In the eye of the storm

The EU and the future of natural disaster management.
Floods, forest fires, droughts and storms; humans have always battled natural disasters. Despite great technological advances in predicting and protecting against natural disasters, it remains impossible to prevent them entirely. Europe is no exception. This became evidently clear during the floods in Germany and Eastern Europe last summer, and more recently during the severe weather in Spain. In addition, there were massive reports of large-scale forest fires in recent summers in Greece and other Southern European countries. Due to climate change, this is only expected to increase.
At the same time, we see that the response to these crises is not always strong. During the floods in Valencia last fall, we still saw that the speed with which crisis communication was spread was too slow. Also, some countries are better prepared for crises. Portugal, for example, has greatly improved forest management after major forest fires in 2017. Many more investments are being made and buffer zones were installed next to high fire risk zones. We also described the importance of good preparations in this article. Especially since natural disasters are becoming more frequent, more intense, and more unpredictable due to the effects of climate change.
With this understanding, it is important to make good preparations, but mutual solidarity after a natural disaster is also crucial; help from the neighborhood, from compatriots, but also beyond. This ranges from people sheltering their neighbors after their homes are destroyed to countries sending entire search teams after an earthquake. Quick action is important, as is effective in remedying the crisis in the short term, even if there are no immediate resources locally. Moreover, (expensive) repairs and rebuilding are also needed in the longer term for the full recovery. But what role does the EU have?
Possibilities of European aid
The EU is not unfamiliar with crises; it has several mechanisms for dealing with them. Each mechanism focuses on a specific area, such as short-term, emergency, or longer-term reconstruction aid. Below, we briefly discuss the most important mechanisms.
EU Civil Protection Mechanism
This mechanism can activate the EU for the initial response to emergency assistance. It can (help) organize and coordinate emergency assistance. All EU countries participate in it, and Iceland, Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine are also involved.
The organization still focuses mainly on encouraging cooperation between countries. It has no mandate to make its own plans or implement them. Also, the organization can only act in cases of ‘serious disasters’. Since 2004, the mechanism has also been deployed in the actual implementation of emergency aid. By this, it is meant that the organization itself was also involved with execution rather than just coordinating. This happened, for example, in the case of the forest fires in Greece in 2021. Under the Civil Protection Mechanism, the EU organized the firefighting planes and firefighting teams provided by several other member states. When established in 2004, this mechanism was still limited but allowed the EU to start developing proposals.
EU Solidarity Fund
This fund helps EU member states and candidate countries by providing financial assistance during severe natural disasters. Since 2020, this has included major health crises such as pandemics. The European Commission can propose to mobilize this fund, which the parliament then approves.
SEAR
Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve, or the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Fund, has existed since 2021 and was created by bringing together two already existing organizations: the solidarity fund mentioned above and the emergency fund. One focuses on solidarity in post-disaster recovery and the other on rapid emergency aid in the event of a disaster. The purpose of the merger is to provide more flexible and faster assistance. SEAR’s maximum budget was recently increased from 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion euros per year. Last October, the European Parliament approved a proposal to use the fund to help France, Greece, Italy, Austria, and Slovenia after the 2023 floods and storms. Due to the long decision-making process, it takes quite a long time for countries to receive help from this fund. Although the reserve is, thus, meant to be suitable for rapid emergency aid as well, this does not seem to work as well in practice.
EU Cohesion Policy
The EU is of course a policy organization, so too in the area of crises. The EU does this primarily within EU cohesion policy. The EU makes policy that focuses on medium- and long-term recovery and reconstruction. Especially in the field of infrastructure, public services, and the level of preparation for a possible disaster, this policy creates more similarity. This collective policy should be reinforcing and consistent with climate agreements such as the Paris Agreement, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Green Deal
Through the Green Deal, several initiatives are being awakened to prevent disasters or minimize impacts when they occur. Within the Green Deal, natural disaster prevention and preparedness are linked to action for sustainability. One example of this is seen in projects around soil quality. If the quality of the subsoil improves, this creates economic gains, for example for the agricultural sector, this also brings sustainability benefits because water is better retained in the soil. This can prevent major floods and droughts.
ESPREssO
Another instrument the EU has at its disposal is ESPREssO. This does not refer to the coffee variant or a Sabrina Carpenter song, but to Enhancing Synergy for disaster PReventon in the EurOpean union. The project focuses on innovative techniques to prevent disasters. They look both at what it takes to prevent natural disasters and explore how technology and collaboration can help.
