Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2017)772 - Amendment of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2017)772 - Amendment of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2017)772  |
| date | 23-11-2017 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The proposal is intended to introduce some targeted changes to Council Decision No 1313/2013/EU (‘the Decision’) on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (‘Union Mechanism’), under which the European Union supports, coordinates and supplements the action of Member States in the field of civil protection to prevent, prepare for and respond to natural and man-made disasters within and outside the Union. Building on the principles of solidarity and shared responsibility, the overall objective of this proposal is to ensure that the Union can provide a better crisis and emergency support to its citizens in Europe and beyond. The proposal acknowledges that disaster prevention efforts are crucial to limit the need for crisis and emergency support.
According to the recently conducted Interim Evaluation of the UCPM 1 , foreseen in Article 34 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU and other performance assessments such as the European Court of Auditors review of the UCPM 2 , the Union Mechanism has proven to be a useful tool to mobilise and coordinate the assistance provided by the Participating States responding to crises inside and outside the Union, constituting a tangible proof of European solidarity. However, some conclusions extracted from these documents and additional evidence has led to the identification of certain areas where legislative change is warranted. In this regard, operational experience has been a key consideration, representing a major factor leading to this initiative, as it has underlined the limitations of the current framework.
Since 2013 the Union has faced a large number of disasters with tragic loss of lives and other damaging consequences for citizens, businesses, communities and the environment. More concretely, the response to a number of recent disasters, including the humanitarian impact of the refugee and migration crisis, the lack of available assets during the 2016 and 2017 forest fire seasons, the latter having been particularly long and intense resulting in over 100 deaths, as well as the severe impact of a series of hurricanes in the Caribbean and fierce storms and flooding in the EU, have constituted a real stress test for the UCPM. This has been particularly evident during large-scale emergencies affecting several Member States at the same time. In such circumstances, the voluntary nature of Member States' contributions to respond to disasters has too often been insufficient, and the existing gaps in certain critical response capacities, as outlined by the Capacity Gaps Report published in early 2017 3 , have become all too apparent. The most striking examples in this context are the inability of the EU's collective capacity to react to all 17 requests for forest fire assistance, of which only 10 could be granted, at times hampered by delays diminishing the timeliness of the response.
Given this context, there are solid reasons to undertake a targeted revision of the current UCPM legislation in order to address the main challenges that the Union Mechanism faces today. In concrete terms, the changes contained in this proposal are aimed at achieving the following objectives:
a) Strengthening the effectiveness of prevention action as part of the disaster risk management cycle, as well as reinforcing links with other key EU policies acting in the field of disaster prevention and disaster response;
b) Reinforcing the Union and Member States’ collective ability to respond to disasters, and addressing recurrent and emerging capacity gaps, especially with the creation of a dedicated reserve of response capacities at Union level, with decisions on deployment taken by the Commission, which retains command and control (to be known as rescEU). rescEU will be equipped with selected emergency capacities to respond to wildfires, floods, earthquakes and health emergencies as appropriate. Following discussion with Member States, a field hospital that can rapidly be deployed inside or outside the Union as part of the European Medical Corps should also be foreseen for cases of epidemics such as Ebola and Zika. Also, Europe has been hit by numerous terrorist attacks. Making such capacities available at EU level will also help generate economies of scale and reduce costs of procuring the same capacities individually.
c) Ensuring the Union Mechanism is agile and effective in its administrative procedures in support of emergency operations.
The need to strengthen European Civil Protection in the light of disaster trends, including extreme weather, and against the background of internal security concerns, has been widely recognised. This proposal is based on further recent analysis and close reflections on the identified gaps, jointly undertaken with the responsible Civil Protection Authorities.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This proposal contributes to one of the ten political priorities set out by the Commission for the 2015-2019 period, namely the achievement of An Area of Justice and Fundamental Rights Based on Mutual Trust. Mutual trust is enshrined in the principle of solidarity, which underpins Decision No 1313/2013/EU, and will be strengthened under this proposal, alongside the principles of shared responsibility and accountability.
