Systemic Changes in the European Union Disaster Risk Management Governance and Their Impact on the European Commission – Council Relationship

This paper sheds light on the EU disaster management governance evolution, which reflects a shift from ad hoc crisis management to anticipatory governance. Initially, the management of risks and crises was largely a national responsibility, with the EU playing a supportive role. Nowadays, the increasing frequency and transboundary nature of crises - ranging from environmental disasters and pandemics to hybrid threats - have driven the EU towards a more integrated and proactive approach institutionalised by tools such as the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and rescEU. These tools enable coordinated responses to crises, joint exercises, and pooled capacities, reducing fragmentation and enhancing resilience across borders. Furthermore, the EU Preparedness Union Strategy has adopted an all-hazard and multi-risk approach that, by integrating climate change adaptation, health security, and critical infrastructure protection, illustrates a move towards comprehensive risk governance. In essence, decades of crisis-driven governance have transformed the EU into a more resilient actor in disaster risk management. These systemic changes have cascaded down to national civil protection systems, embedding EU norms, practices, and cooperative mechanisms into domestic frameworks and ultimately creating a multi-level governance structure to handle complex and transboundary risks. The shift towards anticipatory governance has introduced significant institutional challenges, particularly in the interplay between the European Commission - tasked with policy initiation and integration - and the Council, which represents Member States’ sovereignty and political preferences. This paper explores these challenges and their implications for multi-level governance by deepening a core disaster risk management governance dilemma when anticipatory and proactive governance is introduced: how to reconcile the European Commission’s push for harmonised and future-oriented strategies with the Council representing national autonomy. While both institutions formally endorse a proactive stance in managing risks, their approaches may diverge in terms of policy ambition, legal interpretation, and resource allocation. The European Commission has taken the role of driver of anticipatory governance, embedding strategic foresight and long-term resilience objectives as demonstrated by the EU Preparedness Union Strategy and the Union Disaster Resilience Goals. The European Commission advocates for harmonised risk assessments, interoperable early warning systems, and cross-sectoral contingency planning at the EU level. Conversely, the Council, which represents the Member States, supports flexible coordination over binding obligations in the name of subsidiarity and national sovereignty. To what extent does this divergence lead to diluted legislative outcomes that limit the transformative potential of anticipatory governance in disaster risk management? Through rescEU, a supranational capacity toolbox, the European Commission promotes EU-level funding for disaster risk prevention and preparedness, while the Council experiences resistance from some Member States in long-term financial commitment for preventive measures. How does this affect the development of rescEU? Disaster risk management remains primarily a national competence under Article 196 TFEU. The European Commission’s efforts to introduce mandatory national risk assessments and resilience targets can be perceived by the Council as an invasion of national competences, triggering resistance and calls for reaffirming subsidiarity. To what extent does this legal ambiguity hamper the institutionalisation of anticipatory governance measures at the EU level?