2028-2034 MFF: Civil protection, preparedness and crisis response

The present impact assessment (IA) is part of the Commission proposals for the EU spending programmes under the post-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). It acknowledges from the start that it deviates from the scope and depth of a standard IA by invoking Tool #9 of the Better Regulation toolbox, which governs the law-making process for spending programmes and financial instruments, including the MFF. While recognising the applicability of BRG Tool #9, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board delivered a critical opinion on the draft IA, pointing to significant shortcomings across all sections. In view of those shortcomings, the Board exceptionally issued an opinion without qualification. Based on a dynamic baseline scenario, the IA identifies three policy options in response to the problem definition, of which one (the option envisaging a single Preparedness Fund) is discarded at an early stage as non-viable. However, only the discarded option would have reflected the wide and cross-cutting scope of the all-hazard approach set out in the intervention logic (in particular, the problem definition and objectives). The two retained policy options are narrower in scope. The assessment of the expected impacts of the remaining policy options falls short of Better Regulation standards. Similarly, the choice of the preferred option appears not to be sufficiently substantiated. The evidence base of the initiative seems to be pertinent and is well-referenced throughout the IA, where qualitative data prevails. An open public consultation regarding EU funding for civil protection, preparedness and crisis response was carried out, running over the required period of 12 weeks. No targeted consultation activities were undertaken, nor was a call for evidence launched. With the exception of the legal basis, the proposal appears to be coherent with the preferred policy option. In the context of national parliaments' subsidiarity check, the French Senate issued a reasoned opinion on the proposal, raising concerns regarding compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the broad scope of the initiative.