The changes proposed are fully consistent with the broader objective of working towards a ‘Europe that protects’, which has guided the efforts of the Commission during the past years, and will continue to do so in the coming future. This proposal builds on the positive results the existing framework has delivered so far, and intends to correct its shortcomings with reinforced provisions so as to continue to support, coordinate and complement the action of the Member States in this area.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The actions envisaged under the revised UCPM are aligned with the overall objective of the Union to ensure that all relevant EU policies and instruments contribute to reinforcing the Union’s capacities in terms of disaster risk management, from disaster prevention, to disaster preparedness, response and recovery. It also reflects the objective set out in Article 3(3) of the Treaty on the European Union to support solidarity among Member States.
In particular, special attention is being given to ensuring close coordination and consistency with actions carried out under other EU policies, such as on climate change adaptation, and instruments acting in the field of disaster prevention and disaster risk reduction, such as cohesion, rural development, research, health, as well as migration and security policies. Likewise, the proposal seeks to establish stronger synergies with humanitarian aid policy, particularly in the response to emergencies outside the Union.
No legislative act under other Union policies can currently achieve the objectives pursued by this proposal. There should therefore also be no overlap of actions in the field.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis for this proposal is Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting on their own. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism was established because major disasters can overwhelm the response capacities of any Member State acting alone. The provision of well-coordinated and rapid mutual assistance amongst Member States is at its core.
Besides amendments to ensure coherence and simplification, this proposal also foresees additional possibilities to reinforce the collective ability to prepare for and respond to disasters. This is particularly significant when faced with a disaster, or several disasters, with wide-ranging impacts which overwhelm the capacities of a critical number of Member States at the same time and which may paralyse mutual assistance amongst them. It is also the case for capacities that would be needed in the case of a major low probability- but high impact disaster scenario. In such cases it is clear that Member States cannot ensure a sufficient response alone and, hence, EU support is required to support and complement Member State action in accordance with Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Taking into account the benefits in terms of reducing the loss of human life, environmental, economic and material damage, the proposal brings clear EU added value.
• Proportionality
The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives. It addresses gaps that have been identified during the interim evaluation and by other recent documents assessing UCPM performance (European Court of Auditors (ECA) special report on the UCPM 4 , Commission's Report on progress made and gaps remaining in the EERC 5 - previously mentioned, and the EU Risk Overview 6 ) and proposes solutions in line with the mandate given by the Council and the European Parliament.
The administrative burden for the Union and the Member States is limited and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the proposal. In addition, the streamlining of certain EU co-financing rates and the abolition of co-financing in certain areas will reduce the administrative burden.
• Choice of the instrument
Proposal for a Decision Amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Stakeholder consultations
The shortcomings this proposal aims to tackle were identified from operational experience, as well as from the results of the comprehensive stakeholder consultation recently conducted in the framework of the UCPM Interim Evaluation 7 . The general objective of the latter was to give all concerned stakeholders the opportunity to express their views on the performance of the UCPM during the first half of its implementation. The specific objectives were to:
(a)Collect views and opinions of European citizens on the results achieved by the UCPM so far;
(b)Determine the importance of different priorities for disaster risk management as they are perceived across the EU;
(c)Obtain targeted feedback and technical advice from the primary stakeholders of the UCPM;
(d)Gather evidence to support the interim evaluation of the UCPM for each of the main evaluation criteria.
Contents
–Entities implementing the UCPM: Member States civil protection authorities contributing with modules and/or experts to the European Emergency Response Capacity; other civil protection authorities of the Member States; the civil protection authorities of Participating States 8 .
–Entities affected by the UCPM: Host countries having received UCPM support (EU, Accession countries, European Neighbourhood countries and other third countries), European Parliament, Committee of Regions, local authorities.
–Entities with a stated interest in the UCPM: Other authorities of the Member States, other authorities of Participating States, UN agencies, World Bank, NGOs, Private Sector, Foundations, etc.
–Entities having expertise relevant to the UCPM (i.e. disaster risk management): Universities/centres of excellence and think tanks, mainly in PS.
