kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0286
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 6.6.2025

COM(2025) 286 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

Capacity Progress Report on the Response Capacities of the Union Civil Protection

Mechanism

{SWD(2025) 146 final}

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

Contents

Executive Summary

........................................................................................................... 2

Introduction

..................................................................................................................... 5

Recommendations for UCPM response capacities

................................................................. 5

Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP)

............................................ 5

ii.

iii.

iv.

ii.

iii.

iv.

vi.

vii.

ii.

iii.

iv.

vi.

vii.

viii.

Closing of capacity gaps

................................................................................................. 5

Strengthening coordination between MS/PS to actively pursue capacity goals

...................... 6

Reinforcement of adaptation grants

................................................................................ 7

Incentivising ECPP offers and deployments

....................................................................... 8

Recommendations for rescEU

............................................................................................. 8

Multi-purpose and multi-use capacities and specialised support

.......................................... 8

Proactive reinforcement

................................................................................................. 9

Replenishment post-deployment

....................................................................................10

Temporary pre-positioning for effective deployment

........................................................ 11

Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments

............................................................ 11

Simplification of co-financing rates for rescEU

..................................................................12

Simplification of procurement

........................................................................................12

Broader considerations for response capacity development

..................................................13

Performance-based approach to capacity development

....................................................13

UCPM capacities to complement national capacities across Europe

....................................14

Vulnerable groups

........................................................................................................14

Cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC

.............................................................14

Consideration of conflict/war scenarios

...........................................................................15

Private sector partnerships

............................................................................................15

Donation hubs

.............................................................................................................16

Stockpiling

...............................................................................................................17

List of acronyms

........................................................................................................................ 4

Conclusion

......................................................................................................................17

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

1. Executive Summary

This capacity progress report represents the forward-looking portion of the Article 34.2 reporting

obligation on the response capacities of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) as established by

Decision No 1313/2013/EU. It outlines a series of recommendations to further increase the

effectiveness of the UCPM’s response

capacities. The recommendations are based on the analysis of the

current state of the UCPM response capacities as set out in the corresponding Staff Working Document

‘Union

Civil Protection Mechanism capacity development and gaps overview’.

With the Preparedness Union Strategy, Europe is pivoting towards a Union-wide preparedness across all

relevant sectors and stakeholders. As part of the response to changes in the risk and hazard landscape,

the response capacities of the UCPM can provide a concrete and operational contribution to a more

proactive, better coordinated and upscaled European crisis management approach.

Requests for assistance are not only being addressed to the UCPM for typical civil protection

emergencies such as wildfires, earthquakes and floods, but also increasingly to assist in more complex

emergencies where multiple hazards and vulnerabilities often interact to create protracted crises. To

maintain its ability to support Member States and participating States (MS/PS) in times of need, the

UCPM must continue to develop its internal structures and processes, as well as its cooperation with

external partners. The 15 key recommendations outlined in this report aim to guide the evolution of the

UCPM’s response capacities, focusing on developing its abilities to meet the emerging challenges and

advancing its preparedness efforts.

Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP):

Work towards closing the ECPP capacity gaps identified in this report (e.g. in the areas of wildfire

extinction, emergency medical capacity, maritime, coastal and inland water pollution incidents,

bridges, electricity generation, and transport and logistics).

Strengthen coordination with and between MS/PS in pursuit of capacity goals.

Reinforce financing for adaptation grants.

Incentivising for ECPP registrations by increasing financing during deployments.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Recommendations for rescEU:

Focus future capacity development primarily on multi-purpose and multi-use capacities (e.g. for

shelter, electricity, telecommunication, medical care, and transport and logistics) and, where

necessary, complementary specialised support capacities (e.g. in CBRN-related areas or specialised

medical expertise for specific hazards).

Enable predictable budget reinforcement for replenishment post-deployment, pursuing a more

proactive approach to capacity development.

Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments through quicker deployment decisions and pre-

positioning options.

Simplify co-financing rates for deployments of rescEU capacities and streamline the process of

procurement.

ii.

iii.

iv.

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

Broader considerations for response capacity development:

ii.

iii.

iv.

vi.

vii.

Pursue the use of performance-based goals for future UCPM capacity development.

Consider better information exchange on the availability of specific national capacities to increase

the overall efficiency of the UCPM.

Improve understanding of the needs of vulnerable groups during emergency operations.

Further enhance cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC.

Consider conflict/war scenarios in further capacity development.

Expand private-sector partnerships where appropriate, including the development of donation

hubs into a broader UCPM capability.

Consider the stockpiling of a wider range of emergency response items.

Overall, the UCPM’s response will need to go beyond traditional emergency response capacities,

supporting sector stakeholders to contribute their specific expertise to preparedness, in line with the

Preparedness Union Strategy.

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

List of acronyms

CBRN - Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear

CEMS - Copernicus Emergency Management Service

COVID-19 - Coronavirus Disease 2019

DRG - Disaster Resilience Goal

ECPP - European Civil Protection Pool

ERCC - Emergency Response Coordination Centre

EU - European Union

GSS - Global Situation System

MEDEVAC - Medical Evacuation

MFF - Multiannual Financial Framework

MS - Member States

PPE - Personal Protective Equipment

PS - Participating States

RfA

–

Request for Assistance

SWD - Staff Working Document

UCPM - Union Civil Protection Mechanism

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

2. Introduction

Under Article 34(2) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, the

Commission is required to report on progress made towards disaster resilience goals, capacity goals and

remaining gaps in the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP,

‘the

Pool’) taking into account the

establishment of rescEU capacities. This should also include an overview of the budgetary and cost

developments relating to response capacities, and an assessment of the need for further capacity

developments at EU level.

