through modules registered in the ECPP as of end 2024 

The  table  below  compares  the  Modules  and  Other  Response  Capacities  (ORCs)  currently  registered  in  the  ECPP  to  the  previous  Commission 
Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU and  the current  capacity goals in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2025/704. The  column to the 
right  of the  goal  column  indicates  the  degree of  attainment  of  the  respective  capacity  goal  by the  modules  currently  registered  in the  ECPP. 
Capacity types for which the goals have been at least 90% achieved are highlighted in green, while modules for which the goals have not been, 
or have only partially been, covered are marked in orange (darker tone for an attainment level below 60%). Newly defined capacity types that 
were not part of the initial capacity goals are greyed out for the columns related to the earlier goals. The column ‘current capacity goal’ is colour-
coded  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  relative  change  in  the  desired  ECPP  configuration  compared  to  the  former  set  of  capacity  goals.  Green 
indicates an increase compared to the former goal, while yellow indicates a decrease and blue marks no change. 

Observations on the ECPP should be viewed as a snapshot of an ongoing process, as there are nearly 50 response capacities currently committed 
to the ECPP, but not yet certified, and therefore not counted as registered ECPP capacities. Most of them have a defined certification timetable 
and will become registered ECPP capacities within one to two years. 

Legend 

Capacity Name 

ECPP reg. 

Capacity name as in 
legislation listed in 
alphabetical order 

Number of capacities registered in ECPP as of 
end 2024  

Former 
capacity 
goal  
Number 
indicating 
former 
capacity goal 
for capacity 
n/a (goal did 
not exist in 
previous 
legislation) 

Goal 
completion 

Current 
capacity goal 

Goal 
completion 

0.00%-60.00% 

60.01%-90.00% 

0.00%-60.00% 

Increased goal 
in new 
legislation 
Unchanged goal   60.01%-90.00% 

90.01-100.00% 

>100.01% 

Decreased goal 
in legislation 

90.01-100.00% 

>100.01% 

EN 

45 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Capacity Name 

Bridge capacity 

Cave search & rescue 

CBRN (Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) 
decontamination 
CBRNDET (CBRN detection and sampling) 

CBRNUSAR (Urban search and rescue in CBRN 
conditions) 
CHP (Cultural heritage protection) 

Coastal and freshwater pollution response 

EES (Emergency energy supply)  

EMT type 1 fixed (Emergency medical team type 1: 
Outpatient emergency care – fixed) 

EMT type 1 mobile (Emergency medical team type 1: 
Outpatient emergency care – mobile) 

EMT type 2 (Emergency medical team type 2: 
Inpatient surgical emergency care) 

EMT type 3 (Emergency medical team type 3: 
Inpatient referral care) 

ES (Emergency shelter) 

FC (Flood containment) 

FFFH (Aerial forest firefighting module using 
helicopters) 

FFFP (Aerial forest firefighting module using planes) 

Modules 

ECPP reg. 

Former 
capacity goal  

Goal 
completion 

Current 
capacity goal 

Goal 
completion 

0 
2 
1 

7 
0 

0 
0 
0 
3 

1 

5 

0 

1 
2 
0 

2 

n/a 
2 
2 

2 
1 

n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
5 

2 

3 

1 

2 
2 
2 

2 

n/a 
100% 
50.00% 

350.00% 
0.00% 

n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
60.00% 

50.00% 

166.67% 

0.00% 

50.00% 
100.00% 
0.00% 

100.00% 

2 
3 
2 

6 
2 

2 
2 
2 
15 

6 

6 

1 

4 
2 
2 

2 

0.00% 
66.67% 
50.00% 

116.67% 
0.00% 

0.00% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
20.00% 

16.67% 

83.33% 

0.00% 

25.00% 
100.00% 
0.00% 

100.00% 

EN 

46 

  EN 

 
FRB (Flood rescue using boats) 

GFFF (Ground forest firefighting) 

GFFF-V (Ground forest firefighting using vehicles) 

HCP (High-capacity pumping) 

HUSAR (Heavy urban search and rescue) 

LIGHT USAR (Light urban search and rescue) 

MEDEVAC HID (Medical aerial evacuation of highly 
infectious disease patients) 

MEVAC (Medical aerial evacuation of disaster 
victims) 

Mountain search and rescue 

MUSAR (Medium urban search and rescue – one for 
cold conditions) 

T&L (Transport and logistics)  

WP (Water purification) 

5 
5 
9 

16 
11 
1 
0 

0 

1 
5 

0 
4 

2 
2 
2 

6 
2 
n/a 
n/a 

1 

2 
6 

n/a 
2 

250.00% 
250.00% 
450.00% 

266.67% 
550.00% 
n/a 
n/a 

0.00% 

50.00% 
83.33% 

n/a 
200.00% 

2 
4 
15 

20 
4 
3 
2 

2 

3 
4 

2 
6 

250.00% 
125.00% 
60.00% 

80.00% 
275.00% 
33.33% 
0.00% 

0.00% 

33.33% 
125.00% 

0.00% 
66.67% 

Former capacity goal  

Goal 
completion 

Current 
capacity goal 

Goal 
completion 

Current 
capacity goal 

Goal completion 

Other Response Capacities 

Additional shelter capacity: units for 250 persons 
(50 tents); incl. self-sufficiency unit for the handling 
staff 
At-sea pollution response (offshore, heavy 
equipment, recovery vessels) 

1 

1 

100 

n/a 

1.00% 

100 

1.00% 

2 

50.00% 

EN 

47 

  EN 

 
 
 
Burns assessment teams (BAT) 

n/a 

Communication teams or platforms to quickly re-
establish communications in remote areas 
Emergency medical teams for specialised care 

Evacuation support: including teams for information 
management and logistics 

Firefighting: advisory/assessment teams 

Medical evacuation jets, air ambulance and medical 
evacuation helicopter separately for inside Europe 
or worldwide 

Mobile biosafety laboratories 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

Mobile laboratories for environmental emergencies 

1 

Other response capacities necessary to address 
identified risks 
Pollution detection (at-sea, shoreline, inland) 

2 

8 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

50.00% 

0.00% 

50.00% 

50.00% 

0.00% 

25.00% 

50.00% 

0.00% 

50.00% 

0.00% 

50.00% 

50.00% 

0.00% 

25.00% 

50.00% 

as necessary 

as necessary 

n/a 

2 

0.00% 

Relief items and other types of in-kind assistance 

as necessary 

As necessary 

Remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) 

3 

Shoreline and inland pollution response (on-land 
pollution recovery, waste management and oiled 
wildlife response) 
Standing engineering capacity 

2 

n/a 

2 

150.00% 

0.00% 

2 

2 

2 

150.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

EN 

48 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Structural engineering teams, to carry out damage 
and safety assessments, appraisal of buildings to be 
demolished/repaired, assessment of infrastructure, 
short-term shoring 
TAST (Technical Assistance and Support Team) 

Teams for maritime incident response (MIRG) 

Teams for water search and rescue  

Teams with specialised search and rescue 
equipment, e.g. search robots 
Transport and Logistics (non-aerial configurations) 

1 

6 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

n/a 

50.00% 

300.00% 

50.00% 

50.00% 

0.00% 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

50.00% 

300.00% 

50.00% 

50.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

EN 

49 

  EN