• Collection and use of expertise
The Interim Evaluation underpinning this proposal was carried out by an external evaluator between September 2016 and June 2017. It was based on inputs received during discussions with Participating States (Civil Protection Committee, Civil Protection Council Working Party, and Directors-General meetings) and took into account the information obtained via an Open Public Consultation, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) special report on the UCPM and the Commission's Report on progress made and gaps remaining in the EERC.
(i)inception, including a desk review of UCPM activities and scoping interviews with desk officers;
(ii)research, including a targeted consultation of main UCPM stakeholders 9 through online surveys, face-to-face and telephone interviews, and three case studies (Cyprus Forest Fires, Estonia Module Exercise, Migration crisis).
(iii)analysis and synthesis, including data triangulation, elaboration of conclusions and recommendations, and drafting.
The above-mentioned Open Public Consultation (OPC) was carried out online for three months (November 2016 – February 2017), with 130 responders from all over Europe providing feedback on the UCPM. A report on the outcome of the OPC was published at the end of March 2017 10 .
Impact assessment
An Impact Assessment has not been carried out to accompany this proposal given that there is an extreme urgency for implementing the proposed changes due to gaps in critical capacities at European level, demonstrated in particular by the 2017 forest fire-fighting season. Such gaps have substantially affected the EU's response to disasters and resulted in a high number of casualties, heavy economic impacts and damage to the environment.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The proposed revision is limited in scope and nature, it balances Member States' interests, and is proportional to what is operationally required.
As this is a revision of an existing piece of legislation, the Commission has looked at opportunities to simplify and reduce burdens. While a number of simplification actions have been identified, as explained below, it has not been possible to quantify these, given the limited availability of data in the tight time frame.
This proposal removes red tape by introducing a specific reference to the use of unit sums, lump sums and flat rates in relation to the co-financing of transport costs. Moreover, it simplifies existing administrative procedures by streamlining co-financing rules.
More generally, this proposal seeks to update operational procedures to ensure they are fit for purpose, agile and straightforward to understand and apply, therefore ensuring Member States are able to access support and facilitation from the Union Mechanism when needed. For example, recent disasters have highlighted that the Union might not be sufficiently equipped for emergencies with wide-ranging impact affecting several Member States at the same time (e.g. wildfires, extreme weather events, large-scale flooding, earthquakes, epidemics (such as Ebola), terrorist attacks). In such circumstances, Member States are not always able to offer assistance.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
As stated in Article 19 of Decision No 1313/2013/EU, the financial envelope for the implementation of the Union Mechanism during the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework period is of EUR 368.4 million. This amount is composed of a contribution of EUR 223.8 million from Heading 3 ‘Security and Citizenship’ and of EUR 144.6 million from Heading 4 ‘Global Europe’. In addition, administrative and human resources costs are covered by Heading 5 for an approximate total of EUR 52.5 million.
–reinforcing the collective capacity of the Member States and the Union to respond to disasters with the creation of a dedicated reserve of response capacities, with command and control executed by the Commission (rescEU),
–higher co-financing rates (75%) of capacities that are put at the disposal of the European pool. This includes adaptation, repair, transport and operational costs;
–strengthening the focus on prevention and enhancing coherence with other key EU policies, and;
–strengthening cooperation with neighbourhood countries.
This proposal seeks a total overall increase in the UCPM financial envelope for the period 2018-2020 of EUR 280 additional million.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Article 34(2) of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism applies. It provides that actions receiving financial assistance shall be monitored regularly in order to follow their implementation. More general requirements for the Commission to evaluate the application of the Decision and submit interim and ex post evaluation reports, as well as a communication on implementation, are also provided therein. Such evaluations should be based on the indicators provided for in Article 3 of the Decision.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
This proposal amends a limited number of articles of Decision No 1313/2013/EU in order to achieve the objectives set out earlier.