By means of this report and its accompanying Staff Working Document (SWD) entitled

‘Union

Civil

Protection Mechanism capacity development and gaps overview’, the Commission provides an analysis

of the significant response capacity developments under the UCPM from 2017 to 2024, as well as

forward-looking recommendations on further capacity and capability needs. The objective is to ensure

that the UCPM continues to evolve and remains an efficient resource that national authorities can rely

on in emergencies, while, in a broader context, contributing to the implementation of the Preparedness

Union Strategy.

The dynamic risk and threat landscape Europe is exposed to is already forcing the UCPM to adapt the

tools at its disposal to unforeseen circumstances, assisting Member States and UCPM participating

States (MS/PS) in ways that were considered unthinkable just a decade ago. Within the broader strategic

framework of a Preparedness Union, the UCPM and, for the specific purpose of this report, the response

capacities at its disposal, can make a concrete and operational contribution to a more proactive, better

coordinated and upscaled European crisis management approach.

To that end, this report lays out a series of recommendations for further progress on UCPM response

capacities. The recommendations are based on the annexed SWD and its analysis of the current risk and

threat landscape; agreed planning assumptions under the Union-wide disaster scenarios developed;

lessons learnt from recent UCPM deployments; and operational response capacity developments over

recent years.

3. Recommendations for UCPM response capacities

The first set of recommendations in this report covers the ECPP, the second set addresses response

capacities under rescEU, and the third set looks at broader recommendations that help to strengthen

the UCPM’s capacity to respond to disasters. Combined, these recommendations aim to further develop

UCPM response capacities,

contributing to the enhancement of the EU’s crisis response capability.

The

report’s conclusions contain a summary of its recommendations.

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

i. Closing of capacity gaps

The ECPP is based on two pillars: i) quality assurance, through a certification scheme, to ensure

compliance with UCPM standards in response operations; ii) more predictability as regards the

availability of response capacities when the UCPM is activated. The ECPP consists of modules, other

response capacities (including relief items) and categories of experts. They are all national capacities

that are committed for one or more years and on a voluntary basis by Member States and UCPM

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

participating States to be deployed in the event of a UCPM activation. As one of the central pillars of the

UCPM response capacity, the Pool represents MS commitment to solidarity in the event of disasters. On

average,

ECPP deployments make up about 1/4 of the capacities deployed during UCPM activations

(see Figure 10 in SWD, page 32). A stronger ECPP would ensure that in times of crisis, solidarity between

MS/PS remains a source of strength for the EU. The recommendations below are intended to foster a

coordinated approach to the pursuit of the newly revised ECPP capacity goals, by further incentivising

the commitment of MS capacities to the ECPP.

A comparison of the capacities registered in the ECPP with the newly revised capacity goals presented in

the accompanying SWD (see Annex 1 in the SWD, page 45) reveals several gaps.

Aerial forest

firefighting capacities

are still underrepresented in terms of registered ECPP capacities, with helicopter-

based modules being completely absent. Certain types of

medical capacities

also present a challenge for

the Pool. Mobile biosafety laboratories are particularly needed, as are specialised care teams, with only

one capacity undergoing certification against the eight capacities stipulated in the goal. While two

medical evacuation capacities (MEDEVAC) are undergoing certification to meet the ECPP capacity goal,

MEDEVAC and MEDEVAC of highly infectious patients continues to represent a consistent gap for the

UCPM, as a combination of existing rescEU and planned ECPP capacities still fall short of the MEDEVAC

capacity outlined in the broader Disaster Resilience Goal 4

‘Respond –

To enhance the EU Civil

Protection Mechanism response capacity’, which sets performance targets for UCPM response

capabilities (SWD, pages 26-28).

The most recent ECPP capacity goals have also added a series of unrepresented capacities to the ECPP.

More response capacities should be committed to the ECPP to respond to

maritime, coastal and inland

waters pollution incidents.

These new gaps are in line with the generally more complex disasters the

UCPM is expected to respond to. They include response capacities such as

bridges and electricity

generation, and there is a clear need for logistics and transport capacities.

Further voluntary

commitments from MS/PS should prioritise these identified gaps.

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

The decision to offer and register capacities in the ECPP is still left entirely to MS/PS to take internally.

This voluntary process is inherent to the ECPP and should be maintained. However,

coordinated efforts

to increase capacity goal coverage through ECPP resources would strengthen the UCPM response

capacity,

while making the most efficient use of MS/PS and Commission resources that are required to

offer, certify and register a capacity in the ECPP.

As a result of the ambitious new capacity goals for the ECPP set in Commission Implementing Decision

(EU) 2025/704, the current attainment level for the capacity goals has dropped to ~15% from ~31% of

the stated capacity goals. This is largely due to an overall quantitative increase in the ECPP configuration

as outlined in the new goals. The desired capacity goal has increased by an average of 160% per existing

capacity category. The number of different capacity types listed in the goals has also increased

significantly, from 37 to 50 different capacity types. This gap should be viewed as temporary while

MS/PS align their offers to the ECPP goals, and the capacities offered undergo the certification process.

Coordination between and with MS/PS in the pursuit of these goals could yield significant benefits, by

enabling MS/PS to make more informed decisions on which capacities to prioritise in their offers to the

Pool. Regional discussions about planned ECPP offers may provide opportunities for cost-sharing

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

through the

development of multinational modules and promote a more balanced geographical

distribution across the UCPM area

of relevant capacity types, depending on the local/regional risk

profile.