European Environmental Agency (EEA)
The European Environmental Agency (EEA) is a Europe-wide agency focused on research. For example, the EEA collects a lot of data on average temperatures, biodiversity, and air quality within the EU. About this, they publish all kinds of reports. These reports give a lot of information about risk areas, for example, which areas have higher flood risks. As a result, the EEA also plays a role in public awareness and provides the information basis for decisions. The institute also promotes knowledge sharing between EU countries and European knowledge institutions.
RescEU
This fund was established to help member states rapidly. RescEU is paid for by the EU itself and includes a fleet of firefighting aircraft, helicopters, medical evacuation planes, a supply of medical items, and field hospitals. It also includes shelters, transportation facilities, logistical resources and energy supplies. The fund can be used for natural disasters, as well as during chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear disasters.
An increasingly important role for the EU
The field of crisis and disaster management is not new to the EU. Although the role has not always been prominent, the EU has been dealing with it for a long time, mainly from a civil protection perspective. The first formalization step was the creation of the Civil Protection Mechanism. Only since 2001 has civil protection officially been an EU task. This treaty also includes a solidarity clause. This means that member states and the EU as an organization must act jointly if a member state has become a victim of a terrorist attack or disaster caused by man or nature.
After The Lisbon Treaty in 2004, there were minor changes, but nothing substantial changed to the mandate. Some changes include the creation of a European Emergency Response Capacity (EERC) and a voluntary pool of teams, experts, and resources that can help during a disaster. Member states lend these people and resources and have the teams on standby. This promoted cooperation between member states but did not change the EU’s powers. The EU still could not take action itself. Also, not all member states participated, such as the United Kingdom. Moreover, for the countries that did participate, it was a voluntary contribution, which could be terminated at any time.
That the mechanism was fragile, was confirmed in 2017 and 2018. In those years, there was a lot of extreme weather in Europe. There were high temperatures, drought, and many forest fires. This brought a lot of media attention to the issue, but it put pressure on EERC resources. Because some member states had natural disasters at home, they were less willing to pay the voluntary contribution to the EERC for the coming year. The EU Civil Protection Mechanism did not appear to work well for larger, more unpredictable disasters affecting multiple countries. While this was precisely what it was designed for. Another approach to dealing with disasters was needed.
In response, the Commission came up with a proposal for a different approach with a new mechanism in late 2017. Due in part to the extreme weather and many crises, there was more political support from countries traditionally opposed to further EU integration. With the understanding that climate change would only make these disasters worse, there was more acceptance that the mechanism needed to be strengthened. In November 2017, a package of measures was introduced to strengthen the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Not everything proposed in this package was adopted. Among other things, the proposal that the EU should own all larger assets, such as entire fleets, was rejected.
This provided the basis for a truly European approach to crisis response. The EU was also given a stronger role legally. Funds (rescEU) came from the EU reserves, making it less dependent on voluntary contributions. This made it easier to act when several member states are dealing with the same disaster, or when member states are dealing with different disasters in the same period. A distinction was also made between disasters occurring within the territory of EU member states and outside. Aid within the EU is more intensive. It is somewhat less “globally” focused than the earlier EU approach. Nevertheless, the overall fleet remains relatively small.
Many of the measures mean that the EU’s supported role has been strengthened. For example, agencies can buy or rent their own equipment. Once resources have been requested by a member state, the Commission can now also decide on mobilizing and demobilizing resources. Never before has the EU been so close to the center of decision-making.
This is reflected, among other things, in the fact that the Commission has been given a greater role in expanding the voluntary pool (still the largest part of EU crisis management). The fact that the EU itself can now provide funds also means that conditions can be attached to them. For example, recipients must meet certain crisis standards. This provides additional incentives for member states to use the same systems and allows EU aid to be more compatible.
The EU can also impose conditions in other areas; member states applying for aid will receive it on condition that they also take measures themselves to prevent disasters and to be better prepared if they do occur. This prevents countries from misusing the funds without investing in themselves. Another interesting change is that the Commission can ask member states to provide additional information about prevention and preparedness, for example, if the same type of assistance is requested frequently. Based on this information, the Commission can make recommendations to strengthen the level of prevention and preparedness and can then monitor implementation. This should also prevent misuse of funds.
Is it enough?
