European Union Civil Protection Mechanism in the Context of COVID-19

In May 2021, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union amended its Civil Protection Mechanism to increase its funding. Even with the amendments, however, the Mechanism's impact may be diminished as a result of two potential issues.

European Commission office headquartered in Brussels. Pixabay.

BY: Alexandra Burghardt, Staffer

October 13, 2021 marks the annual International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction.  This is a day celebrating the ways in which cross-border efforts can mitigate the risk of both natural and human-created disasters.  In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union (EU) recently passed new legislation amending the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

Union Civil Protection Mechanism:  Background

The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) was first developed in 2001 as a program to coordinate international responses to disasters both within and outside of the EU.  The UCPM primarily focuses on preventing disasters and organizing cross-border aid in situations that individual countries cannot overcome on their own.  In 2019, the EU amended the UCPM to create rescEU, a more robust disaster response program, described by the EU as not only strengthening the existing UCPM, but also “establish[ing] a new European reserve of resources” and “offer[ing] Member States significant incentives to enhance their national capacities through additional financing to adapt, operate and repair their resources.”

 In 2020, the UCPM was activated eighty-five times as a result of the pandemic and 102 times in total, in comparison with the average of twenty-two overall activations per year for the previous ten years. 

Provisions of the New UCPM Regulation

The newly-amended UCPM regulation, adopted in May 2021 but applying retroactively to January 2021, focuses broadly on strengthening the existing framework of the program.  The UCPM’s amendment largely relies on increasing funding dedicated to disaster response over the next several years.  The amendment provides that over one billion euros will go toward implementing the UCPM between 2021 and 2027.  The amendment also determines the proportion of aid the UCPM can provide Member States—in most cases, the UCPM can contribute up to 75% of the cost of disaster relief, but it may cover up to 100% of the costs of certain specified operations, such as transportation of resources or warehouse rentals.

The new regulation also strengthened the existing Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network, which has the goal of facilitating information-sharing among Member States.  In general, the UCPM is also to consult other relevant existing EU programs, such as the European Medicines Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Significance of the New Regulation

By not only increasing the funding available to States that benefit from the UCPM, but also focusing on specific aspects of aid that will need to be funded—namely, transportation and storage of resources—the EU has shown that it can amply prioritize necessarily limited resources.  The UCPM’s focus on sharing knowledge is commendable as well, for it underscores the importance of taking advantage of existing frameworks.

However, despite the benefits of the new UCPM regulation, it is uncertain whether the regulation will have enough of an effect on Member States’ disaster mitigation.  Two potential issues stand out that could greatly limit the capabilities of the UCPM, even with the increased funding:  1) the UCPM is intentionally not a primary source of funding or relief for any State; rather, each individual State must remain responsible for itself; 2) the next disaster, or even the current COVID-19 pandemic, may not necessarily benefit from primarily an increase in funding, if other elements of aid are missing.

The first issue is not unique to the UCPM.  The EU has a limited budget to fund all of its initiatives, and many countries are dissatisfied with allowing the EU to handle too much of their affairs, leading to situations like Brexit.  Thus, it would likely not be feasible for a cross-border effort to entirely take the place of individual countries’ policies and preparation.  However, despite the UCPM not displacing individual countries' disaster response programs, the new regulation will still contribute to States' efforts.

The second issue, however, is worthy of more exploration, as it is more narrowly applicable to the amended UCPM.  The amended regulation was passed in the context of COVID-19.  At the time of its passing, in May 2021, the World Health Organization reported that Europe suffered from nearly 920,000 new cases in the week ending on May 9, 2021.  These numbers, though staggering, indicated a decrease in the number of new cases relative to previous weeks.  Against this grim background, the new UCPM measures appear to be a step in the right direction.

However, the significance of the amended regulation could be overstated.  While the increased budget will certainly alleviate some hardships that Member States will inevitably continue to face, there is a possibility that the funding itself will be less impactful than desired.  A UCPM that increases funding may not be enough to counter future disasters whose central constraint is not funding but a lack of other resources.  In fact, given the multi-factor constraints the States faced in the context of COVID-19, such as lack of sufficient personal protective equipment and ventilators, it is unclear whether this amendment to the regulation would have had a significant effect had it been passed prior to the beginning of the pandemic. While more funding might have allowed more States to secure more personal protective equipment, it is crucial to acknowledge that a central issue was not the lack of funds, but rather the lack of the equipment itself.  An increase in funding cannot fix a global supply chain issue.

Disasters can take on new forms, and mere funding may not be enough.  For instance, a few decades ago, cyber-attacks were not considered a significant threat; now, the EU is developing a program to counter large-scale cyber attacks.  Just as the COVID-19 pandemic came without States having been sufficiently prepared, so too can other disasters emerge.  An increase in funding, therefore, may not be the most effective use of the UCPM.  This International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction, it is important to consider how to truly mitigate the effects of disasters—and reconsider whether an increase in funding will do as much as is needed.

Alexandra Burghardt is a second-year student at Columbia Law School and a Staff member of the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.  She graduated from Princeton University in 2020.