The Commission can also actively support the more coordinated pursuit of the UCPM capacity goals

through a variety of measures, such as incentivising the registration of the capacity types needed and

using existing fora to foster coordination among MS/PS. The Commission could organise discussions in

existing fora such as the Commission Expert Group on Capacities and other technical settings, as well as

the Civil Protection Committee, in order to

foster exchanges on the ECPP offers planned.

These

discussions could be structured either by capacity category or by hazard. They could be based on

existing policy objectives such as Union Disaster Resilience Goal (DRG) No 4,

‘Respond

- enhancing the

Union Civil Protection Mechanism response capacity’, which defines critical capacity categories, and the

disaster scenarios developed, which provide valuable capacity-related insights (an overview of the

current DRG No 4 coverage is provided in the SWD, Section 3.b, page 23).

Discussions at regional level on possible ECPP registrations would also enable national authorities to

pursue the sensible geographical distribution of Pool capacities, while identifying opportunities to form

multinational modules that divide the burden of maintaining the capacity among more stakeholders.

Kickstarting and furthering the discussions would be a low-cost way for the Commission to support a

more coordinated approach to achieving the capacity goals set out in Commission Implementing

Decision (EU) 2025/704

Coordination regarding ECPP registrations would also help to identify the limits of the ECPP approach.

Goals that cannot be covered through the ECPP despite MS/PS coordination could be directly addressed

using rescEU or other instruments, such as cooperation with the private sector or third countries.

iii. Reinforcement of adaptation grants

reinforced adaptation grant scheme for the ECPP

could help to achieve unmet capacity goals.

MS/PS offering national capacities to the ECPP are eligible to apply for ECPP adaptation grants that

provide financial support for repairs and upgrades, improving the readiness and performance of the

capacity offered during UCPM deployments. Since their introduction, an average of EUR 4-5 million in

adaptation grants have been awarded per year. While national authorities remain responsible for the

cost of establishing and maintaining the national capacity they register in the Pool, the EU ensures that

registered capacities can effectively be deployed and operate in international contexts.

The current evaluation criteria for the award of ECPP adaptation grants take into consideration whether

a proposal for an

adaptation grant works toward achieving an unmet UCPM capacity goal.

Increasing

the emphasis on this criterion during the evaluation process would provide an incentive for MS seeking

adaptation grants to prioritise unmet capacity goals in their offers to the ECPP.

Commission

Recommendation of 8 February 2023 on Union disaster resilience goals 2023/C

56/01

C/2023/400

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

budgetary reinforcement of the adaptation grant programme

would enable the Commission to

continue supporting MS/PS that are making national capacities available for UCPM deployments.

iv. Incentivising ECPP offers and deployments

In the event of a UCPM activation, deployed ECPP capacities are eligible for a 75% co-funding rate for

eligible costs related to the transport and the operation of the capacity. While this co-funding rate is

advantageous compared to non-registered capacities, which only benefit from a 75% co-funding rate for

the transport of the capacity (and not the operational costs) during a UCPM deployment, ECPP co-

funding rates could be adapted to further incentivise the registration of capacities.

Increasing the

funding for the transport and operation of ECPP capacities to up to 100%

would strengthen MS/PS

confidence to offer additional capacities to the ECPP by removing uncertainties related to the costs of

future deployments of their committed capacities through the UCPM. This adaptation of the co-funding

conditions would incentivise future Pool offers and deployments, encouraging MS to make more of their

national capacities available to the Pool and to deploy them.

b. Recommendations for rescEU

rescEU is the other pillar of the UCPM response capacity. It has quickly established itself as an

operational asset, with 231 deployments between 2019 and2024 (see Figure 18 in SWD, page 40). It

provided life-saving support in a wide range of disaster scenarios, from stockpile releases related to

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,

to the 2023 earthquake in Türkiye and Syria and COVID-19,

as well as regular deployments of aerial forest fire capacities during European wildfire seasons.

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

As analysed in the accompanying SWD (pages 8-15), rescEU can be expected to be called upon for

increasing types and numbers of emergencies in the future. While it may not be realistic to pursue the

establishment of rescEU capacities for the quantities stipulated in the disaster scenarios developed

under the UCPM, this scenario analysis, combined with operational experience of recent UCPM

activations, can serve to guide a

two-pronged strategy for future rescEU development

specifically

aimed at complementing registered ECPP capacities.

First, while bearing in mind the strategic importance of capacities tailored for specific emergencies,

attention

should be paid to multi-purpose and multi-use capacities

that can provide support in a wide

variety of scenarios. Where feasible, capacities that can be loaned and returned to serve for other

emergencies would be a preferable option. Capacities that provide affected populations with essential

services that are disrupted due to an emergency consistently offer a higher degree of operational

versatility, as they focus on providing the affected population with a relatively fixed set of needs, rather

than capacities that focus on a particular hazard. Floods, conflict scenarios, forest fires, earthquakes,

large-scale population displacement and other emergencies all result in large numbers of people

needing

shelter, energy, telecommunications and adequate medical care,

as well as

transport related

capacities

for the movement of those goods or of the affected people themselves. Investing heavily in

EU-level response capacities that meet these needs provides an assured value.

Large-scale emergencies, such as a major earthquake, can quickly exhaust national capacities and

deplete the relevant stockpiles. Experience of smaller-scale emergencies such as floods also

demonstrates that markets in surrounding areas can quickly become exhausted, complicating the

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

provision of the items needed to the population affected. Well positioned strategic reserve of widely

needed capacities at continental level

can help leverage Europe’s size against

national-scale disasters,

allowing MS/PS to focus more of their resources on developing capacities specific to their particular risk

profile.