In relation to the first objective, i.e. enhancing the collective capacity to respond to disaster and supporting Member States in addressing the disasters that have, over the past few years, more commonly affected the social fabric of Europe (aerial firefighting capacities, high capacity pumping, Urban search and rescue, field hospitals and emergency medical teams) is attained through the following means:
–Creation of a dedicated reserve of assets: rescEU. This proposal expressly allows the Commission to acquire its own operational capacities, and to set up arrangements for ensuring rapid access to those capacities in order to create a dedicated reserve of assets that will help cover existing gaps at national level. Capacities rented or leased via EU arrangements or acquired with full EU financing would become part of rescEU. All costs of these capacities would be fully covered by EU financing, which will retain the operational command and control of these assets and decide on their deployment, once the Mechanism has been activated. The identification of additional capacities will be undertaken in consultation with a rescEU expert group.
–Reinforcement of the European Emergency Response Capacity where Member States can pre-commit national response capacities (e.g. CBRN detection and sampling, water purification, ground forest fire fighting, flood rescue using boats or other capacities such as mobile laboratories), will continue to be a central piece of the UCPM and will now be known as the 'European Civil Protection Pool'. This proposal revises the system of incentives for committing assets into the European Civil Protection Pool by increasing the co-financing rates, as well as the types of eligible costs. In particular, under the new proposal, assets committed to the European Civil Protection Pool will benefit from a 75% coverage of all costs incurred during UCPM operations within the Union, including adaptation, repair, transportation and operational costs.
Capacities benefitting from any sort of EU co-financing will need to be included into the European Civil Protection Pool. In order to simplify the system and make availability of assets more predictable, financial assistance for assets outside the European Civil Protection Pool will no longer be granted. Finally, strengthened incentives for pooling of capacities (e.g. the Commission to cover the transport costs of to be pooled assistance from one Member State to another and the payment of transit and warehousing costs of pooled assistance in third countries) have also been included.
In relation to the second objective, the links between prevention, preparedness and response have been reinforced by connecting risk assessments to risk management planning and requiring Member States to provide their risk management plans to the Commission at the latest by 31 January 2019. To ensure that all Member States have effective prevention measures in place and that rescEU will not be used as a substitute for national capacities, the Commission will be able to require specific prevention and preparedness plans from one or several Member States. The prevention plans need to include in addition to short-term prevention actions, also longer-term prevention efforts, looking at the overall adaptation to the increasing impacts of climate change. In addition, future scenario-planning should be based on risk assessments and capacity deployments, creating a stronger real link between prevention, preparedness and response.
Coherence with other Union instruments on disaster risk prevention and management is also strengthened by creating a link between this Mechanism and cohesion, rural development, health and research policies. Progress made by Member States in the field of prevention and preparedness will inform funding decisions in this area. Furthermore, regarding coherence with other EU policies intervening in disaster response, the complementarity and/or synchronicity of financial assistance made available under the Union Mechanism and other Union instruments (such as the Humanitarian Aid Regulation) is also improved. In this context, a derogation to Article 129(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 966/2012 11 will ensure better use of existing funding possibilities and improve the effectiveness of Member State response operations. EU visibility is also strengthened via a dedicated Article.
Linked to the second objective, and in the pursuit of greater policy coherence, this proposal also includes provisions to ensure that the disbursement of EU funds through the Union Mechanism is accompanied by adequate visibility to the Union. On a related note, this proposal also opens the door to the development of a dedicated network-type structure, the Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network, which will reinforce the training component of the UCPM, in close cooperation with existing relevant national structures on the matter.
Finally, in relation to the third objective, the proposal seeks to streamline administrative procedures in order to reduce delays in the deployment of assistance. It simplifies the current system by introducing only one category of response assets its use requires co-financing by Member States and the EU budget, i.e. the European Civil Protection Pool. A specific reference to the use of unit sums, lump sums and flat rates is introduced in relation to the co-financing of transport costs to improve both consistency and efficiency. Moreover, specific provisions limiting activations of the Union Mechanism to a 90 day period (unless otherwise justified) have been included in order to clarify scope and incentivise use of assets in the immediate response phase.