In summary, much has happened in the field of disaster management in the EU in recent years. However, the question is whether it is enough. After the floods in Spain last October, a majority in the European Parliament called for even more EU investment in crisis preparedness. Specifically, they want more money for flood management. Since the European Parliament itself is not allowed to make policy proposals, they called on the new Commission (formed Dec. 1, 2024) to make concrete proposals in a European Climate Adaptation Plan. The Parliament wants this to come soon to increase the resilience within the EU needed to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The 2025-2029 Commission appears to be heeding this call and has signaled that climate adaptation and preparedness is a priority. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether this is enough. Many decisions within the EU seem to be reactive; there is more willingness to invest after major disasters. To be truly prepared for a crisis, much more effort should be put into prevention, especially in areas where we do not immediately expect certain disasters. In addition to research and innovation, more practical resources are needed, such as a larger fleet for rescEU. Moreover, many of the EU organizations are mainly focused on cooperation and support. There is still a lack of a really strong mandate to act and firmly address disaster management at the EU level. Moreover, many of the EU organizations are mainly focused on cooperation and support. A really strong mandate to act and tackle disaster management firmly at the EU level is still lacking.
This calls for greater integration within the EU. In the professional literature, this is called “functional integration. Member states work together for practical reasons, which can lead to more integration and interdependence. The question is whether there is political support for this. Not only are there more right-populist and Euroskeptic MEPs, but member states also seem to be increasingly pursuing their own national interests.
Risk areas
Some EU member states may not want to integrate further in the area of crisis management because they want to avoid northern European member states having to pay for southern European member states being affected. Certainly with the rise of right-wing populism in many countries, there seems to be less support for climate solidarity and a tendency for each country to look after itself above all else. There are currently countries within the EU that are little affected by natural disasters, while other areas are disproportionately affected. Will this expectation remain stable with increasing climate change?
According to the EEA, €650 billion worth of damage from climate and weather-related disasters will be incurred in the EU between 1980 and 2022. Most of this (43%) was caused by water-related hazards such as floods. Almost 30% are directly weather-related, such as storms or hail. The remaining portion is climate-related hazards such as heat waves, droughts, forest fires, as well as periods of extreme cold. The data shows that incidents and costs continue to increase.
Between 2000 and 2020, we see that Central Europe experienced the most flooding. Storms are most common in Central and Southern Europe, forest fires are common in Southern Europe. Droughts also affect Central and Southern Europe the most. Northern Europe does not seem to be specifically more vulnerable to climate risk during this period. We also see that disasters in southern Europe had the greatest impact on the economies of the affected countries.
The cost of emergency relief and reconstruction accounts for a relatively large share of GDP in Southern and Central Europe. In other countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, it can be seen that these costs make up a smaller share of GDP in similar disasters. Moreover, in Central and Southern Europe we see that more damage is uninsured, and thus hits (less affluent) residents harder. It can thus be argued that disasters hit Central and Southern Europe disproportionately hard. Specifically, Italy, Croatia, and Poland come out of the data as vulnerable. It can be concluded that it is mainly up to these countries to invest more in crisis management.
The EEA’s future scenarios show a changing picture. The fourth Project on the economic impacts of climate change in Sectors of the European Union based on bottom-up Analysis (PESETA IV) Report was commissioned by the European Commission. The report examined the potential impact of climate change in Europe based on different climate scenarios.
In the findings of this report, we see that Northern Europe becomes a much higher risk area based on the predictions. Under a scenario of 1.5 degrees of global warming, we see that the risks in northern Europe already increase dramatically. Under a 2-degree warming scenario, we see that northwestern Europe becomes the highest-risk area in all of Europe. In other areas, risks also increase, but northwestern Europe remains the outlier within this scenario.
Action for the future
In any scenario, the impacts of climate change across the EU are enormous. There will be more unpredictable natural disasters in the future. Now, within the EU, the quality of preparation, emergency response, and reconstruction still varies. Since there will be no safe regions within the EU, it is important to invest extra in getting the aforementioned quality up to par. It is also crucial to invest more in the funds and fleet of EU agencies. This calls for further EU integration in the area of disasters. This integration benefits all member states.
There is no safe region that pays solely for the relief and reconstruction of other EU member states. It is not strategic in the medium and long term for Western European countries to skimp on disaster relief funds. In the future, they are likely to need it themselves. By showing solidarity with southern and central Europe now, they are building the strong relationship they will desperately need in the not-too-distant future. Despite projections predicting many high risks in northwestern Europe, the risks in southern Europe also remain high.
The EU Green Deal is under pressure. Dramatically increasing investment in disaster management at the EU level will not be an easy task. From a pure survival perspective and the survival of member states, it is crucial. To create political will, it will be important to emphasize the national interest of member states as well as the longer-term benefits.
Anoek has a Master’s degree in International Relations and a bachelor’s degree in political science. She specialized in global political economy and the role of China. She currently works as a consultant in the public sector.
Image: Shutterstock