These measures ensure that a larger proportion of the affected population quickly receives assistance,

and free up coordination capacity during an emergency. Freed coordination capacity at EU and MS level

could be better focused on deploying specialist capacities specific to the type of emergency, which may

be more difficult to identify and deploy from within national systems.

Second, the scenarios developed under the UCPM also indicate a need to

simultaneously pursue the

identification and development of key specialised capacities

which are not cost-effective to develop in

the necessary quantities at national level. Aerial forest firefighting capacities and CBRN-related capacity

developments being the most notable examples that have been successfully pursued according to this

approach in recent years, in close coordination between MS/PS and the Commission. The potential

future development of such capacities will continue to make use of that close coordination. The UCPM

scenario-building initiative provides various indications of potential future needs in further

CBRN-

related areas

or in

specialised medical expertise

for specific hazards, including the treatment of war

wounds and/or mass casualty events.

ii. Proactive reinforcement

The UCPM has invested a significant portion of its budget (EUR 3.2 billion in 2019-2024) on developing

capacities that were considered by MS/PS and the Commission to be sufficiently critical to warrant EU-

level reinforcement beyond individual MS preparedness. In light of the evolving risk and hazard

landscape, these

investments in rescEU should continue and be reinforced

where possible in order for

the UCPM to be able to support MS/PS during large-scale emergencies that overwhelm national

capacities in the future.

Current grants to establish and maintain rescEU capacities are set to expire by 2027, when the current

2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) period ends. If funding to sustain the existing rescEU

capacities is not made available, the established capacities would expire or be discontinued, and the

significant investments made during their development would be lost. This includes strategic stockpiles

for shelter, emergency power generation and CBRN and medical items, as well as the aerial firefighting

capacities made available each year since 2019.

Forest firefighting aircraft made available under the transition rescEU capacity are particularly

dependent on predictable funding as these aircraft made available annually for the wildfire season until

the permanent fleet of rescEU firefighting aircraft becomes available.

The capacities in the current line-up have been established in a largely reactive manner, to deal with

ongoing or imminent emergencies in one or several MS/PS. Consequently, they have mostly been drawn

upon either straight away, at the time of their establishment, or within a one-year period thereafter.

The UCPM’s capacity to quickly adopt implementing acts, award grants, and then procure material and

equipment for MS to establish rescEU capacities, demonstrates the system’s adaptability. While

adaptability is key to a functioning disaster management system, a reactive approach needs to be

complemented by better forward-thinking and a culture of proactive preparedness to meet the

challenges of Europe’s new risk and threat landscape.

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

While the UCPM and its stakeholders understood the need for EU-level response capacities beyond

those provided by national systems, a consensus on the concept of strategic EU-level response

capacities was only reached after the tragic forest fires in Portugal in 2017 and the 2018 forest fire

season affecting northern Europe. For additional capacities such as medical/CBRN and shelter stockpiles,

the pattern was repeated twice, with additional funding from the European Union Recovery Instrument

becoming available during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and after the return of war in Europe in 2022

to enable legal acts to be adopted reactively, allowing for the development of rescEU capacities to cover

urgent needs. This approach is costly and less effective as it requires materials and expertise to be

procured under time pressure or during a period of high global demand, as was the case during the

COVID-19 pandemic.

Proactively strengthening rescEU as an EU-level reserve of response capacity is directly in line with key

action 26 of the Preparedness Union Strategy, which calls for the boosting of the existing rescEU

capacities in combination with the identification of additional key capacities for possible development at

EU level. To effectively boost the rescEU capacities, development should occur in a complementary

manner with the development of other initiatives such as the ECPP, leveraging respective advantages for

the most effective use of resources.

The challenges ahead in terms of climate change and geopolitical developments require the UCPM to

learn from the experiences gained in establishing rescEU. To live up to its potential as a strategic

response capacity,

rescEU needs to be developed before emergencies unfold.

As highlighted in the

accompanying SWD, through the output provided by the scenario-building initiative in consultation with

MS, the UCPM has provided an informed overview of the capacities needed to respond to the 16 most

pressing hazards analysed.

iii. Replenishment post-deployment

A significant portion of rescEU stockpiles have already been deployed in the context of COVID-19, the

2023

earthquake in Türkiye and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. While the

high demand

underscores the importance of EU-level rescEU capacities, a lack of funding and of streamlined

mechanisms to replenish exhausted stockpiles diminish the future reliability of the stockpiling

endeavour under rescEU.

With the high rate of deployment of stockpiles illustrated in the SWD (page 39-41), several of the key

stockpiles created in response to needs arising from COVID-19

or Russia’s war of aggression against

Ukraine do not have sufficient funding to restore them to their full operational value. The total number

of generators still available under the established

‘emergency

energy supply capacities’ in rescEU shows

that, as of February 2025, 2 564 generators are still in stock out of a total 5 630 initially procured.

Despite the significant number of rescEU generators still available, further analysis reveals that 98% of

those are of small capacity, able to provide electricity to individual households. There is currently no

stock of medium-sized generators able to provide sufficient energy to critical infrastructure such as

hospitals. Until further funds are made available, and generator stocks are replenished, deployments of

rescEU energy capacity to support relevant infrastructure are virtually impossible.

