A peer review of disaster risk management and civil protection systems provides a country or a region with a unique opportunity to reflect on its readiness to cope with natural hazards and human-induced disasters and to identify ways of strengthening its prevention and preparedness policy and practices. It also facilitates the exchange of good practices.
The Peer Review programme is a tool made available to civil protection authorities of Member States, participating states, enlargement and neighbourhood countries under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) legislation. It is managed by the Commission's Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid department.
The Peer Review programme is carried out in close partnership between the Commission, the team of peers (civil protection experts and practitioners selected for the specific review), and the relevant authorities of the country/region under review. The Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change (CMCC), based in Italy, is currently supporting the programme as technical consultant.
The peers prepare a report, including an overview of the situation, and identified good practices and recommendations for improvement, based on desk research and in-country discussions.
The civil protection authorities of the country or region under review have an opportunity to review and comment the report during its drafting. The review is completed when the final report including recommendations and good practices is released.
Depending on the administrative organisation and responsibilities at various levels across the Member States and the UCPM Participating States, a peer review may be undertaken at national and/or regional level.
In the course of 2025 to 2027 the Commission will be carrying out up to six peer reviews. In preparation for the 2025-2027 peer review cycle, a Lessons Learnt workshop was held in Brussels 14 November 2024 with the participation of representatives of recently reviewed countries/regions and the peers conducting these reviews. The objectives of the workshop were to share experiences from the five reviews in the 2022-2024 cycle and exchanging ideas on how to refine and improve the methodology and how to enhance the impact of future reviews. Summary and presentations from the Lessons Learnt workshop here.
To guide the peer review process for both the country/region under review and the peer team, the following key documents are available:
The Disaster Risk Management - Peer Review Assessment Framework (DRM PRAF) describes the disaster risk management thematic areas that are to be peer reviewed. The 7 thematic areas are: (i) Disaster risk governance, (ii) Risk assessment, (iii) Disaster risk management planning, (iv) Prevention, (v) Preparedness, (vi) Emergency response, and (vii) Recovery and lessons learnt. The country or region hosting a review can select all or a subset of the thematic areas to define the scope of their respective peer review.
The DRM PRAF also assists the structuring and drafting of the peer review report. The framework’s flexibility allows it to be applied beyond peer review contexts (e.g., policy development; capacity-building; technical assistance) and for self-assessment.
Building on the general PRAF, the Wildfire Peer Review Assessment Framework (Wildfire PRAF) is a tool designed to facilitate thematic reviews of wildfire risk management systems, within the framework of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Its focus is on the risk associated with large-scale unplanned or uncontrolled wildfire fires affecting natural, cultural, industrial, and residential landscapes.
The framework also serves as a self-assessment tool for countries and regions to analyse their own systems for wildfire risk management.
This document provides the essentials for an effective peer review, clarifying the principles that drive the process, the roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved, the workflow to be followed and the tools available.
To date, 19 countries and one region have benefitted from a peer review: the United Kingdom, Finland, Bulgaria, Georgia, Türkiye, Estonia, Malta, Poland, Cyprus, North Macedonia, Tunisia, Serbia, Algeria, Portugal, Romania, Republic of Moldova, Greece, Italy, Land Brandenburg (DE) and Kosovo*. In below table are links to the peer review reports so far published.
*This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
One peer review is currently ongoing for Czechia, where the onsite mission was in March 2026 (link to article).
The Kosovo civil protection authorities, represented by Emergency Management Agency (EMA) under the Ministry of Interior, expressed in January 2025 interest in undergoing a peer review within the new 2025-2027 cycle of the UCPM Peer Review Programme. The review mission took place over a week in October 2025 with the participation of four peers from Finland, Germany, Spain and Sweden supported by DG ECHO. The review focused on the overall disaster risk governance e.g. disaster risk reduction financing; on prevention with attention to risk awareness and communication; and response with special focus on number 112 integration. The full report with findings and recommendations is now published.
Report was handed over to the Kosovo authorities by Acting Head of the EU Office in Kosovo during a workshop held in Pristina 21 April 2026. See article on the handover event.
During the week 17 to 23 November 2024, Land Brandenburg in Germany was the focal point of a wildfire-specific peer review, marking a milestone as the first regional review in under the UCPM Peer Review Programme. The decision to undergo the peer review was initiated by the Brandenburg State School and Technical Facility for Fire and Disaster Protection of Brandenburg (LSTE) and the Brandenburg Ministry of Interior and Municipal Affairs of Brandenburg (MIK), with full support from national authorities including the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community (BMI) and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK). The review concentrated on several key areas: legislative and institutional frameworks, wildfire risk management planning, prevention and preparedness, and recovery and lessons learned. The peer team consisted of four senior experts from Portugal, Spain, and Italy.
The report (in EN and DE) is now published and was handed over to the Brandenburg authorities by the Director General for DG ECHO Maciej Popowski during a workshop held in Potsdam 14 July. Article on the report and the handover event.
| Country/region | Date | Review | Report |
| Kosovo | 2026 | Thematic peer review on disaster risk management governance, prevention and response | en |
| Land Brandenburg (DE) | 2025 | Thematic - Wildfire Risk Management | en - de |
| Italy | 2024 | Thematic - Wildfire Risk Management | en |
| Greece | 2024 | Thematic – Wildfire Risk Management | en |
| Moldova | 2023 | Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management | en |
| Romania | 2023 | Thematic peer review on disaster risk management governance and prevention | en |
| Serbia | 2019 | Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management | en |
| Algeria | 2019 | Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management | fr |
| Portugal | 2019 | Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management | en |
| Cyprus | 2018 | General Disaster Risk Management | en |
| North Macedonia | 2018 | Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management | en |
| Tunisia | 2018 | Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management | en - fr |
| Estonia | 2016 | Risk management capabilities | en |
| Malta | 2016 | Risk assessment | en |
| Poland | 2016 | Risk assessment | en - pl |
| Bulgaria | 2015 | General Disaster risk management | en - bg |
| Georgia | 2015 | Risk assessment and early warning | en - ge |
| Türkiye | 2015 | General Disaster risk management | en - tk |
| Finland | 2014 | Building resilience to disasters: assessing the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action | en |
| United Kingdom | 2013 | Building resilience to disasters: assessing the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action | en |
Peer Reviews 2025-2027_Factsheet
(1.05 MB - PDF)