The temporary shelter capacity stocks under rescEU face similar challenges. The capacities currently

available and those still under procurement have the capacity to house 9 000 persons, which is one

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

order of magnitude smaller than the lower end of the necessary shelter capacity range stipulated by the

scenario-building initiative.

Despite having recognised the importance of keeping strategic stockpiles of critical items ready to

support MS/PS during large emergencies, budget limitations are impacting the availability of these

stockpiles. Due to previous deployments, the status of the emergency power generators and shelter

stockpiles would be of limited benefit to a MS/PS requiring assistance in the next big emergency.

If stockpiles, and rescEU capacities more broadly, are expected to provide fast relief when called upon,

their

operational readiness should be quickly restored after their deployment.

This includes the

budgetary commitment to regularly restore damaged equipment and the replenishment of exhausted

stockpiles. This would strengthen the strategic role of rescEU as a pillar of UCPM preparedness and

avoid the risk of reactive ad hoc EU-level purchases.

iv. Temporary pre-positioning for effective deployment

Member States may request assistance in the form of temporary pre-positioning of response capacities.

This possibility is all the more important given the challenges posed by the dynamic risk and threat

landscape Europe is obliged to confront. Increased flexibility around the pre-positioning of response

capacities would strengthen the preparedness efforts of the UCPM.

While it may not always be possible to accurately predict capacity deployments due to the inherently

unpredictable nature of the emergencies they are established for, there are capacities for which a more

agile use of

pre-deployment arrangements may significantly increase the effectiveness of assets.

Among others, wildfires offer a particular opportunity to combine UCPM capacities and capabilities to

the benefit of the MS/PS, before a disaster occurs. The UCPM possesses the response capacities to

support an MS/PS battling forest fires, and the corresponding situational awareness and analytical

capacity to predict which regions in Europe are most likely to experience wildfires on a regular basis.

When needed, the MS/PS could pursue, through the UCPM, a more proactive use of temporary

prepositioning to improve the effectiveness of capacity deployments. The pre-deployment of capacities

would be in close coordination with the relevant civil protection authorities and based on a request for

assistance. This could also take into account the proportionality of the associated operational costs.

v. Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments

rescEU was conceived to assist an affected MS/PS when national capacities are unable to offer sufficient

or effective assistance. The main principle applied is that the primary mechanism for action under the

UCPM remains the national expression of solidarity. rescEU provides assistance where overall existing

capacities at national level and those pre-committed by Member States to the ECPP are not able to

ensure an effective response.

In practice, this means that the availability of MS/PS national capacities to respond to a request for

assistance needs to be determined before available rescEU capacities are considered. This can lead to

unnecessary delays in providing assistance to affected populations. In the aftermath of storm Éowyn in

January 2025, an estimated 710 000 households were affected by power outages, with over 133 000

premises in the country still affected by blackouts five days after the storm. While Denmark and

Luxembourg were able to respond to the request for assistance with five generators, the eventual

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

mobilisation of available generators from rescEU stockpiles to match the needs did not occur until after

the MS/PS declared a deficit of expendable national capacities to meet Ireland’s request.

In pursuit of a more efficient UCPM, the ERCC should therefore be able to

choose the fastest available

and most effective response capacity.

The simplification of processes saves time, in particular for

capacity types that respond to disasters that evolve rapidly, such as CBRN scenarios or wildfires.

vi. Simplification of co-financing rates for rescEU

Current co-funding rates for rescEU deployments differentiate between transport costs and operational

costs, with 100% of transport costs being recoverable through EU funding and 75% of the operational

costs of aerial extinction capacities being eligible for rescEU. The remaining 25% of operational costs for

the deployment of aerial forest fire extinction capacities within the EU are to be covered by the hosting

or requesting MS/PS. In two cases, up to 100% of the operational costs are eligible for EU funding. These

include the costs for capacities established to respond to

‘low

probability risks with a high impact’ (Lo-

Hi) and cases in which rescEU is deployed outside of the EU.

In practice, the differentiation of co-funding rates according to the type of emergency makes the

administrative procedures behind an emergency unnecessarily complex when compared to the costs in

question. A review of rescEU grants shows that the hiring of an aerial forest firefighting (AFF) rescEU

capacity for the 2024 fire season is in the range of EUR 1-1.5 million, with the grants for establishing a

proper corresponding rescEU capacity estimated to be EUR 100 million. The costs of deploying and

operating an AFFF capacity during the 2024 fire season can be estimated at EUR 400 000 per week of

operation. Applying the respective co-funding rates for transport and operation means leaving an

average of EUR 64 000 (16%) in deployment costs for the hosting or requesting country to cover on their

own. The bulk of the cost of making a capacity available at EU level lies in the initial provision of the

capacity, not its operation.

In practice, the differing funding rates for operational costs do not impact the decision to activate the

UCPM and rescEU. In the context of an ongoing emergency that threatens to overwhelm national

capacities, the focus is on quickly limiting the impact of the hazard by activating available resources,

regardless of funding rates. Compared to the initial cost of establishing a capacity and the total cost of

deploying the capacity in an emergency, the non-co-funded portion of the operational costs is marginal

and serves no practical purpose.

Consolidating the eligible funding rates for the transport and operation of rescEU capacities to 100%,

and eliminating different rules for Lo-Hi capacities, would simplify the administrative burden on all

parties involved in the emergency, streamlining the support the UCPM provides to MS/PS.

vii. Simplification of procurement

Article 12(3b) of Decision No 1313

enables the Commission to directly acquire, rent, lease or otherwise

contract capacity directly, if necessary, but requires the adoption of a corresponding implementing act

to lay down the capacity and quantity to be procured. Despite being able to pass an implementing act

under an urgency procedure, this administrative step has the potential to significantly delay

procurement by several weeks, with operational consequences.

Decision - 2013/1313 - EN - EUR-Lex

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

During large-scale

emergencies, such as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, or the COVID-19

pandemic, the UCPM offers the opportunity for MS/PS to combine their procurement needs for critical

capacities into larger lots that can be purchased faster than individual MS/PS would be able to do alone.

This serves to insulate MS/PS from global shortages and dynamic price fluctuations by combining

purchasing power and avoiding inter-MS/PS competition. The shortages of large-scale generators and

personal protective equipment (PPE)

during the initial stages of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the

COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the dynamic nature of the global marketplace during large-scale

emergencies. Removing the requirement for an implementing act during direct procurement would

enable the Commission to act quickly to secure the capacity needed before global demand outstrips

supply or prices increase dramatically.

A simplification of the direct procurement procedure would

allow this UCPM tool to be utilised to its full potential.

The Commission could also make use of the broader joint procurement possibilities afforded under

paragraph 3 of Article 168

of the revised EU Financial Regulation adopted in September 2024. Under

the new Regulation, the Commission could support multiple MS by acting as a central purchasing body

for MS wishing to procure similar equipment, thereby leveraging the economy of scale to obtain better

pricing for MS, while supporting the procurement of compatible equipment.

c. Broader considerations for response capacity development

While the above-mentioned recommendations are specific to either the ECPP or rescEU capacities,

these recommendations cut across response capacity instruments and aim to foster the development of

UCPM response capacities from a systemic perspective. This includes a focus on changes relevant to

both rescEU and the ECPP, as well as a closer connection with stakeholders currently on the periphery of

UCPM activities or beyond.

Performance-based approach to capacity development

As the capacity instruments available for deployment under the UCPM have expanded, the UCPM has

begun to measure its progress in meeting capacity needs through performance-based targets. While the

capacity-based goals of the ECPP continue to be a relevant tool for shaping the configuration of the

ECPP, the Disaster Resilience Goals under DRG No 4 (‘Respond

–

To enhance the EU Civil Protection

Mechanism response capacity’) introduced performance targets that encompass all the deployment

possibilities under the mechanism. This provides a more holistic overview of the UCPM‘s overall level of

preparedness in key domains. An approach measuring capacity development progress through

performance indicators should be continued and expanded. Future efforts to cover capacity gaps should

focus on the combined effect of all UCPM instruments, including the ECPP, rescEU, the private market

and, where necessary, direct procurement in a given preparedness domain. Continuously monitoring

and

analysing the capabilities of the UCPM as a whole

and comparing them to the context the UCPM

finds itself in, will ensure that it leverages the most appropriate response capacity to effectively support

MS/PS during emergencies.

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September

2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast)

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

ii.

UCPM capacities to complement national capacities across Europe

The capacities and gaps discussed in this report are limited solely to capacities under the ECPP and

rescEU. There is no EU overview of other existing national capacities across the MS and PS. The lack of

an EU-wide overview of national capacities is inherent to a domain in which the EU only has a

supporting competence. Large-scale emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that,

specific instances, an overview of specific national capacities can play a significant role in increasing

the overall efficiency of the UCPM

(such as for intensive care beds or burn ward availability). While

respecting the primary role of national authorities in disaster management, the UCPM’s ability to quickly

support MS/PS when needed could benefit from increased information-sharing on the availability of key

national capacities, including stockpiles. An EU-wide awareness of key stockpiles is particularly

important for the implementation of an EU-wide Stockpiling Strategy, as foreseen by key action No 9

under Section 2 - Resilience of Vital Societal Functions - of the Preparedness Union Strategy. While the

information-sharing could be limited to specific circumstances, methodologies and processes for this

data-sharing prepared ahead of time would enable the UCPM to quickly upscale data-sharing when

necessary and respond accordingly.

iii.

Vulnerable groups

The DRGs, supported by one of the key horizontal recommendations from the scenario-building

initiative under the UCPM, emphasise the need for an inclusive approach to civil protection, ensuring

that no one is left behind in an emergency. Capacities rendering services to affected populations must

systematically consider how the needs of vulnerable populations, such as specific age groups or people

with disabilities, will be met. Capacities deployed in the context of a UCPM activation are by definition

acting in a large-scale emergency that is affecting a large number of people, including those with special

needs. Meeting these needs should continue to be addressed when developing response capacities,

including in their SOPs and in training and exercises, in an appropriate manner. The UCPM has an

obligation and is committed to

considering the needs of vulnerable groups during emergency

operations,

ensuring that capacities are adapted to cater for the diverse needs of affected populations,

including people with disabilities.

iv.

Cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC

The UCPM has a wide array of situational awareness tools at its disposal to monitor and anticipate

global developments and to generate information products for its stakeholders during emergencies. One

of the most recent developments is the creation of the Global Situation System (GSS), which compiles

multiple information sources into one interactive GIS-based dashboard. Combined with the Copernicus

Emergency Management Service (CEMS) and its hazard-specific monitoring platforms which can

monitor, for example, floods, wildfires and droughts, the ERCC already harnesses a considerable amount

of information. These capabilities provide helpful resources for UCPM stakeholders and contribute to its

operational efficiency.

While sector-specific monitoring takes place at EU or national level for critical services such as energy

and transport, there is

currently no common situational awareness that combines multiple sectoral

overviews with hazards in real time to help assess potential impacts at European level.

News of a

major infrastructure-related disruption only reaches the ERCC through the civil protection authorities of

the affected country or through public media reports. The ERCC should continue and further upscale

support to Member States in managing the cross-sectoral consequences of crises, based on reinforced

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

planning and more comprehensive analysis and situational awareness. This would be in direct support of

the Preparedness Union Strategy key action 3 - Strengthen the ERCC - and key action 25 - Set up an EU

crisis coordination hub. A first step towards a more integrated approach would be embedding non-

classified, up-to-date data from the national civil protection authorities into the GSS. This integration

would mutually benefit ERCC and national civil protection authorities alike, and provide the UCPM with

a common situational picture at European level. As a result, a strengthened ERCC would be

systematically plugged into existing sectoral monitoring systems, to increase its situational awareness,

while it could provide information on potential disruptions in critical services to MS/PS.

Consideration of conflict/war scenarios

The primary purpose of the UCPM has been to mitigate the effects of natural or accidental hazards on

human populations and the environment. However, the risk and threat landscape has been

fundamentally altered by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. While the frequency of traditional

UCPM activations is expected to continue due to increasing climate change impacts, as discussed in the

accompanying SWD, there is also a need for the UCPM to further develop its role in protecting the

citizens in Europe during conflict and defence scenarios.

There is a need to strengthen civil and military coordination,

beyond coordination of separate activities

in an emergency and towards a holistic approach establishing comprehensive civil-military

preparedness arrangements as foreseen under key action 22 under the Civil-military cooperation

section of the Preparedness Union Strategy.

The scenario initiative underlined the importance of

developing this relationship and tackling the remaining coordination challenges to ensure that separate

strands of government work to keep the population out of harm’s way, particularly in conflict scenarios.

The consideration of conflict and war scenarios to foster closer civil-military coordination in crisis

management can serve as a starting point for the broader development of dual-use standards in

technologies, providing a return on investment for both sectors where feasible.

The UCPM

should systematically draw lessons from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, including

through its UCPM

‘lessons

learnt’ process. It could support preparatory actions within national disaster

management systems for potential similar future scenarios. This includes lessons identified by the

Ukrainian disaster management and civil protection authorities on how to best prepare a national

system and the UCPM for a conflict scenario.

Existing response capacities and their

deployment options need to be re-examined

and reviewed to

determine their potential contributions

to supporting civilian populations during conflicts or war.

Capacities relying on military staff or equipment may have to contend with deployment restrictions or

key capacity elements not being available. Many capacities aimed at supporting affected persons (e.g.

search and rescue, shelter, emergency power, logistics and wildfire extinction) will continue to play an

important role in their capabilities, possibly benefiting from additional conflict awareness training or

personal protective or other supplementary equipment relevant to the particular conflict scenario.

crisis response and preparedness exercises,

as well as scenario-based exchanges, are essential to

strengthening the UCPM capacity in a situation of conflict or war.

vi. Private sector partnerships

As one of society’s main stakeholder groups, the private sector should be viewed as a strong potential

partner for the UCPM and EU preparedness in a broader sense. The adopted EU Preparedness Union

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

Strategy underlines the need to include private stakeholders in preparedness across all relevant sectors.

For the UCPM and civil protection actions in particular, the relevance of this sector was already

recognised by DRG No

5 ‘Secure – To ensure a robust civil protection system’, which calls for

fostering

partnerships with private sector stakeholders at EU and national levels.

Entities belonging to the

private sector intersect with the activities of governmental emergency management during every phase

in the disaster management cycle.

The diverse spectrum of stakeholders grouped into

‘the

private sector’ translates into a nearly endless

number of mutually beneficial relationships at operational and strategic levels. The exploration and

development of these relationships into a permanent feature of EU-wide preparedness cannot be left to

ad hoc solutions developed during an emergency. Several initiatives that could be explored to broaden

the interface between public disaster management and the private sector include:

Formalisation and expansion of the possibilities afforded by private donation hubs hosted and

managed by MS that will undertake the quality check of donated items,

as a UCPM capacity to

channel privately donated assistance to the authorities of an affected country, developed to

include donation agreements for pre-defined goods and quantities, reducing reaction time and

pre-empting administrative work ahead of an actual donation during an emergency.

•

Development of emergency arrangements with relevant industrial partners

for large-scale

emergencies such as pandemics or conflict scenarios, but also in cases of atypical needs, such as

requests for the use of excavators, containers or dump trucks, in support of Preparedness Union

key action 19 in Section 4 - Develop public-private emergency protocols

•

Increased two-way information sharing on hazards and risks between institutions, academia

and private businesses,

including the insurance sector, to support analysis in disaster

management and increase risk awareness among the civilian population and the private sector,

in alignment with Preparedness Union key action 21 in Section 4 - Establish a European centre of

expertise on research security.

•

Improved access to technical experts

from the private sector to support preparedness and

response initiatives, including the UCPMs training and exercise programme.

The increased integration of private sector stakeholders into disaster management activities does not

mean a diminished role for government. The purpose of working closer with the private sector is to

avoid the establishment of parallel preparedness and response activities and to harness all available

resources to work together in preventing disasters and mitigating their consequences when they occur.

•

vii. Donation hubs

Donation hubs that enable the channelling of private or third-country in-kind assistance to an affected

population via the UCPM pipeline have

proven effective in increasing the added value of the UCPM,

while keeping the extra costs to a minimum and providing administrative relief to the authorities of the

recipient county. Between the start of the war against Ukraine and April 2025, the UCPM was able to

channel nearly EUR 15 million in goods from private companies and third countries to Ukraine and the

region affected by the war. This was achieved through the involvement of Belgium and Poland as hub

host countries and grants for the operation of the hubs, totalling EUR 3.5 million.

To better leverage the UCPM logistics and administrative operations and procedures pipelines and the

potential of external donations in the future, obstacles to the current hub approach should be removed,

increasing operational flexibility. By forming hubs under the rescEU framework, established hubs must

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

currently be thematically tied to existing rescEU capacities. For the response to Ukraine, this restricts

the items channelled through the hubs to capacities defined under rescEU, despite the much broader

needs of the Ukrainian authorities being known. The established sector-specific hubs represent

successful pilot projects.

Developing the hubs initiative into a broader capacity that establishes generic

hubs would allow the UCPM to better meet the needs of an affected country,

while also opening the

door to new ways of collaborating with the private sector and like-minded partners during future

emergencies.

It is important that MS/PS hosting and managing the hubs carry out quality checks of donations and

manage their delivery, and carry out quality checks of donated items, thereby ensuring governmental

oversight of donations, which is a cornerstone of the UCPM.

viii. Stockpiling

Stockpiling ensures immediate access to critical goods in the event of an emergency. This approach can

be particularly beneficial for items that are subject to spiking global demand, as in the case for PPE and

therapeutics during a global pandemic. The same can be true for larger items with long lead times and a

limited selection of suppliers, such as large generators. Since its establishment, rescEU stockpiles have

benefited MS/PS in a variety of contexts, providing essential items in quantities that exceed what is

typically available at national level.

The versatility of current rescEU stockpiles further underlines their value in the face of an uncertain

future, with past activations showing that even a limited selection of stockpile categories can contribute

to response operations during natural disasters, epidemics and conflict scenarios.

Current rescEU stockpiles are limited to essential items for medical and CBRN responses, emergency

electricity generation and shelter capabilities, and

their extension to include other items that can help

disaster management actors/authorities provide immediate relief during emergencies should be

considered.

Ideally, stockpiling should focus on non-perishable items that can be loaned and used in

various emergencies.

The stockpiling efforts of the UCPM represent the crisis management sector’s contribution to the

broader EU stockpiling strategy currently being developed for adoption in June 2025.

4. Conclusion

The UCPM represents the EU-level response capacity of Europe’s disaster management sector. Since its

inception, its response capacities have grown and adapted to the needs of the MS/PS it is designed to

support. This continuous evolution requires commitment from the Commission and national civil

protection authorities to a UCPM that is based on solidarity between the participating countries.

The implications of the dynamic risk and threat landscape, set out in various risk overviews and the

UCPM’s scenario-building initiative, confirm a trend that is already being experienced during UCPM

activations. In addition to the single hazard activations with short response times that traditionally

occupied civil protection authorities, the UCPM is being called upon to provide support in more complex

emergencies. Constellations of hazards and vulnerabilities result in protracted emergencies that are

significantly more complex and often have far-reaching effects.

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

By combining an understanding of the challenges that lie ahead for the UCPM and an analysis of the

existing response capacities available to the Mechanism, this document provides a series of

recommendations aimed at further developing the UCPM’s response capacity.

The 15 recommendations in this report are grouped into ECPP- and rescEU-specific recommendations,

as the two pillars of the UCPM’s response capacity, with a third category encompassing

recommendations that are not directly tied to a capacity type and instead support response capacity

development in a broader sense.

Recommendations for the European Civil Protection Pool (ECPP):

Work towards closing the ECPP capacity gaps identified in this report (e.g. in the areas of wildfire

extinction, emergency medical capacity, maritime, coastal and inland water pollution incidents,

bridges, electricity generation, and transport and logistics).

Strengthen coordination with and between MS/PS in pursuit of capacity goals.

Reinforce financing for adaptation grants.

Incentivising for ECPP registrations by increasing financing during deployments.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Recommendations for rescEU:

Focus future capacity development primarily on multi-purpose and multi-use capacities (e.g. for

shelter, electricity, telecommunication, medical care, and transport and logistics) and, where

necessary, complementary specialised support capacities (e.g. in CBRN-related areas or specialised

medical expertise for specific hazards).

Enable predictable budget reinforcement for replenishment post-deployment, pursuing a more

proactive approach to capacity development.

Increase the effectiveness of rescEU deployments through quicker deployment decisions and pre-

positioning options.

Simplify co-financing rates for deployments of rescEU capacities and streamline the process of

procurement.

ii.

iii.

iv.

Broader considerations for response capacity development:

ii.

iii.

iv.

vi.

vii.

Pursue the use of performance-based goals for future UCPM capacity development.

Consider better information exchange on the availability of specific national capacities to increase

the overall efficiency of the UCPM.

Improve understanding of the needs of vulnerable groups during emergency operations.

Further enhance cross-sectoral situational awareness of the ERCC.

Consider conflict/war scenarios in further capacity development.

Expand private-sector partnerships where appropriate, including the development of donation

hubs into a broader UCPM capability.

Consider the stockpiling of a wider range of emergency response items.

Beyond these recommendations, as preparedness moves from being solely the responsibility of disaster

management actors/authorities to becoming

a cross-cutting societal matter,

the UCPM can encourage

this evolution towards an all-of-society approach by contributing its expertise on preparedness to

kom (2025) 0286 - Ingen titel

sectors that have begun to engage with the topic more recently. To cope with the increasing complexity

of the challenges ahead, the UCPM’s response will need to go beyond traditional emergency response

capacities, in line with the objectives of the EU Preparedness Union Strategy.